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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 05/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/07/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informality: all of these claims contain reference characters which should all be removed.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: “a relative movement at least between the closure cover (4) and a securing tool (6) about an axis (5)” in lines 3-4 should read “a movement of the closure cover relative to a securing tool along an axis” (because only the closure cover 4 moves along axis 5 relative to the securing tool 6, and the securing tool 6 does not move about/along axis 5, as is apparent from Figure 5 of the instant application).
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality: “by” in line 2 should read “when” (because detection of the quantity is determined during the rotational coupling not as a result of the rotational coupling).
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“effected” in line 1 should read “detected”.
“receptacle (8), which” in line 2 should read “receptacle which”.
“container (3), and” in line 3 should read “container and”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“container (3) and/or of” in line 6 should read “container, d) a relative movement of”.
“container (3) or relative” in line 6 should read “container, or e) a relative”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informality: “operating and lower” in line 3 should read “operating receptacle and a lower”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“movement of” in line 7 should read “movement between”.
“receptacles (8, 9)” in line 10 should read “first receptacle which contacts the container or the second receptacle which contacts the closure cover”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“and the setpoint” in line 4 should read “and wherein the setpoint”.
“ACTUAL” in line 4 should read “actual”.
“side (12)” in line 5 should read “side of the container”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a rotationally connected coupling of the container (3) by a coupling of a receptacle (8, 11) which contacts the container (3) to the container" in lines 2-4. It is unclear from this limitation how the container can possibly be rotationally connected to itself by a coupling of a receptacle.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a rotationally connected coupling of the closure cover (4) by a coupling of a receptacle (10) which contacts the closure cover (4) to the closure cover" in lines 2-4. It is unclear from this limitation how the closure cover can possibly be rotationally connected to itself by a coupling of a receptacle.
For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 2 as if it instead reads as follows:
“The method according to claim 1, wherein, during the securing, the detection of the quantity is determined when carrying out at least one of a) a rotational coupling of the container to a first receptacle which contacts the container, or b) a rotational coupling of the closure cover to a second receptacle which contacts the closure cover.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the concomitantly operating side receptacle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the concomitantly operating receptacle”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the driving side" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the receptacle”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the closure cover (4) of the container (3)" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it was not previously recited that the closure cover is part of the container. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the closure cover”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a upper and/or concomitantly operating receptacle" in lines 7-8. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the upper and/or concomitantly operating receptacle mentioned in lines 1-2 of the claim or to a totally new twist tie material. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the upper and/or concomitantly operating receptacle”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "The method for securing" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “A method for securing”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a rotationally connected coupling of the container (3) by a coupling of a receptacle (8, 11) which contacts the container (3) to the container" in lines 3-4. It is unclear from this limitation how the container can possibly be rotationally connected to itself by a coupling of a receptacle.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a rotationally connected coupling of the closure cover (4) by a coupling of a receptacle (10) which contacts the closure cover (4) to the closure cover" in lines 5-6. It is unclear from this limitation how the closure cover can possibly be rotationally connected to itself by a coupling of a receptacle.
For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 7 as if it instead reads as follows:
“A method for securing a stopper on a container using a closure cover, the method comprising:
carrying out at least one of a) a rotational coupling of the container to a first receptacle which contacts the container, or b) a rotational coupling of the closure cover to a second receptacle which contacts the closure cover;
ascertaining a relative movement between the container and the closure cover; and
comparing the ascertained relative movement with at least one rotational drive movement of at least one of the first receptacle which contacts the container or the second receptacle which contacts the closure cover.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the detection" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 8 as if “comprising, during the detection,” in line 1 instead reads “comprising”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the setpoint value of a driving side" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 8 as if “and the setpoint value of a driving side (13) of the container (3) is provided” in line 3 instead reads “wherein the setpoint value is a setpoint value of a driving side of the container,” (please note that a comma has been added after “container”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haag et al. (WO 2022008460 A1), hereinafter Haag (please note that US 2023/0138697, which is an equivalent of WO 2022008460 A1, is being used as an English translation of Haag).
Regarding claim 1, Haag discloses a method for securing a stopper (18 in Figures 5A-5C) on a container (14 in Figures 5A-5C) using a closure cover (16 in Figures 5A-5C) (Paragraphs 0090-0092 of US 2023/0138697), the method comprising:
during the securing, performing a relative movement at least between the closure cover (16) and a securing tool (40 in Figures 5A-5C) about an axis (longitudinal axis of 14 in Figures 5A-5C) (apparent when Figures 5A-5C are viewed in relation to one another) (Paragraphs 0123-0125 of US 2023/0138697); and
during the securing, carrying out a detection (via 32 in Figure 3) of a quantity (the “stroke position” described in Paragraphs 0105, 0108, 0114, 0118, and 0119 of US 2023/0138697) determined at least by a relative movement between the container (14) and the closure cover (16) about the axis (longitudinal axis of 14) (Paragraphs 0099-0102, 0105, and 0108 of US 2023/0138697).
Regarding claim 2, Haag discloses that, during the securing, the detection of the quantity (“stroke position”) is determined by carrying out at least one of a) a rotationally connected coupling of the container (14) by a coupling of a receptacle (22 in Figures 5A-5C) which contacts the container (14) to the container (Paragraphs 0094, 0092, 0096, and 0124 of US 2023/0138697), or b) a rotationally connected coupling of the closure cover (16) by a coupling of a receptacle (34 in Figures 5A-5C) which contacts the closure cover (16) to the closure cover (Paragraphs 0094 and 0122 of US 2023/0138697).
Regarding claim 6, Haag discloses compressing the container (14) with the stopper (18) and the closure cover (16) by an upper and/or concomitantly operating receptacle (34 in Figures 5A-5C) and lower and/or driving receptacle (22 in Figures 5A-5C) (Paragraphs 0123-0125, 0092, 0104 of US 2023/0138697), such that a rotational movement of the lower and/or driving receptacle (22) is transmitted to the upper and/or concomitantly operating receptacle (34) (Paragraphs 0094 and 0124 of US 2023/0138697).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Claims 4 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 3 and 5, the closest prior art reference, Haag (see 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above), taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole and legal precedence, fails to teach or render obvious any of the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 4, it is indicated as being allowable solely because it depends from claim 3 which is allowable as explained above.
Regarding independent claim 7, the closest prior art reference, Haag et al. (WO 2022008460 A1), hereinafter Haag (please note that US 2023/0138697, which is an equivalent of WO 2022008460 A1, is being used as an English translation of Haag), discloses a method for securing a stopper (18 in Figures 5A-5C) on a container (14 in Figures 5A-5C) using a closure cover (16 in Figures 5A-5C) (Paragraphs 0090-0092 of US 2023/0138697), the method comprising:
carrying out at least one of a) a rotationally connected coupling of the container (14) by a coupling of a receptacle (22 in Figures 5A-5C) which contacts the container (14) to the container (Paragraphs 0094, 0092, 0096, and 0124 of US 2023/0138697), or b) a rotationally connected coupling of the closure cover (16) by a coupling of a receptacle (34 in Figures 5A-5C) which contacts the closure cover (16) to the closure cover (Paragraphs 0094 and 0122 of US 2023/0138697).
However, Haag, taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole and legal precedence, fails to teach or render obvious the following combination of limitations: ascertaining a relative movement of the container and the closure cover; and comparing the ascertained relative movement with at least one rotational drive movement of at least one of the receptacles.
Regarding claim 8, it is indicated as being allowable solely because it depends from claim 7 which is allowable as explained above.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The patent documents listed on the PTO-892 form teach limitations of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights