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 .
112(b) Rejection
Claims 2,4-13,16,20 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.
As to claim 2, the controller does not subsequently break the break the product – the gripper does. It’s not clear how the controller is configured relative to breaking the product.
As to claim 2, in what manner is the product related to (part of?) the system. Is the system configured to test the product? Is the system used to test the product? Is the system capable of testing the product? Does the system include the product? Claims employ the term “configured”, but the term is certainly not in claim 2. As such, claim 2’s system is not configured. What is Applicant’s intention?
As to claims 6,7,4,8, “the molded product as a target is obtained” is indefinite. Does the - - product comprise a molded powdery material - - ? If so, how does “use of a compression-molding machine” further narrow the product? Understand, the system is a combination of structural components, and it’s not clear how “use of a compression-molding machine” further structurally defines the product in any manner. (It’s almost as if the system includes a step; and apparatus claims do not include steps)
As to claim 10, “perfect” circles do not exist in this art. How is Applicant redefining such?
As to claim 12, the claim is an apparatus claim, but claim 12 seems to provide only a step. Apparatus claims are combinations of structural elements. What structure does claim 12 add to claim 1, if at all?
As to claim 13, the claim is an apparatus claim, but claim 13 seems to provide only a step. Apparatus claims are combinations of structural elements. Maybe, the gripper is configured to hold the product while measuring such1? What structure does claim 13 add to claim 1, if any at all?
As to claim 16, “the controller” was never initially introduced. Is claim 15 missing - - a controller - - ?
As to claim 18, is this claim thought to be adding the step of compressing by way of molding machine? The phrase “is obtained” (italics added) is hardly a verb that introduces a step. If a step, what is the step? In the alternative, is this claim limiting the molded product to a product by process limitation of “molding a powdery material with use of a compression-molding machine”? This claim is indefinite, as it’s not clear if it’s a step, or if it merely narrows that product.
As to claim 20, “the controller” was never initially introduced. Is claim 19 somehow missing - - a controller - - ?
As to claim 20, how is the “controller” (line 1) related to the last 6 lines? (There is not a meaningful transitional term between “controller” and those last 6 lines. Is the controller configured to carry out measuring or estimating?
As to claim 20, this claim calls for “a processor” and a “controller”; but the controller 0 seems to include the processor. The same structure is twice claimed.
As to claim 20, this claim calls for “a memory” and a “controller”; but the controller 0 seems to include the memory per Para 51. The same structure is twice claimed.
102(a1) Rejection
Claim(s) 1,6,9,11,4 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 et al 20190242801.
Muller teaches a pharmaceutical hardness measurement system for a molded product (oblong tablet), the system comprising: a gripper 11/12 configured to grip a molded product 10 as a target with use of a jaw 13; and a controllers 15 configured to measure properties (i.e., dimension of pill via 5) other than hardness of the molded product without breaking the molded product gripped by the gripper
“After that, the breaking jaw (119 is moving into direction of the arrow onto the opposing jaw (12) until the tablet (19) is jammed between the breaking (11) and the opposing jaw (12). The distance of travel passed by the breaking jaw (11) is determined with an optical device als distance measurement unit (2). By the residual distance to the opposing jaw (12) one dimension, e.g. in case of an oblong tablet (10) the width, may be determined.)” (Para 54)
“ The tablet testing device (8) is further equipped with a computer unit (15) for measurement.” (Para 56)
, and subsequently 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
“After jamming and measuring one or several dimensions of the tablet (10), the breaking force is increased up to the point that the tablet (10) finally breaks. The force applied therein is measured by a load cell (6)” (Para 54)
It is not clear that the same computer 15 measures both properties, as there is another computer 5.
As to claims 1,2,9,11, either the same computer 15 measures both variables, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to employ one computer as it is well known that one computer can effectively compute 2 measured variables.
As to claims 6,4, tablets are so constructed. Also, it would have been obvious to employ Muller’s systemin a factory that produces such product so as the reduce the number of bad products exiting a production line.
102(a1)/103 Rejections
Claim(s) 9,10,11 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 et al 20190242801.
As to claims 9,10,11, a tablet in the pharmaceutical industry will suggest different shapes, but circular or oblong. As such, one of ordinary sill would recognize that Muller’s device can be employed with such.
102(a1) Rejection
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by Muller et al 20190242801.
As to claim 15, Muller teaches a method comprising: measuring properties other than hardness of the molded product without breaking the molded product as a target gripped by a gripper configured to grip the molded product with use of a jaw (see rejection for claim 1 above); and subsequently applying a force to the molded product kept gripped by the gripper to break the molded product and measure the hardness of the molded product (see rejection for claim 1 above). The Reference teaches using the device as a method.
102(a1)/103 Rejection
Claim(s) 16,18,19,20 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 et al 20190242801.
As to claim 16, either the same computer 15 measures both variables, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to employ one computer as it is well known that one computer can effectively compute 2 measured variables.
As to claim 18, pharmaceutical tablets are known to be so constructed.
As o claims 19,20, it is well known to employ a processor that uses instructions to carry out a method to provide for an automated test, as suggestive by Kraemer.
103 Rejection
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Muller et al 20190242801 in view of Kraemer EP 3104157.
As to claim 18, pharmaceutical tablets are known to be so constructed.
Kraemer teaches automating a process to test pharmaceutical tablets to check large numbers in a short time.
“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 o claims 19,20, it is well known to employ a processor that uses instructions to carry out a method to provide for an automated test, as suggestive by Kraemer.
103 Rejection
Claim(s) 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Muller et al 20190242801 as applied against claim 1, and further in view of Kraemer EP 3104157.
As to claim 13, it would have been obvious to employ weighing in Muller’s system because Kraemer teaches weighing and determining dimensions, followed by hardness testing of tablets in the pharmaceutical industry to check tablets.
“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.”
103 Rejection
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Muller et al 20190242801 as applied against claim 1, and further in view of Bosse et al 20150290211.
As to claim 12, Bosse teaches (Para 427) that pharmaceutical tablets are tested for weight, contamination, hardness, suggestive of testing for contamination in plants that so manufacture such.
Prior Art cite, not applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gonzalez et al EP 3795796 measures energy to crush rocks by monitor current of a crushing motor.
Conclusion
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 5pm.
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
1 Note: That does not necessarily mean that the product is measured.