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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 24 is withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 22 are currently amended.
In view of the amendment, filed on 03/30/2026, the following objection is withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on 12/29/2025.
Objection to claim 22
New Grounds of Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-23 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.
Amended claim 1 recites “structuring at least one pressing force sensor to be positioned at the pressure apparatus” which was not described in the specification. The specification recites “an upper pressing force sensor 56 is arranged on a holder 54 of the upper pressure roller 40” and “a lower pressing force sensor 60 is arranged on a holder 58 of the lower pressure roller 42”. Therefore, the pressing force sensors 56 and 60 are arranged on a holder 54 and 58 of the upper pressure roller 40 and the lower pressure roller 42, respectively, and not on the pressure rollers 40 and 42, as claimed pressure apparatus, themselves. Therefore, the limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
The following rejections are maintained for the reason of records as given in the previous office action. The bases of these rejections are the same as given in the office action, mailed on 12/26/2025.
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) 1-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (US 2014/0144205) in view of Klaer (WO 2021/058516).
As to claim 1, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) disclose a method of manufacturing a rotary press configured to assess a wear state of pressing punches (upper and lower punches 18 and 20; ¶ [0032]) of the rotary press, the method comprising:
[AltContent: textbox (pressing force sensors (54 and 56) )][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (upper pressure roller (42))][AltContent: textbox (an upper pre-pressing roller 38)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (lower pressure roller 44)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A pressure apparatus (36))][AltContent: textbox (A pre-pressing apparatus (34))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A filling apparatus (26))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A die plate (24))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cavities (22))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A lower pressing punch (20))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (An upper pressing punch (18))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lower punch guide (16))][AltContent: textbox (Upper punch guide (14))]
PNG
media_image1.png
396
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
-structuring a rotor configured to be rotated by a rotary drive (see ¶ [0032]),
-structuring the rotor to comprise, an upper punch guide (14) for upper pressing punches (18), a lower punch guide (16) for lower pressing punches (20), and
-a die plate (24) arranged between the punch guides (14, 16; ¶ [0032]) and defining a plurality of cavities (receivers 22, ¶ [0032]),
-wherein the upper pressing punches (14; ¶ [0032]) and the lower press punches (16; ¶ [0032]) are structured to interact with the plurality of cavities (receivers 22; ¶ [0032]) of the die plate (24; ¶ [0032])
-structuring a filling apparatus (26; ¶ [0032]) to deliver a powder material into the plurality of cavities of the die plate (powdered press material is fed to the receivers 22 via a filling device 26; ¶ [0032]);
-structuring a pressure apparatus (a main pressing station 36; [0032]) to include an upper pressure roller (upper main pressing roller 42; [0032]) configured to interact with the upper press punches (18; [0032]) and a lower pressure roller (lower main pressing roller 44; [0032]) configured to interact with the lower pressing punches (20; [0032]) during operation in order to press the powder material in the cavities (receivers 22, ¶ [0032]) of the die plate (24);
-structuring at least one pressing force sensor (force measurement sensors 54 and 56 and a force measurement sensor 64; ¶ [0033] - [0034]) and configured to measure pressing force progressions at least one of the upper pressing punches (14; ¶ [0032]) and the lower pressing punches (20; [0032]) during the pressing of the powder material (¶ [0033] - [0034]); and
-structuring an evaluation apparatus (measuring device 56, 71; see page 6, right column, claims 13 and 15) takes place depending on at least one of the impact variables occurring during operation of the tablet press wherein the impact variable is wear occurring during operation of the tablet press. See page 6, right column, claims 13 and 15.
Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) disclose positioning the pressing force sensors (54 and 56) at the upper pressure roller, however, does not to disclose structuring at least one pressing force sensor to be positioned at the pressure apparatus. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to modify the location of the pressing force sensors (54 and 56), as taught by Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) to be positioned at the pressure apparatus (36) in order to further improve an efficient measuring of the pressing force progressions. Further, please note that it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
However, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) is silent on explicitly disclosing the evaluation apparatus (measuring device 56, 71; See page 6, right column, claims 13 and 15) to perform an individual state analysis of the measured pressing force progressions, and based on the individual state analysis, individually assess the wear state of at least one of the upper pressing punches and the lower pressing punches respectively assigned to the analyzed pressing force progressions, as claimed in claim 1.
In the analogous art, Klaer et al. (WO ‘516) disclose a method for monitoring a tablet press machine with the press ram by means of measuring device attached to a press punch, wherein the measuring device of the press ram preferably has a sensor, a computing unit and a communication unit as well as a memory unit. (see English Translation: paragraph 3 under “Description”). Klaer (WO ‘516) further disclose the measuring device comprises a pressure sensor wherein the pressure sensor leads to a good knowledge about the wear of press rams. (see English Translation: paragraph [0049])
Klaer et al. (WO ‘516) further teach on the basis of a measurement of a pressing force profile during a complete rotation of a tableting machine, which is designed as a rotary press, effects/forces can be recognized that were previously not measurable in the prior art. This allows, among other things, wear on press rams and cam tracks to be detected, which is otherwise not accessible through measurements. Such measurements can, however, show which forces arise when the pressure roller is hit and how the pressing force develops with different pressing materials, because measurements can be made directly. (see English Translation: paragraph [0052])
Klaer et al. (WO ‘516) further teach the arithmetic unit of the data processing unit and / or the programmable logic controller directly accesses the measurement data saved in the memory unit of the data processing unit and / or the programmable controller memory unit and carries out the algorithms for the analysis of the data which are also saved in the memory unit Measurement data. By analyzing the measurement data with the help of algorithms, errors, wear and tear and failures of a press ram and / or other components of a tablet machine can be detected very early. (see English Translation: paragraph [0139])
Therefore, as to claim 1, Klaer et al. (WO ‘516) disclose structuring an evaluation apparatus (the arithmetic unit of the data processing unit and / or the programmable logic controller; see ¶ [0139]) to perform an individual state analysis (see ¶ [0139]) of the measured pressing force progressions (see [0052]), and based on the individual state analysis, individually assesses the wear state of at least one of the upper pressing punches and the lower pressing punches respectively assigned to the analyzed pressing force progressions (see ¶ [0052] and ¶ [0139]).
Further, Klaer et al. (WO ‘516) disclose the continuous information about possible wear of the press ram or cam tracks can guarantee significantly improved quality assurance. On the one hand, an early exchange can be indicated. On the other hand, the operating parameters can be adjusted in order to minimize the progressive wear. (see English Translation: paragraph [0053])
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s invention, to modify the step of structuring an evaluation apparatus, as taught by Schmidt et al. (US ‘205), so to perform a state analysis of the measured pressing force progressions and then individually assesses the wear state of the upper and lower pressing punches based on the state analysis in order to facilitate an indication of an early exchange for pressing punches which results in significantly improving quality assurance and adjusting operating parameters to minimize the progressive wear. (see English Translation: paragraph [0053])
As to claim 2, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) teach the performing the state analysis comprises comparing the measured pressing force progressions (see ¶ [0139]) with at least one reference pressing force progression (see ¶ [0011]: if the measuring device is a force measuring device on an upper or lower pressing roller of the press, then different reference force values can be generated for example by using a test set of an upper or lower punch).
As to claim 3, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) disclose the performing the state analysis comprises determining a width of the measured pressing force progressions. (See ¶ [0011]: the force measuring devices then each measure different force values according to the approached vertical position, which a width of the measured pressing force progressions can be determined according to the approached vertical position).
As to claim 4, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) teach the performing the state analysis comprises determining a magnitude of a maximum of the measured pressing force progressions. (See ¶ [0011]: the reference force values are supplied with other supply devices or the like also to be provided accordingly in order to thus be able to pass through the calibration measurement area.)
As to claim 5, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) disclose the performing the state analysis comprises determining at least one of; (i) multiple maxima of the measured pressing force progressions; and (ii) a distance between multiple maxima of the measured pressing force progressions. (see ¶ [0011]: the reference force values are supplied with other supply devices or the like also to be provided accordingly in order to thus be able to pass through the calibration measurement area.)
As to claim 6, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) teach the performing the state analysis comprises determining a time point for at least one of: (i) a rise of the measured pressing force progressions; and (ii) a fall of the measured pressing force progressions. (see ¶ [0023]: the calibration and balancing process according to the invention can be repeated at regular, greater time intervals.)
As to claim 7, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) disclose the performing the state analysis comprises determining a gradient of at least one of: (i) the rise of the measured pressing force progressions; and (ii) the fall of the measured pressing force progressions. (See [0035]: the control device 70 also comprises a comparing device 73 for comparing measurement values and a storage device 75 for storing at least measurement values.)
As to claim 8, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) in view of Klaer et al. (WO ‘516) teach structuring the evaluation apparatus to output a warning message when an increased wear of an assessed pressing punch is detected. (see Klaer et al, ¶ [0052]: wear on press rams and cam tracks to be detected ¶ [0139]: the operating parameters can be adjusted in order to minimize the progressive wear).
As to claim 9, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) disclose the warning message comprises at least one of: a suggestion for cleaning the assessed pressing punch (14 and 16); re-treating the assessed pressing punch (14 and 16); replacing the assessed pressing punch (14 and 16) with a new pressing punch (14 and 16); replacing the upper pressing punches (14); and replacing the lower pressing punches (16). (see ¶ [0041]: at least trending changes in the tablet press (e.g. wear, poor mobility of engaging components, insufficient lubrication) can be detected and maintenance intervals or respectively maintenance times can be determined or the replacement of components can be initiated)
As to claim 10, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) teach the warning message comprises a suggestion for swapping the assessed pressing punch (14 and 16) with increased wear with another pressing punch of the rotary press. (see ¶ [0041]: at least trending changes in the tablet press (e.g. wear, poor mobility of engaging components, insufficient lubrication) can be detected and maintenance intervals or respectively maintenance times can be determined or the replacement of components can be initiated)
As to claim 11, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) teach the performing the state analysis comprises a multivariate data analysis. (see ¶ [0006]: the same goes for impact variables on the measuring devices, which occur during the operation of the rotary press, for example temperature deviations, wear or other disturbance variables.)
As to claim 12, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) disclose the multivariate data analysis comprises a principal component analysis. (see ¶ [0006]: the same goes for impact variables on the measuring devices, which occur during the operation of the rotary press, for example temperature deviations, wear or other disturbance variables.)
As to claim 13, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) in view of Klaer et al. (WO ‘516) disclose determining at least one principal component that exhibits a greatest variance with respect to the wear of at least one of the upper pressing punches and the lower pressing punches is identified for a large number of pressing force progressions. (see Klaer et al, ¶ [0052]: wear on press rams and cam tracks to be detected ¶ [0139]: the operating parameters can be adjusted in order to minimize the progressive wear).
As to claim 14, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) teach the multivariate data analysis comprises a multivariate regression method. (see ¶ [0006]: the same goes for impact variables on the measuring devices, which occur during the operation of the rotary press, for example temperature deviations, wear or other disturbance variables.)
As to claim 15, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) disclose structuring the evaluation apparatus to assesses, using the state analysis, of at least one of: a state of a punch tip of the assessed pressing punch (18 and 20) and a pressing force exerted by the assessed pressing punch (18 and 20). (see ¶ [0011]: if the measuring device is a force measuring device on an upper or lower pressing roller of the press, then different reference force values can be generated for example by using a test set of an upper or lower punch.)
As to claim 16, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) teach structuring the evaluation apparatus to performs a data preprocessing of the measured pressing force progressions prior to performing the state analysis. (see ¶ [0020]: This deviation can be saved in the control device and calculated by means of a mathematical process for compensation so that the measurement progression measured by the measuring device comes as close as possible to the target measurement progress, namely the recorded reference curve of the reference measuring device.)
As to claim 17, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) discloses structuring the evaluation apparatus to perform the state analysis using machine learning algorithms. (See ¶ [0005]: each new force value in the course of the calibration is initiated manually and read by an operator from the measuring devices, in particular from the measuring device to be calibrated, that is in particular a measuring device permanently installed in the press, and the reference force measuring device.)
As to claim 18, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) disclose structuring the evaluation apparatus to display results of the state analysis to an operator. (See ¶ [0005]: each new force value in the course of the calibration is initiated manually and read by an operator from the measuring devices, in particular from the measuring device to be calibrated, that is in particular a measuring device permanently installed in the press, and the reference force measuring device.)
As to claim 19, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) teach structuring the evaluation apparatus to comprises an input apparatus configured to enable an operator to set parameters for the state analysis. (See ¶ [0005]: each new force value in the course of the calibration is initiated manually and read by an operator from the measuring devices, in particular from the measuring device to be calibrated, that is in particular a measuring device permanently installed in the press, and the reference force measuring device.)
As to claim 20, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) disclose positioning the at least one pressing force sensor (a force measurement sensor 56, ¶ [0033]) at the upper pressure roller (42, ¶ [0032]). (see ¶ [0035]: the control device 70 is connected with the force measurement sensor 56 to be calibrated and balanced via a second connection 74. Moreover, the control device 70 is connected with an adjustable motor 78 for the setting of the vertical distance between the pressing rollers 42, 44 via a third connection 76.)
As to claim 21, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) teach positioning the at least one pressing force sensor (58, ¶ [0033]) at the lower pressure roller (44, ¶ [0032]). (see ¶ [0035]: the control device 70 is connected with the force measurement sensor 56 to be calibrated and balanced via a second connection 74. Moreover, the control device 70 is connected with an adjustable motor 78 for the setting of the vertical distance between the pressing rollers 42, 44 via a third connection 76.)
As to claim 22, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) disclose measuring the pressing force progressions as at least one the upper pressing punches (18, ¶ [0032]) and the lower pressing punches (20, ¶ [0032]) pass through at least one of the upper pressure roller (38, ¶ [0032]) and the lower pressure roller (40, ¶ [0032]). (see ¶ [0035]: the control device 70 is connected with the force measurement sensor 56 to be calibrated and balanced via a second connection 74. Moreover, the control device 70 is connected with an adjustable motor 78 for the setting of the vertical distance between the pressing rollers 42, 44 via a third connection 76.)
As to claim 23, Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) teach structuring the pressure apparatus to further comprise a pre-pressure apparatus (the pre-pressing station 34, ¶ [0032]) comprising an upper pre-pressure roller (38, ¶ [0032]) and a lower pre-pressure roller (40, ¶ [0032]);
arranging a pressing force sensor (54, ¶ [0033]) at the upper pre-pressure roller (38, ¶ [0032]) and arranging a pressing force sensor (52, ¶ [0033]) at the lower pre-pressure roller (40, ¶ [0032]) of the pressure apparatus; and
measuring the pressing force progressions (by a force measurement sensor 56, ¶ [0034]) at the upper and lower pressing punches (20, ¶ [0032]) as the upper pressing punches (18, ¶ [0032]) pass through the upper pre-pressure roller (38, ¶ [0032]) and the lower pressing punches (20, ¶ [0032]) pass through the lower pre-pressure roller (40, ¶ [0032]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument, filed on 03/30/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant arguments are mainly on the amended to claim 1 and that the prior art of Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) fail to disclose those limitations. However, the arguments are not found persuasive. As it has been indicated above in the body of the rejection, Schmidt et al (US ‘205) disclose the pressing force sensors (54 and 56) are positioned at the upper pressure roller, and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to modify the location of the pressing force sensors (54 and 56), as taught by Schmidt et al. (US ‘205), to be positioned at the pressure apparatus (36) in order to further improve an efficient measuring of the pressing force progressions. Further, please note that it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
Moreover, regarding new limitations in step of structuring an evaluation apparatus, as it has been clarified above in the body of the rejection, Klaer et al. (WO ‘516) disclose structuring an evaluation apparatus (the arithmetic unit of the data processing unit and / or the programmable logic controller; see ¶ [0139]) to perform an individual state analysis (see ¶ [0139]) of the measured pressing force progressions (see [0052]), and based on the individual state analysis, individually assesses the wear state of at least one of the upper pressing punches and the lower pressing punches respectively assigned to the analyzed pressing force progressions (see ¶ [0052] and ¶ [0139]).
Therefore, rejections of claims 1-23 over Schmidt et al. (US ‘205) in view of Klaer et al. (WO ‘516) is maintained for the reasons provided above.
Finally, after a full review of the submitted remarks in view of rejections of the claims, it has been concluded that there are differences in interpreting the claimed subject matter and the cited references by the Applicant and the Office. Therefore, Examiner would like to suggest that if Applicant’s Counsel believes 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.
Lunstedt et al. (US 2016/0221217) disclose a die plate 10 with two die holes 12, 14. A first upper stamp 16 is fitted to a force transmission bridge 15 and a second upper stamp 18 to a force transmission bridge 17. The upper stamps 16, 18 cooperate with the die holes 12, 14 in a known manner. A lower stamp 22 is fitted to an additional force transmission bridge 19. An additional lower stamp 24 is fitted to a fourth force transmission bridge 23. The lower stamps 22, 24 cooperate with the die holes 12, 14 in a known manner. The upper stamp 18 extends through an opening 25 in the force transmission bridge 15, and the lower stamp 24 extends through an opening 27 of the force transmission bridge 19. (see ¶ [0015])
Brand (US 11,511,506) disclose a method for controlling rotor rotational speed of a rotor of a rotary tablet press, the method comprising: rotating the rotor with a rotary drive; rotating a die plate with the rotor, the die plate comprising a plurality of cavities and a plurality of upper and lower punches; assigning the plurality of upper and lower punches in pairs to one of the plurality of cavities in the die plate for pressing a filling material in the one of the plurality of cavities into a pellet; providing top and bottom pressing rollers configured to exert a pressing force upon contacting the plurality of upper and lower punches; driving the rotary drive via a rotational speed governor configured to compare a measured rotor rotational speed with a target rotational speed value. See claim 1.
Vogeleer et al. (US 2010/0038808) disclose a method for controlling a tablet press comprises the steps of consecutively supplying material into each die of a die table 1, subjecting the material to a pre-compression and a main-compression, whereby the main-compression is performed under substantially constant compression force and variable resulting tablet thickness of the individual tablets, and measuring a weight value representative of the weight of the material fed into the die. The quantity of material supplied to each die is regulated on the basis of a deviation between a previously measured weight value and a first set value. See the abstract.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
04/04/2026
Prosecution Insights