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 Office action is in response to communication filed on 6/30/2026. Currently claims 1-19 are pending in the application; and claims 15, and 18 withdrawn from consideration.
Election / Restriction
Applicant's election of Group I, claims 1-14, 16-17, and 19, without traverse, drawn to an apparatus/system in the reply filed on 6/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 6-8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102 as being anticipated over Korsch (DE 381 98 21 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Korsch”.
Regarding claim 1, Korsch teaches an apparatus (4) for inserting at least one object (9) into at least one die (3) of a tableting machine, in which the at least one die (3) is arranged on a pitch circle (2) in a rotor (equivalent to turret) driven to rotate about a first axis of rotation (Figure 1); wherein the device comprises a second rotor (10) rotatable about a second axis of rotation; wherein the second rotor comprises at least one object pick-up device (40), wherein the at least one object pick-up device comprises holding means (8) which enable pick-up, transport and delivery of the at least one object; wherein the movement path of the at least one objects can be controlled radially and tangentially relative to the rotational motion of the second rotor by means of the at least one object pick-up device (40), such that the movement path of the at least one object can mimic the movement path of the at least one die, at least over an angle of rotation range of the second rotor (Description, Column 4, lines 24-34 and 55-62; Figure 6).
Regarding claim 6, Korsch teaches in Figure 2, an apparatus, wherein the object holder comprises a gripper arm with a holding element, which is mounted radially in the second turret (para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 7, Korsch teaches in Figure 2, an apparatus, wherein the gripper arm is mechanically connected to a coupling element in such a way that a tangential and radial deflection of the coupling element in relation to a rotary movement of the second turret can be transmitted directly to the gripper arm (para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 8, Korsch teaches in Figures 2-3, an apparatus, wherein the second turret comprises guide cams, which are configured to guide the holding means, which is comprised in the object holder, in a height position (para. [0028-0029]).
Regarding claims 11, and 19, Korsch teaches in Figures 3-4, an apparatus, wherein a coupling member, a gripper arm and a mechanical connection are mounted in the second turret via spring element (para. [0025-0026]). Korsch also teaches in Fig. 6, the use of piston rod/cylinder 14, and 19 (equivalent to spring) to position the head part 40 in appropriate radial position (para. [0021-0022]).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 applies here. Korsch teaches in Figures 1-2, system comprising: (a) a tableting machine comprising at least one die which is arranged on a reference circle in a turret driven to rotate about a first axis of rotation, and (b) the apparatus for inserting at least one object into the at least one die of the tableting machine.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Korsch (DE 381 98 21 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Korsch teaches in Fig. 1, an apparatus for inserting at least one object into at least one die of a tableting machine, in which the at least one die is arranged on a pitch circle in a rotor driven to rotate about a first axis of rotation. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the configuration that the angular range of rotation of the second turret, in which the movement path of the at least one object can be controlled radially and tangentially with respect to the rotational movement of the second turret via the at least one object holder. The claimed minimum angular range of rotation of 10° is a matter of tool optimization performed during routine optimization.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 9-10, 14, 16-17 are objected to as being directly or indirectly dependent upon rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitation of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject
matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of references (of record) do not teach or fairly suggest the (by themselves or in combination) an apparatus, “wherein the second turret comprises a coupling element which is configured as follows, to initiate and/or ensure a rotary movement of the second turret via an active contact with the driving first turret; to mechanically force-control the movement path of the at least one object by means of the at least one object holder at least over an angular range of rotation of the second turret”.
Claims 3-5, 9-10, and 16-17 depend directly or indirectly on claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of references (of record) do not teach or fairly suggest the (by themselves or in combination) a system, wherein: “the movement path of the object intersects with the movement path of the die, wherein the movement path of the at least one object can be controlled radially and tangentially with respect to the rotational movement of the second turret, such that the movement path of the at least one object imitates the movement path of the at least one die at least over an angular range of rotation of the second turret, and the object holder is configured to release the at least one object into the die”.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner included a few prior arts which were not used in the rejection but are relevant to the disclosure.
US 2019/0099972 A1 (Klaer et al.): Klaer teaches a rotary press having height-staggered ram tips for carrying out at least two pressing operations, which preferably build on one another. Furthermore, the invention relates particularly to rotary presses and methods for producing multi-layer and coating-core tablets and for pressing tablets into cups during a rotation (abstract). Klaer teaches a rotary press for carrying out at least two pressing operations during a rotation of the rotary press, said rotary press including a rotor (28), a die table (18), a top ram guide (17) for receiving top rams (10), and a bottom ram guide (19) for receiving bottom rams (11), characterized in that the top rams (10) each comprise at least two top ram tips (12, 13), wherein a first top ram tip (12) is of a length which is by a length difference (LD1) shorter than that of a second top ram tip (13), and the bottom rams (11) each comprise at least two bottom ram tips (14, 15), wherein a first bottom ram tip (14) is of a length which is by a length difference (LD2) longer than that of a second bottom ram tip (15), the die table (18) comprises first die cavities (32) which are aligned with the first top and bottom ram tips (12, 14), and comprises second die cavities (33), which are aligned with the second top and bottom ram tips (13, 15), such that a first material to be pressed (34) can be pressed in the first die cavities (32) in a first pressing operation and a second material to be pressed (35) can be pressed in the second die cavities (33) in a second pressing operation during one rotation of the rotor of the rotary press (claim 1).
US 2003/0072999 A1 (Sowden et al.): Sowden teaches in Figs. 3, and 68-75, an apparatus for forming compressed dosage forms, comprising: a) a suction source; b) a die cavity having (i) a first port for placing said die cavity in flow communication with said suction source, whereby said suction source applies suction to said die cavity, and (ii) a second port for placing said die cavity in flow communication with a supply of powder, whereby said suction source assists said powder in flowing into said die cavity; (c) a filter disposed between said suction source and said second port, whereby suction is applied to said die cavity through said filter; and (d) a punch for compressing said powder in said die cavity so as to form said compressed dosage forms (claim 13). Sowden also teaches that the apparatus for forming compressed dosage forms from a powder, comprising a) a die table having a plurality of die cavities therein, said die cavities being arranged in multiple, concentric rows around the perimeter of said die table; b) punches aligned with and insertable into said die cavities for compressing said powder into compressed dosage forms in each of said die cavities; and c) rollers aligned with each of said concentric rows of die cavities for pressing said punches into said die cavities, each roller being sized such that the dwell time under compression of all of said punches is equal (claim 21).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Central Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights