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 .
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: “a seal support member” in claims 1 and 10 (interpreted to be a support disc, see Para. 0051 of Applicant’s specification), “a seal member” in claims 1 and 10 (interpreted to be an induction seal, see Para. 0052 of Applicant’s specification), “a product supply member” in claim 1 (interpreted to be a product supply chute, see Para. 0055 of Applicant’s specification).
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, “the filling”, “the interior”, and “the bond” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 3, “the container body” lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, “to rotate the seal support member into and/or out of an interference fit position” is indefinite because it is unclear if the claim requires rotating the seal support member into and out of an interference fit position or rotating the seal support member into or out of an interference fit position. For examination purposes, “to rotate the seal support member into and/or out of an interference fit position” is being interpreted as “to rotate the seal support member into or out of an interference fit position”.
Regarding claim 4, “the interference fit” and “the rotation” lack antecedent basis. Additionally, “the seal assembly handler being configured engage and/or disengage the projections” is indefinite because it is unclear if the claim requires engaging and disengaging or engaging or disengaging. For examination purposes, “the seal assembly handler being configured engage and/or disengage the projections” is being interpreted to mean “the seal assembly handler being configured engage or disengage the projections”.
Regarding claim 5, “the surfaces” and “the internal periphery” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 6, “the surfaces” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, “the bond” lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, “to break the bond . . . and/or to create the seal” is indefinite because it is unclear if the claim requires breaking the bond and creating the seal or breaking the bond or creating the seal. For examination purposes, “to break the bond . . . and/or to create the seal” is being interpreted to mean “to break the bond . . . or to create the seal”.
Regarding claims 2, 7, and 9, claims 2, 7, and 9 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, “the steps”, “the interior”, and “the bond” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 11, “the removing” lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, “to disengage and/or engage” is indefinite because it is unclear if the claim requires disengaging and engaging or disengaging or engaging. For examination purposes, “to disengage and/or engage” is being interpreted as “to disengage or engage”.
Regarding claim 12, “the rotation” lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, “to disengage and/or engage” is indefinite because it is unclear if the claim requires disengaging and engaging or disengaging or engaging. For examination purposes, “to disengage and/or engage” is being interpreted as “to disengage or engage”.
Regarding claim 13, “the surfaces” and “the internal periphery” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14, “the surfaces” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 16, “said applying” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 17, “the bond” and “the separation” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 18, “the step” and “the bond” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 19, “the bond” and “the creation” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 20, “the step” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected because it depends from a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach, or fairly suggest an apparatus for filling a container with a product, the apparatus comprising: a filling chamber configured to receive at least a part of the container in an intermediate configuration where an aperture of the container for receiving the product is closed by a seal assembly comprising a seal support member and a seal member attached to the seal support member by means of a breakable bond to allow separation of the seal support member and seal member, the seal assembly being attached to the container via the seal support member; a seal assembly handler configured to attach to and move the seal support member relative to the container to separate the seal assembly from the container to open the container for the filling of the container with the product and to replace the seal assembly on the container after addition of the product into the container to close the aperture; and a product supply member configured to add the product to the interior of the container; the apparatus being further configured to apply energy to the seal assembly to break the bond to allow separation of the seal support member from the seal member, to remove the seal support member, and to create a seal between the seal member and the container so that the container adopts a filled configuration sealed by the seal alone without the seal support member present.
The prior art of record that comes closest to teaching these limitations is Edwards et al (US 2005/0199313). Edwards teaches an apparatus for filling a container with a product, the apparatus comprising: a filling chamber configured to receive at least a part of the container in an intermediate configuration where an aperture of the container for receiving the product is closed by a seal assembly comprising a seal support member and a seal member attached to the seal support member by means of a breakable bond to allow separation of the seal support member and seal member, the seal assembly being attached to the container via the seal support member; a seal assembly handler configured to attach to and move the seal support member relative to the container to separate the seal assembly from the container to open the container for the filling of the container with the product and to replace the seal assembly on the container after addition of the product into the container to close the aperture; and a product supply member configured to add the product to the interior of the container; the apparatus being further configured to apply energy to the seal assembly to break the bond to allow separation of the seal support member from the seal member, to remove the seal support member. However, Edwards fails to teach the apparatus creating a seal between the seal member and the container so that the container adopts a filled configuration sealed by the seal alone without the seal support member present. Additionally, it would require an unreasonable combination of references that would not suffice for a realistic case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach, or fairly suggest a method for filling a container with a product, comprising the steps of: placing at least a part of the container in a filling apparatus, wherein the container has an intermediate configuration in which an aperture for receiving the product is closed by a seal assembly comprising a seal support member and a seal member attached by a breakable bond to the seal support member such that the seal assembly is attached to the container via the seal support member; removing the seal assembly from the container by moving the seal support member relative to the container to open the aperture for filling with the product; adding the product to the interior of the container through the aperture; replacing the seal assembly to close the aperture of the container; breaking the bond to separate the seal support member from the seal member; removing the seal support member; and applying energy to the seal member to create a seal between the seal member and the container so that the container adopts a filled configuration sealed by the seal alone without the seal support member present.
The prior art of record that comes closest to teaching these limitations is Edwards et al (US 2005/0199313). Edwards teaches a method for filling a container with a product, comprising the steps of: placing at least a part of the container in a filling apparatus, wherein the container has an intermediate configuration in which an aperture for receiving the product is closed by a seal assembly comprising a seal support member and a seal member attached by a breakable bond to the seal support member such that the seal assembly is attached to the container via the seal support member; removing the seal assembly from the container by moving the seal support member relative to the container to open the aperture for filling with the product; adding the product to the interior of the container through the aperture; replacing the seal assembly to close the aperture of the container; breaking the bond to separate the seal support member from the seal member; removing the seal support member. However, Edwards fails to teach applying energy to the seal member to create a seal between the seal member and the container so that the container adopts a filled configuration sealed by the seal alone without the seal support member present. Additionally, it would require an unreasonable combination of references that would not suffice for a realistic case of obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (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 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.
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731