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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1,2,6,4,15,16,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Muller ‘2801.
Muller teaches (Figure 1) a breaking hardness measurement system for a molded product, the system comprising:
a gripper 11,12 configured to grip a molded product 10 as a target with use of a jaw 12; and
a controller (computer 5 or tablet testing device 8) 5 configured to measure properties (several dimensions, Para 54) other than hardness of the molded product without breaking the molded product gripped by the gripper (hardness is measured “After” (line 15, Para 54), and subsequently control the gripper (“the breaking force is increased up to the point that the tablet (10) finally breaks” (lines 17-18, Para 54), which to increase a gripping force while the molded product is kept gripped by the gripper to break the molded product and measure the hardness of the molded product. The device operates, and to that extend provides steps.
As to claims 1,2,15,16, either the same element (5 or 8) serves as the controller that measures dimensions and controls the increase in force provided by the motor (providing for anticipation); or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to employ one element computer that will effectively compute measured the final values of 2 variables as one of ordinary skill is well aware of such capability.
As to claims 6,4,18, tablets are well known to be so constructed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Muller ‘2801 as applied against claim 1, and further in view of Bosse et al 2015029211.
As to claim 12, Bosse teaches (Para 427) that pharmaceutical tables are tested for weight, contamination and hardness, suggestive of testing for contamination in plants that manufacture such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 19,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Muller ‘2801 in view of Kraemer EP 3104157.
Comment above similarly apply here.
It is well known to employ a processor that uses instructions to control a device configured to functionally carry out one function after another. Kraemer teaches such to provide for testing of large quantities of tables.
"The subject of the present invention is a device for testing tablets. As part of the quality
control of tablets, it is necessary to check their properties such as length,
width, breaking strength and weight. The German Pharmacopoeia contains the relevant
legal provisions. This process is partially carried out in test stations, in which the tablets
or oblongs are inserted manually. For larger quantities to be tested, the test should be
carried out automatically if possible, so that a large number of tablets can be checked
within a short time. In addition, it must be ensured that tablets of different shapes and
sizes can be positioned correctly to allow error-free measurement."
As to claims 19,20, it would have been obvious to employ a processor that uses instructions to separately carry out the measuring and estimating in Muller because one of ordinary skill is well aware that employing instructions is an effect way to automate such a system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5,8,9-11,3,7,14,13,17 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.
Comment to Remarks
As to REMARKS, please consider:
As to 3rd paragraph of p. 17; Muller computer arrives at a final property value. The optical device senses, and provide signals. The argument is narrower than the rejected claims and thus is moot. The computer of Mueller is portion pf the measuring system. Claim 2 states that the controller is configured to measure.
As to last full paragraph of p. 17; the argument is narrower than the claim, and thus is moot in rejected claims. Claim 2 states that the controller is configured to measure.
As to the middle of page 18; claim 5 has no art rejection.
As to lines 4-5 from last of p. 18; “continuously gripped … measurements” is not in any claim.
As to second full paragraph of p. 19; it is necessary to distinguish claims from art of record. Not the other way around.
As to 1st paragraph of p. 21; Muller computer arrives at a final property value. The optical device senses, and provide signals. The argument is narrower than the rejected claims and thus is moot. The computer of Mueller is portion pf the measuring system. Claim 2 states that the controller is configured to measure.
As to 1st and 3rd paragraphs of p. 21; Muller computer arrives at a final property value. The optical device senses, and provide signals. The argument is narrower than the rejected claims and thus is moot. The computer of Mueller is portion pf the measuring system. Claim 2 states that the controller is configured to measure.
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 ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights