DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response to the last Office Action, filed on 06/18/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground of rejection set forth herein; therefore, this action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Hao reference (JP 2019109072 A) is added to the rejection of the independent claims. Arguments directed to previous rejection are now moot. See detailed analysis below.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes that independent claim 20 is written without a transitional word or phrase, such as ‘comprising’, and as such the claims lack a formal delineation between the claim preamble and claim body. See MPEP § 2111.02 and 2111.03. The independent claims are therefore each interpreted as containing one long run-on preamble without any claim body. Examiner notes that the claim limitations may not be given any patentable weight. For purposes of expediency, a detailed rejection is provided below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18/685,134 (reference applications). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, 18/685,134 discloses a method for inspecting containers provided with closures for checking a sealing function between the closure and a container provided therewith, wherein the closure is arranged by performing a screwing-on operation on a mouth region of the container and thereby arranging it in a closing direction on a mouth region of the container, wherein the containers are transported along a predefined transport path by a transport device, and during this transport the containers provided with the closures are illuminated by a lighting device, at least in regions, and at least one image recording device records at least one spatially resolved image of the container to be inspected that is provided with the closure, (claim 1)
wherein to check the sealing function, the at least one spatially resolved image is recorded by the at least one image recording device in such a way that, viewed in the closure direction, a relative position of the closure with respect to the container provided therewith is depicted, and an image evaluation device determines, on the basis of the relative position depicted in the at least one spatially resolved image for checking the sealing function, at least one closure rotation angle variable characteristic of a closure rotation angle by which the closure was rotated in the context of the performed screwing-on operation. (claim 1)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 15-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cochran (US PGPub 2014/0311256) in view of Hao (JP 2019109072 A).
Regarding claim 1, Cochran discloses a method for inspecting containers provided with closures for checking a sealing function between the closure and a container provided therewith, wherein the closure is arranged by performing a screwing-on operation on a mouth region of the container and thereby arranging it in a closing direction on a mouth region of the container, wherein the containers are transported along a predefined transport path by a transport device, and during this transport the containers provided with the closures are illuminated by a lighting device, at least in regions, and at least one image recording device records at least one spatially resolved image of the container to be inspected that is provided with the closure, (Cochran teaches a system for sealing inspection of a screw cap on a plastic bottle. ¶ 0051 and 0063-0067 teaches using the texture features called on bottle caps and bottle support rings termed fiducials, marks or orientation patterns which are oriented with respect to thread elements of the cap and bottle or neck portion. ¶ 0058 teaches the lighting system.)
said method comprising to check the sealing function, the at least one spatially resolved image is recorded by the at least one image recording device in such a way that viewed in the closure direction, a relative position of the closure with respect to the container provided therewith is depicted, and an image evaluation device determines, on the basis of the viewed in the closure direction relative position depicted in the at least one spatially resolved image, at least one closure rotation angle variable characteristic of a closure rotation angle by which the closure was rotated in the context of the performed screwing-on operation. (Cochran’s fiducials/markings are taught at ¶ 0051 and 0063-0067. ¶ 0080 teaches detecting a fiducial on both the bottle’s flange ring and a fiducial on the cap/closure to determine a relative rotation angle between the two marks. See Figs. 5a-5c.)
In the field of bottle cap sealing inspection Hao teaches that no markings are provided on the closure or the container that allow the identification of a rotational position of the closure and/or the container. (Hao teaches a system for sealing inspection of a screw cap on a PET plastic bottle without using markings for identification, see Abstract and Fig. 1. Multiple images are taken during bottle transport (pg. 5, ll. 15-40) and the sealing closure is measured by a distance H indicating a magnitude of a closure distance between the cap and the neck ring (pg. 6, ll. 18-25). The bottle cap is sealed via a threaded bottle and rotatably sealing cap so the distance represents a closure rotation angle variable.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the above Cochran’s bottle cap sealing inspection with Hao’s bottle cap sealing inspection. Cochran measures bottle cap sealing by measuring the rotational angle of the bottle cap relative to the bottle. Hao teaches a system for sealing inspection of a screw cap on a PET plastic bottle without using markings for identification. Applying Hao’s technique would allow the system to be robust to identifying sealing closure in situations where there are no manufactured markings present. Simply using Hao’s technique cannot be considered a non-obvious improvement in view of the relevant prior art here. Using known engineering design, no “fundamental” operating principle of the teachings are changed; they continue to perform the same functions as originally taught prior to being combined.
Regarding claim 15, the above combination discloses a method for operating a closure apparatus for closing containers with closures, wherein the containers are transported along a predefined transport path by a transport device, said method comprising detecting at least one sealing variable which will be and/or is determined depending on the closure rotation angle variable determined according to the method of claim 1, and controlling and/or regulating of the closing process depending on the at least one detected sealing variable. (See Fig. 1 and ¶ 0080. Cochran ¶ 0048 teaches using the sealing status to communicate with the capper closure apparatus via sending a transmission signal to close the feedback loop.)
Regarding claim 16, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein the closure apparatus has a plurality of closure units, wherein each closure unit is configured to independently carry out a closure process and apply a closure to a container, wherein sealing variables determined are associated with those closure units which have carried out the corresponding closure process, wherein a control and/or regulation of the closure process of the plurality of closure units takes place in each case depending on the at least one sealing variable associated with the corresponding closure unit. (Cochran ¶ 0012, 0048-0050 and 0082.)
Regarding claim 17, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein a current state and a target state of the closure apparatus and/or one of the plurality of closure units is detected, and a target variable that is characteristic of a failure probability and/or a maintenance requirement is determined depending on a comparison of the current state to the target state. (Cochran ¶ 0048 teaches using the sealing status to communicate with the capper closure apparatus via sending a transmission signal to close the feedback loop based on the current and target state of the rotational angle.)
Claim 19 is the inspection apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1. Cochran teaches an apparatus, Abstract. Remaining limitations are rejected similarly. See detailed analysis above.
Claim 20 is the closure apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1. Cochran teaches control of the closing process and a transport path, see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0048 and 0080. Remaining limitations are rejected similarly. See detailed analysis above.
Claim(s) 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cochran (US PGPub 2014/0311256) in view of Hao (JP 2019109072 A) and Niedermeier (DE 102020121088 A1)
Regarding claim 13, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 1, but not the remaining limitations.
In the field of bottle cap sealing inspection Niedermeier teaches at least one image recording device records the containers from a direction which forms an angle of at most 60° with a horizontal plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the container and/or with a horizontal plane perpendicular to the closure direction. (See Figs. 2 and 3 with imaging on the horizontal plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the above combination’s bottle cap sealing inspection with Niedermeier’s bottle cap sealing inspection. Cochran measures bottle cap sealing by measuring the rotational angle of the bottle cap relative to the bottle. There is no express disclosure of imaging on the horizontal plane. Niedermeier likewise teaches bottle cap sealing by measuring the rotational angle of the bottle cap with imaging on the horizontal plane. Simply imaging horizontally cannot be considered a non-obvious improvement in view of the relevant prior art here. Using known engineering design, no “fundamental” operating principle of the teachings are changed; they continue to perform the same functions as originally taught prior to being combined.
Regarding claim 18, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein a control and/or regulation and/or maintenance of the closure apparatus is performed depending on a machine learning container closure model, which comprises a set of parameters which are set to values which have been learned as a result of a training process, wherein the training process is carried out on the basis of a set of training data, wherein the training data comprises data regarding at least one attachment variable that is characteristic of a relative position of the closure relative to the container provided therewith in relation to the closure direction, as well as data regarding the at least one sealing variable that is characteristic of the corresponding closure process. (Niedermeier pg. 4, ¶ 4 teaches “the position of the structures could be detected and the angular position thus calculated using a deep neural network, for example CNN. This can be trained, for example, with a large number of annotated camera images (i.e. enriched with angular position information) so that it can determine the position angle from the position and appearance of the marking in the images at runtime.”)
Conclusion
Based on these facts, 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Raphael Schwartz whose telephone number is (571)270-3822. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am-5pm CT.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571) 272-8243. 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.
/RAPHAEL SCHWARTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights