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Claims 8-9, 12-16, and 18-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 § 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) in the table, 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.
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 (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.
Regarding superposed rotational and vertical movements, the application of a threaded or screw cap to a container inherently requires these superposed movements due to the nature 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 requires both vertical and rotational movement. 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]).
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 sending output control signals as claimed.
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 limitation “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 or a maximum angular momentum are predetermined,” Bernini and Neubauer do not expressly disclose 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]).
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 is it 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.
Regarding claim 11, Lang teaches that the closing operation is stopped or ended upon reaching the final torque (See [0006]). In the proposed combination, stopping or ending the capping operation includes stopping the rotation of the rotor.
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 regards to claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 11, they will not be repeated here for brevity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 6-7, 11, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments regarding rejoinder of withdrawn claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the withdrawn claims should be rejoined because claims 1, 3, and 17 are allowable. Examiner respectfully disagrees because such claims remain rejected over the prior art. Applicant asserts that the claimed inventions are related as distinct products or processes and that one invention should be rejoined should another be found allowable. This argument does not apply in the instant case because the withdrawn claims are drawn to patentably distinct species rather than distinct products or processes. A rejoinder of the withdrawn claims would require that a generic claim be found allowable.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights