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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued that the prior art of record does not fairly at least two handling manipulators. The Examiner agrees that the prior art of record does not disclose, teach, or suggest the limitation a first handling manipulator connected or connectable to the top access plate for mechanically operating at least one valve provided thereon and a second handling manipulator connected or connectable to the bottom access plate for mechanically operating at least one valve provided thereon, within the claim environment, as required by the amendment to independent claim 1 dated 01/02/2026, and therefore the previous prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
The previous rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been withdrawn in view of the 01/02/2026 claim amendments.
The claim amendments have necessitated a new grounds of rejection, presented below.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“operating means of the smart tank.” in claim 1 (does not meet prong B of the 3-prong analysis, see MPEP 2182);
“operating means” in claim 3 (does not meet prong B of the 3-prong analysis, see MPEP 2182);
“an actuating means (52) of a valve (50) and/or an operating means of the smart tank,” in claim 4 (does not meet prong B of the 3-prong analysis, see MPEP 2182);
“an operating means of the smart tank” and “a spectrography means” in claim 5 (does not meet prong B of the 3-prong analysis, see MPEP 2182, in either case);
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-7 and 17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the access plate element" in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The prior lines of the claim refer to a top access plate element and a bottom access plate element and therefore the recitation of “the access plate element” is unclear.
The following portion of claim 1 introduces an issue of antecedent basis:
…wherein at least one of the handling manipulators is arranged movably with respect to the at least one smart tank so as to access and to control at least one smart tank via the access plate element, wherein at least one of the handling manipulators is adapted to provide an operating medium to the smart tank and/or to remove operating medium from a respective smart tank… (emphasis added)
This portion introduces additionally smart tank instances and it is unclear if these are meant to refer to the “at least one smart tank” originally defined in line 3 of the claim, or additional distinct smart tanks. Therefore, any further recitations of “the smart tank” following this section would be unclear. It is recommended to recite “the at least one smart tank” or “the smart tank” for any recitations following line 3 of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the handling manipulator" in lines 20-21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The prior lines of the claim refer to at least two handling manipulators and therefore the recitation of “the handling manipulator” is unclear.
Claim 2 recites “a top plate element (100)…and a bottom plate element (300)”. However, claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, has been amended so as to recite “a rigid top access plate element (100)…and a rigid bottom access plate element”. It is unclear if the top plate element and bottom plate element recited in claim 2 are the same as the top access plate element and bottom access plate element recited in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the handling manipulator" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Base claim 1 refers to at least two handling manipulators and therefore the recitation of “the handling manipulator” is unclear.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the access plate element" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Base claim 1 refers to a top access plate element and a bottom access plate element and therefore the recitation of “the access plate element” is unclear.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the handling manipulator" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Base claim 1 refers to at least two handling manipulators and therefore the recitation of “the handling manipulator” is unclear.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the access plate element" in at least line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Base claim 1 refers to a top access plate element and a bottom access plate element and therefore the recitation of “the access plate element” is unclear.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the manipulator head" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the access plate element" in at least line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Base claim 1 refers to a top access plate element and a bottom access plate element and therefore the recitation of “the access plate element” is unclear.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the access plate element" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Base claim 1 refers to a top access plate element and a bottom access plate element and therefore the recitation of “the access plate element” is unclear.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the handling manipulator" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Base claim 1 refers to at least two handling manipulators and therefore the recitation of “the handling manipulator” is unclear.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the handling manipulator" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Base claim 1 refers to at least two handling manipulators and therefore the recitation of “the handling manipulator” is unclear.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason(s) as the base claim(s) upon which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Withdrawn claims note: Claims 8-16 are currently withdrawn. If claim 1 is found allowable, independent claim 16 would be eligible for rejoinder and examination on the merits as it is directed to a process of using the system of claim 1. Independent claims 8 and 14 would not be eligible for rejoinder as they are each respectively directed to a distinct apparatus that can be used alongside the system of claim 1; however, neither independent claim requires all limitations of claim 1 for patentability.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Niazi et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0149885) is directed to a tank for a bio-pharma process comprising a rigid top access plate element including a valve and a rigid bottom access plate element including a valve.
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 HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is (571)272-0658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30-5PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 5712721374. 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.
/HOLLY KIPOUROS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799