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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 or 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
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
anticipation rejection
Examiner is tasked with reasonably and broadly construing the claimed invention, in light of the accompanying specification. Each claim limitation is anticipated or obviated by the prior art as rejected above under examiner’s claim construction task.
With respect to the claimed “for” and “configured to” recitations, the prior art teachings are for and configured to meet each claim feature under a reasonable broad claim interpretation in light of the specification. For example, claim 1 preamble recites a “loading system for a freeze dryer” which is construed to be a statement of intended use because the applicants are not strictly limiting the claimed loading system to a freeze dryer, but merely reciting what the loading system can be used for in an apparatus. That claim also recites “configured to load and/or unloaded the freeze dryer with containers.” That recitation is broadly limited to containers filed the medical pharmaceutical or cosmetic substance. Primary reference Krauss discloses a “device 10 for filling and sealing pharmaceutical containers” (column 3 lines 11-14) which expressly teaches the claimed loading system configuration because filling pharmaceutical containers which can be used for a freeze dryer and with the disclosed configuration.
Applicants’ argument that the claimed carrier plate comprises a plurality of receptacles is not persuasive because Krauss discloses a transport plate 30 which is part of a transport device 31 (column 3 lines 52-53). The claimed carrier plate is the same as the disclosed transport plate because both carry or transport. Furthermore, the claimed receptacles are disclosed by the disclosed filling needle holder 37 or first setting tube 39 (column 3 lines 53-67), since those devices are receptacles that are transported on carrier devices as claimed. Those disclosed receptacles taught as a holder or tube are used to carry or transport. Finally applicants argue that the holder or tube are not configured to receive a container as claimed, but as rejected and discussed above, the prior art teachings of Krauss meet that configuration structurally and functionally.
Secondarily, applicants argue that Krauss does not teach the claimed “handling device configured to handle the carrier plate in the handling station,” which is not persuasive because the disclosed feed conveyor 49 (column 4 lines 29-36) moves vials or cartridges to the box housing handling station 13 as claimed. Applicants’ claimed carrier plate is met by the transport plate 30 of Krauss and moved by the feed conveyor as rejected and discussed above.
Finally applicants argue that Krauss does not recite the claimed freeze dryer, but as rejected and discussed above, that feature is an intended use because the claim recited “for” and “configured” which are met in that prior art reference since both the claimed invention and Krauss are in the same field of endeavor.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 2 and 10 are not persuasive because Krauss meets the claimed configuration for the recited intended use as rejected and discussed above.
obviousness rejection
Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive because examiner rejected and reasoned by the teachings are obvious and applicants need to show why those rejects are not. The burden of obviousness to overcome the rejections has not been met.
In response to applicants’ argument that Krauss does not anticipate or obviate the claimed invention, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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.
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights