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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the at least one of the plurality of carriages having a through-hole through which the at least one spindle passes without contact (see at least claim 9) and the linear guide (see at least claim 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8: a drive has already been recited in at least claim 4, therefore it is unclear if the drive referred to in claim 8 is intended to be the same structure as the drive in claim 4
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“adjustment unit” as recited in at least claim 12 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “adjustment”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “adjustment” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
“force transmission element” as recited in at least claim 14 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “force transmission”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “force transmission” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the element)
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 6-7, 9-10, and 12-13 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 claims 6 and 10, it is unclear what is intended by the term “co-operates”. Must the spindle and carriage directly interact with one another to be considered “co-operating”? Or is simply performing a function to achieve the same task sufficient?
Regarding claims 7 and 12-13, it is unclear what is intended by the term “associated”. Must the respective structures contact one another? Directly interact with one another? Or simply be formed as part of the same device?
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear what is intended by the limitation “at least one of the plurality of carriages has a through-hole, through which the at least one spindle passes without contact”. What structure does the spindle not contact? The carriage? The through-hole?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakimoto (EP 1074355).
Regarding claim 1, Kakimoto discloses a punching device for punching out blister packs from a blister strip (hole punching mold 5; see fig. 1), the punching device comprising: at least a first punching element (punch sub-molds 151; see fig. 1) and a second punching element (die mold 25; see fig. 1), wherein the first punching element has a plurality of punches (punch sub-molds 151 each support product hole punches P; see paragraph [0036] and fig. 1), and the second punching element has a die (die mold 25; see fig. 1); wherein the first and/or the second punching element is movable back and forth in a punching direction in such a way that the punching device alternately assumes an open position and a closed position (punch sub-molds 151 are configured to move up and down by action of air cylinder 6 such that an open position and closed position are formed; see paragraph [0040] and fig. 2); wherein each punch is connected to a carriage during operation of the punching device (during operation, product hole punch P is connected to supporting platform 24 via punch ram 34; see paragraph [0052]), wherein the carriage, in an idle state of the punching device, is displaceable relative to said associated punch in a direction which is perpendicular to the punching direction (supporting platform 24 is moved along the X axis direction to position punch ram 34 above product hole punch P; see paragraph [0052]).
Kakimoto does not explicitly disclose a plurality of carriages.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kakimoto to include a plurality of carriages since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of including a plurality of carriages and their respective elements including that the punches can be activated individually or simultaneously. Doing so would increase efficiency of the operation and offer more versatility for how the punching operation is performed. Therefore, in order to improve efficiency and versatility of the operation, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Kakimoto as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kakimoto as modified further discloses wherein each carriage of the plurality of carriages is individually controllable for its displacement (as modified, each supporting platform 24 is capable of movement individually by action of servomotor M; see paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 3, Kakimoto as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kakimoto as modified further discloses at least one drive device configured to displace the plurality of carriages perpendicular to the punching direction (as modified to include a plurality of supporting platform 24 and its respective elements, each supporting platform 24 is capable of adjustment along the X axis direction by its own drive means 14 and servomotor M; see paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 4, Kakimoto as modified discloses the limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above.
Kakimoto as modified further discloses wherein the at least one drive device has at least one drive (servomotor M; see paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 5, Kakimoto as modified discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Kakimoto as modified further discloses wherein the at least one drive is configured as an actuator, a stepper motor or servomotor (servomotor M; see paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 6, Kakimoto as modified discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Kakimoto as modified further discloses wherein the at least one drive device comprises at least one spindle which co-operates with at least one of the plurality of carriages (each servomotor M includes drive means 14, which is formed as a ball screw that is configured to move each supporting platform 24 along the X axis direction; see paragraphs [0031, 0052]).
Regarding claim 7, Kakimoto as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Kakimoto as modified further discloses wherein the at least one spindle comprises a plurality of spindles, wherein each one of the plurality of spindles is associated with one of the plurality of carriages (as modified to include a plurality of supporting platform 24 and its associated elements, each supporting platform 24 includes its own drive means 14; see paragraphs [0031, 0052]).
Regarding claim 8, Kakimoto as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Kakimoto as modified does not disclose wherein several of the plurality of spindles are each drivable by a single drive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kakimoto to make the plurality of spindles drivable by a single drive since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (see Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993)). As previously modified, each carriage (supporting platform 24) comprises its own drive and spindle (servomotor M, drive means 14). However, integrating the drives into one singular device would allow multiple spindles to be driven by a single device. In doing so, fewer parts are required, thus simplifying the operation and making it less expensive.
Regarding claim 10, Kakimoto as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Kakimoto as modified further discloses wherein the at least one spindle co-operates with at least one of the plurality of carriages via a threaded segment which is arranged on the at least one of the plurality of carriages (drive means 14 transmits motion through supporting platform 24 via screw thread m; see paragraph [0031] and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Kakimoto as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kakimoto as modified further discloses wherein each of the plurality of carriages is guided on a linear guide along a lifting table of the punching device (supporting platform 24 is guided via a pair of guides 44 positioned along fixing platform 3; see paragraph [0031] and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Kakimoto as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kakimoto as modified further discloses wherein the punching device further has, for each punch, at least one adjustment unit which is associated with said punch and which is configured to move said punch (punch ram 34 is configured to descend into punch sub-mold 151 to cause a punching movement of product hole punches P; see paragraph [0052] and fig. 2), in addition to the movement of the at least one punching element, in the punching direction between an operating position and an offset position in such a way that said punch is arranged further away from the second punching element in the offset position than in the operating position (punch ram 34 is configured to move between an operating position and an offset position, wherein product hole punch P is further from die mold 25 than during operation; see fig. 2), wherein each adjustment unit is fastened to one of the plurality of carriages or is formed integrally therewith (punch ram 34 is fastened to supporting platform 24 via screw thread m; see paragraph [0031] and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Kakimoto as modified discloses the limitations of claim 12 as described in the rejection above.
Kakimoto as modified further discloses wherein the at least one adjustment unit is releasably connectable to said associated punch (punch ram 34 is releasably connected to product hole punch P via vacuum space S; see paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 14, Kakimoto as modified discloses the limitations of claim 12 as described in the rejection above.
Kakimoto as modified further discloses wherein the at least one adjustment unit has a force transmission element (air passage 34a; see fig. 2), which is adjustable in the punching direction and is individually controllable (air passage 34a is controlled by air suction device B and descends in the punching direction when punch ram 34 descends; see paragraphs [0042, 0052]).
Examiner interprets that the air passage of Kakimoto is an equivalent of a “force transmission element” because the air passage transmits a force that holds punch sub-mold 151 together with punch ram 34 (see paragraphs [0040-0042] and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Kakimoto as modified discloses the limitations of claim 12 as described in the rejection above.
Kakimoto as modified further discloses wherein that the at least one adjustment unit is arranged in the punching direction between a lifting table of the punching device and a base plate of the first punching element (punch ram 34 is at least partially positioned between fixing platform 3 and punch holders 15b; see figs. 2 and 3).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakimoto (EP 1074355) in view of Anderson (US 2735488).
Regarding claim 9, Kakimoto as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Kakimoto as modified further discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of carriages has a through-hole (a through-hole is formed in air suction device B, since it appears drive means 14 must pass through it; see fig. 2).
Examiner notes that air suction device B (see fig. 2) is interpreted as being a part of the carriage (supporting platform 24).
Kakimoto as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the spindle passes through the through-hole without contact.
Anderson discloses a through-hole through which the at least one spindle passes without contact (bushing 52 is screwed onto threaded end 51 of shaft 18; see fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kakimoto in view of Anderson to include a bushing on the spindle such that the spindle does not contact a through-hole of the carriage. Anderson discloses a bushing (bushing 52) on a threaded end 51 of a spindle (shaft 18). Anderson further discloses that the inclusion of bushing 52 permits longitudinal movement of various other elements (see col. 3, lines 15-24). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that including the bushing on the spindle of Kakimoto as modified would likewise allow for similar longitudinal movement, while simultaneously preventing contact between the spindle and the carriage. In preventing this contact, it is understood that the addition of the bushing is an obvious design choice in order to reduce friction between the spindle and the carriage. Therefore, in order to further permit longitudinal movement along the spindle, such a modification would be obvious.
Kakimoto as modified further discloses wherein the at least one spindle passes through the through-hole without contact (as modified, the spindle does not contact the edges of the through-hole).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakimoto (EP 1074355) in view of Ventura (EP 3717189).
Regarding claim 16, Kakimoto discloses a punching device for punching out blister packs from a blister strip (hole punching mold 5; see fig. 1), wherein the punching device comprises at least a first punching element (punch sub-molds 151; see fig. 1) and a second punching element (die mold 25; see fig. 1), wherein the first punching element has a plurality of punches (punch sub-molds 151 each support product hole punches P; see paragraph [0036] and fig. 1) and the second punching element has a die (die mold 25; see fig. 1); wherein the first and/or the second punching element is movable back and forth in a punching direction in such a way that the punching device alternately assumes an open position and a closed position (punch sub-molds 151 are configured to move up and down by action of air cylinder 6 such that an open position and closed position are formed; see paragraph [0040] and fig. 2); wherein each punch is connected to a carriage during operation of the punching device (during operation, product hole punch P is connected to supporting platform 24 via punch ram 34; see paragraph [0052]), wherein the carriage, in an idle state of the punching device, is displaceable relative to each associated punch in a direction which is perpendicular to the punching direction (supporting platform 24 is moved along the X axis direction to position punch ram 34 above product hole punch P; see paragraph [0052]).
Kakimoto does not explicitly disclose a plurality of carriages or wherein the punching device is part of a blister packaging machine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kakimoto to include a plurality of carriages since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of including a plurality of carriages and their respective elements including that the punches can be activated individually or simultaneously. Doing so would increase efficiency of the operation and offer more versatility for how the punching operation is performed. Therefore, in order to improve efficiency and versatility of the operation, such a modification would be obvious.
Ventura discloses a blister packaging machine (shearing apparatus 50 is configured to shear support element 11, which is formed as a continuous strip with a plurality of dome-shaped cells 12; see paragraphs [0043-0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kakimoto in view of Ventura to include the punching device as part of a blister packaging machine. Ventura discloses a similar device specifically designed for shearing blister packs (see paragraph [0001]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the general concept of Ventura’s punching operation is the same as that of Kakimoto as modified – thus, it would be a simple substitution of elements to replace the shearing device of Ventura (shearing device 26) with that of Kakimoto as modified. Doing so would provide a device capable of separating blister packs using a punching device as described above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20030177878 to Yang, drawn to a sequential punch press with complementary sliding plates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights