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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“comprising:” in line 2 should read “the closure processing equipment comprising:”.
“members and a container” in line 3 should read “members; (line break) a container”.
“containers, and” in line 9 should read “containers,”.
“seats each” in line 10 should read “seats, each”.
“position,” in line 11 should read “position, and”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“comprising:” in line 1 should read “the method comprising:”.
“the container;” in line 16 should read “the respective container;”.
“being” in line 20 should read “that is”.
“tolerance; and” in line 21 should read “tolerance of the respective container; and”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informality: “having” in line 3 should read “that have”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informality: “having” in line 4 should read “that has”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informality: “having” in line 4 should read “that has”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informality: “optical measuring of” in line 2 should read “optically measuring”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 fails to include all the limitations of claim 1 upon which it depends because it recites the limitation “wherein the set of compensation structures is embodied by the number of stopper members” in lines 2-3 while claim 1 lists the “set of compensation structures” and the “number of stopper members” as two different structural elements in lines 3-4. Thus, claim 5 fails to include the limitation of claim 1 that the “set of compensation structures” and the “number of stopper members” are two different structural elements since claim 5 states that they are the same structural element. 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.
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 of this title, 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 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broadbent et al. (US 2016/0200461), hereinafter Broadbent, in view of Deutschle et al. (US 2018/0148222), hereinafter Deutschle.
Regarding claim 1, Broadbent discloses a closure processing equipment (40 in Figure 1) for closing openings (the “openings” described in Paragraphs 0057 and 0059) of a number of containers (containers 90 in Figures 1, 2, 5, and 8) (Paragraphs 0058-0062), comprising:
a number of stopper members (stoppers 140) and a container holder (70 in Figures 1 and 2) (Paragraphs 0042 and 0035);
wherein each stopper member (140) of the number of stopper members (stoppers 140) is made of an elastic material (elastomer) (Paragraph 0077), has a plug portion (shown circled in an annotated version of Figure 8 of Broadbent, hereinafter Figure 8x, below) configured to fit into an opening (the opening at the top end of 90 shown in Figures 5 and 2) of one of the number of containers (containers 90) (clear from Figure 8, Paragraph 0077) and has a cover portion (shown circled in Figure 8x below) configured to abut a boundary surface (horizontal top surface of 90 in Figures 5 and 8) adjacent to the opening (the opening at the top end of 90 shown in Figures 5 and 2) of the one of the number of containers (clear from Figure 8, Paragraph 0078), and
wherein the container holder (70) has a number of container seats (the pockets of 70 in Figure 2, in which containers 90 are received), each container seat (pocket of 70) configured to receive one of the number of containers (containers 90) in a predefined position (Paragraphs 0041, 0070, and 0071, apparent from Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 8x: an annotated version of Figure 8 of Broadbent
However, Broadbent does not disclose: a set of compensation structures, each compensation structure configured to compensate a container manufacturing dimension tolerance; wherein the set of compensation structures comprises diverse compensation structures to compensate different container manufacturing dimension tolerances.
Deutschle teaches that it was known to provide a set of compensation structures (protrusions 15), each compensation structure (15) configured to compensate a container manufacturing dimension tolerance (Paragraphs 0074 and 0077-0080), wherein the set of compensation structures (protrusions 15) comprises diverse compensation structures (protrusions 15) to compensate different container manufacturing dimension tolerances (because protrusions 15 are uniquely designed to compensate for manufacturing dimension tolerances of the transition region or edge portion 8 of different types of containers such as 2R-vials, 4R-vials, 6R-vials, and 20R-vials, as disclosed in Paragraphs 0074-0079 and Table 2), in order to allow container seats (receptacles 12 in Figures 2a and 3a) to match, with tight tolerances, the geometries of transition regions or edge portions (8) of containers (vials 1 in Figure 2a) to be supported by the container seats (receptacles 12) and reliably support the containers (vials 1) with a positive-fit instead of friction to prevent abrasion (Paragraphs 0027, 0026, 0074, 0075, and 0084).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the closure processing equipment of Broadbent with a set of compensation structures, each compensation structure configured to compensate a container manufacturing dimension tolerance, wherein the set of compensation structures comprises diverse compensation structures to compensate different container manufacturing dimension tolerances, as taught by Deutschle, because doing so would allow the container seats to match, with tight tolerances, the geometries of transition regions or edge portions of the containers and reliably support the containers with a positive-fit instead of friction to prevent abrasion.
Regarding claim 2, Broadbent discloses that the number of container seats (the pockets of 70) of the container holder (70) is arranged in a grid of a first number of rows and a second number of columns (apparent from Figure 2, Paragraphs 0040, 0041, 0070, and 0071).
Regarding claim 3, Broadbent discloses a stopper holder (100 in Figures 1 and 3) having a number of stopper seats (the pockets of 100 in Figure 3, in which closures 120 are received), each stopper seat (pocket of 100) configured to receive one stopper member (140) of the number of stopper members (stoppers 140) in a predefined position (Paragraphs 0042, 0059, 0060, 0071, 0083, and 0085, apparent when Figure 3 is viewed in relation to Figure 6A).
Regarding claim 4, Broadbent discloses that the number of stopper seats (the pockets of 100) of the stopper holder (100) is arranged in correspondence with the number of container seats (the pockets of 70) of the container holder (70) (Paragraphs 0059-0062, clear from Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Broadbent in view of Deutschle teaches that the set of compensation structures (protrusions 15 of Deutschle) comprises container seat inserts (protrusions 15 of Deutschle can be considered container seat inserts because they are inside container seats 12 of Deutschle, as is apparent from Figure 2a of Deutschle), each container seat insert (protrusion 15 of Deutschle) configured to be arranged in one of the container seats (the pockets of 70 of Broadbent as modified in view of Deutschle) of the container holder (70 of Broadbent as modified in view of Deutschle) (because Deutschle teaches in Figure 2a that each protrusion 15 is arranged in one container seat 12).
Regarding claim 9, Broadbent in view of Deutschle teaches that each container seat insert (protrusion 15 of Deutschle) has an insert thickness (the thickness of the part of 15 of Deutschle that contacts the container) configured to compensate a container manufacturing dimension tolerance (Paragraphs 0074-0079 and Table 2 of Deutschle).
Regarding claim 10, Broadbent in view of Deutschle teaches that the container seat inserts (protrusions 15 of Deutschle) have diverse insert thicknesses to compensate different container manufacturing dimension tolerances (Paragraphs 0074-0079 and Table 2 of Deutschle).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art reference, Broadbent (see 103 rejection of claim 1 above), taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole, fails to teach or render obvious that the set of compensation structures is embodied by the number of stopper members.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, they are indicated as being allowable solely because they depend from claim 5 which is allowable as stated above.
Regarding independent claim 11, the closest prior art references, Broadbent and Deutschle (see 103 rejections of claim 1-4 and 8-10 above), taken alone or in combination with themselves or the prior art as a whole, fails to disclose or render obvious the following limitations of claim 11 in combination with all the other limitations of claim 11:
“measuring a dimension of each one of the number of containers to determine a container manufacturing dimension tolerance for each of the number of containers;” and
“based on the determined container manufacturing dimension tolerances of the number of containers, selecting a compensation structure of the set of compensation structures per container of the number of containers suitable to compensate the determined container manufacturing dimension tolerance of the container”.
Regarding claims 12-18, they are allowed solely because they depend from claim 11 which is allowed as explained above.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The patent documents listed on the PTO-892 form teach limitations of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731