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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/03/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections.
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims include the limitation “each of the charging container includes a shut-off slide”. Only one charging container is disclosed, but the word “each” implies that there is more than one charging container. The Examiner will read the claim as -- the charging container includes a shut-off slide--.
Claims 13 and 20 are objected for the following informalities:
The Claims read:
“for filling the feeding system using the charging container, a closure slide is arranged on the feeding system, and the shut-off slide of the filling station is further configured to open or close relative to the closure slide”.
There is no direct operating relationship between feeding system 1 and feeding station 5. The Examiner is considering there is a typo, and the Claims should read:
-- for filling the feeding system using the charging container, a closure slide is arranged on the feeding system, and the shut-off slide of the charging container is further configured to open or close relative to the closure slide--, and as such will be interpreted.
The Examiner notes also that the feeding system has a “closure slide”, but the feeding system is disclosed as having a “shut-off slide” but they are supposed to be identical so it is unusual that they are called with a different name; this is not technically wrong, but the Examiner wonders if it is not just another typo since the Specification actually doesn’t use the term “shut-off slide”.
Claims 11, 12, 18 and 19 are objected for the following informalities:
The Claims mention a “the three-dimensional robot” and then a “robot” that the Examiner considers is a typo and should be the same the three-dimensional robot.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 to 13 and 17 to 20 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 10 and 17:
The Claims include the limitation “the shut-off slide of the charging container is configured to open and close relative to the shut-off slide of the filling station”. The limitation is unclear, the shut-off slides are not opened and closed “relative” but maybe have relative movement between each other while sliding to the open and closed position; the limitations will be read on the line of paragraph 0011 that reads -- the two closure slides of the feed container and the feed system are arranged so that they can be moved relative to one another for the purpose of filling the feed system and are thus openable or closed--.
Regarding Claims 13 and 20:
The Claims include the limitation “the shut-off slide of the filling station is further configured to open or close relative to the closure slide”. The limitation is unclear, the shut-off slides are not opened and closed “relative” but maybe have relative movement between each other while sliding to the open and closed position; the limitations will be read on the line of paragraph 0011 that reads -- the two closure slides of the feed container and the feed system are arranged so that they can be moved relative to one another for the purpose of filling the feed system and are thus openable or closed--.
Regarding Claims 11 and 18:
The Claims include the limitation “an edge of the shut-off slide of the charging container engages an edge of the shut-off slide of the filling station”. This is unclear since, on Figures 7a to 7c it seems that an edge of filling station 5 is what contacts the shut-off slide of the charging container.
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.
Claims 7 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brom (US 2022/0388702) in view of Corby (US 5207353).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14:
Brom discloses an apparatus for charging a feeding system for packaging medicaments (Figure 1, the containment 1 will be considered the apparatus), the feeding system comprising a feeding box (Figure 1, collection container 7 will be considered the feeding box of a feeding system), the apparatus comprising: a three-dimensional robot having a charging container arranged on the three-dimensional robot (Figure 1, robot 17 will be considered the robot, that carries container 6 considered the charging container on tool carrier 3), wherein, wherein the charging container can be filled at a filling station using the three- dimensional robot (Figure 1, robot 17 fills containers 6 on storage container 8 that will be considered a filling station), and can be emptied over the feeding system using the three-dimensional robot (Figure 6K shows the emptying of a container 6 on collection container 7).
Brom does not disclose if each of the charging containers and the filling station include shut-off slides, Brom discloses using flap valves, similar to butterfly valves operated by a driver 42.
Corby teaches a container to transfer flowable solid material (Figure 8, bottle 102), that can be considered a charging container; the charging container can be emptied over sump lid 100, that will be considered a feeding system; the charging container include a shut-off slide (Figures 8 to 11, cover 122 will be considered a shut-off slide since it slides between bottle flange 106 and seal 143; cover 136 will also be considered a shut-off slide and the shut-off slide of the bottle 102 is configured to cooperate with the shut-off slide of the sump lid 100 such that filling of the charging container at the filling station take place in a substantially closed manner). Note that Brom used the same connection to attach the container 6 to the filling station and the feeding system so the charging container can be charged and emptied by the same opening and the shut-off slide of Corby does not require a specific actuator to open and close since they operate as the bottle is inserted.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Bram the teachings of Corby and replace the openings of Brom having flap valves operated by an actuator for the shut-off slide of Corby, having the same connection for both the filling station and the feeding system so the charging container can be emptied and filled by the same opening since the use of shut-off slides is a common practice in the art and have the additional advantage of not requiring a particular actuator to open and close.
Regarding Claim 8 and 15:
Brom discloses that the three-dimensional robot is arranged in a stationary manner between the filling station and the feeding system (Paragraph 0049, robot 17—in this case realized as an articulated robot—rests on its foundation 18).
Regarding Claim 9 and 16:
Brom discloses that the three-dimensional robot is arranged to be movable between the filling station and the feeding system (Figure 1, robot 17 moves the containers 6 between storage container 8 and collection container 7).
Regarding Claims 10 and 17:
As discussed for Claims 7 and 14 the invention of Brom is modified with the teachings of Corby
replace the openings of Brom for the charging container, filling station and feeding system having flap valves operated by an actuator for the shut-off slide of Corby having the same connection for both the filling station and the feeding system, allowing for the charging container to be emptied and filled by the same opening, since the use of shut-off slides is a common practice in the art and has the additional advantage of not requiring a particular actuator to open and close.
Therefore, it is considered that the modified invention of Brom discloses that for filling the feeding system using the charging container, a shut-off slide is arranged on the filling station, and the shut-off slide of the charging container is further configured to open or close relative to the shut-off slide of the filling station (Corby, Figures 8 to 11 show the relative movement of cover 122, considered the shut-off slide of the charging container and cover 136, considered the closure slide of the feeding system, to allow the contents of the charging container into the feeding system in a closed manner and without any waste). Having the same connection for the filling station as for the feeding system would require just to invert Figures 8 to 11 to apply them now to the discharge from the filling station to the charging container, the relative movement of cover 122, considered the shut-off slide of the charging container and cover 136, considered the shut-off slide of the filling station, to allow the contents of the filling station into the charging container in a closed manner and without any waste.
The Examiner notes that the Applicant only provided Figures for the connection of the Filling station with the charging container, but not for the connection with the Feeding system with the charging container.
Regarding Claims 11, 12, 18 and 19:
As already discussed for claims 10 and 17, Brom discloses that the three-dimensional robot is configured to guide the charging container to the filling station, and the invention of Brom as modified by Corby discloses replacing the openings of Brom for the charging container, filling station and feeding system having flap valves operated by an actuator for the shut-off slide of Corby having the same connection for both the filling station and the feeding system, allowing for the charging container to be emptied and filled by the same opening, and the shut-off slide of the charging container is configured to open and close relative to the shut-off slide of the filling station.
Corby teaches that an edge of the shut-off slide of the charging container engages the edge of the shut-off slide of the filling station such that the shut-off slide of the charging container and the shut-off slide of the filling station open and close simultaneously by corresponding movement of the charging container (Figures 8 to 11 show an edge of flange 106, that will be considered as an edge of the shut-off slide of the charging container, pushing an edge of cover 136, considered as an edge of the shut-off slide of the filling station, so the shut-off slide of the charging container and the shut-off slide of the filling station open and close simultaneously when the bottle 102 is inserted and retrieved).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified of Brom the teachings of Corby and have an edge of the shut-off slide of the charging container engage the edge of the shut-off slide of the filling station such that the shut-off slide of the charging container and the shut-off slide of the filling station open and close simultaneously by corresponding movement of the charging container that is being executed by corresponding movement of the robot, to allow for the contents of the filling station into the charging container in a closed manner and without any waste.
Regarding Claims 13 and 20:
As discussed for Claims 7 and 14 the invention of Brom is modified with the teachings of Corby
replace the openings of Brom for the charging container, filling station and feeding system having flap valves operated by an actuator for the shut-off slide of Corby having the same connection for both the filling station and the feeding system, allowing for the charging container to be emptied and filled by the same opening, since the use of shut-off slides is a common practice in the art and has the additional advantage of not requiring a particular actuator to open and close; so the modified invention of Brom discloses that for filling the feeding system using the charging container, a closure slide is arranged on the feeding system, and the shut-off slide of the charging container is further configured to open or close relative to the closure slide (Corby, Figures 8 to 11 show the relative movement of cover 122, considered the shut-off slide of the charging container and cover 136, considered the closure slide of the feeding system, to allow the contents of the charging container into the feeding system in a closed manner and without any waste).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular a rejection of the independent claims can be made over Brom (US 2022/0388702) in view of McAleavy (US 2020/0031512) that teaches using slide valves operated simultaneously, Chambers (US 2018/0082757) discloses a relevant robotic transfer of medicaments, Bradski (US 20160288324) teaches placing a robotic arm on a vehicle and Deegan (US 20030101690) teaches transpiring between containers by slide valves operating simultaneously and having relative movement between them.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDUARDO R FERRERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-7:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at 571-272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDUARDO R FERRERO/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
