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 .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
3. Claims 1-15 are pending in this application.
Specification
4. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Examiner’s Note
5. The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
6. Claim 6 claims a “gantry conveyor”. While this term is supported in the instant specification and is depicted in applicant’s fig. 24 as ref. char. 418, this device is not described in detail in the specification and is only depicted as an abstract pillar with an unclear distal substructure in the figure. Applicant’s p101 para 8 describes the gantry conveyor as being comprised by storage transport device 406, which itself is largely nondescript (it comprises a horizontal rail per p82 para 4 and only appears in the figure as a horizontal rail). Since 418 by itself is not a gantry, we suppose the gantry conveyor to actually comprise both 406 and 418 as a compound device. Thus the claimed gantry conveyor is interpreted in this office action as a rail-based device wherein a comprised device traveling horizontally along the rail can perform object picking, transfer, and placing actions; perhaps the unnumbered distal end substructure of 418 is intended to be a gripper or other type of end-effector and if so 418 would in effect be one element of a cartesian robot.
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.
7. Claims 1-15 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the phrase “in particular” is problematic in the following claims:
claim 1 recites the broad recitation, “a production system”, and the claim also recites, “in particular for producing biological-pharmaceutical products” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
claim 5 recites the broad recitation, “one or more storage racks of the storage device are accessible”, and the claim also recites, “in particular for storage and retrieval processes and for treatment processes and/or maintenance processes”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
claim 8 recites the broad recitation, “one or more handling units of the handling device”, and the claim also recites, “in particular for carrying out different storage processes, transporting processes, handling processes, maintenance processes and/or treatment processes by means of the corresponding storage transport unit and/or handling unit” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
claim 9 recites the broad recitation, “by means of which cleaning device at least one gripping unit and/or carrier unit of one or more storage transport units of the storage transport device and/or one or more handling units of the handling device can be cleaned”, and the claim also recites, “in particular after carrying out a storage process, transport process, handling process, maintenance process, and/or treatment process” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
claim 10 recites the broad recitation, “one or more objects are transferable from an airlock space of the airlock device to a storage transport device”, and the claim also recites, “in particular to one or more storage transport units of a storage transport device, by means of the handling device” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
claim 11 recites the broad recitation, “an airlock space” or “a further airlock space” four times, and the claim also recites, “in particular an inlet airlock space”, “in particular a transfer airlock space” twice, and “in particular an outlet airlock space” which are the narrower statements of the ranges/limitations.
claim 14 recites the broad recitation, “a cleaning device which can be supplied to workpiece carriers for cleaning same”, and the claim also recites, “in particular after the transport of an object by means of the corresponding workpiece carrier” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claims, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In addition to the individual rejections of the claims cited above, claims 2-15 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, we read the “in particular” clauses as exemplary and non-limiting. Should applicant wish to make use of these clauses as limitations, redacting the words “in particular” and linking the clause grammatically to the subject being modified (typically by redacting a preceding comma) will apply the clause as a limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
8. Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osborne, Joel, US 2011/0067781 (hereinafter Osborne).
9. Regarding claim 1,
Osborne discloses:
A production system (automated workstation 10: fig. 1), in particular for producing biological-pharmaceutical products (see abstract),
wherein the production system comprises: - a clean room region (areas 18, 20, 22, 24: fig. 1, [0090]);
an airlock device (lock devices in areas 18 and 26: fig. 1, [0068], [0070]) for supplying an object from the surroundings of the production system into the clean room region and/or for removing an object from the clean room region;
a handling device (robot R2: fig. 14) for moving the object within the clean room region;
a storage device (storage area 20: fig. 1, [0082]-[0084]) which is arranged within the clean room region and which comprises a plurality of storage spaces for receiving a plurality of objects.
10. Regarding claim 2,
Osborne discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the storage device comprises a storage transport device (robot R1: fig. 14, [0113]-[0115]) for transporting objects to the storage spaces and/or away from the storage spaces.
11. Regarding claim 3,
Osborne discloses the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein the storage transport device is a device different from the handling device.Osborne’s robots R1 (storage transport device) and R2 (handling device) are different devices.
12. Regarding claim 4,
Osborne discloses the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein the storage transport device comprises a rail-guided transport system and/or one or more free-moving transport vehicles.Osborne’s robot R1 is mobile on a rail per [0114]-[0115] and thus fulfills the first of the two options.
13. Regarding claim 5,
Osborne discloses the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein the storage transport device comprises one or more rail-guided storage transport units by means of which one or more storage racks of the storage device are accessible in particular for storage and retrieval processes and for treatment processes and/or maintenance processes.Osborne’s robot R1 is mobile on a rail per [0114]-[0115]. It accesses the storage area 20 per [0114], which storage area comprises shelves (racks) per [0071].
14. Regarding claim 6,
Osborne discloses the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein the storage transport device comprises one or more storage transport units (R1: fig. 14) designed as gantry conveyors.Per Claim Interpretation above, Osborne’s robot R1 conforms to our understanding of a “gantry conveyor” inasmuch as it is a robotic arm that is mobile on a rail per [0114]-[0115].
15. Regarding claim 9,
Osborne discloses the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein a cleaning device of the production system is associated with the storage transport device and/or the handling device, by means of which cleaning device at least one gripping unit and/or carrier unit of one or more storage transport units of the storage transport device and/or one or more handling units of the handling device can be cleaned, in particular after carrying out a storage process, transport process, handling process, maintenance process, and/or treatment process.Osborne discloses a cleaning system in [0064] which is used, after one or more working sessions (i.e. after any of the claimed processes) to “clean all the surfaces and all the contents” of the storage and preparation areas. Since robot R1 is a content of the storage area and comprises surfaces, it is cleaned as part of this process.
16. Regarding claim 10,
Osborne discloses the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein one or more objects are transferable from an airlock space of the airlock device to a storage transport device, in particular to one or more storage transport units of a storage transport device, by means of the handling device.Sun discloses in [0113]-[0117] that robots R1 (storage) and R2 (handling) can access a carousel 58 between the preparation area and storage area. Both these areas are in the airlock space. Robot R2 can pass objects via the carousel to robot R1 for storage and vice versa.
17. Regarding claim 7,
Osborne discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the handling device is a multi-axis robot arm or comprises same. Osborne’s robot R2 is disclosed in [0114]-[0116] to comprise a multi-axis robot arm.
18. Regarding claim 11,
Osborne discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the handling device comprises an airlock transport device by means of which one or more objects can be transported from an airlock space, in particular an inlet airlock space, to a further airlock space, in particular a transfer airlock space, and/or from an airlock space, in particular a transfer airlock space, to a further airlock space, in particular an outlet airlock space.Per the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above we are not considering the “in particular” clauses in this office action to be limiting clauses. Osbourne discloses at least two airlocks to their system, 18 and 26 in fig. 1, along with a transfer area 24 which is in a clean volume per [0090]. Handling device robot R2 is disclosed in [0117] to have access to both 18 and 26, thus performing the transfer of objects from one airlock to another.
19. Regarding claim 15,
Osborne discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the storage device comprises one or more storage racks and/or one or more storage space areas which each have a plurality of storage spaces, wherein reactants and/or tools and/or consumable materials can be stored in or removed from the storage spaces by means of the storage transport device.Osbourne discloses a plurality of storage units in storage area 20 in [0082]-[0084] for various of these stored item types including consumables. Robot R1 accesses these stored items in [0114]-[0116].
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.
20. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne in view of Eliuk, et al., US 2015/0250678 (hereinafter Eliuk).
Osborne discloses the limitations of claim 2 but not:
wherein a changing device of the production system is associated with the storage transport device and/or the handling device, by means of which changing device different gripping units and/or carrier units can be mounted on one or more storage transport units of the storage transport device and/or on one or more handling units of the handling device, in particular for carrying out different storage processes, transporting processes, handling processes, maintenance processes and/or treatment processes by means of the corresponding storage transport unit and/or handling unit.Osborne does not disclose interchangeable or replaceable grippers, end-effectors or other robotic tools.
Eliuk, an invention in the field of pharmaceutical manufacture automation, teaches the limitation:
wherein a changing device of the production system is associated with the storage transport device and/or the handling device, by means of which changing device different gripping units and/or carrier units can be mounted on one or more storage transport units of the storage transport device and/or on one or more handling units of the handling device, in particular for carrying out different storage processes, transporting processes, handling processes, maintenance processes and/or treatment processes by means of the corresponding storage transport unit and/or handling unit.Eliuk teaches in [0122] that a gripper finger exchange station may be employed in the processing chamber to swap out gripper fingers for different robotic tasks and applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Osborne, wherein a changing device of the production system is associated with the storage transport device and/or the handling device, by means of which changing device different gripping units and/or carrier units can be mounted on one or more storage transport units of the storage transport device and/or on one or more handling units of the handling device, in particular for carrying out different storage processes, transporting processes, handling processes, maintenance processes and/or treatment processes by means of the corresponding storage transport unit and/or handling unit, as taught by Eliuk because different robotic tasks may be better performed by one gripper, end-effector, or EOAT than another and because robots with interchangeable or swappable end-effectors are widespread and commonplace in the art.
21. Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne in view of Deutschle, et al., US 2020/0290756 (hereinafter Deutschle).
22. Regarding claim 12,
Osborne discloses the limitations of claim 2 but not:
wherein the storage transport device and/or the handling device each comprise one or more workpiece carrier receptacles for receiving and transporting one or more workpiece carriers.Osborne does not disclose the claimed receptacles and workpiece carriers. However, its robotic arms are capable of transporting such receptacles.
Deutschle, an invention in the field of pharmaceutical packaging, teaches the limitation:
wherein the storage transport device and/or the handling device each comprise one or more workpiece carrier receptacles for receiving and transporting one or more workpiece carriers.Deutschle teaches the claimed receptacles in fig. 4D in the form of transport and packaging containers 10 that receive and transport workpiece carriers in the form of supports 20 that in turn carry workpieces in the form of cartridges 8. As seen in fig. 5 these containers 10 are themselves comprised by the processing system 50 with its various transport, storage, and handling devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Osborne wherein the storage transport device and/or the handling device each comprise one or more workpiece carrier receptacles for receiving and transporting one or more workpiece carriers, as taught by Deutschle because transporting carriers containing multiple workpieces is plainly more efficient than transporting individual workpieces, and because manufacturing and storage facilities in all commercial and industrial arts have long transported such containers via receptacles in conveying devices.
23. Regarding claim 13,
Osborne discloses the limitations of claim 1 but not all aspects of:
wherein the airlock device comprises a cleaning device for cleaning one or more workpiece carriers and/or for cleaning one or more workpiece carrier receptacles.While Osborne discloses a cleaning device in its airlock in [0097], Osborne does not disclose the claimed workpiece carriers and workpiece carrier receptacles.
Deutschle, an invention in the field of pharmaceutical packaging, teaches the missing aspect of the limitation:
wherein the airlock device comprises a cleaning device for cleaning one or more workpiece carriers and/or for cleaning one or more workpiece carrier receptacles.Deutschle teaches the claimed workpiece carriers in the form of supports 20 that in turn carry workpieces in the form of cartridges 8. As seen in fig. 5 these containers 10 are themselves comprised by the processing system 50 with its various transport, storage, and handling devices. In combination with Osborne, we make use of Osborne’s cleaning system, which cleans things in the airlock, to clean the workpiece carriers of Deutschle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Osborne wherein the airlock device comprises a cleaning device for cleaning one or more workpiece carriers and/or for cleaning one or more workpiece carrier receptacles, as taught by Deutschle, because transporting carriers containing multiple workpieces is plainly more efficient than transporting individual workpieces, and because manufacturing and storage facilities in all commercial and industrial arts have long transported such containers via receptacles in conveying devices. Given the obvious need to clean and decontaminate objects in a clean-room environment, given Deutschle’s workpiece carriers they too must obviously be cleaned and decontaminated to maintain such an environment, and as part of decontamination protocols they must be cleaned on introduction to an airlock such as Osborne’s airlock 18.
24. Regarding claim 14,
Osborne discloses the limitations of claim 1 but not all aspects of:
wherein the production system comprises a cleaning device which can be supplied to workpiece carriers for cleaning same, in particular after the transport of an object by means of the corresponding workpiece carrier.While Osborne discloses a cleaning system in [0064] which is used, after one or more working sessions (i.e. after any of the claimed processes) to “clean all the surfaces and all the contents” of the storage and preparation areas, it does not disclose the claimed workpiece carriers.
Deutschle, an invention in the field of pharmaceutical packaging, teaches the missing aspect of the limitation:
wherein the production system comprises a cleaning device which can be supplied to workpiece carriers for cleaning same, in particular after the transport of an object by means of the corresponding workpiece carrier.Deutschle teaches the claimed workpiece carriers in the form of supports 20 that in turn carry workpieces in the form of cartridges 8. As seen in fig. 5 these containers 10 are themselves comprised by the processing system 50 with its various transport, storage, and handling devices. In combination with Osborne, we make use of Osborne’s cleaning system, which cleans everything in the storage and processing areas, to clean the workpiece carriers of Deutschle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Osborne wherein the production system comprises a cleaning device which can be supplied to workpiece carriers for cleaning same, in particular after the transport of an object by means of the corresponding workpiece carrier, as taught by Deutschle, because transporting carriers containing multiple workpieces is plainly more efficient than transporting individual workpieces, and because manufacturing and storage facilities in all commercial and industrial arts have long transported such containers via receptacles in conveying devices. Given the obvious need to clean and decontaminate objects in a clean-room environment, given Deutschle’s workpiece carriers they too must obviously be cleaned and decontaminated to maintain such an environment.
Conclusion
25. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2003/0044262, JP 2002179206, DE 202014105336 and DE 102006028057 were cited by some ISRs as anticipatory X documents for related foreign applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655