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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the features below must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Specifically, Applicant’s Specification makes numerous references to “base plate 4a” and “vacuum pressure trough 5a”. However, these specific item numbers are not found in the Drawings. Instead, it appears that the Drawings only depict “base plate 4” and “vacuum pressure trough 5”. Examiner further notes that neither of the terms “base plate 4” nor “vacuum pressure trough 5” exist in the present Specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of informalities:
Regarding Claim 11, the claim contains two instances of the phrase “as well as”, which should be amended to “and”.
Regarding Claims 7, 10, 12-14, the claims contain one or more structural features that is “designed as” a further limiting item. In each instance, “designed as” should be replaced with “is”, “further comprises”, or similar language for clarity and conformance with standard U.S. practice.
Regarding Claim 19, the preamble of the claim is “19. (Currently Amended) The method for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, the method comprising…”. However, Claim 19 is the first method claim of the current claim set; it should read “A method”, instead of “The method”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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:
- “fixing device” and “clamping drive”, both introduced at Claim 4. Both terms are interpreted by Examiner as “any apparatus that can be used to align, stabilize, or otherwise hold a container”.
- “positioning device” and “centering device”, both introduced at Claim 8. Both terms are interpreted by Examiner as “any apparatus that can be used to align, stabilize, or otherwise hold a container”.
- “closure element”, introduced at Claim 9. The term is interpreted by Examiner as “any apparatus that can secure (close) a chamber or container.
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 5-6, 8, 10-12, and 14-22 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 6, the claim contains the phrase “wherein multiple ports of the device and multiple ports of the adapter are arranged on the same side of the device”. Here, it is unclear of “multiple ports” refers to the several ports identified in antecedent Claim 5, or if these are additional “ports”. The same rationale applies to the “multiple ports of the adapter…arranged on the same side of the device” of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim is indefinite for the following reasons:
- Claim 10 appears to contain two preambles. Specifically, the claim is “the device according to claim 1”, wherein Claim 1 contains the preamble “A device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, the device”. However, Claim 10 additionally contains what appears to be a second preamble: “The device… for pressure testing, evacuation, and filling of a non-vacuum-resistant or non-pressure-resistant assembly by means of vacuum pressure filling or vacuum volume filling.” It is unknown if this second phrase is an actual preamble, or a further limiting feature (if the latter, Applicant is advised that the phrase “for pressure testing, evacuation, and filling of a non-vacuum-resistant or non-pressure-resistant assembly by means of vacuum pressure filling or vacuum volume filling” is a statement of intended use, and given little patentable weight. See MPEP 2114.)
In the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner ignores this second phrase. However, correction is required.
Further regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 contains the following limitations:
“the chamber is configured as a vacuum chamber… the device comprises a vacuum chamber for accommodating the assembly to be filled and a filling tool for filling the assembly to be filled… the vacuum chamber of the device is releasably assembled from a base plate and a vacuum pressure trough.”
Examiner notes that antecedent Claim 1 establishes “the second housing component is coupled to the first housing component such that a chamber is formed for accommodating the assembly to be treated”.
It is unclear if Claim 10’s “the chamber is configured as a vacuum chamber” describes the same component as Claim 10’s “the device comprises a vacuum chamber for accommodating the assembly to be filled…” or Claim 1’s “a chamber is formed for accommodating the assembly to be treated”. Additionally, it is unclear if Claim 10’s “the vacuum chamber of the device is releasably assembled” refers to any of the previously cited “vacuum chambers”.
In the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets Claims 1 and 10 as only requiring a single “vacuum chamber”, comprised to first and second housing components. However, correction is required.
Further regarding Claim 10, the claim contains the limitation, “the device comprises… a filling tool for filling the assembly to be filled”.
Per Applicant’s Specification (see pg 16, last line) the “filling tool” consists of “of base plate 4a with filling adapter 2a and the other elements mounted on the base plate 4a” (Examiner notes that “other elements” are not identified).
However, antecedent Claim 1 also requires “a second housing component” (identified in the Specification as “a base plate” at least at pg 5, last paragraph) and “an adapter for…filling of the assembly”.
The above limitation of Claim 10 therefore renders the claim indefinite, as it is unknown if the “filling tool” of Claim 10 are the same components required in Claim 1, or other, different components.
In the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner treats the limitations of Claims 1 and 10 as referring to the same components.
Claims 5, 6, 8, and 19 each contain the phrase “in particular”. The phrase renders the claim(s) indefinite, as it is unclear if the “particular” features are the only features within the scope of the claimed apparatus or method.
Further regarding Claim 5, the claim contains the phrase, “the device includes a line port, in particular a vacuum port and an auxiliary gas port, and/or a first sensor port…”. As written, it is unclear if “a line port” refers to one or more of the vacuum/ auxiliary gas/ sensor ports, or if “a line port” is a separate “port” from these components.
Claims 5 and 20 each contain the word “preferably”. The word renders the claim(s) indefinite, as it is unclear if the “preferable” features are required in the claimed apparatus and/or method.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim contains the following verbiage:
“wherein the base plate includes on its upper side a structural unit which can be brought into operative connection with the vacuum chamber and for this purpose includes ports for evacuating the vacuum chamber and for supplying auxiliary gas into the vacuum chamber as well as a vacuum pressure sensor”
The usage of the word “for” in this verbiage renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear if the structure of “ports for evacuating the vacuum chamber and for supplying auxiliary gas into the vacuum chamber as well as a vacuum pressure sensor” are actually required, or are there such that the overall device can be operated in such a manner that the structural unit of the base plate can be “brought into operative connection with the vacuum chamber”.
Additionally, as currently written, it is unknown if “ports for evacuating the vacuum chamber and for supplying auxiliary gas into the vacuum chamber as well as a vacuum pressure sensor” applies to the base plate, the structural unit, or the vacuum chamber.
Examiner recognizes that the structure of ports (to include “a vacuum port and an auxiliary gas port”) is required per Claim 3, and the uncertainty of Claim 11 is the result of the idiomatic (possibly translated) language of the current claim set. Accordingly, Claim 11 is interpreted as requiring such ports. However, correction of Claim 11 to comply with standard U.S. convention is required.
Regarding Claims 12 and 15, Applicant claims “closure elements on the base plate are designed as pawls”, but does not provide any guidance on the structure of said “pawls” other then labeling the “closure element” as “the respective pressure p sub C1a or p sub C1b” (see pg 15, second paragraph).
Applicant appears to use the word “pawl” in a manner inconsistent with it’s common definition, which is “a pivoted curved bar or lever whose free end engages with the teeth of a cogwheel or ratchet so that the wheel or ratchet can only turn or move one way”, and/or “each of a set of short stout bars that engage with the whelps and prevent a capstan, windlass, or winch from recoiling”.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). As shown above, the term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
In the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets the requirement of a “pawl” as “any closure device used to close a vacuum chamber”
Regarding Claim 14, the claim requires “the centering devices on the base plate”; both limitations lack antecedent basis. Although “a centering device” is established at Claim 8 and “a base plate” at Claim 10, Claim 14 depends upon neither of these.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim requires “the locking pawls”, which lack antecedent basis. Examiner recognizes “pawls” established at Claim 12, but Claim 15 does not depend upon Claim 12. The claim also requires “the side walls” which also lack antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim requires “a batch-specific volume ballast”. Here, Applicant appears to use the word “ballast” in a manner inconsistent with its normally accepted definition (i.e. “heavy material, such as gravel, sand, iron, or lead, placed low in a vessel to improve its stability”). In Applicant’s disclosure, the purpose of the structure (item 13) described as “ballast” appears to be solely for reducing the volume of the chamber and/or “vacuum pressure trough”.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim contains the phrase “the batch-specific volume ballast is designed such that the free residual volume within the vacuum pressure trough is largely reduced”. The underlined portions of the phrase render the claim indefinite, for the following reasons:
- As explained in the rejection of Claim 17 above, Applicant appears to use the word “ballast” in a manner inconsistent with its normally accepted definition (i.e. “heavy material, such as gravel, sand, iron, or lead, placed low in a vessel to improve its stability”). In Applicant’s disclosure, the purpose of the structure (item 13) described as “ballast” appears to be solely for reducing the volume of the chamber and/or “vacuum pressure trough”.
- It appears that any “ballast” (e.g. “physical object”) placed in vacuum pressure trough (e.g., a “container”) would reduce the volume of said container, therefore it is unknown what specific “design” of an object Applicant considers as reading upon (or not reading upon) the claim.
- As written, it is unknown if reducing the volume of the container is merely the intended use of the structurally required “volume ballast” (and thereby what patentable weight, if any, the action of “reducing the volume” should be assigned.
- The relative term “largely reduced” is not defined by Applicant in the Specification, and one of ordinary skill in the art is not apprised as to what size of “ballast” would meet the claim by “largely reducing” the volume.
Further regarding Claim 19, the claim is indefinite for the following reasons:
- The claim contains the phrase, “providing a device with an adapter, in particular a device according to claim 1, for accommodating an assembly to be treated”. However, Claim 1 additionally claims the preamble, “A device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly”. It is unknown if “treating an assembly” of Claim 19 is the same as “pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly”, or if this is an additional process.
- The claim contains the phrase, “closing the device, such that the device forms a chamber which is fluid-tight with respect to the environment and in which the assembly is arranged”. As written, it is unknown if the assembly is “arranged” in the device, the chamber, or the environment. Correction/amendment is required.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is indefinite for the following reasons:
- The claim contains the method action “fluid-tight coupling of the adapter to an opening of the assembly before the assembly is filled at a defined positive pressure”. However, Claim 20 is dependent upon Claim 19, which requires an (optional) “filling the assembly with a fluid at a defined positive pressure or a defined volume over a predefined time, up to a predefined volume and/or a predefined pressure”. It is unknown if the “defined positive pressure” of Claim 20 is the same as the “defined positive pressure” of Claim 19, the “predefine pressure” of Claim 19, or a different pressure.
- The claim contains the phrase “a virtually constant pressure ratio is established between the pressure in the chamber and the pressure inside the assembly before the assembly is filled at a defined positive pressure”. However, Applicant does not define what constitutes the relative term “virtually”; one of ordinary skill in the art is not apprised as to what magnitude of pressure differential would or would not read upon the claim.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim is indefinite for the following reasons:
- The claim depends upon Claims 19 and 20, and therefore suffer the same deficiencies. Furthermore,
- The claim contains the phrase “after measuring the pressures in the chamber and in the assembly”. Here it is unknown if “the pressures” refer to either or the “defined positive pressures” of Claims 19 and 20 (Examiner further notes the previously cited indefiniteness between these two “defined positive pressures”), the “predefine pressure” of Claim 19, and/or the “defined first negative pressure”, “defined second negative pressure”, “virtually constant pressure”, “pressure in the chamber”, and/or “pressure in the chamber”, all established at Claim 20.
Correction is required.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim is indefinite for the following reasons:
- The claim contains the limitation “the fixing device”, which lacks antecedent basis. Examiner acknowledges “a fixing device” of Claim 4, but Claim 22 does not depend upon Claim 4.
- The claim contains the phrase, “gripping an assembly to be treated with the fixing device of the device from a storage location”. However, Claim 22 depends on Claim 19 and ultimately Claim 1, which additionally claims the preamble, “A device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly”. It is unknown if “treating an assembly” of Claim 19 is the same as “pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly”, or if this is an additional process.
- Additionally, it is unknown if “from a storage location” refers to “the device” or “the fixing device”.
Further regarding Claims 11, 12, and 14-18, the claims each contain the phrase “the vacuum pressure trough”, which lacks antecedent basis. Examiner notes that each of these claims depend upon Claim 1; “a vacuum trough” is established at Claim 10.
As shown above, the present application is replete with idiomatic errors that likely result from a literal translation into American English, and the restructuring of claim dependency when filing in the U.S. system. Although the Examiner has attempted to list all of the issues concerning the present application with regards to 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant is encouraged to thoroughly review the claims to identify and correct any further errors in order to bring the claims into compliance with U.S. practice.
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.
(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, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 19, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Emmer (US 6,220,310).
Regarding Claim 1, Emmer discloses a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, the device comprising:
- a first housing component (receptacle 23B) and a second housing component (Lid 23H, see Figs 7-10, items introduced at Col 7, line 48),
- the second housing component is coupled to the first housing component such that a chamber (9) is formed for accommodating the assembly to be treated (Emmer discloses 23B and 23H as forming an airtight "enclosure"; see at least Col 2, lines 40-45 and Col 7, lines 30-35),
- the device includes an adapter for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of the assembly (Emmer discloses several types of "filling heads" that read upon the claim. See Items 11, 30, and 300-305, all designated as "filling head(s)". Specifically, filling head 30 is shown at Figs 8-10).
PNG
media_image1.png
1152
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Emmer discloses a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein the adapter (30) includes an outlet piece (Fig 10, Examiner's annotations), and the outlet piece (Fig 10, Examiner's annotations) is aligned and configured such that, during a pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling process, the outlet piece can be coupled in a fluid-tight manner to an opening of an assembly to be treated (an "airtight" connection for vacuum and filling purposes is disclosed at Col 2, lines 40-45 and Col 7, lines 30-35).
Regarding Claim 5, Emmer discloses a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein the device includes a line port, in particular a vacuum port and an auxiliary gas port, and/or a first sensor port, the ports preferably are integrated in a structural unit (Examiner interprets this limitation as requiring at least one of "a vacuum port and an auxiliary gas port, and/or a first sensor port". Emmer teaches gasification conduit 34, overpressure conduit 36, and vacuum conduit 38. See Figs 8-10 and at least Col 8, lines 44-57), and the adapter (30) includes a filling port (35), a gas supply port, and/or a second sensor port (Col 8, lines 44-57).
Regarding Claim 6, Emmer discloses a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein multiple ports of the device and multiple ports of the adapter are arranged on the same side of the device, in particular on one side of the second housing component (this arrangement is shown at Figs 8-10).
Regarding Claim 8, Emmer discloses a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein the second housing component (23H) is aligned with the first housing component (23B) by a positioning device (taught at Figs 5-6), in particular by a centering device, such that the outlet piece (Fig 10, Examiner's annotations) of the adapter can be connected in a sealed manner to the opening of the assembly to be treated for a pressure test, evacuation, and/or filling operation (first and second housing components are aligned via cam 28, guide 290 and rods 250-255, as taught at Figs 5-6 and Col 7, lines 5-34).
Regarding Claim 10, Emmer discloses a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein (Examiner ignores the phrase "for pressure testing, evacuation, and filling of a non-vacuum-resistant or non-pressure-resistant assembly by means of vacuum pressure filling or vacuum volume filling"; see the rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above),
- the chamber (airtight enclosure 9, comprised of lid 23H and receptacle 23B) is configured as a vacuum chamber (the chamber is disclosed as being "airtight". See the rejection of Claim 1 above, and at least Claim 2 of Emmer),
- the device comprises a vacuum chamber (9) for accommodating the assembly (container 22/220) to be filled and a filling tool (see the rejection of this limitation under 35 USC 112(b) and Examiner's rationale for the "second housing component and adapter above in the rejection of Claim 1) for filling the assembly to be filled, and
- the second housing component (lid 23H) is configured as a base plate and the first housing component (receptacle 23B) is designed as a vacuum pressure trough (shown at least at annotated Fig 10, see also Examiner's rejection of Claim 1 above),
- the vacuum chamber of the device is releasably assembled from a base plate and a vacuum pressure trough (Emmer clearly shows lid 23H being "releasably assembled" from receptacle 23B).
Regarding Claim 19, Emmer discloses the (a) method for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, the method comprising:
- providing a device with an adapter (at least filling head 30), in particular a device according to claim 1, for accommodating an assembly (container 22/220) to be treated (see the rejection of Claim 1 above);
- inserting the assembly (22/220) to be treated into the device;
- closing the device, such that the device forms a chamber (9) which is fluid-tight with respect to the environment and in which the assembly is arranged (Emmer discloses 23B and 23H as forming an airtight "enclosure"; see at least Col 2, lines 40-45 and Col 7, lines 30-35); and
- filling the assembly (22/220) with a fluid at a defined positive pressure or a defined volume over a predefined time, up to a predefined volume and/or a predefined pressure (the normal operation of the apparatus as disclosed in the rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 20, Emmer discloses a method for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, further including:
- fluid-tight coupling of the adapter to an opening of the assembly before the assembly is filled at a defined positive pressure (an "airtight" connection for vacuum and filling purposes is disclosed at Col 2, lines 40-45 and Col 7, lines 30-35);
- pressurizing the chamber at a defined first negative pressure and the assembly at a defined second negative pressure, such that a virtually constant pressure ratio is established between the pressure in the chamber and the pressure in the chamber before the assembly is filled at a defined positive pressure (staggered vacuum "depression" of first the chamber then the container is disclosed at Col 5, lines15-34);
- preferably measuring the pressures present in the chamber and in the assembly before filling the assembly at a defined positive pressure (the method of Emmer is drawn to "filling of a container, such as a bottle, with gaseous liquid classically consists of a phase of creating overpressure in the interior of the bottle with a gas, typically carbon dioxide, followed by a phase of filling with liquid, and a phase of depressurization to remove excess gas, while maintaining a certain gas pressure inside"; see Col 1, lines 30-35. Although Emmer does not specifically detail the measurement of pressure, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that conducting pressure measurements is inherent to this process); and
- subsequent filling of the chamber with an auxiliary gas at a defined positive pressure depending on the pressure specified or measured in the assembly, such that there is a predefined positive pressure in the assembly relative to the chamber (see at least Col 1, lines 30-35),
- wherein, after completion of the predefined filling of the assembly, the auxiliary gas of the chamber is drained and the pressure of the chamber is set to ambient pressure (see at least Col 1, lines 30-35, wherein "a phase of depressurization to remove excess gas" is additionally taught).
Regarding Claim 22, Emmer discloses a method for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, further including:
- providing a first shaped piece (clamps 330-335);
- inserting the first shaped piece (330-335) into the device, wherein the first shaped piece is aligned with a shaped piece receptacle of the device (Per Col 7, lines 55-64, the clamps "place the lip of the containers against the filling head"…"in a way that is generally known");
- gripping an assembly to be treated with the fixing device of the device from a storage location (Col 7, lines 55-64. Examiner broadly interprets the limitation, recognizing that the "assembly" would come from a "storage location" prior to being filled by the disclosed invention); and
- inserting the gripped assembly into the device, such that the assembly is aligned for fluid-tight coupling with the adapter with the aid of the first shaped piece (Col 7, lines 55-64).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emmer, in view of Bellato (US 2,984,057).
Regarding Claim 3, Emmer discloses a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein
- the device includes a first shaped piece (clamps 330-335), with the aid of which an assembly to be treated can be aligned relative to the adapter (Per Col 7, lines 55-64, the clamps "place the lip of the containers against the filling head"…"in a way that is generally known"), and
- the first shaped piece (330-335) is adapted to the dimensions and/or the shape of the assembly to be treated such that the outlet piece (Fig 10, Examiner's annotations) can be coupled in a fluid-tight manner to the opening during a pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling process (Col 7, lines 55-64).
Further regarding Claim 3, Emmer teaches the claimed device, but is silent on said device includ(ing) a shaped piece receptacle. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this limitation as simply stabilizing the container to be filled, and would have obvious motivation to do so. Bellato, for example, teaches a shaped piece receptacle (Fig 3 teaches "vertically displaceable platform 38 for the support of the drum during the filling operation", described in full at Col 3, lines 15-36).
PNG
media_image2.png
780
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1058
828
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Emmer and Bellato each teach filling a container within a vacuum chamber. Bellato additionally teaches supporting the container, which has obvious advantages for overall apparatus stability and to ensure the container stays upright. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the support structure (e.g. “a shaped piece receptacle”) as taught by Bellato to the invention of Emmer, in order to gain the advantage of stability and an upright container.
Regarding Claim 4, Emmer teaches the claimed device, but is silent on the device include(ing) a fixing device with a clamping drive for fixing the position of the assembly, and the clamping drive is equipped with replaceable second and third shaped pieces for fixing the position of the assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these limitations as simply further stabilizing the container to be filled, and would have obvious motivation to add these items.
Bellato, for example, teaches the device include(ing) a fixing device (rollers 48) with a clamping drive (springs 52) for fixing the position of the assembly, and the clamping drive is equipped with replaceable second (arms 49) and third (standard 51) shaped pieces for fixing the position of the assembly (this drum centering mechanism is shown at Fig 1 and taught at Col 3, lines 48-60).
Emmer and Bellato each teach filling a container within a vacuum chamber. Bellato additionally teaches supporting the container, which has obvious advantages for overall apparatus stability and to ensure the container stays upright. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the support structure (e.g. “a shaped piece receptacle”) as taught by Bellato to the invention of Emmer, in order to gain the advantage of stability and an upright container.
Claims 7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emmer, in view of Stuart (US 3,612,344).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17-18, the claims are drawn to a “volume ballast”, which per Applicant’s Specification, “serves as a displacement body to be able to set the defined pressure in the chamber 15 more quickly”. However, Applicant does not provide any physical examples of an appropriate “ballast”, and it appears from the disclosure that adding a “displacement body” within a vacuum chamber would have the same predictable result as simply using a smaller vacuum chamber.
Regardless, Stuart teaches a “volume ballast” in the form of cells (see at least Claim 1), wherein Stuart teaches "members comprising enclosed cells each having a chamber therein and being arranged to be removably disposed therein said chamber of said housing to reduce the volume within said chamber of said housing which would be subject to evacuation in having a vacuum drawn thereon".
Therefore, Stuart teaches the following:
Regarding Claim 7, a device that includes:
- a volume ballast (see Claim 1, wherein Stuart teaches "members comprising enclosed cells each having a chamber therein and being arranged to be removably disposed therein said chamber of said housing to reduce the volume within said chamber of said housing which would be subject to evacuation in having a vacuum drawn thereon"),
- the volume ballast is replaceable and is designed and/or selected depending on the assembly to be treated (the cells of Stuart are explicitly taught as being "removable". Examiner additionally broadly interprets the term "replaceable", since mechanical components are generally known to be "replaceable"), and
- the volume ballast (cells) is arranged within the chamber such that a free residual volume is reduced (Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 17, a batch-specific volume ballast can be arranged on the upper side of the bottom surface of the vacuum pressure trough (see Claim 1, wherein Stuart teaches "members comprising enclosed cells each having a chamber therein and being arranged to be removably disposed therein said chamber of said housing to reduce the volume within said chamber of said housing which would be subject to evacuation in having a vacuum drawn thereon").
Regarding Claim 18, the batch-specific volume ballast is designed such that the free residual volume within the vacuum pressure trough is largely reduced (see Claim 1, wherein Stuart teaches "members comprising enclosed cells each having a chamber therein and being arranged to be removably disposed therein said chamber of said housing to reduce the volume within said chamber of said housing which would be subject to evacuation in having a vacuum drawn thereon").
Emmer and Stuart each teach filling a container within a vacuum chamber. Stuart additionally teaches reducing the unused volume of said vacuum chamber in order to lessen the amount of operational time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fill the unused portion of the vacuum chamber as disclosed by Emmer with the cells of Stuart in order to lower operation time.
Claims 9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emmer, in view of Spohn (US 2008/0213476).
Regarding Claims 9 and 13-14, Emmer teaches the claimed invention, to include an enclosure (9) comprising of a first housing component (Receptacle 23B) and a second housing component configured as a base plate (lid 23H). Emmer does not go into exhaustive detail on the housing components, and is therefore silent on the limitations of Applicant’s Claims 9 and 13-14 which are drawn to “closure elements”, seals, and “locking pins”. Emmer, however, does teach an airtight seal of enclosure (9).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide locking, sealing, and/or centering mechanisms in order to achieve the airtight seal of Emmer’s enclosure 9. Spohn et al. teaches these items, to include:
Regarding Claim 9, Spohn et al. teaches a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein
- the first housing component (Fig 9 and paras 115-121, top wall member 20) and/or the second housing component (sidewall member 22) include a closure element (fastening means 28),
- the closure element (28) releasably connects the first housing component to the second housing component,
- a seal (metal seal 10) is provided in the coupling area of the housing components on the first housing component and/or on the second housing component (see at least Figs 1, 5, and 9),
- which seal is at least partially compressed by the closure element between the two housing components (per para 67 "hardened opposing flat surfaces 30 of said top wall member 20 and said protuberance 24 have a hardness greater than the hardness of said metal seal 10"; compression of seal 10 is shown at Fig 5 and additionally described at para 79).
PNG
media_image4.png
1068
902
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Spohn et al. teaches a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein the seal (metal seal 10) on the base plate is designed with two round seals running parallel to one another, each of which being arranged in a groove on the underside of the base plate (see at least Figs 1, 5, and 9).
Regarding Claim 14, Spohn et al. teaches a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein the centering devices on the base plate are designed as locking pins (fasteners 28) and have a contour which is congruent with the contour of an opening on the associated section of the vacuum pressure trough (see Fig 9).
Emmers and Spohn et al. each teach the filling of a container within a vacuum chamber. Spohn et al. teaches routine components necessary to achieve an airtight seal of said vacuum chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the routine components of centering devices/locking pins and a seal, as taught by the Spohn reference, to the enclosure of Emmer, in order to achieve the airtightness disclosed by Emmer.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emmer, in view of Lehmann (US 5,957,338).
Regarding Claim 12, Emmer teaches the claimed invention, to include an enclosure (9) comprising of a first housing component (Receptacle 23B) and a second housing component configured as a base plate (lid 23H). Emmer does not go into exhaustive detail on the housing components, and is therefore silent on the limitations of Applicant’s Claim 12, wherein the closure elements on the base plate are designed as pawls and have a contour that is congruent with the contour on the associated section of the vacuum pressure trough. Emmer, however, does teach an airtight seal of enclosure (9).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide locking, sealing, and/or centering mechanisms in order to achieve the airtight seal of Emmer’s enclosure 9. Lehmann, for example, teaches closure elements (Fig 3, toggle clamps 20) on the base plate are designed as pawls and have a contour that is congruent with the contour on the associated section of the vacuum pressure trough (see Fig 3).
PNG
media_image5.png
982
654
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Should Applicant argue that the toggle clamps 20 of the Lehmann reference is not a “pawl”, Examiner asserts that the toggle clamps 20 of Lehmann perform the same function as the “closure elements” of Applicant, and are therefore suitable equivalents. Please see MPEP 2183.
Emmer and Lehmann each teach the filling of a container within a vacuum chamber. Lehmann teaches routine components necessary to achieve an airtight seal of said vacuum chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the routine components of centering devices/locking pins (such as a pawl) as taught by Lehmann to the enclosure of Emmer, in order to achieve the airtightness disclosed by Emmer.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emmer, in view of Pacetti (US 2012/0216912).
Regarding Claim 21, Emmer teaches the claimed invention, to include a vacuum chamber in the form of an enclosure (9). Emmer additionally teaches manipulating the pressure within said chamber to fill a container. However, Emmer does not provide exhaustive details of the mechanisms used to manipulate said pressure, and therefore is silent on the features of Applicant’s Claim 21, to include a method, wherein, after measuring the pressures, the method further includes: changing the set pressure in the chamber and/or the assembly; re-measuring the set pressures in the chamber and/or the assembly; and comparing the measured pressures of the chamber and/or the assembly before and after the pressure change.
However, Examiner asserts that this method is both known and necessary in the practical operation of any vacuum chamber, as one must know when a desired pressure is achieved, and usually does so through iterative measurements.
For example, Pacetti teaches a method for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein (see at least Claim 10, which teaches "a pressure sensor configured to detect pressure inside the vacuum chamber; and a controller in communication with the pressure sensor, the controller configured to activate the pump based at least on input from the pressure sensor"), after measuring the pressures, the method further includes:
- changing the set pressure in the chamber and/or the assembly (via the pump of Claim 10);
- re-measuring the set pressures in the chamber and/or the assembly (Claim 10 describes an iterative process via the controller and pressure sensor); and
- comparing the measured pressures of the chamber and/or the assembly before and after the pressure change (via the claimed controller).
Emmer and Pacetti each teach the filling of a container within a vacuum chamber. Pacetti teaches routine components necessary to achieve a desired pressure within said vacuum chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the routine components of a pressure sensor and related controller as taught by Pacetti to the enclosure of Emmer, in order to achieve the desired pressure within said vacuum chamber.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emmer, in view of Pacetti, Spohn, and Chetaille (US 6,736,172).
Regarding Claim 11, Emmer discloses a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein the base plate includes on its upper side a structural unit (Fig 10, Examiner's annotations) which can be brought into operative connection with the vacuum chamber and for this purpose includes ports for evacuating the vacuum chamber and for supplying auxiliary gas into the vacuum chamber.
The phrase “or this purpose includes ports for evacuating the vacuum chamber and for supplying auxiliary gas into the vacuum chamber” is a statement of intended use, and given little patentable weight. See MPEP 2114. Regardless, the Emmer reference teaches these features.
Emmer additionally teaches an opening formed in the base plate in which a filling adapter is supported (Fig 10 shows an opening around adapter 30).
Further regarding Claim 11, Emmer teaches the claimed invention, to include a vacuum chamber in the form of an enclosure (9). Emmer additionally teaches manipulating the pressure within said chamber to fill a container. However, Emmer does not provide exhaustive details of the mechanisms used to manipulate said pressure, and therefore is silent on a vacuum pressure sensor as claimed by Applicant at Claim 11.
However, Examiner asserts that pressure sensors are both known and necessary in the practical operation of any vacuum chamber, as one must know when a desired pressure is achieved, and usually does so through iterative measurements utilizing such a sensor.
For example, Pacetti teaches "a pressure sensor 223 inside the vacuum chamber 212 is configured to detect pressure inside the vacuum chamber" at para 149).
Emmer and Pacetti each teach the filling of a container within a vacuum chamber. Pacetti teaches routine components necessary to achieve a desired pressure within said vacuum chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the routine components of a pressure sensor as taught by Pacetti to the enclosure of Emmer, in order to achieve the desired pressure within said vacuum chamber.
Further regarding Claim 11, Emmer teaches the claimed invention, to include an enclosure (9) comprising of a first housing component (receptacle 23B) configured as a pressure trough, and a second housing component configured as a base plate (lid 23H). Emmer does not go into exhaustive detail on the housing components, and is therefore silent on the limitations of Applicant’s Claim 11, wherein the base plate includes on its end- face ends at least two closure elements arranged opposite one another for an operative connection with the vacuum pressure trough, and the base plate includes on its underside at least one seal and a centering device for an operative connection with the vacuum pressure trough.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide locking, sealing, and/or centering mechanisms in order to achieve the airtight seal of Emmer’s enclosure 9. Spohn et al. teaches a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein the base plate includes on its end- face ends at least two closure elements (fastening means 28) arranged opposite one another for an operative connection with the vacuum pressure trough, and wherein the base plate includes on its underside at least one seal (metal seal 10) and a centering device (fastening means 28, which accomplishes both "closing" and "centering" as claimed) for an operative connection with the vacuum pressure trough.
Emmer and Spohn et al. each teach the filling of a container within a vacuum chamber. Spohn et al. teaches routine components necessary to achieve an airtight seal of said vacuum chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the routine components of centering devices/locking pins and a seal, as taught by the Spohn reference, to the enclosure (to include the base plate) of Emmer, in order to achieve the airtightness disclosed by Emmer.
Further regarding Claim 11, Emmer teaches the claimed invention, to include the alignment of a assembly (e.g. “container”) with an adapter (e.g. “filling head” 30). Emmer does not provide exhaustive details on how the two components are aligned, and is therefore silent on “a fixing device with a clamping drive for fixing the position of the assembly to be filled”, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 11.
Chetaille et al., however, teaches a fixing device (fork 20) with a clamping drive (rod 24) for fixing the position of the assembly (container 18) to be filled (see at least Figs 1 and 2, wherein a "base plate" comprising upper frame 12 and filling head 15 uses clamping device 24 and fixing device 20 to align assembly 18 with fill nozzle 16. Also see text at Col 3, line 43- Col 4, line 5).
PNG
media_image6.png
1220
564
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Emmer and Chetaille references each teach filling a container within a vacuum chamber. The Chetaille reference provides additional guidance for further securing said container, advantageous for ensuring safe filling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the disclosure of Emmer, and add the additional stabilizing components of a fixing device related clamping device as taught by Chetaille et al., in order to gain the advantage of additional stabilization of the container.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emmer, in view of Carter (US 2,815,621), and in further views of Lehmann and Spohn.
Regarding Claim 15, Emmer teaches the claimed invention, to include an enclosure (9) comprising of a first housing component (receptacle 23B) configured as a vacuum pressure trough, and a second housing component configured as a base plate (lid 23H). Emmer additionally teaches said vacuum pressure trough includes a U-shaped cross-section (see at least Figs 4-6).
Emmer does not go into exhaustive detail on the housing components, and is therefore silent on a flange-like circumferential projection is formed on the upper end section of the side walls, which projection includes a section leading outwards and a section leading inwards, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 15.
Carter, however, teaches a flange-like circumferential projection (Examiner's annotations) is formed on the upper end section of the side walls, which projection includes a section leading outwards and a section leading inwards (see Fig 1). Examiner further notes that although this limitation is described verbatim in Applicant's Specification, Applicant does not detail any criticality, nor unexpected results for its inclusion. Examiner concludes that this limitation is purely one of design choice, and obvious to anyone of ordinary skill seeking to provide additional stability to the upper lid of a vacuum chamber.
Regardless, Emmer and Carter each teach filling a container within a vacuum chamber. Carter additionally teaches a well-known (arguably ancient) method of providing additional support for the chamber lid, through the use of a flange. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a flange-like circumferential projection (as taught by Carter) on the side walls of the U-shaped vacuum pressure trough of Emmer, in order to achieve additional support for the chamber lid.
PNG
media_image7.png
936
786
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Further regarding Claim 15, Emmer teaches the claimed invention, to include an enclosure (9) comprising of a first housing component (Receptacle 23B) and a second housing component configured as a base plate (lid 23H). Emmer does not go into exhaustive detail on the housing components, and is therefore silent on the limitations of Applicant’s Claim 15, wherein the section leading outwards has a contour which is congruent with the contour of the locking pawls on the closure elements on the associated section of the base plate, and the section leading inwards has openings which are congruent with the contour of the locking pins on the associated section of the base plate.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide locking, sealing, and/or centering mechanisms in order to achieve the airtight seal of Emmer’s enclosure 9.
Lehmann, for example, teaches the section leading outwards has a contour which is congruent with the contour of the locking pawls (Fig 3, toggle clamps 20) on the closure elements on the associated section of the base plate (see Fig 3).
Spohn et al. teaches a device for pressure testing, evacuation, and/or filling of an assembly, wherein the section leading inwards has openings which are congruent with the contour of the locking pins (fasteners 28) on the associated section of the base plate (see Fig 9).
Emmer, Lehmann, and Spohn et al. each teach the filling of a container within a vacuum chamber. The Lehmann and Spohn references teach routine components necessary to achieve an airtight seal of said vacuum chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the routine components of centering devices/locking pins/pawls, as taught by the Lehmann and Spohn references, to the enclosure (to include the base plate) of Emmer, in order to achieve the airtightness disclosed by Emmer.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emmer in view of Carter, Lehmann and Spohn as shown above, and in further view of Bellato.
Regarding Claim 16, Emmer as modified above teaches the claimed invention, to include a vacuum pressure trough (see above) but is silent on the vacuum pressure trough is equipped on the upper side of its bottom surface with replaceable shaped pieces for fixing the position of the assembly to be filled, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 16. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this limitation as simply stabilizing the container to be filled, and would have obvious motivation to do so.
Bellato, for example, teaches the vacuum pressure trough is equipped on the upper side of its bottom surface with replaceable shaped pieces for fixing the position of the assembly to be filled (Fig 3 teaches "vertically displaceable platform 38 for the support of the drum during the filling operation", described in full at Col 3, lines 15-36. Examiner broadly interprets the term "replaceable", since it is very well known across the arts to "replace" worn or broken mechanical components. The combined teachings of Emmer and Bellato therefore read upon the claim).
Emmer as modified above and Bellato each teach filling a container within a vacuum chamber. Bellato additionally teaches supporting the container, which has obvious advantages for overall apparatus stability and to ensure the container stays upright. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the support structure (e.g. “a shaped piece receptacle”) as taught by Bellato to the modified invention of Emmer, in order to gain the further advantage of stability and an upright container.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. 2477044 A shows (see Fig) a base plate 20 attached to a container 10 to be filled, but does not detail how the base plate supports or aligns the container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL whose telephone number is (571)272-8421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern 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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 5712723607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL/Examiner, Art Unit 3753