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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/09/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: there are many formalities in the Claims making it confusion what is actually being claimed (see the discussion in 112b below). Claims have been rewritten below for exemplary purposes only to overcome these claim objections. Also, claims are suggested to break down into small paragraphs for easily reading. Applicant should note however that these exemplary claims have not been written to overcome any rejections set forth below and rewritten below for exemplary purposes to overcome claim objections:
For claim 1:
--A cutting
at least one longitudinal blade, at least one first transverse blade and at least one second transverse blade,
wherein said at least one longitudinal blade, said at least one first transverse blade, and said at least one second transverse blade blades cut
said at least one first vertical or oblique cut and said at least one second vertical or oblique cut being angularly spaced apart from each other by an angular distance in a circumferential direction, with reference to a geometric axis of the capsule,
wherein said capsule performs a rotation greater than said angular distance around said geometric axis while rolling on said cutting device from when said at least one first transverse blade performs said at least one first vertical or oblique cut to when said at least one second transverse blade performs said at least one second vertical or oblique cut.—
For claim 2:
--The method a rotation axis of the capsule from when said at least one first transverse blade performs said at least one first vertical or oblique cut to when said at least one second transverse blade performs said second at least one vertical or oblique cut, said rotation being equal to a whole number of complete revolutions on itself, in particular one or two complete revolutions, plus or minus said angular distance.—
For claim 3:
-- The method at least one first vertical or oblique cut and said at least one second vertical or oblique cut are angularly spaced from each other by an angle not greater than half a turn in said circumferential direction, and wherein said capsule performs a rotation greater than half a turn around said geometric axis while rolling on said cutting device from when said at least one first transverse blade performs said at least one first vertical or oblique cut to when said at least one second transverse blade performs said at least one second vertical or oblique cut, in particular from when said at least one first transverse blade ends execution of said at least one first vertical or oblique cut to when said at least one second transversal blade starts execution of said at least one second vertical or oblique cut.--
For claim 4:
-- The method at least one first vertical or oblique cut and said at least one second vertical or oblique cut are angularly spaced from each other by an angle of less than one third of a round angle in said circumferential direction, and said capsule completes a rotation greater than two thirds of a round angle around said geometric axis while rolling on said cutting device from when said first at least one transverse blade performs said at least one first vertical or oblique cut to when said second at least one transverse blade performs said at least one second vertical or oblique cut, in particular from when at least one said first transverse blade ends the execution of said at least one first vertical or oblique cut to when said at least one second transverse blade starts the execution of said at least one second vertical or oblique cut.--
For claim 5:
-- The method said at least one first transverse blade performs said at least one first vertical or oblique cut to when said at least one second transverse blade performs said at least one second vertical or oblique cut.--
For claim 6:
-- The method a desired rotation around said geometric axis from when said at least one first transverse blade performs said at least one first vertical or oblique cut to when said at least one second transverse blade performs said at least one second vertical or oblique cut; said engagement device comprising, at least one fixed guide device and/or at least one rotating engagement member.--
For claim 7:
-- The method the opening device for a tethered-type capsule.--
For claim 8:
-- A cutting
-a feeder configured to feed at least one capsule along a feed path;
- a cutting device arranged along said feed path for cutting the capsule while the capsule rolls on said cutting device, said cutting device comprising at least one longitudinal blade for making at least one circumferential cut on the capsule, at least one first transverse blade for cutting at least one first vertical or oblique cut on the capsule, and at least one second transverse blade for cutting at least one second vertical or oblique cut,
said at least one first vertical or oblique cut and said at least one second vertical or oblique cut being spaced apart by a determined angular distance in a circumferential direction, with reference to a geometric axis of the capsule;
- an engagement device configured to engage the capsule and control the rolling of the capsule on said cutting device;
- a control unit configured to control said engagement device so as to cause the capsule to perform a rotation greater than said determined angular distance around its own geometric axis, from when said at least one first transverse blade cuts at least one first vertical cut or oblique to when said at least one second transverse blade cuts at least one second vertical or oblique cut, said at least one first transverse blade and said at least one second transverse blade being arranged along said feed path at a mutual distance such as to allow the capsule to roll without slipping on said cutting device from when said at least one first transverse blade cuts at least one first vertical or oblique cut to when said at least one second transverse blade cuts
For claim 9:
-- The cutting apparatusat least one first transverse blade cuts at least one first vertical or oblique cut to when said at least one second blade transversal cuts at least one second vertical or oblique cut, a rotation equal to a whole number of complete turns on itself around its own axis plus or minus said angular distance between said at least one first vertical or oblique cut and said at least one second vertical cut or oblique.--
For claim 10:
-- The cutting apparatusat least one first transverse blade and said at least one second transverse blade are arranged along said at least one circular portion at an angular distance from each other greater than five sexagesimal degrees, with reference to a geometric center of said circular portion.
For claim 11:
-- The cutting apparatus
For claim 12:
-- The cutting apparatus
For claim 13:
-- The cutting apparatus
For claim 14:
-- The cutting apparatus
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “an engagement device …at least one engagement member “ in claim 6, “an engagement device…” in claims 8-9, and “a plurality of engagement members…” in claim 14.
For an example, In claim 6, the “an engagement device …at least one engagement member” invokes 112F because (the engagement device has no structure) and the “at least one engagement member” also has no structures because first, "member" is a generic substitute for “means”; second, the "member" is modified by functional language including “causing said capsule to perform …” and later “rotating”; and third, the "member" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "rotating" preceding member describes the function, not the structure of the member.
Similarly analysis with the limitations of claim 8-9, 14.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-14 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.
The scope of claims 1-7 is unclear. The preamble of claim 1 is directed to a method. From this preamble, Applicant is seeking protection for a method by itself, however, there is no series of steps or procedures in a claim body. The claim body appears claiming physical structures of a cutting device. Therefore, it is unclear whether claims 1-7 are method claims or structural claims. For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting claims 1-7 as structural claims or structures of the cutting device.
Claim 1, line 4 “said blades” are unclear whether said blades includes the at least one longitudinal blade or the at least one first transverse blade or the at least one second transverse blade or a combination of few blades or all blades. For avoiding the confusion, see the amendment suggestion in claim objection above.
Claim 1, lines 9-12 “wherein said capsule performs a rotation greater than said angular distance around said geometric axis while rolling on said cutting device from when said first transverse blade performs said first vertical or oblique cut to when said second transverse blade performs said second vertical or oblique cut” is worded throughout making it confusion what is actually being claimed. First, is the capsule self-rotating since it states “wherein said capsule performs a rotation greater than said angular distance around said geometric axis”? and how can a rotation (an action of rotating around an axis or center of the cap) be compared to said angular distance around said geometric axis for “greater”? it appears that “said angular distance around said geometric axis” refers to the rotation axis of the capsule and it is confusing one capsule having the same rotation, but it is greater the angular distance around said geometric axis. Second, “while rolling on said cutting device” is unclear what is rolling on the cutting device. Thus, it is unclear. See Applicant’s specification, Paras. 13-19 for details of “rotation …greater…”. Claim 8, the last paragraph has the same issue “…capsule to perform a rotation greater than said determined angular distance around said geometric axis”.
Claim 2 states that “said capsule rotates on itself around its own axis” is unclear. Please note that this is a structural claim; is the capsule self-driving or rotating? Or what is it causing the capsule rotation on itself around its own axis? Also, “said rotation being equal to a whole number of complete revolutions on itself, in particular …” is unclear what the “whole number of complete resolutions” refers to and what the “itself” refers to.
The "in particular" is unclear whether the "in particular" limitation (2 or more complete resolutions…) is optional or required. Claims 3-4 have the same issue of “in particular…”
Claim 3, line 3 “half a turn in said circumferential direction” is unclear what the “half a turn in said circumferential direction” refers to.
Claim 4, line 4 “two thirds of a round angle” is unclear what the “two thirds of a round angle” refers to. Claim 5 has the same issue “a round angle”.
Claim 6, line 2 “it” is unclear whether the “it” refers to the capsule or the engagement device. Also, later line “at least one rotating engagement member” is unclear whether the at least one rotating engagement member refers to the engagement device or additional at least one rotating engagement member. See Applicant’s specification, both are the same as a spindle 3.
With regards to claims 1-7, there are a mass of issues and Examiner notes that there is no controller or processing unit that makes claims 1-7 are confusing how and what the capsule causes having different rotations relative with the angular distance between the oblique cuts.
Claim 8, the last paragraph “such as…” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 14 “a plurality of engagement members…the various engagement members” is unclear. First, “a plurality of engagement members” is unclear whether the plurality of engagement members refer to a plurality of engagement devices (see one is in claim 8) or an additional plurality of engagement members. See Applicant’s specification, both are the same as a spindle 3 or spindles. Second, “the various engagement members” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether they refer the engagement devices or new engagement members.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Davide (WO 2021/186403 A1 , art of record).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Davide shows a cutting “method” device (100) for cutting a container closing capsule to form an opening device, wherein the capsule rolls on the cutting device (Figure 1), wherein the cutting device comprises:
at least one longitudinal blade (12a-12c, 22a-22b Figures 3-4), at least one first transverse blade and at least one second transverse blade (tilted blades 31a, 31b, 31c, and 33, Figure 5),
wherein said at least one longitudinal blade, said at least one first transverse blade, and said at least one second transverse blade blades cut on the capsule, while the capsule rolls on said cutting device, respectively at least one circumferential cut, at least one first oblique cut and at least one second oblique cut (see the cuts of capsule, Figures 7A, 7B and 9A, 9B),
said at least one first oblique cut and said at least one second oblique cut being angularly spaced apart from each other by an angular distance in a circumferential direction (see Figure 7A, there is a bridge 75 and also, see the cut at the reference “76b” and the cut at the reference “76a”), with reference to a geometric axis of the capsule (R, Figure 1),
wherein said capsule is configured to performs a rotation greater than said angular distance around said geometric axis while rolling on said cutting device from when said at least one first transverse blade performs said at least one first oblique cut to when said at least one second transverse blade performs said at least one second oblique cut (as this is written, it is unclear what a rotation is. Is it one cycle? See Figure 1A, the capsule rotates travel from left to right to cut the at least one first oblique cut to said at least one second oblique cut and the travel rotation “left to right” distance is greater than the said angular distance around said geometric axis or a circumference distance of the capsule is greater than the distance between the oblique cuts).
Since claim 1 has many issues and it causes confusing, however, if one still argues that said capsule is configured to performs rotation NOT greater than said angular distance around said geometric axis while rolling on said cutting device … performs said at least one first oblique cut to … performs said at least one second oblique cut”;
the rotation of capsule relative to the blades (angular distance of cuts) is well-known, for an example, if a capsule needs a plurality of first and second cuts on the capsule (a plurality of cut patterns), the capsule needs to rotate or move greater (faster or more rotations) than the angular distance of cuts for repeating cuts and if the capsule needs one first and one second cuts on the capsule, the rotation of capsule can be slow relative to the blades.
Given the reasons above, almost any speed or rotation of the capsule would be considered obvious. This gives the manufacture a choice to consider how many cut patterns should be cut. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had the capsule of Davide to have rotation greater than said angular distance around said geometric axis while performing said at least one first oblique cut to at least one second oblique cut, in order to allow to the capsule to have many first and second cuts on capsules for easily breaking and removing the capsule from a container.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Davide shows that said capsule rotates on a rotation axis of the capsule (R, Figure 1A) from when said at least one first transverse blade (31a) performs said at least one first oblique cut (Figure 7A below) to when said at least one second transverse blade performs said second at least one oblique cut (Figure 7A below), said rotation of the capsule being equal one or two revolutions, plus or minus said angular distance (since this claim is considered as structural claim and as the claim is written, it is unclear what size and shape of the capsule is, therefore, the rotation of the capsule is equal one or two revolutions, plus or minus said angular distance that depends on the capsule size. See the “obvious” discussion in claim 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
282
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Davide shows that said at least one first oblique cut and said at least one second oblique cut are angularly spaced from each other by an angle not greater than half a turn in said circumferential direction (Figure 7A above), and wherein said capsule performs a rotation greater than half a turn around said geometric axis while the capsule rolls on said cutting device from said at least one first transverse blade performs said at least one first oblique cut to said at least one second transverse blade performs said at least one second oblique cut (see the “obvious” discussion in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Davide shows all of the limitations as stated above including the capsule being rotation greater than said angular distance around said geometric axis to provide many cut patterns on the capsule (see the discussion in claim 1),
said at least one first oblique cut and said at least one second oblique cut are angularly spaced from each other by an angle of less than one third of a round angle (of blades 31a to blades 31c, see a curved blades in Figure 5) in said circumferential direction, and said capsule completes a rotation greater than two thirds of a round angle around said geometric axis (as it is written, it is unclear what size of the capsule is, therefore, if a large capsule is on this cutting device, the rotation of the capsule greater than two thirds of a round angle around said geometric axis to provide many cut patterns on the capsule as discussed in claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Davide shows that said capsule performs a rotation greater than a round angle around said geometric axis while rolling from when said at least one first transverse blade performs said at least one first oblique cut to said at least one second transverse blade performs said at least one second oblique cut (see the discussion in claim 4 above, any rotation of the capsule greater than the round angle depends on how many cut patterns are on the capsule as discussed in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Davide shows that said capsule is engaged with an engagement device (a spindle, Para. 26) as the capsule rolls on said cutting device, said engagement device causing said capsule to perform a desired rotation around said geometric axis from said at least one first transverse blade performing said at least one first oblique cut to said at least one second transverse blade performing said at least one second oblique cut (Para. 26); said engagement device comprising at least one rotating engagement member (the spindle).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Davide shows that said at least one circumferential cut (horizontal cuts by the longitudinal blades), said at least one first oblique cut and said at least one second oblique cut are configured to form the opening device for a tethered-type capsule (Figures 7A. 7B).
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davide (WO 2021/186403 A1 , art of record) in view of Paul ( EP 3831557 A1 and Translation).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Davide shows a cutting apparatus for making an opening device for capsules (Figure 1 and see limitations as stated in claim 1 above), said cutting apparatus comprising:
-a feeder configured to feed at least one capsule along a feed path (as this is written, it is unclear what structures of the feeder are, therefore, Para. 26 “The rotary spindle brings the side wall 70 of the capsule 7 into contact with a cutting portion of the knife 100, 100’, moving the capsule 7 along a substantially circumference arc-like path in an advancement direction T” that means there is a structure that moves the spindle for feeding the capsule along the advancement direction T);
- a cutting device (100, Figure 1) arranged along said feed path (T) for cutting the capsule while the capsule rolls on said cutting device, said cutting device comprising at least one longitudinal blade (12a-12c, 22a-22b Figures 3-4) for making at least one circumferential cut on the capsule, at least one first transverse blade for making at least one first oblique cut on the capsule, and at least one second transverse blade for making at least one second oblique cut (tilted blades 31a, 31b, 31c, and 33, Figure 5),
said at least one first oblique cut and said at least one second oblique cut being spaced apart by a determined angular distance in a circumferential direction, with reference to a geometric axis of the capsule (see Figure 7A above);
- an engagement device (spindle, Para. 26) configured to engage the capsule and control the rolling of the capsule on said cutting device;
said at least one first transverse blade and said at least one second transverse blade being arranged along said feed path at a mutual distance such as to allow the capsule to roll without slipping on said cutting device from when said at least one first transverse blade cuts said at least one first oblique cut to said at least one second transverse blade cuts said second oblique cut (Para. 26 “the rotary spindle brings the side wall 70 of the capsule 7 into contact with a cutting portion of the knife 100, 100’, moving the capsule 7 along a substantially circumference arc-like path in an advancement direction T and rotating the capsule 7 on the rotation axis R, by rolling the capsule against the cutting portion of the knife 100, 100’. As known, possible slipping of the capsule with respect to the spindle or to the cutting portion are undesired”).
However, Davide implicitly discusses a control unit configured to control said engagement device so as to cause the capsule to perform a rotation greater than said determined angular distance around its own geometric axis.
Paul shows a controller (Page 9 of Translation, the 3rd Para. “a control device”) for controlling said engagement device (spindle or mandrel as discussed Page 9 of Translation, the 3rd Para).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had a controller to the cutting device of Davide to have a controller, as taught by Paul, in order to allow to control movement of a spindle or a mandrel along a cutting device.
With regards to “the capsule to perform a rotation greater than said determined angular distance around its own geometric axis”, see the discussion in claim 1 above; the rotation of capsule relative to the blades (angular distance of cuts) is well-known, for an example, if a capsule needs a plurality of first and second cuts on the capsule (a plurality of cut patterns), the capsule needs to rotate or move greater (fast) than the angular distance of cuts for repeating cuts and if the capsule needs one first and one second cuts on the capsule, the rotation of capsule can be slow relative to the blades.
Given the reasons above, almost any speed or rotation of the capsule would be considered obvious. This gives the manufacture a choice to consider how many cut patterns should be cut. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had the capsule of Davide to have rotation greater than said angular distance around said geometric axis while performing said at least one first oblique cut to at least one second oblique cut, in order to allow to the capsule to have many first and second cuts on capsules for easily breaking and removing the capsule from a container.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Davide shows that said control unit is configured to control said engagement device so that the capsule, while rolling, performs, from when said at least one first transverse blade cuts said at least one first oblique cut to when said at least one second blade transversal cuts said at least one second oblique cut, a rotation equal to a whole number of complete turns on itself around its own axis plus or minus said angular distance between said at least one first vertical or oblique cut and said at least one second vertical cut or oblique. See the discussion in claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Davide shows that said feed path comprises at least one circular portion (see the feed path T, Figure 1 of Davide) and wherein said at least one first transverse blade and said at least one second transverse blade are arranged along said at least one circular portion at an angular distance from each other greater than five sexagesimal degrees (see Figure 1 of Davide), with reference to a geometric center of said circular portion.
Since Applicant had not pointed out or demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation such as five sexagesimal degrees, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the angular distance being five sexagesimal degrees, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of cutting blades. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), in order to allow to have oblique cuts spaced to each other by five sexagesimal degrees.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Davide shows that said cutting device comprises at least two longitudinal blades (20, 20, Figures 3-4 of Davide) for performing at least two circumferential cuts on the capsule, said at least two longitudinal blades being arranged, respectively, on two parallel geometric planes and spaced apart from each other (Figure 2 of Davide), said at least two transversal blades being arranged in a space between said two geometric planes (Figure 2 of Davide).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Davide shows that said engagement device (spindle of Davide as discussion above), however, it is not clear whether it has at least one fixed guide device or not.
Paul shows a mandrel (5, Figure 9) having a guide device (8) fixed relative with the mandrel configured to engage with the capsule (9) rolling on said cutting device by meshing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had a controller to the spindle of Davide to have a guide device fixed relative with a mandrel (spindle), as taught by Paul, in order to allow to the spindle meshed with the capsule for driving the capsule.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Davide shows that said engagement device comprises at least one spindle (see the discussion above “spindle” or “mandrel”), which is operable in rotation on itself about an axis of rotation and which is configured to engage within a concave portion of the capsule (see Figures 10-11 of Paul).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Davide shows that said feeder, however, Davide does not discuss a carousel (Page 11 of Translation of Paul, the middle paragraph “a turntable”) carrying a plurality of engagement members (Page 11 of Translation of Paul, the middle paragraph “mandrels”) each of which is configured to engage with a respective capsule and is capable of rotating around a respective rotation axis, the rotation axes of the engagement members being parallel to each other and to a carousel axis around which said carousel is rotatable (Page 11 of Translation of Paul, the middle paragraph “several rotating drivers, in particular several support mandrels, on each of which a driver is arranged, are arranged along a circumference of the turntable” and see Figure 1 of Paul that means the mandrels are parallel to each other).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Maguire (US 2021/0094736 A1) teaches cutting vertical cuts on a capsule.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 12/12/2025