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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 4/23/2024, 7/15/2025, and 3/17/2026 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy 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.
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:
“a handling device for moving the object within the clean room region” (claim 1, line 6);
interpreted as a robotic arm or an equivalent thereof as evidenced by p. 12-13 in the specification.
“removal units for removing a sample from a reactant” (claim 5, line 2);
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 § 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 5, 10, 13, and 14 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 limitation “removal units for removing a sample from a reactant” in claim 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely recites the claim language and fails to disclose any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, capable of removing a sample from a reactant. See pgs. 26, 70, and 93 of the specification.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “by means of which cleaning unit multi-use components of one or more tool units can be cleaned” renders the claim indefinite. The phrase is generally difficult to understand and appears to be a typographical error. For examination on the merits, the phrase will be interpreted as “by means of which multi-use components of one or more tool units can be cleaned”.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear if the one or more tool units is intended to be positively recited. As currently written, the feature of note is directed towards the material or article worked upon by the claimed apparatus and does not limit the claim which it depends upon (MPEP § 2115). Claim 13 as written depends upon claim 1, which does not positively recite one or more tool units.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear if the one or more tool units is intended to be positively recited. As currently written, the feature of note is directed towards the material or article worked upon by the claimed apparatus and does not limit the claim which it depends upon (MPEP § 2115). Claim 14 as written depends upon claim 1, which does not positively recite one or more tool units.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of removing a sample from a reactant. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11-13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bechini et al. (US 2019/0315004 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Bechini, see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, Bechini discloses a production plant, in particular for producing biological-pharmaceutical products (title; abstract, “constructive assembly of the containment means (9) is intended for the automated production of pharmaceutical or biotechnical articles”), wherein the production plant comprises the following:
- a clean room region ([0001] and [0030]-[0032] containment means has a clean-room classification; Fig. 1B, containment means 9);
- a lock device for feeding an object from an environment of the production plant into the clean room region and/or for removing an object from the clean room region (claim 12, lock device for loading/unloading article parts or articles);
- a handling device for moving the object within the clean room region ([0066]-[0068] describes robots for manipulating articles or article parts; Fig. 2D shows robots 1, 2 in containment means);
- a storage device arranged within the clean room region ([0013], transfer station; Fig. 2D shows transfer station 4 arranged within containment means), which comprises a plurality of storage locations for receiving a plurality of objects ([0013], transfer station positions, i.e., stores, article parts and/or articles; Fig. 6A shows that the transfer station is arranged within containment means).
The preamble limitation “for producing biological-pharmaceutical products” is merely a recitation of a purpose or intended use of the invention and has been given an appropriate patentable weight (MPEP § 2111.02 II).
The limitation “for feeding an object from an environment of the production plant into the clean room region and/or for removing an object from the clean room region” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed lock device and does not differentiate the claimed lock device from the prior art lock device because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The lock device taught by Bechini would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art lock device is taught to load and unload article parts or articles ([0015]).
Regarding claim 2, Bechini teaches the production plant according to claim 1, wherein the production plant comprises a tool system (abstract, multiple robots and process units disposed within the containment means; [0032], decontamination device; claim 17, closures and receptacles) by means of which treatment processes on reactants and/or maintenance processes can be carried out within the clean room region ([0010] discloses process units are capable of treatment and maintenance, e.g., assembly, disassembly, sterilization within the containment means; claim 17, closures and receptacles are used for filling and sealing).
The limitation “by means of which treatment processes on reactants and/or maintenance processes can be carried out within the clean room region” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed and does not differentiate the claimed tool system from the prior art tool systems because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The prior art tool system taught by Bechini would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art tool system is taught to be capable of treating receptacles ([0068]) and is supplied with a decontamination device ([0032]) which would maintain the containment means by maintaining sterility.
Regarding claim 3, Bechini teaches the production plant according to Claim 2, wherein the tool system comprises a plurality of fully automatic tool units for carrying out different treatment and/or maintenance processes (abstract, “automated production” implicitly discloses that all components are automated).
Regarding claim 4, Bechini teaches the production plant according to Claim 2, wherein the tool system comprises one or more tool units designed as feed units for supplying consumables to the reactants ([0002] and [0079] filling station).
The limitation “for supplying consumables to the reactants” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed feed unit and does not differentiate the claimed feed unit from the prior art feed unit because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The feed units taught by Bechini would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art can fill a receptacle ([0020]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 6, Bechini teaches the production plant according to Claim 3, wherein one or more of the tool units of the tool system in each case comprises one or more multi-use components ([0089] discloses containers which can be cleaned, i.e., multi-use) and one or more single-use components ([0023], crimped cap).
PNG
media_image1.png
529
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Bechini teaches the production plant according to Claim 2, wherein the tool system comprises a plurality of portable tool units (Fig. 7A shows a plurality of portable receptacles, i.e., tool units – see annotated figure below).
The limitation “which, in order to carry out a treatment process, can be supplied to a treatment location for treating a reactant which, in particular, is at the same time a storage location for storing the reactant, and can be temporarily stored there” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed plurality of portable tool units and does not differentiate the claimed portable tool units from the prior art portable tool units because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The plurality of portable tool units taught by Bechini would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art plurality of portable tool units is taught to be capable of moved to a location with a process unit ([0017], “a grouped number of the receptacles can be gripped by the manipulating element of the first robot and brought to the first process unit”). The process unit being able to carry out a treatment process, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 12, the claim as written is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed one or more portable tool units of the tool system and does not differentiate the claimed one or more portable tool units from the prior art one or more portable tool units because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The one or more portable tool units taught by Bechini would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art teaches that one or more portable tool units can be moved to different locations, as set forth above.
The feature “a storage transport device” is not positively recited. As such, the prior art applied to claim 11 above applies to claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the claim as written is directed towards the material or article worked upon, e.g., one or more tool units, by the claimed apparatus and does not limit the claim which it depends upon (MPEP § 2115).
If Applicant intended to positively recite the one or more tool units:
Bechini teaches the production plant according to Claim 1, wherein one or more tool units are designed and configured by means of the handling device for carrying out a treatment process and/or a maintenance process ([0019]-[0023] fills and closes receptacles).
The limitation “for carrying out a treatment process and/or a maintenance process” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed one or more tool units and does not differentiate the claimed from the prior art [thing] because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure absent clear evidence to the contrary and absent a showing of unexpected results (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 14, the claim as written is directed towards the material or article worked upon, e.g., one or more tool units, by the claimed apparatus and does not limit the claim which it depends upon (MPEP § 2115).
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.
Claims 5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bechini in view of Chang et al. (WO 2006/102416 A2) (hereinafter referred to as Chang, presented in IDS – US equivalent 2006/0257999 A1 cited herein).
Regarding claim 5, Bechini teaches the production plant according to Claim 2.
Bechini is silent to the tool system comprising one or more tool units designed as removal units for removing a sample from a reactant.
However, Chang in the art of high-throughput screening systems teaches it is known in the art to design a tool unit as a removal unit ([0017], material handling component; [0023], “the material handling component to dispense material into, and/or to remove material”).
Chang teaches that aliquots of samples are used for assaying ([0185]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production plant taught by Bechini to design one or more tool units as a removal unit to perform assays.
The limitation “for removing a sample from a reactant” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed removal unit and does not differentiate the claimed removal unit from the prior art removal unit because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The removal unit taught by Chang would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art removal unit can transfer fluids ([0019]).
Regarding claim 7, Bechini teaches the production plant according to Claim 2.
Bechini is silent to the tool system comprising a set-up unit.
However, Chang in the art of high-throughput screening systems teaches a lid processing device for adding and removing lids to and from containers ([0354]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production plant taught by Bechini to incorporate the lid processing system, i.e., a set-up unit, so that the closures, i.e., the single-use components, can be added and removed, allowing the transfer of liquids to and from the multi-use components.
The limitation “by means of which one or more single-use components of a tool unit can be fully automatically removed, in particular disposed of, after use thereof, and can be replaced by one or more new single-use components” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed set-up unit and does not differentiate the claimed set-up unit from the prior art set-up unit because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The set-up unit taught by Chang would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art set-up unit can add and remove lids ([0354]) automatically ([0010] teaches that the overall system is highly automated).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art combination teaches the production plant according to Claim 7.
The prior art combination is silent to the location of the set-up unit relative to the clean room region.
However, Chang of the prior art combination teaches that it is important to minimize contamination for the components of the system, i.e., the set-up unit, and that one option for eliminating contamination is by enclosing devices in clean room environments ([0237]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the prior art combination production plant such that the set-up unit is arranged completely within the clean room region with a reasonable expectation that it would keep the set-up unit sterile, as taught by Chang.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art combination teaches the production plant according to Claim 7.
Chang of the prior art combination teaches that a lid processing device, i.e., a set-up unit, may comprise a robotic gripping device (Chang, [0354]), i.e., a handling unit. Chang teaches that the robotic gripping device is a multi-axis robot arm ([0253] teaches that a grasping arm coupled to a robotic boom moves through 3 axes).
The limitation “by means of which a fully automatic set-up process can be carried out” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed handling unit and does not differentiate the claimed handling unit from the prior art handling unit because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The handling unit taught by the prior art combination would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure absent clear evidence to the contrary and absent a showing of unexpected results (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art combination teaches the production plant according to Claim 7.
The prior art combination is silent to the set-up unit comprising a cleaning unit or in that a cleaning unit is associated with the set-up unit.
However, Bechini of the prior art combination teaches that a process unit can be configured as a washing station ([0010]), i.e., a cleaning unit, and that receptacles, i.e., multi-use components, are washed at the washing station to be reused ([0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art combination production plant to incorporate a process unit configured a s a washing station, i.e., a cleaning unit, to wash receptacles, i.e., multi-use components, to be reused. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the prior art combination production plant such that the cleaning unit is associated with the set-up unit so that multi-use components are readily available to the cleaning unit.
The limitation “by means of which cleaning unit multi-use components of one or more tool units can be cleaned, in particular sterilized, after use” is directed toward the intended manner of operating the claimed multi-use components and does not differentiate the claimed multi-use components from the prior art multi-use components because all structural limitations are taught in the prior art (MPEP § 2114 II). The prior art multi-use components would be fully capable of achieving every claimed intended use because the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure absent clear evidence to the contrary and absent a showing of unexpected results (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
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 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/414,400 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the reference application recites a clean room region, an airlock device 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, i.e., a lock device; a handling device for moving the object within the clean room region; a storage device which is arranged within the clean room region and which comprises a plurality of storage spaces for receiving a plurality of objects.
Regarding claims 2-14, the combination of claims 1-15 of the reference application disclose the scope claimed in a capacity within purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. ‘400 recites in a storage transport device, a handling device, and a cleaning device, i.e., a tool system, as well as all intended uses of the claimed one or more tool units. ‘400 recites a changing device, i.e., a set-up unit.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/414,586 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application claims the same scope using different language.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/414,584 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application discloses the same scope using different language.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/414,589 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application discloses the same scope using different language.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/414,592 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application discloses a narrower scope using different language.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN J CARREON whose telephone number is (571)272-6818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/A.J.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/William H. Beisner/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights