DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 12th 2024 and June 17th 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the references cited therein are considered by the examiner.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE 10 2023 100 776.9, filed on January 13th 2023.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…further comprising a transport device for transporting receptacles…” should be replaced with ““…further comprising a transport device for transporting the receptacles…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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.
6. 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.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “stock storage device” in lines 1, 2.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “transport device”.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “loading device”.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “conversion device”.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “receiving means”.
Claim 2 recites the phrase “receiving means”.
Claim 3 recites the phrase “transport device”.
Claim 4 recites the phrase “transport device”.
Claim 5 recites the phrase “conversion device”.
Claim 5 recites the phrase “loading device”.
Claim 6 recites the phrase “conversion device”.
Claim 6 recites the phrase “first holding means”.
Claim 7 recites the phrase “conversion device” in lines 1 and 2.
Claim 7 recites the phrase “first holding means”.
Claim 8 recites the phrase “loading device”.
Claim 8 recites the phrase “second holding means”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-10 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 appears to be written more in narrative form as opposed to proper claim phraseology.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “…at least one loading area having a loading device for loading the receptacle carrier with unfilled receptacles and/or for unloading filled receptacles from the receptacle carrier…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear what is being positively recited.
Claim 1 initially recites receptacles (12, 18) in line 3, then recites unfilled receptacles (12) in line 11 and filled receptacles (18) in line 11. Once all of the reference numbers are removed (and they should be) more confusion results.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “…a conversion device for supplying unfilled receptacles from a receptacle stock into a conversion area and/or for discharging filled receptacles from the conversion areas into a stock container…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear what is being positively recited.
Claim 5 recites the phrase “…wherein the conversion device and/or the loading device is or are drivable along the lifting axis…”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear what is being positively recited. Additionally, the claim contains grammatical error. As presented, the claim is deemed allowable, but clarity is needed to provide an understanding of the claim and the protection sought. Applicant is required to review the claim for clarity and definiteness.
Claim 6 recites the phrase “…having prongs arranged in a comb-like manner…” The claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether the arrangement of the prongs resemble a comb or not.
Claim 6 recites the phrase “mutually adjacent prongs”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear what is serving to receive “respectively one of the sub-quantities”?
Claim 7 recites the phrase “can be”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the conversion drive is driven to rotate or not?
Claim 8 recites the phrase “…having prongs arranged in a comb-like manner…” The claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether the arrangement of the prongs resemble a comb or not.
Claim 8 recites the phrase “mutually adjacent prongs”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear what is serving to receive “respectively one of the sub-quantities”?
Claim 10 recites the phrase “can be”. This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the receptacles are converted or not.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, Anatrini (US 12,024,322) is the most relevant prior art.
Anatrini discloses a receptacle grouping system (100; Fig. 1), comprising a stock storage device (L), receptacles (F) being arranged in the stock storage device (L) in a delivery configuration (Figs. 1-13) in which different sub-quantities of the receptacles (F) have a first distance (Figs. 1-13) from each other that corresponds to the delivery configuration (Figs. 1-13) further comprising a transport device (33) for transporting receptacles (F), arranged in a receptacle carrier (N), along a transport path (Figs. 1-3), the receptacles (F) being arranged in the receptacle carrier (N) in a machine configuration (the containers are capable of being adjusted in quantity; ___) in which the different sub-quantities of receptacles (F) have a second distance from each other that corresponds to the machine configuration and that is different from the first distance corresponding to the delivery configuration (Figs. 1-13), and there being provided, as viewed along the transport path, at least one loading area (22) having a loading device (30) for loading the receptacle carrier (N) with unfilled receptacles (F; col. 4 ll. 1-3) and/or for unloading filled receptacles from the receptacle carrier.
Anatrini fails to disclose wherein the receptacle grouping system has a conversion device for supplying unfilled receptacles from a receptacle stock into a conversion area and/or for discharging filled receptacles from the conversion area into a stock container, the receptacles being arranged in the conversion area in the delivery configuration, and the conversion area and the loading area being spaced apart from each other across at least one adaptation area, the configuration of the receptacles being alterable, between the delivery configuration and the machine configuration, in the at least one adaptation area, there being at least one stator and at least two movers, electromagnetically coupled to the stator, arranged in the at least one adaptation area, the movers being drivable to move independently of each other relative to a drive surface, and there being a receiving means, for receiving one of the sub-quantities of the receptacles, arranged on a respective upper side of a mover, the receptacles being selectively convertible to the machine configuration or to the delivery configuration by alteration of the distance between the movers.
It would not have been obvious to modify Anatrini with the aforementioned limitation because applying the conversion device would require reconfiguring the system of Anatrini. This would render the system inoperable. Additionally, applying the conversion device would mean finding a location in Anatrini to place the receptacle stock, in order for the conversion device to receive the receptacles. As mentioned above, this would require reconfiguring the system of Anatrini.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYAMINDAE JALLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1927. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30am-5:00pm and alternating Fridays from 7:30am-4:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHELLEY SELF, can be reached on (571)272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
11. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/EYAMINDAE C JALLOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731