Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/084,288

DRUG SUPPLY APPARATUS

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Mar 19, 2025
Examiner
LEEDS, DANIEL JEREMY
Art Unit
3731
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Phc Holdings Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
203 granted / 298 resolved
-1.9% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
351
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
42.0%
+2.0% vs TC avg
§102
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
§112
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 298 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments regarding Hatsuno have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited posture adjustment part does not extend from the insertion guidance piece 36. The Examiner would note that the best view of the cited portion can be seen in Fig. 5, in which it is quite clear that the cited portion for the posture adjustment part is in fact attached to 36, and is not as shown in the Applicant’s argument drawing. Proof of this is further indicated as it is clear the item 46 is a crosspiece between 33 and 34, thus indicating that the cited portion is not in fact in the location indicated by the Applicant. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 2, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatsuno, US 7334700. Regarding claim 1, Hatsuno discloses: A drug supply apparatus (Fig. 1, medicine supplying apparatus 1) that packages a drug with packaging paper (Col. 6, line 14, “The package paper 22 wound around the roll 21 has a substantially V-shaped section whose upper surface is opened and which is folded (half folded) by the lower end”) that is conveyed from an upstream side to a downstream side, the packaging paper being folded in half with an opening on an upper side (Col. 6, line 14, “The package paper 22 wound around the roll 21 has a substantially V-shaped section whose upper surface is opened and which is folded (half folded) by the lower end”), the drug supply apparatus comprising: A nozzle (Figs. 3-11, nozzle 24) that dispenses the drug into the packaging paper, the packaging paper including a sealed part where the packaging paper is sealed on the downstream side (Col. 6, line 23, “the package paper 22 is comparted every pack by the thermal fusion by the thermal seal head 26. The package paper 22 comparted into each pack is next cut by the cutter 29,”), wherein the nozzle includes: an insertion guidance piece (Fig. 5, paper guide 36) that protrudes downward and positions a folded part of a lower end of the packaging paper in a state of being inserted in the packaging paper from the opening on the upper side, and a posture adjustment part (Fig. 4, narrow portion 33) that guides to inside of the packaging paper the drug to be dispensed, and causes the drug to stand while shifting the drug toward the sealed part side in the packaging paper (Col. 6, line 34 discloses that the portion 33 narrows the passage as that is performed in the current application. This feature would cause the pill to be oriented correctly, as it could not pass through the narrow passage in any other form factor; “An outlet portion of a tip (lower end) of the nozzle is formed into a narrow portion 33 whose rear wall is brought forwards in a stair form in such a manner that a forward/backward dimension of the outlet portion is smaller than that of an upper end on an inlet side. The lower end of the narrow portion 33 opens as an outlet 34A of a medicine falling passage 34 constituted in the nozzle 24. “, further see Examiner Illustration 1 – these parts are exactly the same, in the same place), the posture adjustment part being provided on the downstream side of the insertion guidance piece (see Figs. 4-5). PNG media_image1.png 488 1002 media_image1.png Greyscale Examiner Illustration 1 Regarding claim 2, Hatsuno further discloses: the posture adjustment part causes the drug to stand in a posture inclined to the downstream side with respect to a vertical direction (As seen in Figs. 2-3, the entire nozzle/paper packaging assembly is angled towards the downstream direction. As such, the upright pill would naturally lean forward due to gravity action upon it) . Regarding claim 4, Hatsuno further discloses: the posture adjustment part is provided integrally with the insertion guidance piece (see Figs. 4-5). Regarding claim 7, Hatsuno further discloses: the packaging paper is conveyed from the upstream side to the downstream side in a posture tilted more toward the downstream side than a vertical direction (see Fig. 3). 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatsuno. Regarding claim 3, Hatsuno discloses the device of claim 1. Hatsuno does not explicitly disclose: a length in a conveyance direction from an end part of the posture adjustment part on the downstream side to the sealed part is 15.2mm or more. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select an appropriate spacing between the posture adjustment part and the sealed part as a matter of common sense, as this part MUST correlate to the appropriate size of the pills that are being dispensed. Too big and the pills would not stand upright and would fall through in any form factor, while too small and the pill would get stuck. As such, as a matter of common sense, the spacing must fall into a “Goldilocks Zone” – not too big, not too small. The current application applies the same logic in [0044], describing the relationship between the pill size and the opening. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730. 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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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. /DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 19, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 17, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 31, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601235
RETRIEVABLE WASTE CAPSULES, RETRIEVAL-TOOL, SYSTEMS AND METHODS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600022
POWER TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597666
NOSECONE TO BATTERY CONNECTION IN POWER TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583091
POWER TOOL AND A TRANSMISSION THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583069
ROTARY POWER TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+36.5%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 298 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month