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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Application filed January 23, 2023, in which claim(s) 19 and 21-36 is/are presented for examination.
Status of Claims/Examiner Remarks
Claim(s) 19 and 21-36 is/are pending of which Claim(s) 19 and 34 is/are presented in independent form.
All references relied up on and not cited in a/the current Form 892 may be found in previous 892's or IDS'.
Upon review of the claims, several missed 112 rejections were found, as a result, this is a 2nd Non-Final action.
Claim 30 is currently free of art, however, is still subject to the 112s below.
Prior art used in this rejection can be found in previous IDS or 892s.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s First Argument: Cavazza does not teach successive operating units are prevented, at least partially, from performing processing operations on the second group of articles.
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant's arguments filed August 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument that Cavazza does not teach successive operating units are prevented, at least partially, from performing processing operations on the second group of articles, Examiner disagrees. The control unit 20 of Cavazza determines at the application station whether the hollow body is faulty (see Para. 0082 of Cavazza). If the hollow body is faulty, the filler devices 49 and 52 (interpreted to be the successive operating units) are locked and do not perform filling operations (the claimed processing operations) on the faulty hollow bodies (see Para. 0082 of Cavazza). Additionally, faulty hollow bodies are eliminated by a reject device, such that faulty hollow bodies do not move along the output conveyor 79 in the transfer station 80 (another processing operation prevented from being performed on the second group of articles by a successive operating unit) (see Para. 0080-0082 of Cavazza). Cavazza teaches successive operating units (filler device 49, filler device 52, output conveyor 79) are prevented from performing processing operations (filling by filler device 49, filling by filler device 52, and transfer by output conveyor 79) on the second group of articles (faulty hollow body 2). Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first operating unit” in claims 19 and 34, “a second operating unit” in claim 19, “successive operating units” in claims 19 and 34 (interpreted to be any structure which can subject articles to a processing operation, see below 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections), “a plurality of moving members” in claim 23 (interpreted to be any structure which can operate on an article, see below 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections), “a plurality of moving members” in claim 25 (interpreted to be any structure which can operate on an article, see below 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections), “a moving member” in claim 23 (interpreted to be any structure which can operate on an article, see below 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections), “a first transport member” in claim 35 (interpreted to be a conveyor or carousel, see page 16 of Applicant’s specification), and “at least one second transport member” in claim 36 (interpreted to be a conveyor or carousel, see page 16 of Applicant’s specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, “a first operating unit”, “a second operating unit”, and “successive operating units” fail to comply with the written description requirement because the specification and drawings do not provide any corresponding structure for the limitations. The disclosure does not provide the relevant structure for “a first operating unit”, “a second operating unit”, and “successive operating units” as required under 35 USC 112(f). See below 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Regarding claims 20-22, 24, 26-29, 31-33, claims 20-22, 24, 26-29, 31-33 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 19.
Regarding claim 23, “a plurality of moving members” fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification and drawings do not provide any corresponding structure for the limitation. The disclosure does not provide the relevant structure for “a plurality of moving members” as required under 35 USC 112(f). See below 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Regarding claim 25, “a plurality of moving members” fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification and drawings do not provide any corresponding structure for the limitation. The disclosure does not provide the relevant structure for “a plurality of moving members” as required under 35 USC 112(f). See below 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Regarding claim 30, “a moving member” fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification and drawings do not provide any corresponding structure for the limitation. The disclosure does not provide the relevant structure for “a moving member” as required under 35 USC 112(f). See below 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Regarding claim 34, “a first operating unit” and “successive operating units” fail to comply with the written description requirement because the specification and drawings do not provide any corresponding structure for the limitations. The disclosure does not provide the relevant structure for “a first operating unit” and “successive operating units” as required under 35 USC 112(f). See below 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Regarding claims 35-36, claims 35-36 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 34.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 19, 23, 25, 30 and 34, claim limitation “a first operating unit”, “a second operating unit”, “successive operating units”, “a plurality of moving members”, and “a moving member” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claims 20-22, 24, 26-29, 31-33, claims 20-22, 24, 26-29, 31-33 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 19.
Regarding claims 35-36, claims 35-36 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 34.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 19, 21-27 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cavazza (USP 20160355286).
Regarding Claim 19, Cavazza discloses a method for controlling a production process (Abstract) for articles (1-Fig. 1), comprising:
feeding a plurality of articles (Fig. 6, hopper 24 feeds a plurality of bodies 2 to wheel 42, it is noted that body 2 is a part of capsule 1) to a first operating unit (10-Fig. 3) configured to subject said articles to a first processing operation (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0030], filling unit 11 fills body 2 with product),
controlling at least one characteristic of said articles outgoing from said first operating unit (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0033], wheel 20 checks the tightness of the seal between body 2 and wall 3, and in Fig. 5, bodies 2 leave station 10 after being checked by wheel 20),
identifying among said articles a first group of articles (paragraph [0033], wheel 20 checks the seal of body 2 and wall 3), in which said at least one characteristic is in accordance with predetermined quality parameters (paragraph [0082], the seal between body 2 and wall 3 is leak-proof), and a second group of articles (paragraph [0082], defective bodies 2), in which said at least one characteristic is not in accordance with said predetermined quality parameters (paragraph [0082], body 2 is judged as faulty),
transferring said articles outgoing from said first operating unit to at least one second operating unit (11-Fig. 3, and conveyor 49 moves bodies 2 from station 10 to station 12) configured to subject said articles to at least one second processing operation (paragraph [0030], filling body 2 with product),
allowing said at least one second operating unit to perform said at least one second processing operation on said first group of articles (paragraphs [0059 and 0082], bodies 2 which are leak-proof are filled by unit 11),
preventing said at least one second operating unit from performing said at least part of said at least one second processing operation on said second group of articles (paragraph [0082], defective bodies 2 are not filled),
receiving said articles outgoing from said at least one second operating unit, and
discarding said second group of articles (Fig. 20 and paragraph [0082], rejection device on conveyor 79 eliminates capsules 1 previously identified as faulty by wheel 20), wherein said articles, after said at least one characteristic has been controlled, are subjected to a plurality of processing operations in successive operating units (Figs. 6 and 20, filling of body 2 at unit 11, controlled gas dose by device 78 and then the sealing of body 2 at station 12 are examples of a plurality of processes at two successive operating units after the first operating unit), and
each of said successive operating units is allowed to perform a respective processing operation on said first group of articles (paragraphs [0059 and 0082], bodies 2 which are leak-proof are filled by unit 11) and is prevented from performing at least part of said respective processing operation on said second group of articles (paragraph [0082], defective bodies 2 are not filled).
Regarding Claim 21, Cavazza discloses wherein said second group of articles is discarded at the end of said production process (Fig. 20 and paragraph [0082], conveyor 79 is the output conveyor for machine 9).
Regarding Claim 22, Cavazza discloses further comprising a control operation of said articles downstream of one or more operating units (paragraph [0082], the examiner notes that the process of the rejection device eliminating capsules 1 that are identified as faulty by wheel 20 is a control operation of the operating unit), wherein said second group is formed by all articles identified as not being in accordance with at least one of said control operations (paragraph [0082], all capsules 1 which the reject device eliminates would form a group of identified faulty capsules).
Regarding Claim 23, Cavazza discloses wherein said first processing operation is performed by said first operating unit by a plurality of moving members (Fig. 6, sealing wheel 13 has a plurality of sealing heads 15), each moving member being configured to operate on a different article (Fig. 6, each sealing head 15 accommodates body 2).
Regarding Claim 24, Cavazza discloses wherein said first processing operation is performed in a continuous manner while said articles are moving (paragraphs [0031-0032], the process of sealing wall 3 to body 2 is a continuous process with wheel 13 rotating at a constant speed).
Regarding Claim 25, Cavazza discloses wherein said at least one second processing operation is performed by said at least one second operating unit by a plurality of moving members (Figs. 16-17 and paragraphs [0059-0060], filling devices 49 and 52 move with filling conveyor 47), each moving member being configured to operate on a different article (Figs 16-17, members 50 of devices 49 and 52, each member fills a body 2).
Regarding Claim 26, Cavazza discloses wherein said at least one second processing operation is performed in a continuous manner while said articles are moving (Figs, 16-19 and paragraph [0064], bodies 2 are filled while conveyor 47 is in motion).
Regarding Claim 27, Cavazza discloses wherein a process index is defined, the process index being formed by the whole of all different operating configurations taken up successively in a cyclical manner by said operating units during introduction of successive articles in the production process (Fig. 3 and abstract, the examiner notes that the manufacturing process of producing a beverage capsule by packaging machine 9, utilizes the synchronized and continuous motion of all the units and conveyors of the packaging machine to form, fill and seal every beverage capsule which is outputted from the packaging machine), and
each of said articles is uniquely associated with a step number of said process index (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0082], wheel 20 identifies a faulty capsule and member 50 is locked from filling that identified faulty capsule is an example of step number or indication, which is used to identify a particular capsule which is not filled by unit 50).
Regarding Claim 33, Cavazza discloses wherein said at least one characteristic is controlled while said articles are moving (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0033], the tightness of the seal between body 2 and wall 3 is checked while wheel 20 rotates about axis 21).
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) 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavazza (USP 20160355286) as applied to the parent claim, and further in view of Urquhart (US Pub 20200207501).
Regarding Claim 28, Cavazza disclose in the parent claim, the step number of said process index.
However, Cavazza is silent regarding wherein the step number of said process index is printed on each article.
Urquhart teaches wherein a step number (paragraph [0025], identifier 16 is an example of a step number) of said process index is printed on each article (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0019], container forming station 18 is the process of forming container 12 and printer 5 prints the process index onto the container after the container is formed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to have modified the packaging machine as disclosed by Cavazza, to have incorporated marking a container with an identifier, as taught by Urquhart, so to allow a packaging machine to mark any containers which has been identified as faulty, and to use that marking to indicate to an inspection unit to eject the marked containers from the packaging machine.
Regarding Claim 29, Cavazza disclose and modified by Urquhart in the parent claim, Urquhart teaches wherein the step number of said process index is printed at the end of said process (Fig. 1, identifier 16 is printed onto container 12 after exiting forming unit 18).
Claim(s) 31-32 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavazza (USP 20160355286) as applied to the parent claim, and further in view of Buchwald (US Pub 20150369754).
Regarding Claim 31, Cavazza disclose in the parent claim, wherein said at least one characteristic is identified as faulty.
However, Cavazza is silent regarding wherein said at least one characteristic is controlled by an optical detection system.
Buchwald teaches wherein at least one characteristic (paragraph [0011], checking regions of a container with cameras is interpreted as a form of seal inspection) is controlled by an optical detection system (paragraph [0012], inspection device is at least two cameras).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to have modified the means for checking the tightness of the seal between a body and wall forming a portion of a container, as disclosed by Cavazza, to have incorporated the inspection device as taught by Buchwald, so to allow multiple angle inspection of a region of a container, in order inspect for undesirable objects, contaminants, dirt and/or damage, such as scratches or chips or other such flaws or damage to the container (Buchwald, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding Claim 32, Cavazza disclose wherein said optical detection system comprises four cameras directed towards said article (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0063], four cameras 12 inspect a container).
Regarding Claim 34, Cavazza disclose a production apparatus (9-Fig. 3) for articles (1-Fig. 1), comprising:
a first operating unit (10-Fig. 6) configured to subject said articles to a first processing operation (paragraph [0031], forming a seal between body 2 and wall 3),
a plurality of successive operating units, (11-Fig. 6) each configured to subject said articles to a respective processing operation (paragraph [0030], body 2 is filled with product),
a detection system (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0033], control wheel 20 checks the tightness of the seal, it is noted that an unreferenced detection means would be required to perform this function) configured to detect at least one characteristic (paragraph [0033], wheel 20 checks the tightness of body 2 with wall 3) of said articles between said first operating unit and said plurality of successive operating units (Fig. 6, wheel 20 is between sealing wheel 13 and filler 11),
a control unit for said apparatus (paragraph [0082], it is noted that the function of locking member 50 from filling identified faulty bodies 2, would require an unreferenced control unit to carry out the function), connected to said detection system (paragraph [0082], it is noted that the unreferenced control unit must be connected to wheel 20 in order to lock a corresponding member 50 from filling the identified faulty body 2) and configured to:
i) control conformity of said articles with predetermined quality parameters of said at least one characteristic (paragraphs [0033 and 0082], determination of a faulty body is a predetermined quality parameter of a characteristic),
ii) identify among said articles a first group of articles, in which said at least one characteristic is in accordance with said predetermined quality parameters (paragraph [0033], body 2 is leak-proof), and a second group of articles, in which said at least one characteristic is not in accordance with said predetermined quality parameters (paragraph [0033], body 2 is not leak-proof), and
iii) control said plurality of successive operating units to perform said respective processing operations on said first group of articles (paragraph [0030], body 2 is filled with product) and to prevent at least part of each of said respective processing operations from being performed on said second group of articles (paragraph [0082], faulty bodies 2 are not filled by members 50), and
a discarding station positioned downstream of said plurality of successive operating units and configured to discard said second group of articles (paragraph [0082], rejection device, which is downstream from filler 11, eliminates faulty bodies from machine 9).
However, while the control functions performed by the machine of Cavazza, would require an unreferenced control unit and detection system, Cavazza is silent about what the unreferenced control unit and detection system are.
Buchwald teaches a packaging machine (Fig. 1A) which uses a control unit (112-Fig. 1A) and a detection system (10-Fig. 4) for monitoring and controlling the operation of the various stations of the packaging machine (paragraph [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to have modified the packaging machine as disclosed by Cavazza, to have incorporated the control unit and detection system, as taught by Buchwald, so the allow a central control and detection system to monitor and control the operations of a packaging machine and to allow multiple angle inspection of a region of a container, in order inspect for undesirable objects, contaminants, dirt and/or damage, such as scratches or chips or other such flaws or damage to the container (Buchwald, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding Claim 35, Cavazza and as modified by Buchwald in the parent claim, Cavazza discloses wherein said first operating unit comprises a first transport member (13-Fig. 6) on which first moving members (15-Fig. 6) are mounted, and said articles are subjected to said first processing operation by said first moving members while said moving members are being moved by said first transport member (paragraph [0031]).
Regarding Claim 36, Cavazza and as modified by Buchwald in the parent claim, Cavazza discloses wherein at least one second operating unit of said plurality of successive operating units is configured to subject said articles to at least one second processing operation and comprises at least one second transport member (51-Fig. 16) on which respective second moving members are mounted (Fig. 16, members 50 are mounted on device 49, which is mounted on device 51), and said articles are subjected to said at least one second processing operation by said respective second moving members while said respective second moving members are being moved by said at least one second transport member (Figs 16-19, device 49 is moved with conveyor 49 to fill bodies 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA K KINSAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1926. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm.
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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-2180. 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.
/ANNA K KINSAUL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731