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 plurality of adjustment units one behind the other in the direction of travel of the blister strip (see at least claim 10) and the dovetail slot (see at least claim 14) 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 1, 14, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 16: “at least a first and a second punching element” should be amended to read “at least a first punching element and a second punching element”
Claim 14: “the releasable connection comprises” should be amended to read “a releasable connection formed between the at least one adjustment unit and the first punching element comprises”
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 1 (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 1 (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 1, 5, and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 16 recite the broad recitation “wherein the first and/or the second punching element is movable back and forth in a punching direction”, and the claim also recites “wherein the punching device furthermore has, for each punch, at least one adjustment unit 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” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. In other words, both claims 1 and 16 explicitly make optional that the first punching element is movable, and claims 1 and 16 also later recite that the first punching element is configured to move via action of the adjustment unit. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 16, it is unclear what is intended by the limitation “associated”. It is unclear if the structures that are “associated” with one another are required to be in physical contact, directly interact, or if they must simply be part of the same device. It is interpreted to mean that the structures must simply be included as part of the same device, and has been treated as such for purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear what is intended by the limitation “a magnitude of a stroke of the force transmission element deviates at most by 20% from an offset height of the associated punch between the operating position and the offset position”. As best understood, it is interpreted to mean that each stroke of the force transmission element falls within 20% of the offset height H2 (see fig. 1), and has been treated as such for purposes of examination.
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, 10-11, and 16 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 (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 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 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 (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, 5); and wherein the at least one adjustment unit has a force transmission element, which is adjustable in the punching direction in order to move said punch between the operating position and the offset position (actuation device 29 comprises piston 33 for transmitting force and is adjustable in the punching direction to change a position of blade 28; see paragraph [0059] and figs. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 2, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses wherein the force transmission element is pneumatically adjustable (piston 33 is configured to transmit force via fluid pressure from command device 31; see paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 3, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses wherein the at least one adjustment unit has a pneumatic cylinder which includes the force transmission element in the form of a piston (actuation device 29 includes cylinder 30 and piston 33; see paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 4, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses wherein the force transmission element is a piston, a spindle or a pin (piston 33; see paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 5, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses wherein a magnitude of a stroke of the force transmission element deviates at most by 20% from an offset height of the associated punch between the operating position and the offset position (it is interpreted that piston 33 is capable of deviating no more than 20% from the offset height when it moves between the operating position and the offset position).
Examiner notes that as best understood, Ventura discloses the structures necessary for the stroke magnitude to deviate at most by 20% from an offset height between the operating position and offset position. In other words, the force transmission element (piston 33) merely has to be capable of having a stroke magnitude deviate at most by 20% from an offset height, since this limitation is drawn to the intended use of the device during operation and does not require additional structure (see MPEP section 2114(II)).
Regarding claim 6, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 1 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 of the punching device and a 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 7, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses wherein the at least one adjustment unit is fastened to a lifting table of the punching device or integrated therein (actuation device 29 is formed within shearing device 26, which is affixed to connection plate 21; see figs. 3 and 8).
Regarding claim 10, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses a plurality of adjustment units one behind the other in the direction of travel of the blister strip and/or next to each other perpendicular to the direction of travel of the blister strip (actuation devices 29 are arranged next to each other in a direction perpendicular to feed direction D; see figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 11, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 1 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 16, Ventura discloses a blister packaging machine comprising: a punching device for punching out blister packs from a blister strip (shearing apparatus 50 is configured for use in packaging of small-sized products; see paragraph [0002]), wherein the punching device comprises at least a first (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 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 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 (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, 5); and wherein the at least one adjustment unit has a force transmission element, which is adjustable in the punching direction in order to move said punch between the operating position and the offset position (actuation device 29 comprises piston 33 for transmitting force and is adjustable in the punching direction to change a position of blade 28; see paragraph [0059] and figs. 3, 4).
Claims 1 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cros (US 20200238630).
Regarding claim 1, Cros discloses a punching device for punching out blister packs from a blister strip, the punching device comprising: at least a first (punch head assembly 30; see fig. 2) and a second punching element (base member 22; see fig. 2), wherein the first punching element has at least one punch (punch head assembly 30 includes punch head 36; see fig. 2) and the second punching element has a die (base member 22 accepts backing plate 26 within rectangular recess 24; see paragraph [0031] and fig. 2); 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 head 36 is configured to ascend and descend in order to punch the workpiece; see paragraph [0006]); wherein the punching device furthermore has, for each punch, at least one adjustment unit (air cylinder 12; see fig. 1) 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 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 (air cylinder 12 is configured to move punch head 36 between an offset position (open position, where punch head 36 is lifted) and an operating position (closed position, where punch head 36 is contacting the workpiece); see paragraphs [0006, 0030]); and wherein the at least one adjustment unit has a force transmission element, which is adjustable in the punching direction in order to move said punch between the operating position and the offset position (air cylinder 12 is a double acting pneumatic cylinder including a rod that extends downward to move punch head 36 between the operating position and offset position; see paragraphs [0030-0031]).
Regarding claim 12, Cros discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Cros further discloses wherein the at least one adjustment unit is releasably connected to the first punching element (air cylinder 12 and its rod are releasably connected to punch head 36 by mounting shoe 32; see paragraph [0009] and figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 13, Cros discloses the limitations of claim 12 as described in the rejection above.
Cros further discloses wherein the at least one adjustment unit remains in the punching device during a tool change of the punching elements (air cylinder 12 and its rod are not required to be removed from the punching device when the punching elements are removed; see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Cros discloses the limitations of claim 12 as described in the rejection above.
Cros further discloses wherein the releasable connection comprises a T-slot or dovetail slot in the region of the first punching element (punch head assembly 30 includes a T-slot in mounting shoe 32; see figs. 2 and 4) and a matching extension of the adjustment unit (T-bar mount 18 is interpreted as an extension of the rod of air cylinder 12; see paragraph [0031] and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Cros discloses the limitations of claim 14 as described in the rejection above.
Cros further discloses wherein the T-slot or dovetail slot extends perpendicular to the direction of travel of the blister strip (the T-slot formed in mounting shoe 32 is three-dimensional, and thus extends a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the workpiece regardless which direction ), and the first punching element is displaceable relative to the at least one adjustment unit in a direction perpendicular to the punching direction (punch head 36 is capable of sliding over T-bar mount 18 in a direction perpendicular to the punching direction; see paragraph [0031]) and perpendicular to the direction of travel of the blister strip (it is interpreted that a workpiece can be inserted through the front of the device, as shown in fig. 2 – therefore, the direction punch head 36 slides on/off T-bar mount 18 is perpendicular to the direction of travel of the workpiece; see fig. 2).
Examiner interprets that the limitation related to the first punching element being displaceable relative in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the blister strip is drawn to the intended use of the device. As discussed above, it is interpreted that Cros discloses all of the structural limitations of the claim as currently recited.
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 and 9 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 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 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 9, Ventura discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Ventura further discloses 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).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cros (US 20200238630).
Assuming arguendo, if Applicant disagrees with the above rejection of claim 15 and specifically if Applicant believes that Cros does not disclose the first punching element being displaceable relative to the at least one adjustment unit in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the blister strip, the following rejection is also presented.
Regarding claim 15, Cros discloses the limitations of claim 14 as described in the rejection above.
Cros further discloses wherein the T-slot or dovetail slot extends perpendicular to the direction of travel of the blister strip (the T-slot formed in mounting shoe 32 is three-dimensional, and thus extends a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the workpiece regardless which direction ), and the first punching element is displaceable relative to the at least one adjustment unit in a direction perpendicular to the punching direction (punch head 36 is capable of sliding over T-bar mount 18 in a direction perpendicular to the punching direction; see paragraph [0031]).
Cros does not explicitly disclose wherein the first punching element is displaceable relative to the at least one adjustment unit 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 Cros to make the first punching element displaceable relative to the at least one adjustment unit in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel in 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, the first punching element (punch head 36) and its associated parts could be rotated 90 degrees without changing the function of the device (i.e., the device would still be capable of performing a punching operation on a workpiece). In doing so, punch head 36 would then be capable of displacement in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of the workpiece. Examiner notes that this limitation is related to the intended use of the device, and that it does not appear to be impart any structure to the device on its own. Therefore, as a matter of simple design choice, such a modification would be obvious.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, and 14 of copending Application No. 19/218,962 (reference application #1) and over claims 1, 9, and 11 of copending Application No. 19/219,021 (reference application #2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is anticipated by claims 1, 12, and 14 of ‘962, and claim 1 is also anticipated by claims 1, 9, and 11 of ‘021.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
19/219,214 (instant application)
19/218,962 (copending application #1)
19/219,021 (copending application #2)
1. A punching device for punching out blister packs from a blister strip, the punching device comprising: at least a first and a second punching element, wherein the first punching element has at least one punch and the second punching element has a die; 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; wherein the punching device furthermore has, for each punch, at least one adjustment unit 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 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; and wherein the at least one adjustment unit has a force transmission element, which is adjustable in the punching direction in order to move said punch between the operating position and the offset position.
1. A punching device for punching out blister packs from a blister strip, the punching device comprising: at least a first punching element and a second punching element, wherein the first punching element has a plurality of punches, and the second punching element has a die; 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; wherein each punch is connected to at least one of a plurality of carriages during operation of the punching device, wherein the at least one of the plurality of carriages, 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.
12. The punching device according to claim 1, 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, 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, wherein each adjustment unit is fastened to one of the plurality of carriages or is formed integrally therewith.
14. The punching device according to claim 12, wherein the at least one adjustment unit has a force transmission element, which is adjustable in the punching direction and is individually controllable.
1. A punching device for punching out blister packs from a blister strip, the punching device comprising: at least a first punching element and a second punching element, wherein the first punching element has at least one punch and the second punching element has a die; 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; wherein the first punching element comprises a plurality of punch sets, wherein each punch set comprises a punch, an actuating plate and a plurality of punch guides which extend between said punch and the actuating plate and are connected thereto, wherein the punch guides extend through a base plate of the first punching element; and wherein the base plate of the first punching element has a punch set stop, which is in contact with the actuating plate in an operating position of said punch.
9. The punching device according to claim 1, wherein the punching device furthermore has, for each punch, at least one adjustment unit, 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, 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.
11. The punching device according to claim 9, wherein each adjustment unit has a force transmission element, which is adjustable in the punching direction.
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