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 dropping device” in claim 14 (interpreted to be a dropping chute).
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 14-15 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 14, “moving the bottom plate away from each other” is indefinite because it is unclear how one singular bottom plate can move “away from each other”, as the claim has not specified that there are multiple separate parts of the bottom plate. For examination purposes, “moving the bottom plate away from each other” is being interpreted to mean “moving the bottom plate away.”
Regarding claim 15, “the frequency of dropping the object” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
(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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shim (US 2017/0029152).
Regarding claim 14, Shim discloses a filling method comprising:
receiving an object (Fig. 2, object is pills) (Para. 0024-0025) to be filled into a container (Fig. 2, item 1);
converting a falling posture (Fig. 2) (Para. 0024-0025) of the object from a first posture (Fig. 2, first posture is pills on the transfer plate 222) (Para. 0024-0025) to a second posture (Fig. 2, second posture is pills on relay unit 42 waiting to be discharged into pouch 1) by using a dropping device (Fig. 2, item 30, 32) (Para. 0024-0025);
moving the object converted into the second posture into a filling trough (Fig. 2, item 42, 423, 422), wherein a bottom plate (Fig. 2, item 422) of the filling trough is movable (Para. 0029-0031) and extends downward (Para. 0029-0031) at a predetermined inclination angle (Fig. 2, plate 422 is inclined to block outlet of hopper 421) with respect to a horizontal plane along a moving direction of the object (Fig. 2) (Para. 0029-0031); and
in response to receiving a signal (Fig. 2) (Para. 0037, signal is received by controller 33 from photo-coupler 32) indicating that the container reaches below the filling trough (Para. 0037), moving the bottom plate (Para. 0037) away from each other (Para. 0037) to form an opening at a bottom side of the filling trough (Fig. 2) (Para. 0037), so as to cause the object to fall into the container (Para. 0037).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach, or fairly suggest a dropping device comprising: a feeding port provided on an upper side of the dropping device and configured to receive an object; a first side wall extending from an edge of the feeding port in a direction deviated from a vertical direction by a first angle; a second side wall disposed opposite to the first side wall and extending from the edge of the feeding port in a direction deviated from the vertical direction by a second angle, the second angle being greater than the first angle; and a discharging port provided on a lower side of the dropping device and configured to discharge the object from the dropping device.
The prior art of record that comes closest to teaching these limitations is Nagayama (JP-2010189071-A). Nagayama teaches a dropping device comprising: a feeding port provided on an upper side of the dropping device and configured to receive an object; a first side wall extending from an edge of the feeding port in a direction deviated from a vertical direction by a first angle; a second side wall disposed opposite to the first side wall and extending from the edge of the feeding port in a direction deviated from the vertical direction by a second angle; and a discharging port provided on a lower side of the dropping device and configured to discharge the object from the dropping device. However, Nagayama fails to teach the second angle being greater than the first angle. Additionally, it would require an unreasonable combination of references that would not suffice for a realistic case of obviousness. Moreover, Applicant has provided criticality for the limitation of the second angle being greater than the first angle in order to adjust the posture of the object falling into the dropping chute by the inclined second side wall, thus preventing jamming and blocking of the object by the inclined first side wall (see for example, Para. 0067 of Applicant’s specification).
Regarding claims 2-13, claims 2-13 are allowed because they depend from allowed claim 1.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach, or fairly suggest a filling method comprising: receiving an object to be filled into a container; converting a falling posture of the object from a first posture to a second posture by using a dropping device; moving the object converted into the second posture into a filling trough, wherein a bottom plate of the filling trough is movable and extends downward at a predetermined inclination angle with respect to a horizontal plane along a moving direction of the object; and in response to receiving a signal indicating that the container reaches below the filling trough, moving the bottom plate away from each other to form an opening at a bottom side of the filling trough, so as to cause the object to fall into the container; wherein the dropping device comprises a movable plate, the movable plate constituting a portion of a second side wall of the dropping device close to a discharging port of the dropping device, wherein converting the falling posture of the object from the first posture to the second posture by using the dropping device comprises: moving the movable plate at a frequency greater than the frequency of dropping the object.
The prior art of record that comes closest to teaching these limitations is Shim (US 2017/0029152). Shim teaches a filling method comprising: receiving an object to be filled into a container; converting a falling posture of the object from a first posture to a second posture by using a dropping device; moving the object converted into the second posture into a filling trough, wherein a bottom plate of the filling trough is movable and extends downward at a predetermined inclination angle with respect to a horizontal plane along a moving direction of the object; and in response to receiving a signal indicating that the container reaches below the filling trough, moving the bottom plate away from each other to form an opening at a bottom side of the filling trough, so as to cause the object to fall into the container. However, Shim fails to teach wherein the dropping device comprises a movable plate, the movable plate constituting a portion of a second side wall of the dropping device close to a discharging port of the dropping device, wherein converting the falling posture of the object from the first posture to the second posture by using the dropping device comprises: moving the movable plate at a frequency greater than the frequency of dropping the object. Additionally, it would require an unreasonable combination of references that would not suffice for a realistic case of obviousness. Moreover, Applicant has provided criticality for the limitation of the frequency of movement of the movable plate being greater than the frequency of dropping the object in order to eliminate object jamming in the dropping chute due to the frequent movement of the movable plate (see for example, Para. 0033 of Applicant’s specification).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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