DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the parent bottle must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavala (US7,308,919).
1. A method for liquid bottle-splitting (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
dividing a liquid into at least a first child bottle (104) of liquid and a second child bottle (104) of liquid, by: receiving a flow of liquid, by a split-funnel (102) comprising a first dispensing section (in the below annotated Fig. 1), a second dispensing section (in the below annotated Fig. 1), and a crossover channel (106), with the flow of liquid being in one of the first dispensing section comprising a funnel-shaped hollow body with a wide inlet opening (in the below annotated Fig. 1) tapering to a narrow outlet (in the below annotated Fig. 1), the second dispensing section comprising a second funnel-shaped hollow body with a second wide inlet opening (in the below annotated Fig. 1) tapering to a second narrow outlet (in the below annotated Fig. 1), or the crossover channel connecting the first dispensing section to the second dispensing section, flowing the flow of liquid between at least the first dispensing section and the second dispensing section through the crossover channel at a crossover level; creating a baffle effect (the funnels modify the fluid motion), by the split-funnel, to evenly distribute the flow of liquid into at least a first split portion (in the below annotated Fig. 1) in the first dispensing section and a second split portion (in the below annotated Fig. 1) in the second dispensing section; and dispensing the first split portion to the first child bottle (104) via the first dispensing section and the second split portion to the second child bottle (104) via the second dispensing section. Zavala DIFFERS in that it does not disclose a parent bottle of a medication fills the child bottles. However Zavala discloses that the system can be used with many other forms of fluids. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to use the system with a medical fluid (parent bottle than pours into the system), in order to use the system in a medical setting if desired by a user.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: creating the baffle effect using a peak central to the crossover channel, the peak being positioned at a midpoint of the length of the crossover channel, the crossover channel gradually rising from each distal end to reach the peak at the midpoint, and the crossover level being at a height exceeding the peak.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: gradually decreasing the crossover level as the flow of liquid medication flows across the crossover channel into the second dispensing section; and preventing the flow of liquid medication from flowing across the peak central to the crossover channel when the crossover level decreases to an equilibrium level lower than a second height of the peak central to the crossover channel.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving the flow of liquid medication in the first dispensing section via the wide inlet opening; and controlling the flow from the first dispensing section to the second dispensing section using the crossover channel to create the baffle effect for even distribution of the flow of liquid medication.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: flowing the flow of liquid medication
between at least the first dispensing section, the second dispensing section, and a third dispensing section through the crossover channel at the crossover level, the split-funnel further comprising the third dispensing section; creating the baffle effect, by the split-funnel, to evenly distribute the flow of liquid medication into at least the first split portion, the second split portion, and a third split portion in the third dispensing section; and dispensing the first split portion to the first child bottle via the first dispensing section, the second split portion to the second child bottle via the second dispensing section, and the third split portion to a third child bottle via the third dispensing section.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: flowing the flow of liquid medication
between at least the first dispensing section, the second dispensing section, the third dispensing section, and a fourth dispensing section through the crossover channel at the crossover level, the split-funnel further comprising the fourth dispensing section; creating the baffle effect, by the split-funnel, to evenly distribute the flow of liquid medication into at least the first split portion, the second split portion, the third split portion, and a fourth split portion in the fourth dispensing section; and dispensing the first split portion to the first child bottle via the first dispensing section, the second split portion to the second child bottle via the second dispensing section, the third split portion to the third child bottle via the third dispensing section, and the fourth split portion to a fourth child bottle via the fourth dispensing section.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 9-20 are allowable. Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not disclose lines 13-21, as being obvious, in light of the other claim limitations of claim 9. Regarding claim 15, the prior art does not disclose lines 11-17, as being obvious, in light of the other claim limitations of claim 15.
Claims 5-6 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
664
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREEN KAY THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5611. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/KAREEN K THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736