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 .
Application Status
This action is responsive to the claims filed 25 June 2025.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and being examined.
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.
Claim 1 lines 9-10 recite “means of magnetic interaction”, which is described in in the specification as “consisting of, or comprising, coils of a known type and not shown in the drawings” and “for example consisting of, or comprising, magnets 23, for example permanent, of a known type, configured to interact with the aforementioned one or more magnetic fields”.
Claim 2 line 2 recites “electric means”, which is described in in the specification as “consisting of, or comprising, coils of a known type and not shown in the drawings”.
Claim 2 line 4 recites “magnetic means”, which is described in in the specification as “for example consisting of, or comprising, magnets 23, for example permanent, of a known type, configured to interact with the aforementioned one or more magnetic fields”
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11, 13, 15, and their dependents are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 16-18 recites “the separating door puts into communication the main chamber with the loading/unloading chamber”, which should read “the separating door puts the main chamber in communication with the loading/unloading chamber”.
Claims 2-11 line 1 recites “Apparatus”, should read “The apparatus”.
Claims 13 and 15 line 1 recites “Method”, should read “The method”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-10 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.
Claim 9 recites “said filling station comprises at least a filling needle configured to dose a preestablished quantity of product”, however claim 8 does not require the apparatus to have a filling station because it is an either or with the capping station. Therefore, claim 9 is unclear because there is no filling station to further modify.
Claim 10 recites “said capping station comprises a pusher to insert a stopper into each of said containers”, however claim 8 does not require the apparatus to have a capping station because it is an either or with the filling station. Therefore, claim 10 is unclear because there is no capping station to further modify.
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) 1-5, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shindo (US 2022/0301921).
Shindo teaches:
Claim 1: Apparatus (100-fig.1) for automatically (¶[0041]) moving one or more objects (W-fig.2) within a modified atmosphere environment said apparatus (¶[0029]-[0034]) comprising:
- a main chamber (120-fig.1) confined from an external environment (¶[0029]),
- one or more base plates (10-fig.4) placed reciprocally contiguous to each other defining a driving surface within the main chamber (¶[0045]),
- one or more working stations (122-fig.1) arranged within said main chamber (¶[0055]),
- one or more transport members (20-fig.1), each configured to support said one or more objects (W-fig.2) and configured to move contactless in a coordinated manner on said driving surface (10-fig.4) among said one or more working stations by means of magnetic interaction between said one or more base plates and said one or more transport members (¶[0039]),
- a loading/unloading chamber (130,140-fig.1) arranged adjacent to said main chamber (see fig.1 showing 120 and 122 adjacent to each other; ¶[0028]), and
- a separating door (132-fig.1) configured to be moved between a closed configuration in which the separating door confines the main chamber from the loading/unloading chamber and an opened configuration in which the separating door puts into communication the main chamber with the loading/unloading chamber (¶[0033],[0048],[0065],[0108]), wherein said driving surface (10-fig.4), made of said one or more base plates (10-fig.4), extends also within the loading/unloading chamber (130,140-fig.3; ¶[0045]) allowing said loading/unloading chamber to be accessed by said one or more transport members (20-fig.3) when the separating door (132-fig.1) is in the opened configuration (¶[0048]), so that said one or more transport members (20-fig.3) can be selectively displaced within the loading/unloading chamber by moving on said driving surface (fig.3; ¶[0033],[0048],[0065],[0108]).
Claim 2: Apparatus as in claim 1, further comprising electric means (15-fig.3) associated with, or present in, said one or more base plates (10-fig.4) and selectively energizable in order to generate one or more magnetic fields (¶[0041],[0045]-[0046]), and magnetic means (35-fig.3) provided on said one or more transport members (20-fig.3) and configured to interact with said one or more magnetic fields (¶[0046]), so that the selective energization of said electric means allows the displacement of said one or more transport members on said driving surface (¶[0041],[0045]-[0046]).
Claim 3: Apparatus as in claim 1, wherein said loading/unloading chamber (130,140-fig.1) is provided with at least one access aperture (133-fig.1) configured to allow the objects to enter the loading/unloading chamber from the external environment (¶[0028]-[0033]).
Claim 4: Apparatus as in claim 3, wherein a rapid transfer port (141-fig.1) is connected to at least one of said access apertures (133-fig.1; ¶[0028]-[0030]).
Claim 5: Apparatus as in claim 1, further comprising at least one handling device (142-fig.1) configured to interact with said objects supported on said one or more transport members (¶[0031]) within said loading/unloading chamber (130,140-fig.1).
Claim 7: Apparatus as in claim 5, wherein said at least one handling device (142-fig.1) comprises a pick-and-place device placed within said loading/unloading chamber (¶[0031]).
Claim 11: Apparatus as in claim 1, wherein said separating door (132-fig.1) is configured to close an aperture (132-fig.1) provided on a common wall (133-fig.1) separating the main chamber (120-fig.1) and the loading/unloading chamber (130,140-fig.1).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo (US 2022/0301921) in view of Merz (US 2022/0379500).
Shindo teaches:
Claim 6: Apparatus as in claim 5.
Shindo does not expressly teaches said at least one handling device comprises a pair of gloves attached in a sealed manner on a wall of said loading/unloading chamber.
However, Merz teaches at least one handling device comprises a pair of gloves attached in a sealed manner on a wall of said loading/unloading chamber (“glove ducts (not shown) in the aseptic isolator 12 can also be provided for this purpose” ¶[0188]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Shindo, by adding glove handling devices, as taught by Merz, as a well-known handling/transfer method used in sterile environments. (Merz: ¶[0007]-[0008]). Adding gloves to a fully automatic system would allow the sterile environment to be manually accessible during power failures, while maintaining a fully sterile environment.
Claim(s) 8-10, 12-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo (US 2022/0301921) in view of Broadbent (US 2016/0200461).
Claim 8: Apparatus as in claim 1.
Shindo does not expressly teach said one or more working stations comprise at least a filling station and/or a capping station respectively configured to fill and cap said objects having a shape of containers.
However, Broadbent teaches one or more working stations (20-fig.1) comprise at least a filling station (60-fig.1) and/or a capping station (40-fig.1) respectively configured to fill (¶[0055]) and cap said objects having a shape of containers (¶[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Shindo, by using the modified atmosphere apparatus to fill and cap vials (containers) that need to be filled in sterile environments, as taught by Broadbent, as a well-known use for atmospheric chambers. Examiner notes the only difference between Shindo and Broadbent is how the objects are transferred within. Shindo greatly increases the movability of parts within the environment by using magnets and it would be obvious to one to use those same transfer mechanisms for filling and capping vials.
Shindo as modified by Broadbent teaches:
Claim 9: Apparatus as in claim 8, wherein said filling station (Broadbent: 60-fig.1) comprises at least a filling needle (Broadbent: 62-fig.1) configured to dose a preestablished quantity of product (Broadbent: ¶[0055]-[0057]).
Claim 10: Apparatus as in claim 8, wherein said capping station (Shindo:40-fig.1) comprises a pusher (Broadbent: 106-fig.8) to insert a stopper (Broadbent: 120-fig.8) into each of said containers (Broadbent: 90-fig.8; ¶[0084]).
Shindo teaches:
Claim 12: Method for automatically moving one or more objects by using an apparatus as in claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Shindo does not expressly teach said one or more objects comprise at least a container to be filled and capped.
However, Broadbent teaches one or more objects (90-fig.1) comprise at least a container to be filled (¶[0055]) and capped (¶[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Shindo, by using the modified atmosphere apparatus to fill and cap vials (containers) that need to be filled in sterile environments, as taught by Broadbent, as a well-known use for atmospheric chambers. Examiner notes the only difference between Shindo and Broadbent is how the objects are transferred within. Shindo greatly increases the movability of parts within the environment by using magnets and it would be obvious to one to use those same transfer mechanisms for filling and capping vials.
Shindo as modified by Broadbent teaches:
Claim 13: Method as in claim 12, wherein said one or more objects are filled with liquid (Broadbent: ¶[0035]).
Claim 15: Method as in claim 12, further comprising a decontamination step, during which the separating door is kept in a closed configuration and at least said main chamber is decontaminated with a decontaminant substance (Broadbent: ¶[0048]-[0050]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo (US 2022/0301921) in view Yoshida (US 2004/0185521).
Shindo teaches:
Claim 14: Method for automatically moving one or more objects by using an apparatus as in claim 1.
Shindo does not expressly teach said one or more objects comprise at least one Petri dish.
However, Yoshida teaches one or more objects (5-fig.2) comprise at least one Petri dish (¶[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Shindo, by using the modified atmosphere apparatus to fill petri dishes (containers) that need to be filled in sterile environments, as taught by Yoshida, as a well-known use for atmospheric chambers. Examiner notes the only difference between Shindo and Yoshida is how the objects are transferred within. Shindo greatly increases the movability of parts within the environment by using magnets and it would be obvious to one to use those same transfer mechanisms for filling and capping vials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATIE L GERTH whose telephone number is (303)297-4602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-4pm (CT).
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 at (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.
/KATIE L GERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights