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.
Rejections have been introduced under 35 USC 112(a) in view of amendments. Rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been modified in view of amendments.
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) has replaced the Takahashi reference in the rejection. See detailed analysis below.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes that the independent claims 10 and 15 are both 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amended claim now recites, “selected from a group comprising consisting of“, whereas there is only support in the original disclosure for the term “comprising”. The usage of the term “consisting of” is a closed term that limits the scope to the exact elements listed, excluding any unrecited components. There is no support in the disclosure for this concept.
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.
Claim 2 is 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. The claim recites, “the determined sealing quantity” with no appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites, “wherein the relative position of the closure relative to the container provided therewith is a relative position of a region of the closure which is designed to be fixed in the closure direction to perform the closing function, or of a feature which is associated therewith in a fixed position in the closure direction relative to the container, and/or in that it is a relative position of the closure in relation to a region of the container which is rigid in the closure direction in order to perform the closing function or a feature which is associated therewith in a fixed position in the closure direction, wherein the rigidity of the mentioned regions is due to a wall thickness that is increased compared to other regions of the closure and/or container.” The language appears to be replete with errors and grammatical issues. As such it is not clear what is meant here. In particular, the original claim contained a series of seemingly overlapping claim requirements connected with the terms “or” and “and/or”. It is not clear how the newly amended language relates to the original claim language. It is also not clear what the antecedent basis is of “the rigidity” and “the mentioned regions”. It is also not clear what the “other regions” may refer to. Examiner suggests the claim be re-written to present clear claim requirements.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites, “depending on the at least one sealing variable detecthed”. It is not clear what is meant by the term “detecthed”.
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 1-15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application Nos. 18/606,725 and 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, 18/606,725 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 being arranged by arrangement in a closure direction on a mouth region of the container, wherein the containers being transported by a transport device along a predefined transport path, and during this transport the containers provided with the closures being at least partially illuminated by a lighting device, and at least one image recording device recording at least one spatially resolved image of the container to be inspected provided with the closure, (claim 1)
wherein in order 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 a relative position of the closure, viewed in the closure direction relative to the container provided therewith, is depicted, and an image evaluation device, based on the relative position depicted in the at least one spatially resolved image, determines at least one sealing variable that is characteristic of performing the sealing function. (claim 1)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The remaining copending Applications are rejected similarly.
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) 1-12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao (JP 2019109072 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hao 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 in a closure direction on a mouth region of the container, wherein the containers are transported by a transport device along a predefined transport path, said method comprising during the transport the containers provided with the closures are at least partially illuminated and at least one spatially resolved image of the container to be inspected is provided of the closure using at least one image recording device, (Hao teaches a system for sealing inspection of a screw cap on a PET plastic bottle, 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).)
checking the sealing function by recording the at least one spatially resolved image by the at least one image recording device in such a way that a relative position of the closure, viewed in the closure direction relative to the container provided therewith, is depicted, and employing an image evaluation device, to determine at least one sealing variable that is characteristic of performing the sealing function based on the relative position depicted in the at least one spatially resolve image. (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).)
In the field of bottle cap sealing inspection Cochran teaches at least partially illuminating by a lighting device, using a diffuse incident light method. (Cochran teaches a system for sealing inspection of a screw cap on a plastic bottle. ¶ 0055 teaches using lighting arrays for illuminating called the bottle caps and bottle support rings.)
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 Hao’s bottle cap sealing inspection with Cochran’s bottle cap sealing inspection. Hao measures bottle cap sealing by measuring the distance between the cap and the neck ring, to ensure proper closure. Ambient lighting is used rather an explicit lighting device. Cochran teaches a system for sealing inspection of a screw cap on a plastic bottle and uses a lighting device. The combination constitutes the repeatable and predictable result of simply applying Cochran’s teaching here of using a lighting device. Simply using a light in manufacturing assembly inspection 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 2, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one determined sealing variable quantity is characteristic of a distance between a sealing region on the closure provided for performing the sealing function and a corresponding sealing region on the container provided for performing the sealing function. (As above, Hao’s 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).)
Regarding claim 3, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the relative position of the closure relative to the container provided therewith is a relative position of a region of the closure which is designed to be rigid in the closure direction to perform the closing function, or of a feature which is associated therewith in a fixed position in the closure direction relative to the container, and/or in that it is a relative position of the closure in relation to a region of the container which is rigid in the closure direction in order to perform the closing function or a feature which is associated therewith in a fixed position in the closure direction, wherein the rigidity of the mentioned regions is due to a wall thickness that is increased compared to other regions of the closure and/or container. (As above, Hao’s 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). These PET bottles contain a rigid structural neck ring with greater thickness than the neck below, see Fig 2.)
Regarding claim 4, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the relative position is a relative position with respect to at least one external feature present on the circumferential wall of the closure which is formed by a texture present on 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.)
Regarding claim 5, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the external feature is selected from a group consisting of features which are formed by a knurled texture, several knurled textures, a perforation region, one or more bends, a groove, several grooves, a circumferential edge, a feature which is designed to be continuously or discretely rotationally symmetrical with respect to the closure direction, and combinations thereof. (Cochran’s texture feature is knurled/patterned texture feature, ¶ 0051 and 0063-0067. Hao also teaches that its fiducial is the circumferential edge of the bottle cap which is a feature which is designed to be rotationally symmetrical, see rejection of claim 1.)
Regarding claim 6, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the relative position is a relative position with respect to a rotationally symmetrical element arranged in a region of the mouth of the container, a support ring underside, a support ring outer edge, a bend between the support ring and a stretchable and/or stretched region of the container and/or a boundary line between a stretched and a non-stretched region of the container. (As above, see Figs. 2 and 3 and ¶ 0023-0026 which illustrate the bottle cap closure distance/gap index, which is measuring the closure distance between the bottle cap sealing lip and bottle ring flange, which is a rotationally symmetrical element arranged in a region of the mouth of the container.)
Regarding claim 7, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the 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. 1 and 2, the image recording is at the horizontal plane.)
Regarding claim 8, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one spatially resolved image is recorded by at least two image recording devices. (See Fig 1, multiple imagers are used.)
Regarding claim 9, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the determined sealing variable is provided for transmission to a closure apparatus for closing containers with closures. (Cochran ¶ 0048 teaches using the sealing status to communicate with the capper via sending a transmission signal to close the feedback loop.)
Regarding claim 10, the above combination discloses the 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, wherein the closure apparatus detects at least one sealing variable determined according to claim 1, and depending on the at least one sealing variable determined, the closure apparatus carries out a control and/or a regulation of the closure process. (Cochran ¶ 0048 teaches a capper closure device integrated with the inspection and using the sealing status to communicate with the capper via sending a transmission signal to close the feedback loop.)
Regarding claim 11, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the closure apparatus has a plurality of closure units, wherein each closure unit is able to independently carry out a closure process and to apply a closure to a container, wherein the at least one sealing variable is 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 12, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 10, 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 state 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 a capper closure device integrated with the inspection and using the sealing status to communicate with the capper via sending a transmission signal to close the feedback loop between current and target state.)
Claim 14 is the inspection apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1. Hao teaches an inspection apparatus, see Abstract. Remaining limitations are rejected similarly. See detailed analysis above.
Claim 15 is the closure apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1. Hao teaches an inspection and transport apparatus, see Fig. 5. Cochran ¶ 0048 teaches using the sealing variable to control the capper. Remaining limitations are rejected similarly. See detailed analysis above.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao (JP 2019109072 A) in view of Cochran (US PGPub 2014/0311256) and Niedermeier (DE 102020121088 A1)
Regarding claim 13, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 10, but not the remaining limitation.
In the field of bottle cap sealing inspection Niedermeier teaches a control and/or regulation and/or maintenance of the closure apparatus is performed as a function of a machine learning container closure model, which model 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 a basis of a set of training data, wherein the training data comprises at least one data that is characteristic of a relative position of the closure relative to the container in relation to the closure direction, as well as a data that is characteristic of the corresponding closure process. (Niedermeier 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.”)
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. Hao measures bottle cap sealing by measuring the closure distance between the cap and the bottle flange ring. Cochran teaches measuring the bottle cap sealing with an image texture feature on the bottle cap by locating the texture feature to determine it is seated correctly. These references do no expressly mention that the image features or closure parameters are the result of training/machine learning. Niedermeier teaches using machine learning for bottle cap closure recognition. Performing image recognition via machine learning is a well-known and widely-used technique in the art and simply doing so 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.
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