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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group III in the reply filed on February 16, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 23-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 16, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “container lid handling device, with which the container lid with the mixing device with the mixing element arranged on the container lid” as recited in claim 38 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
“filling device,” “mixing device” and “mixing element” in claim 36, where the “device” and “element” are the placeholder and “filling” and “mixing” are the functional language;
“container lid handling device” in claim 38, where the “device” is the placeholder and “container lid handling” is the functional language;
“container handling device” in claim 39, where the “device” is the placeholder and “container handling” is the functional language; and
“container closure device” in claim 42, where the “device” is the placeholder and “container closure” is the functional language.
Same interpretation applies to all pending claims.
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 36-43 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 36 recites the limitation "the container" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The container recited in line 1 is insufficient because it is not a positively recited element. The term “for" in line 1 indicates that the container is not a positively recited element (an optional element in the claimed invention). However, the container in line 4 is positively recited to provide relative displacement between the container and a mixing device (a must in the claimed invention). Therefore, the claim is indefinite because the claim is ambiguous and fails to define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant. Similar rejection applies to the limitation “the container lid" in line 3 of claim 38.
The limitation “wherein the mixing element, after filling the container, remains in the interior of the container, and wherein the container is closed with a container lid when the container is removed from the apparatus,” in lines 9-12 of claim 36, appears to be a method claim limitation. It is unclear what is the significant of this limitation in an apparatus claim? In other words, what element or combination of elements is needed to meet the claim limitation? Should the limitation be interpreted as functional language of an apparatus claim? Clarification is respectfully requested. Similar issues are noted in the other pending claims. Same or similar rejection applies to the pending claims.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "a container lid handling device, with which the container lid with the mixing device with the mixing element arranged on the container lid" in lines 2-4. It appears to be idiomatically and/or grammatically incorrect.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 41 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The “container” and the “container lid” are not positively recited limitations in claim 36. However, claims 41 and 43 further defined the “container lid”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The above are just examples of inconsistencies and problematic issues noted by the Examiner. Applicant is advised to carefully review and amend the application to correct other deficiencies. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be examined as best understood by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 36-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krauss et al. (WO1989007294. IDS provided by the Applicant. Krauss hereinafter).
With respect to claim 36, Krauss discloses an apparatus (Figs. 1-9) for (capable of) filling a container (53) with a liquid or paste-like product, comprising: a filling device (Figs. 4 and 6) for filling an interior of the container with the product, wherein the apparatus is designed such that the container and a mixing device (14) can be displaced relative to each other such that a mixing element (55) of the mixing device projects into the interior of the container and the mixing element of the mixing device is displaced (by rotating 50) in the interior of the container, wherein the mixing element, after filling the container, remains in the interior of the container (Fig. 6), and wherein the container is closed with a container lid (page 15, line 26) when the container is removed from the apparatus.
With respect to claim 37, Krauss discloses the apparatus according to claim 36, wherein the filling device has a plurality of product component storage containers (27), from each of which a product component can be filled into the container.
With respect to claim 38, Krauss discloses the apparatus according to claim 36, wherein a product mixing device (14, elements linked to 157 and 53) of the apparatus has a container lid handling device (male thread on the neck of 53), with which the container lid with the mixing device with the mixing element arranged on the container lid can be (manually) gripped and moved towards the container in such a way that the mixing element of the mixing device projects into the interior of the container (by loosening set screw 66), and wherein the mixing element can be displaced with the container lid handling device within the interior of the container.
With respect to claim 39, Krauss discloses the apparatus according to claim 36, wherein the apparatus has a container handling device (Fig. 6), with which the container can be (manually) gripped and moved towards the container lid with the mixing device with the mixing element arranged on the container lid (by loosening set screw 66) in such a way that the mixing element of the mixing device projects into the interior of the container (same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
With respect to claim 40, Krauss discloses the apparatus according to claim 39, wherein the container can be displaced (removed) with the container handling device such that the mixing element is displaced within the interior of the container (by loosening set screw 66).
With respect to claim 41, Krauss discloses the apparatus according to claim 38, wherein the container lid can be displaced (removed) relative to the container by (via) the container lid handling device in such a way that the mixing element is displaced within the interior of the container (by loosening set screw 66).
With respect to claim 42, Krauss discloses the apparatus according to claim 36, wherein the apparatus has a container closure device (male thread on the neck of 53) with which the container lid can be fastened on the container after the container has been filled with the product and the product has been mixed in the container.
With respect to claim 43, Krauss discloses the apparatus according to claim 36, wherein the apparatus has a container magazine (49) for holding a plurality of containers and a container lid magazine (lid box) for holding a plurality of container lids (page 15, line 26), each with a respective mixing device arranged on the container lid (by loosening set screw 66).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to an apparatus for filling a container: Howe, Hill, Corbin, Logan, Gugger, Achen, Meyer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 April 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights