DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by George et al. (US 5,915,560 – hereinafter George).
Re Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10:
George discloses a system for preventing a drawer (320) of a modular dispenser (310) from unintentionally opening, comprising: a detent (331a-331e), on a lower surface (325) of the drawer (320), with a height configured to prevent unintentional opening (by way of interaction with the detents or pocket shown at 331a) of the drawer (320) while allowing intentional opening and closing of the drawer (320) (see Fig. 10) (see Figs. 1-18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George in view of Johannes Petrus Van Der Westhuizen (US 2019/0352060 A1 – hereinafter Westhuizen).
Re Claims 2 and 10:
George discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a force required to overcome the detent and open the drawer is lower than a force required to overcome the detent and close the drawer.
Westhuizen teaches wherein a force required to overcome a detent (136 – on bottom of drawer) and open a drawer (104) (see Fig. 3 interaction between detents 136 which must be overcome to open) is lower than a force required to overcome the detent (136 – on bottom of drawer) and close the drawer (104) (see Fig. 4 interaction between 136 near opening of for drawer. Examiner notes that the detent is larger than the inner detent and when a drawer must be closed or inserted back into the housing, since the detent is larger, more force would be required to insert) (see Figs. 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of George with that of Westhuizen so as to allow for tactile feedback allowing a user to determine when a drawer is in a fully closed position and when a drawer has been inserted into an engagement position.
Re Claim 3:
George in view of Westhuizen discloses the device of claim 2, but fails to teach wherein the force required to open the drawer is from 1 Newton to 10 newtons while the force required to close the drawer is from 2 Newtons to 12 Newtons.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine experimentation and optimization (as seen by changing sizes), for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George in view of Georg Fraccaro
Re Claims 7 and 8:
George discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach a roller on which the drawer slides, and wherein the drawer includes a stop surface for engaging with the roller when the drawer is closed.
Fraccaro further in view teaches a roller (23) on which a drawer (1) slides (see Fig. 1). Re Claim 8: Fraccaro further in view teaches wherein the drawer (1) includes a stop surface (5) for engaging with the roller (23) when the drawer (1) is closed (see Figs. 1-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of George with that of Fraccaro to control inward movement of a drawer so as to assure proper alignment.
5. Claim(s) 11, 15, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernand Galopin (4,531,658 – hereinafter Galopin) in view of Suhjun Park (US 2017/0333283 – hereinafter Park), George, and Kozlowski et al. (5,174,471 – hereinafter Kozlowski)
Re Claim 11, 15, 16, and 20:
Galopin discloses a modular dispenser, comprising: a cartridge (27) configured to hold a plurality of (products), the cartridge (27) comprising an opening (at 26) through which at least (product) is configured to pass under an influence of gravity and a perimeter (26) that extends around the opening (at 26); a dispensing base (7) configured to removably receive the cartridge (27), the dispensing base (7) comprising a funnel (at 30) (see Fig. 6); and a drawer (11, 12) configured to receive the (product), the drawer (11, 12) configured to be slidably received within the dispensing base (7) (see Figs. 1-9), but fails to teach the drawer comprising a detent, on a lower surface of the drawer, with a height configured to prevent unintentional opening of the drawer while allowing intentional opening and closing of the drawer, wherein the dispensing base further comprises a drawer ceiling configured to at least partially cover the well of the drawer when the drawer is fully received within the dispensing base.
Park teaches a plurality of pills (as art recognized equivalents to powders/liquids/) (see paragraphs [0219 and 0321]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Galopin with that of Park to provide a selection of dispensing product for particular dispensing purposes as known within the art.
George teaches a system for preventing a drawer (320) comprising: a detent (331a-331e), on a lower surface (325) of the drawer (320), with a height configured to prevent unintentional opening (by way of interaction with the detents or pocket shown at 331a) of the drawer (320) while allowing intentional opening and closing of the drawer (320) (see Fig. 10) (see Figs. 1-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Galopin with that of Park and Geroge to control the movement of a drawer member so that a desired position is achieved.
Kozlowski teaches wherein a dispensing base further comprises a drawer ceiling (see platform near/below 40, 42) configured to at least partially cover a well (52) of a drawer when the drawer is fully received within the dispensing base (see Figs. 1 and 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Galopin with that of Park, Geroge, and Kozlowski to assure proper alignment of parts and reduce open spacing by way of a design.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galopin in view of Park, Geroge, and Kozlowski and further in view of Westhuizen.
Re Claims 12 and 20:
Galopin in view of Park, Geroge, and Kozlowski discloses the device of claim 11, but fails to teach wherein a force required to overcome the detent and open the drawer is lower than a force required to overcome the detent and close the drawer.
Westhuizen teaches wherein a force required to overcome a detent (136 – on bottom of drawer) and open a drawer (104) (see Fig. 3 interaction between detents 136 which must be overcome to open) is lower than a force required to overcome the detent (136 – on bottom of drawer) and close the drawer (104) (see Fig. 4 interaction between 136 near opening of for drawer. Examiner notes that the detent is larger than the inner detent and when a drawer must be closed or inserted back into the housing, since the detent is larger, more force would be required to insert) (see Figs. 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Galopin in view of Park, Geroge, and Kozlowski with that of Westhuizen so as to allow for tactile feedback allowing a user to determine when a drawer is in a fully closed position and when a drawer has been inserted into an engagement position.
Re Claim 13:
Galopin in view of Park, Geroge, and Kozlowski discloses the device of claim 12, but fails to teach wherein the force required to open the drawer is from 1 Newton to 10 newtons while the force required to close the drawer is from 2 Newtons to 12 Newtons.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine experimentation and optimization (as seen by changing sizes), for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galopin in view of Park, Geroge, and Kozlowski and further in view of Georg Fraccaro
Re Claims 17 and 18:
Galopin in view of Park, Geroge, and Kozlowski discloses the device of claim 11, but fails to teach a roller on which the drawer slides, and wherein the drawer includes a stop surface for engaging with the roller when the drawer is closed.
Fraccaro further in view teaches a roller (23) on which a drawer (1) slides (see Fig. 1). Re Claim 8: Fraccaro further in view teaches wherein the drawer (1) includes a stop surface (5) for engaging with the roller (23) when the drawer (1) is closed (see Figs. 1-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Galopin in view of Park, Geroge, and Kozlowski with that of Fraccaro to control inward movement of a drawer so as to assure proper alignment.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 4, 9, 14, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELVIN L RANDALL, JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-5373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-5 pm est.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.L.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights