DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Sheet
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC §112f
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) 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.
The following elements are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Regarding claim 5, “means for the gathering of products in the loading space” (because A – “means for gathering” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “gathering of products in the loading space” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “means for gathering” is understood as equivalent to “means for gathering of products in the loading space”). A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure is a pair of facing walls (figure 8a-8b, #19a/#19b) or equivalent.
If the 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation of "…which offers a loading space in the preloading unit when the plunger adopts its loading position, and is the plunger being configured to…" it appears that the claim should instead recite, "…which offers a loading space in the preloading unit when the plunger adopts its loading position, and wherein the plunger isis the plunger being configured to…" for more correct grammatical structure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation "orthohedral space." This specific terminology does not appear in the specification as originally filed. While the drawings may depict a loading space having a generally rectangular shape, the specification does not describe this space using the specific term "orthohedral," not does it define attributes that would clearly correspond to this specific term. Therefore, the written described fails to convey that the inventor had possession of the specific subject matter claimed at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is dependent upon rejected claim 7. Therefore, claim 8 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(b)
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 1-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitations “…for placing elongated products with a widened head in containers…” in lines 1-2, and "supplied with the number of products" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites "…this blocking being able to serve as a retainer…" This language describes a capability or intended use rather than a positive structural limitation. It is unclear whether the structure must act as a retainer in the claimed apparatus or merely could act as one in a hypothetical scenario. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as "…this blocking is configured to serve as a retainer…"
Regarding claim 7, the terms "essentially orthohedral space" and "essentially transversal to the chamber." The terms "essentially orthohedral space" and "essentially transversal to the chamber" are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification fails to provide a standard for measuring what constitutes "essentially" orthohedral or transversal. See MPEP 2173.05(b). For purposes of examination, the limitations will be interpreted as "orthohedral space" and "transverse to the chamber."
Further regarding claim 7, the claim recites the term "orthohedral space." This term is not a standard geometric term recognized in the art, nor is it defined in the specification. The meaning of "orthohedral" is therefore unclear. It is uncertain whether the applicant intends to described a rectangular parallelepiped space, a cubic space, or a generic space defined by orthogonal planes. Because the specification does not provide an explicit definition for this non-standard term, the boundaries of the claim scope cannot be determined with reasonable certainty by a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2173.05(a). Based on the Spanish foreign priority, it is likely that the term was originally "ortoedro" which is the standard Spanish word for "cuboid" or "rectangular box." Therefore, for purposes of examination the term "orthohedral" will be interpreted as a "rectangular box."
Regarding claims 2, 4-6, and 8-16; these claims are further rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependence upon rejected claims above.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma (CN 107010264 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses an apparatus for placing elongated products with a widened head in containers (Described in ¶ [0009]), particularly suitable for placing swabs inside containers that are being produced (Described in ¶ [0009]), the apparatus comprising at least one preloading unit (Figure 1, #5) that is supplied with the number of products to be placed at once in the container and which executes a duty cycle that causes the controlled ejection of the number of products supplied (Described in ¶'s [0075] - [0076] & [0112]), wherein the preloading unit (Figure 1, #5) is equipped with a plunger (Figure 13, #523) movable between a loading position (Figures 12-13, while carrier #512 is moved. Further described in ¶ [0112]) and an ejection position (Figures 12-13, when element #523 is moved to the limit. Further described in ¶ [0112]), which offers a loading space (Figure 13, in front of element #525) in the preloading unit when the plunger adopts its loading position (Described in ¶ [0112]), and is the plunger being configured to, when actuated, push and follow from its loading position to its ejection position (Described in ¶ [0112]), the number of products that is supplied to the preloading unit in the same stroke through an outlet spout (Figure 13, #521) provided in said preloading unit (Described in ¶ [0112]).
Allowable Subject Matter
If the above rejections under 35 USC 112 are overcome, claims 2-16 would be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731