DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-4 and 8-11 in the reply filed on 6-25-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not lack of unity. This is not found persuasive because the product claim 5 includes “a plurality of grooves equally distributed on the external walls” and “a thread comprised within the cylindrical body adapted to facilitate the sliding of the capsule but at the same time also facilitate the fixing of the capsule on the outlet of the small tube”. The product claim 5 depends from claim 1 which is a method claim that does not include a thread forming or groove forming so it is not apparent how there is unity between claim 5 and claim 1 when the product as claimed has special technical features of threads and grooves that are not manufactured in the method of claim 1 since claim 1 does not have thread forming or groove forming. Claim 6 is a product claim to a conical capsule which is not claimed in the claim 1 method and claims 7 and 12 are product claims to sandblasted grooves that are not claimed in claim 1 or claim 2.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 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 1-4 and 8-11 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.
Claim 1, line 2 “seal” should be --a seal--.
Claim 1, line 3 “breakage pyramid” should be --a breakage pyramid--.
Claim 1, line 4, it is not clear if “a security seal” is a new limitation or the same limitation as line 2 “seal”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the hole" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the aluminum sheet" and “the progression molding process” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1, line 10, it is not clear if “an aluminum sheet” is a new limitation or the same limitation as line 9 “the aluminum sheet”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the molding steps" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11, lines 12 and 13, the language “by means of the use of” appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document is an idiomatic error.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the desired shape" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the aluminum membrane" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the remains" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the type" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, line 24 “dry” should be --a dry--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the new" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2, lines 1 and 2, “a capsule” should be --the capsule--, “small tubes” should be --the small tubes-- and “seal” should be --the seal--.
Claim 3, lines 1 and 2, “a capsule” should be --the capsule--, “small tubes” should be --the small tubes-- and “seal” should be --the seal--.
Claim 4, lines 1 and 2, “a capsule” should be --the capsule--, “small tubes” should be --the small tubes-- and “seal” should be --the seal--.
Claim 4, line 4 sets forth “a common aluminum sheet”, is this the same sheet as in claim 1, line 9 or a new limitation?
Claim 4, line 5, “an aluminum sheet” should be --the aluminum sheet--.
Claim 4, line 5, sets forth “a progression mold”, is this the same progression mold as claim 1, line 13 or a new limitation?
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the central part" and “said cavity” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4, line 7, the language “allow that which will be subsequently defined” appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document is an idiomatic error.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the external ends" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the cylindrical body" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8, lines 1 and 2, “a capsule” should be --the capsule--, “small tubes” should be --the small tubes-- and “seal” should be --the seal--.
Claim 9, lines 1 and 2, “a capsule” should be --the capsule--, “small tubes” should be --the small tubes-- and “seal” should be --the seal--.
Claim 9, line 3 sets forth “a common aluminum sheet”, is this the same sheet as in claim 1, line 9 or a new limitation?
Claim 9, line 4, “an aluminum sheet” should be --the aluminum sheet--.
Claim 9, line 4, sets forth “a progression mold”, is this the same progression mold as claim 1, line 13 or a new limitation?
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the central part" and “said cavity” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9, line 6, the language “allow that which will be subsequently defined” appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document is an idiomatic error.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the external ends" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the cylindrical body" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10, lines 1 and 2, “a capsule” should be --the capsule--, “small tubes” should be --the small tubes-- and “seal” should be --the seal--.
Claim 10, line 3 sets forth “a common aluminum sheet”, is this the same sheet as in claim 1, line 9 or a new limitation?
Claim 10, line 4, “an aluminum sheet” should be --the aluminum sheet--.
Claim 10, line 4, sets forth “a progression mold”, is this the same progression mold as claim 1, line 13 or a new limitation?
Claim 10 recites the limitations "the central part" and “said cavity” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 10, line 6, the language “allow that which will be subsequently defined” appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document is an idiomatic error.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the external ends" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the cylindrical body" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11, lines 1 and 2, “a capsule” should be --the capsule--, “small tubes” should be --the small tubes-- and “seal” should be --the seal--.
Claim 11, line 3 sets forth “a common aluminum sheet”, is this the same sheet as in claim 1, line 9 or a new limitation?
Claim 11, line 4, “an aluminum sheet” should be --the aluminum sheet--.
Claim 11, line 4, sets forth “a progression mold”, is this the same progression mold as claim 1, line 13 or a new limitation?
Claim 11 recites the limitations "the central part" and “said cavity” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11, line 6, the language “allow that which will be subsequently defined” appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document is an idiomatic error.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the external ends" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the cylindrical body" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackenzie (GB 1598428) in view of Ferraro (9,834,346) and Green (2,367,393) and further in view of Gorsuch et al. (2016/0306347). Mackenzie discloses a method of manufacturing a capsule (6) from an aluminum sheet (page 1, lines 60-62) that is formed into a capsule (6) by a progressive punch and die (page 1, lines 92-99) and is configured to seal a tube (12; Fig. 5). Mackenzie discloses molding by extending the aluminum sheet by cupping (page 1, lines 84-86) in a punch and die through a first passage to sculpt and mold the aluminum sheet into a cup (2) and ironing (page 1, lines 93-100) with a punch and die in a second passage to reach a desired shape (5; page 2, lines 4-6) ready for decorating by painting (coating and printing; page 2, lines 7-8).
Regarding the "study" step of claim 1, Mackenzie teaches that metal material including aluminum is used to construct the cap (6) and references material data (page 2, lines 34-50) including deformation resistance (page 2, lines 45-50).
Regarding the “removal” step of claim 1, Mackenzie discloses trimming (page 2, 14-16) any remains that were left after the progression molding.
Regarding the "quality control" step of claim 1, Mackenzie teaches passing ironed blanks to further processing provided they are not too hard (page 2, lines 53-56).
Regarding the “painting” step of claim 1, Mackenzie discloses painting (page 1, lines 57-58).
Regarding the “drying” step of claim 1, Mackenzie discloses drying the capsules (page 2, lines 9-11) in a dry stoving environment.
Mackenzie does not disclose forming a breaking pyramid. Ferraro teaches (col. 2, lines 31-36) that a metal threaded cap (60; Fig. 10) is formed with a breaking pyramid (64) that is configured to pierce a seal (22) of a container (3; Fig. 4) with a pointed surface of the breaking pyramid (64; col. 4, lines 2-4). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to manufacture a breaking pyramid on the cap of Mackenzie as taught by Ferraro to facilitate piercing of a sealing member on the tube container so that the user easily accesses the tube contents.
Mackenzie does not disclose the cleaning step with an air stream and the storage step of storing the capsules prior to capping. Green teaches a compressed air jet (11; page 2, col. 1, lines 30-35) for blowing dust and dirt particles from caps (3) that are stored in a storage receptacle (20) awaiting capping. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to clean the capsules of Mackenzie as taught by Green in order to prepare the capsules for capping on the tubular container.
Mackenzie does not disclose the analysis step by laser reading. Gorsuch teaches strip sensors (31A,31B; [0062]) that are laser sensors configured to sense a sheet (2) that is going to be processed in a molding machine (conversion press, 10) to form a lid product. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to sense the aluminum sheet of Mackenzie prior to entry into the progression mold as taught by Gorsuch in order to sense the sheet to provide optimum feeding into the progression mold.
Regarding claim 2, Mackenzie discloses threads (9A) being deformed in the cap (6) to mate with a threaded tube (12) outside of the progression molding steps (page 2, lines 23-25).
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackenzie (GB 1598428) in view of Ferraro (9,834,346) and Green (2,367,393) and Gorsuch et al. (2016/0306347) and further in view of Lin et al. (CN 111069459A). Mackenzie in view of Ferraro, Green and Gorsuch does not disclose water as a cleaning medium. Lin teaches [0026] that cleaning of an aluminum molded lid with water is done prior to drying so that volatile lubricating oil [0027] is removed. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute cleaning water as taught by Lin for the cleaning air of Mackenzie in view of Ferraro, Green and Gorsuch so as to remove any molding oils that are used during drawing to lubricate the aluminum sheet.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 and 9-11 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 prior art of record does not disclose that the progression mold comprises at least five passages for molding the capsule starting from the aluminum sheet, the passages comprise, extending the aluminum sheet within the progression mold, first molding carried out in a central part of the aluminum sheet a cavity in the central part being adapted to define the breakage pyramid, second molding wherein external ends of the sheet are maintained in position while the central part is thrust downward, third molding in which the external ends of the sheet, previously fixed and still horizontal, are lowered and come to create a cylindrical body of the capsule and fourth molding, by actuation of a tool inserted in the progression molding machine to form a thread that is imparted within the capsule, including the limitations of base claim 1 and any intervening claims and overcoming the 35 USC 112b rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Berndt (8,079,485) teaches (col. 8, lines 37-40) that a threaded cap (10) is formed by a molding process with a breaking pyramid (perforating structure, 20; col. 6, lines 36-38) that is configured to pierce a seal within an inner diameter of a container (col. 6, lines 56-58) with a pointed outer surface (25) of the perforating member (20; col. 7, lines 46-48).
Haar (2022/0305542) teaches forming a closure cap in a cupping operation, a first redrawing (210) comprising a punch (222) and die (214), a second redrawing (212) comprising a punch (240) and a die (234) and an ironing operation (236).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights