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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 6 April 2026.
Claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 20 are pending.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations 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 limitations are:
“a sealing device for sealing capsules” – claim 1, line 2.
“a feeding device for feeding the capsules – claims 5, line 3.
“an ejection device configured to remove capsules from the receptacles… and… to release the snap-fit connection between the capsule carriers, the first chain, and the second chain – claim 6, lines 3 – 7.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 2, the limitation, “a sealing device for sealing capsules”, is indefinite because the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See para. [0081] – [0082] of the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Please note, since claims 2 – 5, 7 – 12, and 17 – 19 depend upon claim 1, claims 2 – 5, 7 – 12, and 17 – 19 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness. Also, since claims 13 – 16 and 20 recite “an apparatus according to claim 1”, claims 13 – 16 and 20 are also rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 5, line 3, the limitation, “a feeding device for feeding the capsules”, is indefinite because the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See para. [0081] of the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 17, line 2, the limitation, “bolt-shaped”, is indefinite because the shape recited in the limitation is not a standardized shape and it is ambiguous what shape the limitation, “bolt-shape”, entails. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “an elongate shape”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Claims 5 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 1 and 13, the subject matter of the apparatus for sealing and drying capsules is allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another. Dependent claims 2 – 5, 7 – 12, and 17 – 19 are also allowable over the prior art as they depend from allowable claim 1. Additionally, dependent claims 14 – 16 and 20 are also allowable over the prior art as they depend from allowable claim 13.
Claims 1 and 13 includes the following limitation which, in combination with the other limitations of independent claims 1 and 13, is what makes the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claims 1 and 13 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
“the ejection device is configured to release the snap-fit connections between the capsule carriers, the first chain, and the second chain”
The closest prior is Lin (CN 208 525 438 U). This limitation invokes the “means-plus-function” provision of 35 USC 112(f), and the written description clearly links or associates the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. This “means-plus-function” limitation is not found in Lin or the prior art of record and is not deemed obvious over Lin or the prior art of record. Thus, it is examiner' s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 6 April 2026, with respect to the objection to the Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the Specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 6 April 2026, with respect to the objection to claim 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6 April 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Regarding the claimed sealing device, an example sealing device is shown in Fig. 1 and identified with reference label 14. The written description and drawings thus fully enable this feature, and the indefiniteness rejection should be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Regarding the claimed feeding device, an example feeding device is shown in Fig. 1 and identified with reference label 40. The written description and drawings thus fully enable this feature, and the indefiniteness rejection should be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the drawings enable the claimed feature, the rejections are not an issue of enablement but an issue of indefiniteness. The claim terms, “a sealing device” in claim 1 and “a feeding device” in claim 5, are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure to the function. See para. [0081] – [0082] of the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a §112(f) limitation is the disclosed structure performing the entire claimed function and since there is no disclosed structure the claims having these claim terms are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant argues that the drawings provide sufficient corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function and clearly link the structure to the function. However, drawings alone cannot cure this indefiniteness under § 112(f). MPEP 2181 makes clear that the “corresponding structure” is determined from the written description in the specification, not solely from drawings. Moreover, figure 1 does not show the structures of the sealing device 14 and the feeding device 40 in enough detail as to demonstrate how these structures perform the entire claimed functions. Since the written description fails to adequately describe the structure of the sealing device and the feeding device that performs the claimed functions of these devices, the claims remain indefinite. Therefore, the examiner finds the applicant’s drawings unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues:
Regarding the reference to "bolt-shaped", this phrase is used with reference to the extensions 32, see paragraph [0086] of the Applicant's replacement specification. An example of a "bolt-shaped" extension is illustrated in Fig. 3. Further, as set forth in the Applicant's paragraph [0021], bolt-shaped is simply taken to mean "as bolts". The written description and drawings thus fully enable this feature, and the indefiniteness rejection should be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the drawings enable the claimed feature, the rejections are not an issue of enablement but an issue of indefiniteness. The shape of a bolt recited in the limitation is not a standardized shape and it is ambiguous what shape the limitation, “bolt-shape”, entails. That is, there are many different types of bolts having different shapes, such as eye bolts, u-bolts, anchor bolts, and hex bolts. Thus, what type of bolt does the limitation, “bolt-shape”, take after? The applicant argues that the drawings define the limitation, “bolt-shape”; however, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the shape of bolt in the drawings cannot be used as limitation of the claim. Therefore, the examiner finds the applicant’s drawings unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is (571)272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
10 June 2026
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights