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 .
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 intermediate station (claims 8 and 16) 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “electronic processor means” and “software means” in claim 1 (the phrase “electronic processor” and the word “software” are things, not functions), “mechanical means” in claims 4 and 12 (the word “mechanical” is not a function), “memory storage means” in claims 9 and 17 (“storage” is a thing, and not a function).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 recites “a capping control device (300), arranged downstream of said quality control device (200) and configured for…
ascertaining one or more characteristics of said sample on the basis of mechanical and/or physical quantities detected during said application cycle.”
The original specification fails to disclose one or more specific characteristics of said sample ascertained by the capping control device, per se. Accordingly, since the specification fails to describe what the characteristic(s) is/are, Applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Furthermore, the original specification fails to describe what mechanical and/or physical quantities are detected during said application cycle, in order for the ascertaining to be performed. The original specification also fails to describe what detects the mechanical and/or physical quantities during the application cycle. Accordingly, since the specification lacks a description of the mechanical and/or physical quantities, and/or what detects them, Applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 1 further recites “wherein said electronic processor means (500) are implemented with software means configured for determining, on the basis of said characteristics of said sample, one or more parameters optimal for carrying out application of a cap to a vessel, said cap and said vessel having the same mechanical and physical characteristics as the cap (T) and preform (P) forming said sample, respectively.”
As discussed above, the specification fails to specify the claimed characteristics. Accordingly, Applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Applicant did not have possession of claims 2-9 at the time of filing because claims 2-9 depend from claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “carrying out an operation of controlling the quality of said cap (T) and said preform (P).”
The original specification fails to disclose how the quality of the cap and preform are “controlled,” per se. The cap and preform are already made, and the disclosed system does not physically modify the cap and preform so as to control the quality thereof. Accordingly, Applicant did not have possession of claim 10 at the time of filing.
Claim 10 further recites “determining, on the basis of said characteristics of said sample, one or more parameters optimal for carrying out application of a cap to a vessel, said cap and said vessel having the same mechanical and physical characteristics as the cap (T) and preform (P) forming said sample, respectively.”
With respect to the claimed characteristics, Applicant did not have possession of claim 10 for the same reasons given with respect to claim 1 above.
Applicant did not have possession of claims 11-17 at the time of filing since claims 11-17 depend from claim 1.
Claim 18 recites “determining, on the basis of said characteristics of said sample, one or more parameters optimal for carrying out application of a cap to a vessel, said cap and said vessel having the same mechanical and physical characteristics as the cap (T) and preform (P) forming said sample, respectively.”
Claim 18 also recites “carrying out an operation of controlling the quality of said cap (T) and said preform (P).”
Accordingly, Applicant did not have possession of claim 18 at the time of filing, for substantially the same reasons given above with respect to claim 10.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a capping control device (300), arranged downstream of said quality control device (200) and configured for…
ascertaining one or more characteristics of said sample on the basis of mechanical and/or physical quantities detected during said application cycle.”
The claim fails to recite, and the specification also fails to describe, what detects the mechanical and/or physical quantities during the application cycle. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the system structurally requires structure(s) for detecting the mechanical and/or physical quantities detected during said application cycle.
Claims 2-9 are indefinite for depending from claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “carrying out an operation of controlling the quality of said cap (T) and said preform (P).”
The cap and preform are already made, and the disclosed system does not physically modify the cap and preform so as to control the quality thereof. This means there would be no way to control the quality of the cap and preform. Accordingly, it is unclear how the quality of the cap and preform are controlled.
Claims 11-17 are indefinite for depending from claim 1.
Claim 18 is unclear for substantially the same reason as claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if the 112a and 112b rejections thereof are overcome without broadening the claim’s scope.
Claims 2-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the 112a and 112b rejections thereof are overcome without broadening the claims’ scopes.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the features of “a first container (10) for containing a plurality of randomly arranged caps (T), a second container (20) for containing a plurality of randomly arranged preforms (P),” “a robotic device (100), configured for identifying, selecting and picking a cap (T) to be tested from said first container (10) and a preform (P) to be tested from said second container (20), and for subsequently placing said cap (T) and said preform (P) into corresponding seats (201) of said quality control device (200),” “a marking device (600), configured for affixing, to each tested sample, a marking identifying the characteristics ascertained in respect thereof” and “wherein said electronic processor means (500) are implemented with software means configured for determining, on the basis of said characteristics of said sample, one or more parameters optimal for carrying out application of a cap to a vessel, said cap and said vessel having the same mechanical and physical characteristics as the cap (T) and preform (P) forming said sample, respectively,” all in combination with the rest of the claimed device.
It is known to provide a system for checking the quality of a cap being screwed onto another object. For example, WO 2011030209 A1 (at station 40) and US 20120247064 A1 (¶60) each teach a station for checking removal torque and reclosing angle, and DE 102015112574 A1 teaches (title) a method for automatically measuring the closing angle of a container lid. It is also known to use vision-aided robotics to pick up randomly arranged objects from containers (see US 10360531 B1 and US 12064886 B1). Finally, EP 2581732 A1 teaches (¶20) a marking device to directly print a multi-dimensional code to a test container. However, there would have been no motivation to combine these references such that the cap and the object onto which the cap is installed are taken out of respective containers by a robotic device, and wherein a marking device affixes a marking identifying the claimed characteristics on the claimed sample.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2011030209 A1, US 20120247064 A1, US 10360531 B1 , DE 102015112574 A1, US 12064886 B1, EP 2581732 A1 teach various elements relevant to the disclosed invention, as discussed above. US 20250360621 A1 does not qualify as prior art, but teaches two robotic arms picking randomly arranged containers and lids up from respective containers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights