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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1, lines 2-3, “the transport device” should instead be recited as “the at least one transport device”.
-Claim 1, line 6, “the processing station” should instead be “the at least one processing station”.
-Claim 1, line 8, “the processing station” should instead be “the at least one processing station”
-Claim 1, line 10, “the support unit” should instead be “the at least one support unit”.
-Claim 2, line 2, “the transport unit” should instead be “the at least one transport unit”.
-Claim 2, line 3, “the support unit” should instead be “the at least one support unit”.
-Claim 2, line 4, “the transport unit” should instead be “the at least one transport unit”.
-Several instances of “the transport device”, “the processing station”, “the support unit”, and “the transport unit” are recited throughout the remainder of the claims including Claims 3, 4, 6, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20 and these recitations should instead be recited as “the at least one transport device”, “the at least one processing station”, “the at least one support unit”, and “the at least one transport unit”.
-Claim 10, lines 2-3, “a press (12) by which the processing force (F) is adapted to be applied” should instead be “a press (12) adapted to apply the processing force (F)”
-Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Regarding Claim 13, lines 3-4 recite “an electromagnetic stator arrangement (5) of the at least one transport unit (4)”. This limitation constitutes new matter as there is not sufficient support within the original specification for the transport unit (4) comprising a stator arrangement (5). Throughout the specification these structures oppose and magnetically interact with one another (i.e. see Figure 1) and are not comprised by one another.
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 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, and 16 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 4, the claim recites “the support unit (7) being configured with at least two coupled ones of the transport units (4) of a further one of the transport devices (3)”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to how the support unit is configured with transport units as the structures are separate from one another and further it is unclear as to how the support unit is configured with two coupled transport units as claimed. The specification does not provide further clarity to obtain a definite scope of the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 6, lines 3-5 recite “the supported transport unit (4) is arranged spaced apart from an electromagnetic stator arrangement (5) of the at least one transport unit (4) even in the case of a deactivated transport device (3).”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to how the transport unit can be spaced apart from a “stator arrangement” of itself. It would appear that Applicant is referring to a stator arrangement of the transport device but this is unclear. Further, it is unclear if “a deactivated transport device” is referring to the same or different “transport device” of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, “the stator arrangement” lacks antecedent basis within the claim and therefore renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites ‘The processing device (1) as claimed in the processing device (1)” is configured. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it would appear that this claim is dependent on another claim but such a claim is not recited and therefore the scope is indefinite.
Regarding Claim 12, line 3 recites “the docking transport unit” which lacks antecedent basis and therefore renders the claim indefinite.
Further regarding Claim 12, lines 2-3 recite “the abutment (8) is adapted to be activated by way of the docking transport unit”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what is meant by “activated” and the specification does not provide further details to provide a definite scope of the term.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites “the processing station (2) is configured to process at least one of the processing object (6) or a content of the processing object (6) without the action of force”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what “without the action of force” is intending to refer to as every process must require some form of force applied. Therefore it is unclear as to what the Applicant is intending to encompass with such a limitation.
Regarding Claim 16, lines 1-2 recite “the abutment (8) has an extent which is at least or at most 1.2 times longer than a contact region”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what range is attempting to be claimed as “at least” includes more than 1.2 times and “at most” includes all values lower than 1.2 times. Further, “at least” provides a range with no upper boundary and therefore such a range is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hauer (US PGPUB 2021/0331878).
Regarding Claim 1, Hauer discloses a processing device (Figure 1), comprising:
at least one processing station (1; Figure 1) and at least one transport device (transport plane 2 formed by planar motor 5; Para. 0050), the transport device (2) being configured to transport at least one magnetically levitated transport unit (4), which is configured to receive a processing object (3; Para. 0056), at least one of to or from the at least one processing station (1; Para. 0058-0060),
the processing station (1) being configured to apply a processing force (“mechanical force acting on the product”; Para. 0060) to the processing object (3; Paras. 0059-0061 disclose the processes applied to product 3), and
the processing station (1) has at least one support unit (structure 7 including 16, 16’), to which the at least one transport unit (4, 4’) is couplable (Para. 0061-0062), and the support unit (7, 16, 16’) forms an abutment (16, 16’) against the processing force (Para. 0062).
Regarding Claim 2, Hauer discloses the transport unit (4) is configured with a variable spacing (d) from an electromagnetic stator arrangement (5) at least in the support unit (7), such that a volume between the transport unit (4) and the stator arrangement (5) is increasable, the variable spacing (d) being configured energization of at least one of the electromagnetic stator arrangement (5) or a further stator arrangement (of 10; see Para. 0054 which outlines the magnet arrangement 10 can include an electromagnet; Para. 0062 outlines lowering the transport unit 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Hauer discloses the support unit (7) is arranged in a spatially fixed manner with respect to the processing station (1; Para. 0061 outlines support elements 16, 16’ fastened to base 8).
Regarding Claim 5, Hauer discloses the abutment (16, 16’) is configured complementarily with respect to a counter-abutment (bottom of 4) on the at least one transport unit (4; Para. 0062 outlines “the support elements 16, 16′ can form a form-fitting receptacle for the transport unit 4”), to establish a connection via magnetic forces (via magnet arrangement 10; Para. 0062).
Regarding Claim 6, Hauer discloses the abutment (16, 16’) is configured such that the supported transport unit (4) is arranged spaced apart from an electromagnetic stator arrangement (5) of the at least one transport unit (4) even in the case of a deactivated transport device (2; Para. 0062 outlines lowering the unit 4 onto the support elements and even if the electromagnets are deactivated, the transport unit will still rest on the support elements/abutment 16, 16’ spaced from the stator arrangement).
Regarding Claim 7, Hauer discloses the abutment (16, 16’) is arranged such that the at least one transport unit (4) makes contact with the abutment (16, 16’) within a stroke travel thereof (Para. 0061-0062 shown in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Hauer discloses the abutment (16, 16’) is arranged parallel and/or transversely with respect to the stator arrangement (6; note the abutment of 16, 16’ must extend in a direction at least one of parallel and transverse to the stator).
Regarding Claim 9, Hauer discloses the processing device (Figure 1) is configured to apply at least one of: a tensile force (“pulling”; Para. 0059), a compressive force (“clamping, pressing”), a torque, or a torsional force (i.e. “screwing”, “drilling”) as the processing force (Para. 0059).
Regarding Claim 10, Hauer discloses the processing station (1) has a press (drill press 15), by which the processing force is adapted to be applied (Para. 0059 discloses several other applications which would require a press).
Regarding Claim 11, Hauer discloses the processing force is greater than a holding force of the transport unit (4; see Para. 0060).
Regarding Claim 12, Hauer discloses the abutment (16, 16’) is adapted to be activated by way of the docking transport unit (4; note the abutment is engaged as the transport unit rests upon it and thereby exhibits/activates an opposing force as outlined in Para. 0062).
Regarding Claim 13, Hauer discloses the support unit (7, 16, 16’) is surrounded at least partially by an electromagnetic stator arrangement (10) of the at least one transport unit (4; see Para. 0054 which outlines the drive magnet arrangement 10 can comprise electromagnets which comprise a stator which when resting on the support unit 7, will “partially surround” it).
Regarding Claim 14, Hauer discloses the processing station (1) is configured to process at least one of the processing object (3) or a content of the processing object (3) without the action of force (Para. 0059 outlines the processing including filling which does not require a direct force; note 112 rejections).
Regarding Claim 15, Hauer discloses the processing object (3) comprises pharmaceutical units (3; i.e. “test tubes”) to be closed (Para. 0058).
Regarding Claim 16, Hauer discloses the abutment (16, 16’) has an extent which is at least or at most 1.2 times longer than a contact region between the abutment (16, 16’) and a counter-abutment (bottom of 4; as shown in Figure 1, the abutment is larger than a contact region between the bottom of 4 and the abutment of support elements 16, 16’; note “at least or at most 1.2 times longer” merely seems to require the abutment being longer than the contact region).
Regarding Claim 20, Hauer discloses at least one drive segment (drive magnet arrangement 10) of the supported transport unit (4) is positioned with respect to an outer wall of the support unit (outer walls of 16, 16’; note that the transport unit and its drive segment are always positioned with respect to an outer wall of the support unit 7 and when rested on the support unit, the drive arrangement is closest to the outer walls of 16, 16’).
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, 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauer (US PGPUB 2021/0331878), in view of Scheri (US PGPUB 2022/0035345).
Regarding Claim 4, Hauer discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose the support unit (7, 16, 16’) is arranged movably for movement by a drive of the transport device (3) wherein the support unit (7) being configured with at least two coupled ones of the transport units (4) of a further one of the transport devices (3).
Attention is brought to the teachings of Scheri which includes another container processing system (10A; Figure 1) which includes transport members (18) for carrying containers (12) to processing stations (22), including closing stations (Para. 0088), wherein the transport members (18) comprise magnets that interact with electromagnets of base elements/transport device (16) to move the containers (12; Para. 0078) and wherein the processing stations (22) can comprise their own movement/transport members moveable with respect to the base elements/transport device (16; Para. 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated the ability of the processing station (1) and therefore the support units (7) thereof of Hauer to be arranged movably for movement by a drive of the transport device (3) as taught by Scheri. By modifying Hauer in this manner, accurate alignment of the processing station and the transport units/processing object can be readily obtained in an efficient manner given the flexibility of both the processing station and the transport units being movable. In general, the versatility of the device is readily increased.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the support units of Hauer to be configured to couple to multiple coupled transport units in order to readily process multiple containers simultaneously.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauer (US PGPUB 2021/0331878), in view of Bogle (US PGPUB 2014/0069062).
Regarding Claim 17, Hauer discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose the processing station (1) has a load cell.
Attention is brought to the teachings of Bogle which includes another processing device (10; Figure 1) which includes a processing station (20) for closing a container (10), including a load cell (34) which determines when a desired force has been applied (Para. 0012, 0019, 0020).
As outlined by Hauer, the processing station (1) can include a closing station (mentioned in Para. 0058, 0059). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a load cell as taught by Bogle in the station of Hauer in order to monitor the processing force being applied and ensure the closure is firmly seated to produce a viable seal as taught by Bogle (Para. 0004, 0005, 0019).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauer (US PGPUB 2021/0331878).
Regarding Claims 18-19, Hauer discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose:
(1) the support unit (7, 16, 16’) is configured to block at least two degrees of freedom of the transport unit (4); and
(2) the abutment includes at least three contact surfaces with the counter-abutment.
Attention can be brought to other embodiments of Hauer including the embodiments of Figure 5-6 Hauer which include a support unit (7) comprising a frame (24; Figure 5) or elevations (25; Figure 6), forming an abutment with more than three contact surfaces (as shown; note each side of frame 24 comprises a contact surface) and a transport unit (4) comprising a complimentary counter abutment bottom surface (shown in Figures 5-6) configured to form fit with the shape of the support unit (7; Paras. 0070-0071) such that the support unit (7) is configured to block at least two degrees of freedom of the transport unit (4; Paras. 0070-0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the shapes of the support unit, including its abutment, as well as the transport unit, including its counter-abutment, of Hauer to comprise one of the configurations as taught by Figures 5-6 of Hauer as utilizing such form fitting arrangements ensures that the transport unit and therefore the processing object maintain position at the processing station including during processing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See “Notice of References Cited”.
Chianura (US PGPUB 2022/0244090) which includes another processing device (10; Figure 1) which includes a processing station (17), including a load cell (Para. 0090), and magnetic transport units (18; Figure 2) driven on a transport device (22; Para. 0093, 0096-0099)
Scheri (US PGPUB 2022/0035345) discloses a transport unit for containers configured to be coupled to a support unit of a processing station.
Eberhardt (US PGPUB 2017/0225814):discloses a movable support unit of a processing station (50).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA G KOTIS whose telephone number is (571)270-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6am-430pm.
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.
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights