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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 is currently amended.
In view of the amendment, filed on 05/22/2026, the following new grounds of the rejections are necessitated:
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. 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. Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in an apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims. In other words, the process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details.
Amended claim 1 recites “as a reference point for positioning the plurality of auxiliary components” which is interpreted and treated as “intended use”.
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 1-22 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.
Amended claim 1 recites the limitation of “the plurality of auxiliary components” in lines 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because even though prior to the cited limitation, claim 1 recites “a number of auxiliary components”. However, claim fails to define “a plurality of auxiliary components”, prior to cited limitation. Clarification is requested.
Updated Prior Art Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiaens et al. (WO 03/020499), the prior art submitted by Applicant.
Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) disclose a rotary tablet press (1) comprising a housing (2) , a rotary die table (15) detachably connected to a drive shaft (10) arranged in the housing (2) for rotation of the die table (15) , a number of dies (16) arranged circumferentially in the die table (15) , each die (16) being associated with at least a first punch (17, 18) having a first end (21, 22) receivable in the die (16) through an opening of the die and ar- ranged for compression of a powder or granular material in the die by reciprocation of the punch (17, 18) , and at least a cam (25, 26) for cooperation with a second end (23, 24) of the punches (17, 18) in order to effect axial displacement of the punches by rotation of the die table (15) , whereby a compression unit (14) detachably mounted in the housing (2) comprises the die table (15) with punches (17, 18), a feeding device (48) for the supply of material to be compressed into the dies (16) , and a tablet discharge device (64) for removal of compressed material in the form of tablets, characterized in that the compression unit (14) encloses each die opening and its corresponding first punch end (21, 22) in a chamber, in that the feeding device (48) and the tab- let discharge device (64) are enclosed, in that the feeding device (48) communicates with an inlet (56) for detachable connection with an external supply channel (58), and in that the tablet discharge device (64) communicates with an outlet. (see claim 1)
[AltContent: textbox (Non-rotating part )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Connection elements (37))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A carrier plate (39))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A compression unit 14)][AltContent: textbox (A support assembly)]
PNG
media_image1.png
468
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
514
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) disclose a rotary tablet press (1) comprising: a housing (2) including a compression section (6), a turret (12) including a die disc (15), a top punch guide (25), a bottom punch guide (26), and a plurality of punches (17, 18), wherein one or more of the die disc (15), the top punch guide (25), the bottom punch guide (26), and the plurality of punches (17, 18) are rotatable parts (see figures 1-4; page 6, lines 28-37), wherein the turret (12) defines an axial direction and a radial direction, the punches (17, 18) being arranged at a predefined radius defining a pitch of the turret (12), the turret (12) being positioned in the compression section (6) in a position of use of the rotary tablet press (1), wherein the rotary tablet press (1) further comprises a number of auxiliary components (see drive couplings 54 and 55, tablet chute 64, bottom wall 40 and sidewalls 41), wherein the rotary tablet press comprises a support assembly (see fig. 2) for providing support to at least one of the auxiliary components (drive couplings 54 and 55, tablet chute 64, bottom wall 40 and sidewalls 41) of the rotary tablet press (1) in one or more of the axial or radial direction, wherein the support assembly (see fig. 2) comprises a suspension device (a compression unit 14, page 17, line 15) positioned above the top punch guide (25) of the turret (rotary turret 12, page 17, lines 14-17), wherein the suspension device (a compression unit 14, page 17, line 15) comprises a carrier plate (a top wall 39, page 19, lines 12-23) and at least one connection element (means of a bracket 37, page 19, line 1) connecting the carrier plate (a top wall 39, page 19, lines 12-23) to at least one non-rotating part (the top cam 25, page 19, lines 2-10, and the above annotated element positioned above the turret 12 and the ball bearing 38, see above annotated Fig 2) of the turret (see rotary turret 12, page 17, lines 14-17, and page 19, lines 2-6 or page 20, lines 18-23 and fig. 3, 8), the at least one non-rotating part (the top cam 25 and the part in above annotated figures) being configured to be stationary relative to the rotatable parts when the rotatable parts rotate (page 19, lines 2-10: the casing 13 is in the mounted position of the compression unit 14 in the press housing 2 held stationary in relation to the latter wherein the top cams 25 are mounted in the compression unit 14 for removal together with this from the press housing 2 and are by means of a bracket 37 connected rigidly to the casing 13 of the compression unit), and wherein a plurality of auxiliary components (including side walls 41; see also page 19, lines 11-13 and fig. 2) are suspended from the carrier plate (a top wall 39, page 19, lines 12-23) of the suspension device (a compression unit 14, page 17, line 15). See pages 6, 16-19, and Figures.
Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) disclose the structural limitations of a rotary tablet press (1) as discussed above, however, is silent on explicitly disclosing the carrier plate functions as a reference point capable of positioning the plurality of auxiliary components relative to the turret, as claimed in amended claim 1.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to modify an arrangement of the carrier plate relative to the turret, as taught by Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499), so that the carrier plate functions as a reference point relative to the turret capable of positioning the plurality of auxiliary components in order to regulate a pitch of the turret in the radial direction when a bearing assembly that is connected to the turret is positioned outside the pitch of the turret in the radial direction. See ¶ [0008].
As to claim 2, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) teach the rotatable parts (see figures 1-4; page 6, lines 28-37) are configured to rotate about a rotational axis, the rotational axis extending in the axial direction.
As to claim 3, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) disclose the turret (12) further comprises a shaft configured to drive the rotatable parts (see figures 1-4; page 6, lines 28-37) into rotation.
As to claim 4, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) teach at least one non-rotating part (57) comprises a spacer, whose outer diameter enclosed inside the pitch (p) in the radial direction (r), the spacer being interposed between a bearing assembly and the at least one connection element (56 or a not shown releasable connection).
As to claim 5, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) disclose the spacer comprises a stationary disc, whose outer diameter is enclosed inside the pitch in the radial direction, the disc being interposed between a bearing assembly and the connection element (56 or a not shown releasable connection).
As to claim 6, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) teach the bearing assembly comprises a bearing with a radially inner part and a radially outer part, wherein the radially inner part of the bearing is connected to the spacer or stationary disc and the radially outer part is configured to cooperate with the top punch guide (25).
As to claim 7, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) disclose the at least one non-rotating part (57) of the turret (12) comprises a non-rotating part (57) of a bearing assembly, which is positioned to interact with at least one rotating part of the turret inside the pitch (p) in the radial direction.
As to claim 8, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) disclose the bearing assembly comprises a bearing with a radially inner part and a radially outer part, wherein the non-rotating part (57) of the bearing assembly comprises the radially outer part.
As to claim 9, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) teach the at least one connection element (56 or a not shown releasable connection) includes at least one arm extending in the radial direction and having a first end and a second end, and wherein the first end of the at least one arm is positioned substantially at a radial position of the bearing assembly.
As to claim 10, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) disclose the first end of the at least one arm is connected to the radially outer part of the bearing via a spacer or directly.
As to claim 11, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) teach the at least one arm includes a first arm and a second arm positioned radially opposite relative to each other, wherein the first arm and the second arm are connected to each other at a transition portion comprising an aperture, and wherein the aperture is co-axial with the axial direction of the turret (12).
As to claim 12, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) disclose the carrier plate (39) extends to the outside of the second end of the at least one arm.
As to claim 13, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) teach the carrier plate (39) is connected to the first arm and to the second arm at the second end of the first arm and the second arm, respectively.
As to claim 14, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) disclose the carrier plate (39) is formed integrally with the first arm and the second arm of the corresponding connection element (56 or a not shown releasable connection) of the suspension device (37, 39, 56), and wherein an outer connection portion is provided, respectively, such that the carrier plate (39) is located below the connection element (56 or a not shown releasable connection), the carrier plate (39) being provided at a distance from a lower face of an intermediate portion of each arm of the corresponding connection element (56 or a not shown releasable connection) such that an axial gap is formed between an upper face of the carrier plate (39) and the lower face of the intermediate portion of each arm.
As to claim 15, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) disclose the suspension device (37, 39, 56) comprises a clamping plate configured to cooperate with the carrier plate (39).
As to claim 16, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) teach the at least one non-rotating part (57) comprises a top cam of the turret (12).
As to claim 17, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) disclose the carrier plate (39) and the at least one connection element (56 or a not shown releasable connection), the element comprising a stepped inner ring, form a one-piece element.
As to claim 18, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) teach the suspension device (37, 39, 56) comprises one or more level adjustment devices configured to adjust a position of at least one of the auxiliary components in one or more of the axial direction or the radial direction.
As to claim 19, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) disclose the one or more level adjustment devices comprise one or more threaded portions configured to adjust a level of the at least one of the auxiliary components (see drive couplings 54 and 55, tablet chute 64, bottom wall 40 and sidewalls 41) in the axial direction.
As to claim 20, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) teach the one or more level adjustment devices are arranged in the at least one connection element (56 or a not shown releasable connection) of the suspension device (37, 39, 56).
As to claim 21, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) disclose the plurality of auxiliary components (see drive couplings 54 and 55, tablet chute 64, bottom wall 40 and sidewalls 41) suspended from the suspension device (37, 39, 56) comprises any combination of the following components: a tablet chute; at least one feeder; a powder inlet tube; a scraper; an extraction nozzle; an ejection finger; a recuperation finger; and a top cam.
As to claim 22, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) teach an enclosure is connected to the suspension device (37, 39, 56), the enclosure surrounding at least one of the top punch guide (25), the die disc (15), or the bottom punch guide (26).
As to claim 23, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) disclose the enclosure connected to the suspension device is a one-piece element.
As to claim 24, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) teach the enclosure comprises a bottom, the bottom comprising an aperture encircling the bottom punch guide (26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 05/22/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Christiaens fails to teach or suggest “wherein a plurality of auxiliary components is suspended from the carrier plate of the suspension device, and wherein the carrier plate functions as a reference point for positioning the plurality of auxiliary components relative to the turret” and Christiaens does not disclose “the claimed suspension device comprising a carrier plate and at least one connection element connecting the carrier plate to at least one non-rotating part of the turret.”
This is not found persuasive because as it was discussed above, in the body of the rejection in detail, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) discloses the suspension device (a compression unit 14, page 17, line 15) comprises a carrier plate (a top wall 39, page 19, lines 12-23) and at least one connection element (means of a bracket 37, page 19, line 1) connecting the carrier plate (a top wall 39, page 19, lines 12-23) to at least one non-rotating part (the top cam 25, page 19, lines 2-10, and the above annotated element positioned above the turret 12 and the ball bearing 38, see above annotated Fig 2) of the turret (see rotary turret 12). Further, Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) teach a plurality of auxiliary components (including side walls 41; see also page 19, lines 11-13 and fig. 2) are suspended from the carrier plate (a top wall 39, page 19, lines 12-23) of the suspension device (a compression unit 14, page 17, line 15).
Moreover, in despite of the arguments, the teachings of Christiaens et al. (WO ‘499) does not show any evidence that the top wall 39, and casing 13 are in rotatable connection with the turret via the bracket 37. Further, the presented arguments that said above listed elements cannot be used as a reference to a fixed part of the turret is not persuasive, most importantly, because claim 1 does not have any limitation or requirement for the claimed “reference point” to be fixed or stationary. As a result, the features upon which applicant relies is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, 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.
Finally, after a full review of the submitted remarks in view of prior art rejections, it has been concluded that there are differences in interpreting the claimed subject matter and the cited references between the Applicant and the Office. Therefore, Examiner would like to suggest that if Applicant’s Counsel believes that an interview can benefit the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant’s Counsel is kindly invited to contact the undersigned examiner.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vogeleer et al. (US 2018/0178474 and US 10,052,836) disclose a rotary tablet press has a housing including a compression section (6) with a turret (10) including a die disc (40), a top punch guide (20), a bottom punch guide (30), and a plurality of punches (25, 35). The turret (10) defines an axial direction (a) and a radial direction (r), the punches being arranged at a predefined radius defining a pitch (p) of the turret. The rotary tablet press comprises a bearing assembly (50) connected to the turret (10) and providing support to at least one auxiliary component of the rotary tablet press and the bearing assembly comprises a bearing (51) and a support means (60) for the at least one auxiliary component, and the bearing (51) is positioned outside the pitch (p) of the turret in the radial direction (r).
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, SUSAN D. LEONG can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754
06/26/2026
Prosecution Insights