DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 4/22/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-4 remain pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – 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 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.
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:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
machine management device… is configured to acquire individual characteristic information of the package material, and manage the manufacturing machine on the basis of machine management information in which the acquired individual characteristic information is associated with the identification information read by the code readers in claims 1-4
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.
machine management device = defect information acquisition units 51a, 52a (para 0042) (see below for 112a/112b)
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 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.
Claims 1-4 are 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.
Claims 1-4 recite “machine management device comprising a receiver” which have the corresponding structure of defect information acquisition units 51a, 52a as described in para 0042. However, the receiver elements 51a, 52a themselves do not impart any structure for performing the claimed function of “acquire individual characteristic information of the package material, and manage the manufacturing machine on the basis of machine management information in which the acquired individual characteristic information is associated with the identification information read by the code readers”. At most, the receiver (defect information acquisition units 51a, 52a) can be used to acquire defect information (as described in para 0042). The defect information is different and distinct from individual characteristic information of the package material. More significantly, it is unclear how the receiver can manage the manufacturing machine on the basis of machine management information in which the acquired individual characteristic information is associated with the identification information read by the code readers. The specification and the drawings do not fully, clearly, and exactly describe any device (such as a computer, controller, processor, etc.) that reasonably conveys to, one skilled in the relevant art, how to perform the above claimed function using the receiver (defect information acquisition units 51a, 52a). In other words, the specification describes a receiver for performing function A (acquire defect information) but does not describe how function B (acquire individual characteristic information of the package material) and function C (manage the manufacturing machine on the basis of machine management information) can be performed using the receiver. As such the claims do not meet the 112 (a) written description requirement.
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 1-4 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.
Claims 1-4 recite “machine management device comprising a receiver” which have the corresponding structure of defect information acquisition units 51a, 52a as described in para 0042. However, the receiver elements 51a, 52a themselves do not impart any structure for performing the claimed function of “acquire individual characteristic information of the package material, and manage the manufacturing machine on the basis of machine management information in which the acquired individual characteristic information is associated with the identification information read by the code readers”. At most, the receiver (defect information acquisition units 51a, 52a) can be used to acquire defect information (as described in para 0042). The defect information is different and distinct from individual characteristic information of the package material. More significantly, it is unclear how the receiver can manage the manufacturing machine on the basis of machine management information in which the acquired individual characteristic information is associated with the identification information read by the code readers. The specification and the drawings do not fully, clearly, and exactly describe any device (such as a computer, controller, processor, etc.) that reasonably conveys to, one skilled in the relevant art, how to perform the above claimed function using the receiver (defect information acquisition units 51a, 52a). In other words, the specification describes a receiver for performing function A (acquire defect information) but does not describe how function B (acquire individual characteristic information of the package material) and function C (manage the manufacturing machine on the basis of machine management information) can be performed using the receiver. As such the claims do not meet the 112 (b) requirement and are indefinite.
EXAMINER REMARKS
Claims 1-4 are currently free of prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 4/22/2026 have been fully considered:
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1-4, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-4, Applicant states that the amendments avoid the asserted means plus function interpretation and therefore comply with 112a/112b requirements.
Examiner agrees that for the limitations of code readers and defect sensor 112F is not being invoked.
Examiner disagrees that the machine management device does not invoke 112F. Specifically, the structure of machine management device that is currently being claimed is a receiver. However, as described in para 0042 of the specification, the receiver includes defect information acquisition unit 51a, 52a. These units are used to acquire defect information. The specification/drawings do not link the receiver to performing the functions of acquire individual characteristic information of the package material, and manage the manufacturing machine on the basis of machine management information in which the acquired individual characteristic information is associated with the identification information read by the code readers”. As such these two distinct functions of the machine management device still invoke 112F and do not meet the associated 112a/112b requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOBEEN AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 272-0356. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am to 5 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on 571-270-1926. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANNA K KINSAUL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights