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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11, the claim recites the limitation of “setting up a detection unit” however it is not clear what is meant by this limitation and what it entails. For example, whether the step includes physically setting up the detection unit, programming it, and/or a combination of both.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lehmann Jr. US 20007/0056355.
Regarding claim 1, Lehmann teaches an apparatus for testing the tightness of containers closed by respective membranes 3b, comprising:
a deforming unit (biasing arrangement 5, fig. 1) configured to exert a deforming action on a plurality of said containers (in biasing direction B), and a detection unit 9 for detecting the deformation of the membrane 3b of each container submitted to the deforming action, wherein said deforming unit comprises a plurality of deforming devices (fig. 11 shows an embodiment in which a plurality of deforming devices are provided, and wherein each deforming device is individually associated with a single and respective container of said plurality of containers to exert said deforming action.
Regarding claim 2, Lehmann teaches a transport device (along a production line fig. 11) for transporting said plurality of containers 1 towards said detection unit (testing stations 140), wherein the plurality of deforming devices are mounted on the transport device (along the production line).
Regarding claim 3, Lehmann teaches an apparatus for testing the tightness of containers 1 in which a deforming device (biasing arrangement 5) comprises a pair of pressing elements mounted in an articulated way on respective supports (drives 7a, 7b) to be submitted to a displacement movement from and to an operating position (in direction of biasing load B) in which they exert the action of deforming the corresponding container 1.
Regarding claim 4, the displacement movement of the pressing elements of Lehmann would exert a force and then relax the force, thus operating in an oscillating manner.
Regarding claim 9, the deforming devices of Lehmann are configured to exert the deforming action on the respective containers associated therewith while said containers are handled along a handling path (fig. 11 shows the containers along a production line).
Regarding claim 10, the pressing elements of Lehmann are configured to exert a squeezing action on the container in the claimed manner (see fig. 1, paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 11, Lehmann teaches a method for testing the tightness of containers 1 closed by respective membranes 3b, comprising the steps of: providing a deforming unit 5 including a plurality of deforming devices 5a, 5b, configured to exert a deforming action (biasing motion B) on a respective plurality of said containers,
setting up a detection unit 9 for detecting the deformation of the membrane of each container submitted to the deforming action,
individually associating each deforming device with a single, respective container of said plurality of containers to exert said deforming action (fig. 11 shows each container with a respective deforming device), and
detecting the deformation of the membrane of each container submitted to the deforming action to test the tightness of the container (paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 12, the pressing elements of Lehmann are configured to exert a squeezing action on the container in the claimed manner (see fig. 1, paragraph 0041).
Claim(s) 1-2, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chevalier Jr. US 2014/0260557.
Regarding claim 1, Chevalier teaches an apparatus for testing the tightness of containers closed by respective membranes, comprising:
a deforming unit 102 configured to exert a deforming action on a plurality of said containers (fig. 2 shows the force on the container 124), and a detection unit 108 for detecting the deformation of the membrane 126 of each container submitted to the deforming action, wherein said deforming unit comprises a plurality of deforming devices (fig. 9 and 10 show embodiments in which a plurality of deforming devices are provided, and wherein each deforming device is individually associated with a single and respective container of said plurality of containers (see for example fig. 10) to exert said deforming action.
Regarding claim 2, Chevalier teaches a transport device (along a production line paragraph 0043) for transporting said plurality of containers 942a-e towards said detection unit, wherein the plurality of deforming devices are mounted on the transport device (along the production line).
Regarding claim 9, the system of Chevalier is configured to exert the deforming action on the respective containers associated therewith while they are handled along a handling path in the production line.
Regarding claim 11, Chevalier teaches a method for testing the tightness of containers 124 closed by respective membranes 126, comprising the steps of: providing a deforming unit (fig. 9 or 10) including a plurality of deforming devices 104, configured to exert a deforming action (downward motion in fig. 2) on a respective plurality of said containers,
setting up a detection unit 108 for detecting the deformation of the membrane of each container submitted to the deforming action,
individually associating each deforming device with a single, respective container of said plurality of containers to exert said deforming action (fig. 9 or 10 show each container with a respective deforming device), and
detecting the deformation of the membrane of each container submitted to the deforming action to test the tightness of the container (abstract).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Casarini et al. US 2009/0169718.
Regarding claims 5-7, Lehmann teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the specifics of the cam mechanism and cam follower for driving the pressing elements. Casarini teaches a device used in the packaging of food products and an actuating means comprising a cam and cam follower for contacting a package during manufacture (fig. 5, fig. 6, paragraph 0068). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Casarini with those of Lehmann in order to provide similar actuation means in the form of a cam and cam follower to allow for a simple and consistent control in a cyclical manner and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). In combination, the cam profile would need to be mounted to a stationary element such as a frame for support and in line with the pressing elements to operate them in the correct manner.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Chevalier, Jr.
Regarding claim 8, Lehmann teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the pressing element as comprising a surface having a concave profile intended to contact superficially the container.
Chevalier Jr teaches a device for testing the tightness of a container 124 which comprise a pressing element 106 having a concave surface (fig. 5 shows the shape of the surface and the interior area 232 is concave as seen in fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Chevalier Jr with those of Lehmann to provide a similar deforming device which would superficially contact the container in order to minimize a contact area with the container and prevent damage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights