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Claims 8-9, 12-16, and 18-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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) and Naaber (US 2015/0375980).
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.
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 rotational 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 relative movement between the conveying members and the capping unit in parallel to the axis of rotation of the conveying member as claimed.
Naaber teaches a closing machine (2) for applying a container closure (6) to a container (5), wherein the closing machine includes a closing element (1a-1f) arranged above the container and configured to provide a rotational movement in a rotation direction (B) and vertical movement including a vertical stroke which positions the closure onto the container and a spring force which urges the cap downward during application (See Figures; [0028]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate a relative vertical movement between the capping unit and the base plate in the method of Bernini in addition to the rotational movement of the base plate. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Naaber that both movements are needed in order to secure a threaded closure on a container (See [0033]; [0035]). In the proposed combination, the rotational movement may be provided by the base plate alone or by the base plate and the capping unit.
Claims 3, 5-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernini (WO 2021/115545) in view of Neubauer (US 2023/0271738), Lang (US 2010/0257823), and Naaber (US 2015/0375980).
Bernini teaches a machine (1) and corresponding method for handling and processing containers (2), as detailed above.
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 are known 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 could include an electronic closed-loop feedback controller.
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 relative movement between the conveying members and the capping unit in parallel to the axis of rotation of the conveying member as claimed.
Naaber teaches a closing machine (2) for applying a container closure (6) to a container (5), wherein the closing machine includes a closing element (1a-1f) arranged above the container and configured to provide a rotational movement in a rotation direction (B) and vertical movement including a vertical stroke which positions the closure onto the container and a spring force which urges the cap downward during application (See Figures; [0028]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate a relative vertical movement between the capping unit and the base plate in the method of Bernini in addition to the rotational movement of the base plate. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Naaber that both movements are needed in order to secure a threaded closure on a container (See [0033]; [0035]).
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 of Bernini, Neubauer, and Naaber. 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 5, in the proposed combination the capping unit holds a cap for the container and screws the cap onto the container via the rotational movement and the relative vertical movement. The cap reads on the instantly claimed cover.
Regarding claim 6, in the proposed combination the center of the cap would necessarily be centered above the container and the conveying member in order to be applied to a central opening on the container.
Regarding claim 7, in the proposed combination the conveying member rotates and the capping unit (i.e. a closing element as taught by Naaber) provides a vertical movement toward the conveying member.
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 upon reaching the final torque.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernini (WO 2021/115545) in view of Neubauer (US 2023/0271738), Lu (US 2017/0179805), and Naaber (US 2015/0375980).
Bernini teaches a machine (1) and corresponding method for handling and processing containers (2), as detailed above.
Regarding the claimed controller being configured to output control signals for energizing information of the coil groups for rotor translation and rotation, 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 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]). The equipping of Neubauer may include various processing operations, including closing (i.e. capping) the containers (See [0033]). Neubauer teaches that the movement devices may carry out certain movements between processing stations and during processing operations, such as rotation and translation (See [0009]; [0046]-[0055]). 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 are known 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 could include an electronic closed-loop feedback controller.
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 relative movement between the conveying members and the capping unit in parallel to the axis of rotation of the conveying member as claimed.
Naaber teaches a closing machine (2) for applying a container closure (6) to a container (5), wherein the closing machine includes a closing element (1a-1f) arranged above the container and configured to provide a rotational movement in a rotation direction (B) and vertical movement including a vertical stroke which positions the closure onto the container and a spring force which urges the cap downward during application (See Figures; [0028]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate a relative vertical movement between the capping unit and the base plate in the method of Bernini in addition to the rotational movement of the base plate. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Naaber that both movements are needed in order to secure a threaded closure on a container (See [0033]; [0035]). In the proposed combination, the rotational movement may be provided by the base plate alone or by the base plate and the capping unit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 01/14/2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Bernini, Lu, and Naaber references do not teach or fairly suggest the limitation “wherein the spatial arrangement of the processing element is predetermined by the rotational position.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that a spatial arrangement of a capping unit of Bernini must coincide with a particular rotational position to function as described, which meets the limitation.
Applicant argues that the spatial arrangement claimed provides several advantages described in paragraph [0015] of the instant specification which are absent in the prior art. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. Therefore, even if the advantages provided by Applicant are different from those taught by the prior art, this is insufficient to overcome a rejection if the invention is otherwise the same. Examiner also disagrees that such advantages are absent in the prior art. The principle advantage described by Applicant is “it may be achieved that an interaction between the object and the processing element during rotor rotation leads to the processing of the object.” Such a feature is clearly present in the capping operation of Bernini, since the rotor rotates during capping (i.e. interaction between object and processing element during rotor rotation leads to processing and the rotation may be achieved by the rotor alone). Examiner notes that a second advantage “if the processing element and the object are to be rotated against each other during processing, it may be provided that this rotation is achieved exclusively by a rotation of the rotor” is simply a possibility which “may be provided” and is not positively recited in the claim. Since Bernini teaches rotation, and such rotation may be the only rotational movement required for processing, the same advantage may be provided in the Bernini reference.
Applicant argues that “the fact that Lu teaches a rotational position at the intersection of four independent-driven excitation regions of a continuous stator arrangement does not necessarily mean that the location of the capping unit is predetermined by the point of intersection or that the spatial arrangement of the processing element is predetermined by the rotational position.” Examiner maintains that the capping unit must be predetermined to coincide with the rotational position, as detailed above. If the capping unit and rotational position are not aligned, then the capping operation cannot occur.
Applicant argues that the limitation “the spatial arrangement of the processing element is predetermined by the rotational position” specifies more than mere co-location of the processing element in an area where rotation is possible because it requires that the processing element’s location is defined by a rotational position which is defined by an intersection of four stator assemblies. Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the prior art clearly teaches the spatial arrangement between a rotational rotor position and the processing element, as detailed above.
Applicant argues that Bernini teaches conveying members which can rotate but does not require that they rotate only at certain positions. This is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, which recite that the planar drive system comprises at least one rotational position. There is no recitation in the claim that the planar drive system include non-rotational positions as asserted by Applicant.
Applicant argues that Lu does not describe a processing element itself and a spatial arrangement between a rotor and such a processing element. 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. In this case, Applicant attacks the Lu reference for lacking teachings which are present in the other references used in the rejection.
In response to applicant's argument 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.
Applicant argues that the rotational positions of Bernini are dependent on the position of the processing elements, not the other way around. This is not persuasive because both must be aligned with one another. Therefore the position of the processing element must be spatially arranged to coincide with the rotational position just as the rotational position is spatially aligned with the processing element.
Applicant argues that the Naaber reference fails to teach superposed movements because rotation is achieved by a capping head in the Naaber reference. 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. In this case, Applicant attacks the Naaber reference for lacking a rotor for achieving rotation, when such a limitation is clearly taught by Bernini and Lu in the proposed combination.
Applicant argues that the claimed superposed movements are absent in the prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is abundantly clear from the prior art that a capping operation requires both a rotational movement along with a superposed vertical movement which correctly positions a cap and allows for vertical movement of the cap along threads of a container during application, as detailed above.
Applicant argues that in the proposed combination all rotation occurs in a closing head, which appears to be a misunderstanding of the proposed combination. In the proposed combination, rotation is achieved by the rotor, as taught by Bernini.
Applicant repeats the same arguments pertaining to claim 1 with respect to independent claims 3 and 17. Examiner’s response to such arguments is the same as detailed above.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest closed-loop control which accounts for torque as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the closed-loop control disclosed by Neubauer and the torque-based control of Lang combine to teach the same control methodology of claim 3, as detailed above.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant argues that the rotation at an intersection of four independently driven excitation regions in the Lu reference does not read on the limitation “wherein the rotational position is determined based on a point of contact of four stator assemblies.” Examiner disagrees because each excitation region is a “stator assembly,” which meets the claim.
Applicant refers to “physical” stator assemblies in an attempt to differentiate the claimed stator assemblies from the excitation regions of Lu, however the excitation regions of Lu are physically defined by discrete coil traces in the same way that the stator assemblies of the instant application are defined by coil groups. There is nothing more “physical” about the claimed stator assemblies and their corresponding coil groups than the excitation regions and corresponding coil traces of Lu. Examiner notes that the term “physical” does not appear anywhere in the claims or specification.
Applicant argues that no point of contact between stator assemblies exists in the Lu or Neubauer references. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Such points of contact occur at each corner where excitation regions of Lu intersect.
Applicant argues that the withdrawn claims should be rejoined because they depend on allowable independent claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion of allowability and maintains that the instantly claimed invention is known in the prior art, as detailed above. The restriction requirement is therefore maintained, and claims 8-9, 12-16, and 18-20 remain withdrawn from consideration.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights