DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed 10/15/2025.
The status of the Claims is as follows:
Claims 1-18 have been cancelled;
Claims 19-38 are new;
Claims 19-38 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/15/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Application on 10/15/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations in this application that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) include:
A device for positioning (top rim 1)
First mechanical interface (edge griper 2)
First machine readable interface (first symbol detected by a machine 5)
Second machine readable interface (second symbol detected by a machine 6)
Second mechanical interface (basket gripper 3)
Third mechanical interface (force locking lugs 7)
Interface surface (first 5 or second 6 machine readable interface)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 19-22, 25, 25, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37 & 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20200147250; Lin) in view of Smith et al. ( US 20120152289; Smith)
Regarding Claim 19 Lin discloses a device for positioning (504) contents in a container (500), the device comprising
a first mechanical interface (530) to the container, the first mechanical interface (524) being configured to limit movement of contents of the container, the device further comprising at least one of:
a first machine-readable interface (532) (par 96) visible in top view for detecting the contents of the container (500) (Fig. 9),
However Lin does not expressly teach a screen basket.
Smith teaches a device (30) for positioning contents in a screen basket (50) in a container (10). Smith further teaches a first mechanical interface (34) configured to limit movement of the screen basket (50) in the container (10), the screen basket (50) providing a sterile surface for the contents of the container for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 49-51)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the container of Lin to include a screen basket as taught by Smith since par 49-51 of Smith suggests that such a modification provides sterile surface for the contents of the container for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 20 the modified invention of Lin in view of Smith teaches the invention as described above. Lin teaches a positioning device (504) with a first mechanical interface (524). Lin further teaches a second mechanical interface (530) for gripping the device (504) . (par 102)
Regarding Claim 21 the modified invention of Lin in view of Smith teaches the invention as described above. Lin teaches the second mechanical interface (530) for gripping the device comprises the first machine-readable interface (532). (Fig. 9)
Regarding Claim 22 the modified invention of Lin in view of Smith teaches the invention as described above. Lin teaches first (524) and second (530) mechanical interface.
However Lin does not expressly teach a third mechanical interface for connection to the screen basket.
Smith teaches a device (30) for positioning contents in a screen basket (50) in a container (10). Smith further teaches a first mechanical interface (34) configured to limit movement of the screen basket (50) in the container (10), the screen basket (50). Smith further teaches a third mechanical interface (56) for connection to the screen basket (50) providing an extension to the basket expanding the space holding the contents of the container for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 49-51)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the container of Lin to include a screen basket and a second mechanical interface for gripping the basket as taught by Smith since par 49-51 of Smith suggests that such a modification provides an extension to the basket expanding the space holding the contents of the container for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus..
Regarding Claim 25 the modified invention of Lin in view of Smith teaches the invention as described above. Lin teaches a positioning device (504).
However Lin does not expressly teach at least one flushing channel leading through the device.
Lin teaches a positioning device (404) that includes a first mechanical to the container (402). Lin further teaches a plurality of flushing channels (418) leading through the device providing fluids, steam, and chemical sterilization agents to pass through the device and into the interior of the sterilization container for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 71)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the positioning device of Lin in view of Smith to include at least one flushing channel leading through the device as taught by Lin since par 71 of Lin suggests that such a modification provides fluids, steam, and chemical sterilization agents to pass through the device and into the interior of the sterilization container for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 28 the modified invention of Lin in view of Smith teaches the invention as described above. Lin teaches a positioning device (504). Lin further teaches the first mechanical interface (530) comprises a surface for reducing play between the contents and the container (500).
However Lin does not expressly teach the screen basket.
Smith teaches a device (30) for positioning contents in a screen basket (50) in a container (10). Smith further teaches a first mechanical interface (34) comprises a surface for reducing play between the screen basket (50) in the container (10), the screen basket (50) providing a sterile surface for the contents of the container for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 28, 49-51)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the container of Lin to include a screen basket as taught by Smith since par 28, 49-51 of Smith suggests that such a modification provides sterile surface for the contents of the container for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 29 the modified invention of Lin in view of Smith teaches the invention as described above. Lin teaches an interface surface (524) that contains the first machine-readable interface (532).
Regarding Claim 32 the modified invention of Lin in view of Smith teaches the invention as described above. Lin teaches the interface surface (524) comprises a second mechanical interface (530) for gripping the device.
Regarding Claim 33 the modified invention of Lin in view of Smith teaches the invention as described above. Lin teaches the first machine-readable interface (532) comprises an optically readable marker that encodes an identifier of the contents of the container in a machine-readable manner. (par 96)
However Lin does not expressly teach the screen basket.
Smith teaches a device (30) for positioning contents in a screen basket (50) in a container (10). Smith further teaches a label for identifying the contents of the screen basket (50) providing a sterile surface for the contents of the container for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 28, 49-51)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the container of Lin to include a screen basket as taught by Smith since par 28, 49-51 of Smith suggests that such a modification provides sterile surface for the contents of the container for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 35 the modified invention of Lin in view of Smith teaches the invention as described above. Lin teaches a transmitter (par 96) configured to transmit an electromagnetic signal for detecting the contents in the container (500), wherein the first machine-readable interface (532) comprises the transmitter. (par 96)
However Lin does not expressly teach the screen basket.
Smith teaches a device (30) for positioning contents in a screen basket (50) in a container (10). Smith further teaches a label for identifying the contents of the screen basket (50) providing a sterile surface for the contents of the container for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 28, 49-51)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the container of Lin to include a screen basket as taught by Smith since par 28, 49-51 of Smith suggests that such a modification provides sterile surface for the contents of the container for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 37 the modified invention of Lin in view of Smith teaches the invention as described above. Lin teaches a transmitter (532) configured to transmit an electromagnetic signal for detecting the contents of the container (500), wherein the transmitter is adhesively bonded to the device or wherein the device is at least partially made of plastics, with the transmitter surrounded by the plastics. (par 96, 122)
However Lin does not expressly teach the screen basket.
Smith teaches a device (30) for positioning contents in a screen basket (50) in a container (10). Smith further teaches a label for identifying the contents of the screen basket (50) providing a sterile surface for the contents of the container for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 28, 49-51)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the container of Lin to include a screen basket as taught by Smith since par 28, 49-51 of Smith suggests that such a modification provides sterile surface for the contents of the container for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 38 Lin teaches a system comprising:
a container (500) comprising a trough for receiving contents; and
a device (504) for positioning the contents in the container; the device (504) being insertable into the trough of the container (500) and adapted such that a mechanical interface (530) for limiting movement of the contents in the container (500) rests against an inner wall of the trough (par 93) and braces the contents against the trough, thus fixing a position of the contents in the container (500), the device comprising a first machine-readable interface (530) visible in top view for detecting the contents of the container (500).
However Lin does not expressly teach the screen basket.
Smith teaches a device (30) for positioning contents in a screen basket (50) in a container (10). Smith further teaches a mechanical interface (34) for limiting movement of the screen basket (50) providing a sterile surface for the contents of the container for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 28, 49-51)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the container of Lin to include a screen basket as taught by Smith since par 28, 49-51 of Smith suggests that such a modification provides sterile surface for the contents of the container for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 34 and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 23 the Prior Art does not teach the third mechanical interface comprises a lug and/or a locking mechanism for force-fitting and/or form-fitting connection to the screen basket.
Regarding Claim 24 the Prior Art does not teach the third mechanical interface comprises a joint for adhesive bonding and/or screwing to the screen basket.
Regarding Claim 26 the Prior Art does not teach the device comprises the screen basket, and the device and the screen basket are formed in one piece.
Regarding Claim 27 the Prior Art does not teach the device comprises both the first machine-readable interface and the second machine-readable interface, the first machine- readable interface and the second machine-readable interface provided on tabs that are cut from sheet metal in one piece with the screen basket and bent inwards.
Regarding Claim 30 the Prior Art does not teach the first machine-readable interface and/or the second machine-readable interface is embossed into the interface surface or printed on the interface surface.
Regarding Claim 31 the Prior Art does not teach the interface surface is configured for stacking a further screen basket.
Regarding Claim 34 the Prior Art does not teach the second machine-readable interface comprises a symbol with a unique indication of an orientation of the symbol.
Regarding Claim 36 the Prior Art does not teach a transmitter configured to transmit an electromagnetic signal for detecting the position and/or orientation of the screen basket, wherein the second machine-readable interface comprises the transmitter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Spens (US 2019/0175868) label 30
Frieze (US 2005/0238530) device 102, basket 164
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)270-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 4 pm - 11:59 pm Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights