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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant amendment received on 08/10/2026:
Amendments of Claims 1 to 4, 6 to 11 and 13 to 17 are acknowledged.
New Claims 19 and 20 are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities, the claim on the last line reads “rectifying the disturbance”. Since in the rest of the claim “disturbances” are disclosed, the Examiner considers there is a typo and it should read --disturbances--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 to 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
The Claim was amended to add the limitation:
“rectifying the disturbance by moving the manipulator along the planned path”
This limitation is unclear because it merely states a function or result without providing any indication about how the function is performed or the result is obtained. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the manipulator on a certain way.
Note that the claim is a method for handling disturbances using a manipulator. The disturbances per se are not defined, so it is not clear what a step of rectifying such disturbance entices or how the manipulator could rectify it by just moving along the planned path.
Regarding Claim 7:
The Claim was amended to add the limitation:
the device is configured to move the manipulator along the planned path and rectify the disturbance.
Same as discussed for Claim 1, the limitation is unclear because it merely states a function or result without providing any indication about how the function is performed or the result is obtained. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the manipulator on a certain way.
Note that the claim is a device for handling of disturbances by using a manipulator. Same as for Claim 1, the disturbances per se are not defined, so it is not clear what rectifying such disturbance entices or how the manipulator could rectify it by just moving along the planned path.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding Claims 1 and 7:
As written the claims disclose rectifying the not yet disclosed disturbances by moving the manipulator along the planned path, if the Applicant discloses the how that result is achieved then most likely all art of record would be overcome.
Claims 13 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 13 and 17:
Both claims include the limitation:
wherein at least one of the following is logged: over what period of time the manipulator was moved in the primary air supply or with what coverage the manipulator was moved in the primary air supply.
As indicated in the Specification, Paragraph 0016:
In the context of the application, primary air supply means an air supply from a source or a filter, in particular a high-efficiency particulate air filter (HEPA filter for short), in a unidirectional air flow that is at least substantially particle-free.
The use of such “primary air supply” is common in the air, one of many forms is the use of what is called “laminal flow curtains” or similar to prevent contamination inside open containers or closures, in particular Procyshyn (US 20140196411), Krauss (US 2012/0090268), Bechini (EP 3335844) and Py (US 2005/0217211), just to name a few, teach avoiding or minimizing disturbing the “primary air supply” and algorithms developed to do so; but no reference on the record teach logging in the memory of a computing unit configured to plan a path along which the manipulator is movable to handle the disturbance, over what period of time the manipulator was moved in the primary air supply or with what coverage the manipulator was moved in the primary air supply or there is a reasonable motivation to modify the reference in such way.
Claim 19 and 20 are allowed.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20:
Claim 19 includes the limitations:
wherein at least one of the following is electronically logged: over what period of time the manipulator was moved in the primary air supply and with what coverage the manipulator was moved in the primary air supply.
Claim 20 includes the limitations
wherein the computing unit is configured to transmit data regarding the path along which a movement of the manipulator is performed to a memory unit for logging in the memory unit the path along which a movement of the manipulator is performed, and wherein the data regarding the path comprises at least one of over what period of time the manipulator was moved in the primary air supply or with what coverage the manipulator was moved in the primary air supply.
As indicated in the Specification, Paragraph 0016:
In the context of the application, primary air supply means an air supply from a source or a filter, in particular a high-efficiency particulate air filter (HEPA filter for short), in a unidirectional air flow that is at least substantially particle-free.
The use of such “primary air supply” is common in the air, one of many forms is the use of what is called “laminal flow curtains” or similar to prevent contamination inside open containers or closures, in particular Procyshyn (US 20140196411), Krauss (US 2012/0090268), Bechini (EP 3335844) and Py (US 2005/0217211), just to name a few, teach avoiding or minimizing disturbing the “primary air supply” and algorithms developed to do so; but no reference on the record teach logging in the memory of a computing unit configured to plan a path along which the manipulator is movable to handle the disturbance, over what period of time the manipulator was moved in the primary air supply or with what coverage the manipulator was moved in the primary air supply or there is a reasonable motivation to modify the reference in such way.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/10/2026 regarding the rejection of Claims 1 to 18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1 and 7 were amended to include limitations that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The Claims in the current state imply that the disturbances would be rectified, but not how that result is obtained. Of course, if the Applicant discloses the how that result is achieved then most likely all art of record would be overcome.
New claims 19 and 20 include the limitations that were considered allowable of Claims 13 and 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular Py (US 20160068283) discloses using a robotic arm for filling containers inside an assembly device operating mounted within a barrier enclosure, with substantially sterile laminar flow barrier, Keshmiri (US 2017/0364076) that discloses modeling a route and displaying it on a monitor and Grifols (US 2004/0139698) or Bechini (EP 3335844) that disclose a method for sterile dosing of vials using a manipulator inside a laminar air-flow environment.
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 EDUARDO R FERRERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-7:00.
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at 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 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.
/EDUARDO R FERRERO/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
