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 punch guides being connected to the punch (see at least claim 1; not shown per paragraph [0059] of instant specification) and the punch sets being arranged one behind the other in the direction of travel of the blister strip (see at least claim 7; not shown per paragraph [0072] of instant specification) 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
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8: in claim 1, it is optional for the first punching element to be movable, however claim 8 requires that the first punching element and the associated punch be configured to move; Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to explicitly require this limitation
Claim 9:
in claim 1, it is optional for the first punching element to be movable, however claim 9 requires that the first punching element and the associated punch be configured to move; Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to explicitly require this limitation
it is unclear what is intended by “at least one punching element”; Examiner interprets that this refers to whichever punching element is configured to move – however, since claim 9 requires the first punching element to be movable, it is recommended that this limitation be amended to read “the at least one first punching element”
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:
• “elastic element” as recited in at least claim 6 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “elastic”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “elastic” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the element)
• “adjustment unit” as recited in at least claim 9 (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 11 (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.
Claim 9 is 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 9, it is unclear what is intended by the limitation “… at least one adjustment unit, which is associated with said punch…”. Must the adjustment unit and punch contact one another? Directly interact with one another? Or simply be formed as part of the same device? As best understood, it is interpreted that “associated” means the two structures are formed as part of the same device.
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 (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 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 1-7, 9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ventura (EP 3717189).
Regarding claim 1, Ventura discloses a punching device for punching out blister packs from a blister strip (shearing apparatus 50 is configured to selectively shear support element 11 into strips 13; see paragraphs [0043-0045]), the punching device comprising: at least a first punching element (shearing device 26; see fig. 1) and a second punching element (upper plate 17, intermediate plate 20; see fig. 3), wherein the first punching element has at least one punch (each shearing device 26 comprises blade 28; see paragraph [0053]) and the second punching element has a die (upper plate 17 is formed as a die; see fig. 3); 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 (shearing device 26 is configured to move in a punching direction such that an open position and closed position are formed; see figs. 3 and 4); wherein the first punching element comprises a plurality of punch sets (each shearing device 26 is formed as a set; see fig. 1), wherein each punch set comprises a punch (each shearing device 26 comprises blade 28; see paragraph [0053]), an actuating plate (cylinder 30 is interpreted as forming a cylindrical plate; see fig. 3) and a plurality of punch guides which extend between said punch and the actuating plate and are connected thereto (columns 40 extend between and are connected to blade 28 and cylinder 30; see figs. 3 and 8), wherein the punch guides extend through a base plate of the first punching element (columns 40 extend through slider 19; see fig. 8); and wherein the base plate of the first punching element has a punch set stop (slider 19 includes fork 37; see fig. 3), which is in contact with the actuating plate in an operating position of said punch (fork 37 is in contact with cylinder 30 during operation; see figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 2, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses wherein the punch set stop in the operating position of said punch is in planar contact with the actuating plate and/or via a plurality of line contacts and/or via a plurality of point contacts (fork 37 is in planar contact with cylinder 30 during operation; see figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses wherein the base plate of the first punching element has bushes, in which the punch guides are guided (slider 19 includes sliding bushes 41, which guide columns 40; see paragraph [0071] and fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses wherein each punch set furthermore has a punch carrier plate (blade holder 38; see fig. 8), which is opposite the actuating plate in the punching direction and is arranged between the punch and the punch guides (blade holder 38 is opposite cylinder 30 in the punching direction and is positioned between blade 38 and columns 40; see fig. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses wherein the base plate of the first punching element delimits an adjustment of the punch set in the punching direction by direct contact with the actuating plate or the punch carrier plate (contact between slider 19 and cylinder 30 limits the amount of movement of shearing device 26 in the punching direction; see figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 6, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses wherein at least one elastic element is arranged between said punch and the base plate of the first punching element (piston 33 (which is interpreted as an equivalent to an elastic element, since it is capable of modifying the pre-load on the system) is positioned between blade 38 and slider 19; see fig. 3), which elastic element pretensions said punch into the operating position (fluid pressure causes blade 28 to be pretensioned in an operating position; see figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 7, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses wherein at least some of the plurality of punch sets are arranged one behind the other in the direction of travel of the blister strip and/or next to one another perpendicular to the direction of travel of the blister strip (shearing devices 26 are arranged next to each other in a direction perpendicular to feed direction D; see figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 9, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses wherein the punching device furthermore has, for each punch, at least one adjustment unit (each shearing device 26 includes an actuation device 29; see figs. 2 and 3), which is associated with said punch and which is configured to move said punch, in addition to the movement of the at least one punching element, in the punching direction by way of the actuating plate between the 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 (actuation device 29 causes movement of shearing device 26 via interaction with cylinder 30, such that blade 28 is further from upper plate 17, intermediate plate 20 in an offset position (fig. 5) and closer in an operating position (fig. 3); see paragraph [0059] and figs. 3, 4), wherein each punch set is adjustable by way of the at least one adjustment unit relative to the base plate of the first punching element in the punching direction (each shearing device 26 is adjustable via actuation device 29 relative to slider 19; see figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 11, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 9 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses wherein each adjustment unit has a force transmission element, which is adjustable in the punching direction (actuation device 29 comprises command device 31 (which may be formed as a fluid-dynamic device) for transmitting force and is adjustable in the punching direction; see paragraph [0057] and figs. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 13, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 9 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses wherein each adjustment unit is individually controllable (each actuation device 29 comprises command device 31 for controlling movement of shearing device 26 relative to slider 19; see paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 14, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 9 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses wherein the at least one adjustment unit is arranged in the punching direction between a lifting table and the base plate of the first punching element (actuation device 29 is positioned at least partially between connection plate 21 and slider 19; see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Ventura discloses a blister packaging machine (shearing apparatus 50 is configured for use in packaging of small-sized products; see paragraph [0002]) comprising: a punching device for punching out blister packs from a blister strip (shearing apparatus 50 is configured to selectively shear support element 11 into strips 13; see paragraphs [0043-0045]), wherein the punching device has at least a first punching element (shearing device 26; see fig. 1) and a second punching element (upper plate 17, intermediate plate 20; see fig. 3), wherein the first punching element has at least one punch (each shearing device 26 comprises blade 28; see paragraph [0053]) and the second punching element has a die (upper plate 17 is formed as a die; see fig. 3); 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 (shearing device 26 is configured to move in a punching direction such that an open position and closed position are formed; see figs. 3 and 4); wherein the first punching element has a plurality of punch sets (each shearing device 26 is formed as a set; see fig. 1), each of which comprises a punch (), an actuating plate (each shearing device 26 comprises blade 28; see paragraph [0053]) and a plurality of punch guides, which extend between said punch and the actuating plate and are connected thereto (columns 40 extend between and are connected to blade 28 and cylinder 30; see figs. 3 and 8), wherein the punch guides extend through a base plate of the first punching element (columns 40 extend through slider 19; see fig. 8); and wherein the base plate of the first punching element has a punch set stop (slider 19 includes fork 37; see fig. 3), which is in contact with the actuating plate in an operating position of said punch (fork 37 is in contact with cylinder 30 during operation; see figs. 3 and 4).
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 8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ventura (EP 3717189).
Regarding claim 8, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses wherein a stroke of the first punching element between the open position and the closed position of the punching device (shearing device 26 is configured to move between an open position and a closed position; see figs. 3 and 4).
Ventura does not explicitly disclose wherein the stroke length is between 20 mm and 50 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ventura to make the stroke length between 20 mm and 50 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Ventura discloses the components necessary for performing a stroke of the first punching element as described above. In the instant case, the device of Ventura would not operate differently if modified to have a specific stroke length within the recited range. Further, it appears Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed range, simply indicating that “the stroke H1 is typically between 20 mm and 50 mm” (see paragraph [0053] of instant specification).
Regarding claim 10, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 9 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses wherein the actuating plate has at least one slot (cylinder 30 includes fork 37, which forms a slot; see fig. 3), which extends in a direction perpendicular to the punching direction and perpendicular to the direction of travel of the blister strip (the slot formed within fork 37 extends at least partially in a direction perpendicular to feed direction D; see fig. 3) and can be coupled to an extension of the adjustment unit in such a way that the adjustment unit is adjustable relative to the punch set in the direction perpendicular to the punching direction (the slot formed within fork 37 may be coupled with support surface 34 to facilitate adjustment of shearing device 26; see figs. 3 and 5).
Ventura does not explicitly disclose that the slot is a T-slot or dovetail slot, and the adjustment unit is adjustable relative to the punch set in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the blister strip.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ventura to make the slot a T-slot or a dovetail slot since it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (see In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431). In the instant case, it does not appear that modifying the slot and its associated components to have the recited configuration would impede the device of Ventura from performing its intended function (i.e., actuation device 29 would still be capable of moving between positions, regardless of the shape of the slot). Therefore, such a modification would be obvious since it appears that the specific shape of the slot is mere design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Ventura to make the adjustment unit adjustable in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the blister strip since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). In the instant case, rotating the adjustment unit (actuation device 29) and its associated components by 90 degrees would not impede operation of the device since minimal space would be needed between shearing devices 26 (due to the construction of actuation device 29). This would allow actuation device 29 to be positioned both perpendicular to feed direction D and perpendicular to the punching direction. Therefore, as mere design choice, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 9 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses wherein an offset height between the operating position and the offset position of a punch, brought about by the movement of the adjustment unit (an offset height between an operating position and offset position is adjustable by way of actuation device 29; see paragraph [0057] and figs. 3, 5).
Ventura does not explicitly disclose wherein the offset height is between 5 mm and 10 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ventura to make the offset height between 5 mm and 10 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Ventura discloses the components necessary for adjusting an offset height as described above. In the instant case, the device of Ventura would not operate differently if modified to have a specific offset height within the recited range. Further, it appears Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed range, simply indicating that “the offset height H2 is typically generally between 5 mm and 10 mm” (see paragraph [0063] of instant specification).
Conclusion
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