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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-9, 12-16, and 18-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 has been amended to include the limitation “wherein rotation of the rotor is stopped upon reaching the maximum torque.” Since this limitation is repeated verbatim in claim 11 with no additional limitations recited, claim 11 fails to further limit claim 3. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernini (WO 2021/115545) in view of Lu (US 2017/0179805), Kitamoto (US 2001/0018820), Wilhelm (US 2010/0307110), and Duperray (US 2022/0281697).
Bernini teaches a machine (1) for handling and processing containers (2), the machine comprising a working table (4) having a plurality of individually-excitable solenoids (15), a working surface (5) which lies above the solenoids, a plurality of conveying members (8) which include base plates (10) with permanent magnets (16) therein, and handling units (3), such as a capping unit (3b) arranged above the working table (See Figures; p. 5-10). Each conveying member is rotatable about its own axis which is perpendicular to the working surface (See Figures; p. 9). The containers of Bernini read on the instantly claimed object. The solenoids (15), by definition, include coils which generate a magnetic field. Therefore the plurality of solenoids (15) include a plurality of coil groups which collectively form stator assemblies as claimed. The working surface (5) reads on the instantly claimed stator surface. The base plate (10) and magnets (16) read on the instantly claimed rotor and magnet units, respectively, with the rotor being rotatable about its own axis as claimed. The capping unit (3b) reads on the instantly claimed processing element arranged above the stator surface which holds a cover for the object.
Bernini also discloses a method of handling and processing containers using the machine, the method comprising: holding a container on each conveying member; magnetically coupling the solenoids and permanent magnets such that they magnetically interact with one another to produce movement and levitation of the conveying members with respect to the working surface, wherein the movement includes both conveying the containers between the various handling units by translation along the working surface and rotation of the conveying members about their own axes, particularly during capping; and processing the containers at the handling units, including applying caps to the containers at the capping unit (3b) (See Figure; p. 5-10). The magnetic coupling of the solenoids and magnets involves energizing the solenoids of the working table to produce the magnetic field, which reads on the step of energizing the coil groups. Since the magnetic coupling produces both rotational and translational movement, both energizing steps are met. The capping of the containers at the capping unit reads on the instantly claimed step of processing the object with aid of rotation of the rotor, wherein the processing element acts upon the object.
Regarding the claimed rotational position and spatial arrangement, Bernini teaches that each conveying member may rotate about its own axis during capping, as detailed above. During such capping, any position where the rotation and capping occur reads on the instantly claimed rotational position. Since the capping unit must provide a cap to the container at this position, the spatial arrangement of the capping unit is predetermined by the rotational position as claimed.
Bernini does not expressly disclose that the rotational position is determined based on a point of contact of four stator assemblies such that the rotor is centered above the point of contact.
Lu teaches a displacement device comprising a stator having a plurality of conductive coils and a movable stage having one or more magnet arrays which interact with the conductive coils to produce movement of the stage relative to the stator (See Abstract). Lu teaches that a stage (710) may rotate at an intersection point of four independently driven excitation regions (43A-43D) of the stator such that a center of symmetry of the rotor occurs at the intersection (See Figs. 21I-21K; [0191]-[0194]). The independently driven excitation regions read on the instantly claimed four stator assemblies which determine the rotational position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to rotate the conveying members of Bernini at a rotational position defined by four stator assemblies because Lu teaches that such an arrangement was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for such a purpose (See Figs. 21I-21K; [0191]-[0194]).
Regarding the capping unit, Bernini does not provide a detailed description of the unit but states that caps are applied “in a manner known and not described in detail” (See p. 5). Bernini does not expressly disclose superposed rotational movement of the rotor and movement of the rotor away from the stator surface (i.e. in a vertical or z-axis direction) to cause the cover to be screwed to the object as claimed.
Bernini teaches the rotational movement required during capping, but does not expressly disclose how the vertical component of the capping operation is performed, only stating that the capping is performed in a known manner. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would look to other prior art teachings to determine how such vertical movements are conventionally achieved. Wilhelm teaches that relative vertical movement between a bottle and a closing machine may be achieved by raising the bottle support, moving the closing machine, or both (See [0009]-[0012]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the known manner of capping recited by Bernini would include vertically moving a bottle support, since Wilhelm teaches that such a technique was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for this purpose.
Bernini does not expressly disclose vertical movement of the object by moving the rotor away from the stator surface as claimed. However it was known in the prior art at the time of filing that rotors on planar drive surfaces can provide a lifting movement in addition to translational and rotational movements.
Duperray teaches a planar conveying system for a beverage plant, the planar conveying system (100) comprising a driving surface (102) on which a plurality of movers (104) move on the driving surface in a controlled manner by electromagnetic forces (See Figures; [0028]-[0034]) in order to move containers between processing stations (See [0013]-[0015]). The driving surface (102) and movers (104) of Duperray read on the instantly claimed stator surface and at least one rotor, respectively. Duperray teaches that the movers are movable with six degrees of freedom, including lifting (See [0020]; [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a lifting movement to the rotor of Bernini during capping in addition to the rotational movement. Bernini teaches that capping is performed in a known manner and does not elaborate on such a capping operation. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would look to other prior art references to establish conventional capping procedures, and all aspects of the instantly claimed capping operation are taught in the prior art. More specifically, it was known in the prior art that a threaded cap inherently results in relative vertical movement between a capping machine and a container (Kitamoto), that such relative movement may be achieved by lifting a container support (Wilhelm), and that container-supporting rotors can provide a lifting motion in addition to translational and rotational movements during processing (Duperray). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the known manner of capping recited by Bernini would include vertically moving the rotor during rotation to account for a relative vertical movement between the closure and the container as claimed.
Claims 3, 6-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernini (WO 2021/115545) in view of Kitamoto (US 2001/0018820), Wilhelm (US 2010/0307110), Duperray (US 2022/0281697), Neubauer (US 2023/0271738), and Lang (US 2010/0257823).
Bernini teaches a machine (1) and corresponding method for handling and processing containers (2), the machine including a capping unit which applies caps in a known manner, as detailed above. The known manner generally disclosed by Bernini includes superposed rotational and vertical movement of the rotor based upon the teachings of Kitamoto, Wilhelm, and Duperray, also detailed above. The limitations of claim 3 which are shared with claim 1 are rejected for the same reasons detailed above and will not be repeated here for brevity.
Regarding control commands for energizing the coil groups during rotation being output based on a closed-loop control, Bernini teaches that movement of the conveying members is controlled by means of a control unit which is well-known in the art (See p. 10). Bernini does not expressly disclose a closed-loop control unit which is configured to output control signals as claimed.
Neubauer teaches a device (10) and method for equipping containers (12) using a planar drive system (16), wherein the planar drive system includes a base element (30) forming a stator with coils and a plurality of movement devices (32) with permanent magnets, wherein the movement devices may be moved freely and independently of one another on the base element by means of magnetic interaction (See Figures; [0043]-[0047]). Neubauer teaches a control unit which controls the movement devices during operation (See [0009]; [0014]; [0022]), wherein the control unit can refer to an electronic system configured as a closed-loop feedback controller (See [0034]). Such electronic closed-loop feedback controllers work by measuring a desired variable, comparing measured values to desired values, and sending output control signals which adjust various components to bring the measured values in alignment with desired values.
Since Bernini states that control units are well known in the art but does not provide details as to their operation, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to other prior art references to determine what types of controllers were conventionally used in the art. One such reference is Neubauer, which teaches that electronic systems configured as a closed-loop feedback controllers are well known and conventionally used in the art (See [0034]). Since the electronic feedback controller of Neubauer was known in the art and recognized as being suitable for use in controlling movement devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the control unit generally disclosed by Bernini would include an electronic closed-loop feedback controller.
Regarding the limitations “wherein, based on the closed-loop control, torque and/or angular momentum is taken into account during the superposed first motion and second motion, wherein a maximum torque and/or a maximum angular momentum are determined; wherein the maximum torque is determined based on the control commands for energizing the coil groups and actual currents within the coil groups, wherein rotation of the rotor is stopped upon reaching the maximum torque” Bernini and Neubauer do not expressly disclose determining a maximum torque and/or angular momentum based upon control commands for energizing the coil groups and currents within the coil groups and taking torque and/or angular momentum into account such that the controller stops rotation of a rotor once a predetermined maximum value is reached.
Lang teaches a method of applying closures to containers, the method comprising measuring a torque with which the closures are applied, comparing the torque to a predetermined final torque value, and stopping the application of the closure when the final torque value is reached (See Abstract; [0018]-[0020]). The final torque of Lang reads on the instantly claimed maximum torque
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take torque into consideration during the controlled capping operation taught by the combination Bernini, Kitamoto, Wilhelm, Duperray, and Neubauer. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Lang that to do so would predictably provide an ideal balance between complete, leak-proof sealing and ease of cap removal by an end user (See [0006]). In the proposed combination, the closed-loop control of rotor rotation must involve measuring and controlling the energizing of the coil groups, since the energizing of such groups directly determines how the rotors move relative to the stator/working surface.
Regarding claim 6, in the proposed combination the center of the cap would necessarily be centered above the container in order to be applied to a central opening on the container.
Regarding claim 7, in the proposed combination the conveying member rotates and lifts during capping, as detailed above. Wilhelm also teaches that it is conventional in the art to provide vertical movement to both a container support and a capping machine (See [0012]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to vertically move the capping unit of Bernini toward the rotor as claimed.
Claim 11 is identical in scope to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons detailed above.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernini (WO 2021/115545) in view of Kitamoto (US 2001/0018820), Wilhelm (US 2010/0307110), Duperray (US 2022/0281697), Neubauer (US 2023/0271738), and Lu (US 2017/0179805).
Bernini teaches a machine (1) and corresponding method for handling and processing containers (2), the machine including a capping unit which applies caps in a known manner, as detailed above. The known manner generally disclosed by Bernini includes superposed rotational and vertical movement of the rotor based upon the teachings of Kitamoto, Wilhelm, and Duperray, also detailed above. Bernini also generally discloses that movement of the conveying members is controlled by means of a control unit which is well-known in the art. One conventional control unit includes a closed-loop feedback controller, as taught by Neubauer and detailed above. Lastly, Bernini does not expressly disclose that the rotational position is determined based on a point of contact of four stator assemblies. However such an arrangement is taught by Lu, as detailed above. All of the components of the planar drive system are taught by Bernini, Kitamoto, Wilhelm, Duperray, Neubauer, and Lu. Since the teachings of all such components and the rationale for their combination is explained above in detail in regard to claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 11, they will not be repeated here for brevity.
Regarding the newly added limitation which requires that the cover is screwed onto an object “via a thread; wherein a relative change in a distance of the rotor with respect to the processing element during a complete rotation of the rotor depends on a pitch of the thread,” such a limitation is clearly present in the proposed combination. The application of a screw cap to a container inherently produces a change in distance between the cap and the container that is directly dependent on a pitch of the threads. The threads of the cap have a helical shape and are matched to helical threads on the container. It is common sense in the art that when the threads engage one another to close the container, their helical shape inherently produces relative vertical movement as a direct result of the thread pitch. Kitamoto, for example, teaches that a cap will descend in a vertical direction by an amount corresponding to a size of a male thread during application by rotation (See [0068]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 09/01/2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In response to applicant's arguments that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, Examiner does not rely upon improper hindsight reasoning and instead relies upon the teachings of the prior art to arrive at the instantly claimed invention.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
With regard to claim 1, Applicant states “The Office acknowledges that neither Bernini nor Lu expressly teaches the claimed rotational position, as determined based on a point of contract of four stator assemblies.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. No such acknowledgement is made, and Lu teaches that a stage (710) may rotate at an intersection point of four independently driven excitation regions (43A-43D) of the stator such that a center of symmetry of the rotor occurs at the intersection (See Figs. 21I-21K; [0191]-[0194]).
Applicant argues that Bernini’s statement that “caps are applied in a manner known and not described in detail,” provides no motivation to search for such cap application techniques in the prior art because there is no need to describe how the caps are applied. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since Bernini states that caps are applied in a known manner, any teachings within the prior art regarding the application of caps provide important insights as to what cap application techniques would be included in the “known manner” generally disclosed by Bernini. Bernini’s statement that “caps are applied in a known manner” cannot be taken to mean that such a step should be completely ignored and no teachings of the prior art pertaining to such a step should be considered, as suggested by the Applicant.
Applicant argues that Examiner relies upon circular logic for combining Bernini and Lu. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. In this instance, Lu teaches that a particular stator assembly is known in the art and recognized as being suitable for forming a working surface on which a rotor is driven. Therefore the use of the stator assembly of Lu in the working surface of Bernini for the same intended purpose is obvious.
Applicant also states that “there was nothing in Bernini itself to suggest the proposed combination with Lu.” This is not persuasive, as the primary reference need not have motivation for combining with a secondary reference to support a conclusion of obviousness. In this case, the teachings of Lu provide a known stator configuration which would have been obvious to use in the machine of Bernini for the reasons detailed above.
Applicant argues that Bernini and Lu fail to teach or fairly suggest the newly added limitation “a center of symmetry of the rotor is arranged above the point of contact of the four stator assemblies.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that Lu clearly teaches such a feature, as detailed above.
Applicant also argues that Bernini and Lu fail to teach or fairly suggest every limitation of claim 1 and that Kitamoto, Wilhelm, and Duperray fail to remedy the deficiencies of Bernini and Lu. Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that all limitations of the claim are clearly taught by the prior art, as detailed in the rejections above.
Applicant argues that there are no teachings in the prior art which would tie together the disparate concepts to arrive at the instantly claimed invention, particularly with regard to the capping operation. Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that all statements of obviousness are provided with clearly articulated rationale based upon the prior art teachings.
With regard to claim 3, Applicant argues that neither Neubauer nor Lang teaches the instantly claimed arrangement in which a closed-loop control governs energization of coil groups during rotational movement of a rotor. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Neubauer teaches a closed-loop feedback controller which controls the movement devices during operation, as detailed above. Since the movement devices are driven by magnetic interaction with the stator based on energizing of the coil groups, such control necessarily requires governing the energization of coil groups during rotational movement, as detailed above.
Applicant also argues that the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the determination of maximum torque as claimed along with stopping the rotation of the rotor when the maximum torque is reached. Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the proposed combination of references teaches the determination of maximum torque and that rotation of the rotor is stopped when such a torque is reached, as detailed above.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest pitch-dependent distance-change relationship and screw-on kinematics as they pertain to planar-drive rotors, stating that the prior art concerns more general teachings that threaded caps and containers move relative to one another during closing. Applicant is attempting to characterize inherent principles which arise naturally based on the structure and operation of threaded closures as inventive advancements which differentiate the claimed invention from the prior art. It is well-established in the prior art that the application of threaded closures on container openings necessarily involves vertical movement which occurs simultaneously with rotational movement. Such vertical movement is inherently dependent on the pitch of the threads. Examiner maintains that such features are well-known and conventional, arising naturally from the structure of a threaded closure and its principles of operation. Therefore the recitations of such features fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Applicant argues that the withdrawn claims are eligible for rejoinder based on the allowability of claims 1, 3, and 17. This argument is not persuasive because claims 1, 3, and 17 are not in condition for allowance. Therefore claims 8-9, 12-16, and 18-20 remain withdrawn from consideration.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/CARSON GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
