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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I claims in the reply filed on January 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 26-41 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 6, 2026.
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 7 and 22 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 7 is construed to be indefinite because the recitation “them” does not clearly reference which structure or function is being referenced. Claim 22 is construed to be indefinite because the recitation “it” does not clearly reference which structure or function is being referenced.
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: pushable means in claim 12 and second handling device in claim 14.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krauss et al. (US 8,978,344). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Krauss as teaching:
a loading system (see title and abstract) for a freeze dryer, wherein the loading system is configured to load and/or unload the freeze dryer with containers 1, 2, 3 filled with a medical, pharmaceutical (title) or cosmetic substance, wherein the loading system comprises: a handling station 13 and at least one carrier plate 30, wherein each carrier plate comprises a plurality of receptacles 37, 39 configured to each receive one of the containers, wherein the handling station comprises at least one handling device configured to handle the carrier plate in the handling station (figures 1, 2). Krauss also teaches the claim 2 feature wherein a first handling device 49 of the at least one handling device is configured to insert the containers into the receptacles of the carrier plate and/or to remove them again after freeze-drying, the claim 3 feature wherein a first handling device of the at least one handling device comprises a handling robot 45 having a gripping device 47 for gripping containers, the claim 4 feature wherein the loading system comprises a transport device 20 configured to feed the containers to the handling station and/or to remove the freeze-dried containers from the handling station, the claim 5 feature wherein the transport device comprises a handling robot 45 configured to handle the containers individually or several containers together, the claim 6 feature wherein the handling station comprises a container holder 12 in which fed containers and/or containers to be transported away are arrangeable, the claim 7 feature wherein a first handling device of the at least one handling device is configured to remove the containers from the container holder, transfer them to the carrier plate and insert them into empty receptacles of the carrier plate (column 3 lines 37-52), the claim 8 feature wherein the container holder comprises a plurality of receptacles 37, 39 for receiving a respective container, the claim 9 feature wherein the receptacles of the container holder are arranged in a row, wherein a first handling device of the at least one handling device is configured to handle a row of containers (figures 1, 2), the claim 10 feature wherein a second handling device of the at least one handling device is configured to insert the carrier plate into the freeze dryer for loading the freeze dryer and/or to remove the carrier plate from the freeze dryer again for unloading the freeze dryer (figures 2, 3), the claim 11 feature wherein the second handling device is configured to push the carrier plate from the handling station into the freeze dryer for loading the freeze dryer and/or to pull the carrier plate out of the freeze dryer again for unloading the freeze dryer (column 4 lines 6-12), the claim 12 feature wherein the second handling device comprises a linear unit by means of which the carrier plate is pushable (figures 1, 2), the claim 13 feature wherein the carrier plate comprises at least one coupling portion, wherein the linear unit is couplable with the coupling portion to pull the carrier plate (figures 2, 3), the claim 14 feature wherein the freeze dryer comprises at least one placement surface for the containers, wherein the carrier plate is pushable onto the placement surface and/or pullable out from the placement surface by means of the second handling device (figures 1, 2), the claim 15 feature wherein the freeze dryer comprises a plurality of placement surfaces (figures 1, 2), the claim 16 feature wherein the placement surfaces are vertically movable within the freeze dryer (column 4 lines 18-28), the claim 17 feature wherein the placement surfaces of the freeze dryer are vertically movable such that, for inserting and/or removing the carrier plate, one of the placement surfaces is arrangeable substantially in a plane with a transfer surface of a transfer plate (figures 2, 3), the claim 18 feature wherein the handling station comprises a transfer plate on which the carrier plate is arrangeable in the handling station for loading and/or unloading (figures 1, 2), the claim 19 feature wherein the second handling device is configured to push the carrier plate from a transfer plate onto the placement surface and/or pull the carrier plate from the placement surface onto the transfer plate (column 4 lines 37-42), the claim 20 feature wherein the handling station comprises a carrier plate holder configured to hold a plurality of carrier plates (figures 1, 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauss. Krauss discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the recited third handling device and freeze dryer. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite those features since the teachings of Krauss would perform the invention as claimed regardless of those features and applicants have not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 34, and 39 of U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0228488). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Copending claims 1 and 39 anticipate current claim 1 because both have the same structure and function. Copending claim 34 anticipates current claim 2 because both have the same structure and function.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art references cited with this application may teach one or more features, but do not rise to a level of anticipation, obviousness, and/or double patenting. References A, B, N, O, cited with this action are patent publications from the same inventive entity as the current application. References C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, cited with this action teach loading systems that might be used for a freeze dryer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-4875. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 am to 5:00 (mid day flex) first F 6:00 am t0 11:00 am.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
Monday, January 26, 2026
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753