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/Response to Amendment
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 10/7/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20, drawn to a non-elected invention, have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendment filed 10/7/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-18 are pending, drawn to the elected invention, and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/7/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 2 would be better recited as:
2. The packaging system of claim 1,
wherein the chuck assembly is a first chuck assembly and the torque limiter assembly is a first torque limiter assembly, and the system further comprising:
a second chuck assembly; and
a second torque limiter assembly coupled to the second chuck assembly such that the second torque limiter assembly is configured to rotate the chuck assembly, wherein the controller is configured to command the second torque limiter assembly independently from the first torque limiter assembly.
-Claim 10, line 2, “griping” should instead be “gripping”.
-Claim 11 would be better recited as the following:
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the chuck assembly is a first chuck assembly, and wherein the torque limiter assembly is configured to rotate the chuck assembly independently from a second chuck assembly.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphries (US Patent 5,400,564).
Regarding Claim 1, Humphries discloses a packaging system (Figure 1) for assembling a container (10 with cap 40), the packaging system comprising:
a chuck assembly (chuck 18) including a pneumatic motor (associated with “chuck air supply” supplied through line 50 to move jaws 62; Col 4, lines 35-47; see “note” below), wherein operation of the pneumatic motor causes the chuck assembly (18) to grip a container top (40) positioned proximal to the chuck assembly (18; Col 4, lines 35-47);
a torque limiter assembly (20, 26, 30; Col 3, lines 33-44) including a servo motor (20; Note Col 8, lines 36-38 which outlines a “servo-amplifier” type motor drive and therefore it can be at least implied motor 20 is a servo type motor) and an encoder (shaft encoder 26), wherein the torque limiter assembly is coupled to the chuck assembly (18) such that operation of the servo motor (20) causes rotation of the chuck assembly (18; Col 3, lines 25-27); and
a controller (28) communicatively coupled to the chuck assembly (18) and the torque limiter assembly (20, 26, 30), the controller comprising a memory and at least one processor (see Col 4, lines 11-22 which outlines the computer controller 28 for providing data and accepting input control programmed by the operator; see Figure 5 which shows processor 84 and memory 96) configured to:
grip the container top (40) using the chuck assembly (18; Col 4, lines 35-47, specifically 45-47; Col 6, lines 65-67);
receive, from the encoder (26), orientation data associated with the chuck assembly (18; Col 3, lines 30-36; Col 6, lines 50-52 discloses monitoring position based on the encoder);
determine, based on the orientation data (i.e. derived speed and torque data shown in Figure 8), an orientation of an attachment component (start of thread) of the container top (40) relative to a corresponding attachment component (start of thread) of the container (10; Col 7, line 65 through Col 8, line 7 refer to aligning the threads based on detection of the “blip in the torque” corresponding to the start of the thread; further note Col 6, lines 50-52 which outline positional control arrangements based on encoder output);
align the attachment component (start of the thread) of the container top (40) and the corresponding attachment component (start of the thread) of the container (10) based on the orientation of the attachment component (start of the thread) by rotating the chuck assembly (18) using the torque limiter assembly (20, 26, 30; see Figure 8; Col 7, line 65 through Col 8, line 7 refer to aligning the threads based on detection of the “blip in the torque” corresponding to the start of the thread; further note Col 6, lines 50-52 which outline positional control arrangements based on encoder output); and
secure the container top (40) to the container (10) by rotating the chuck assembly (18) using the torque limiter assembly (20, 26, 30) such that torque applied to the container top (40) remains below a torque threshold (“predetermined overtorque value T2”; Col 7, lines 34-48 outline “If this measured torque Tm is greater than or equal to the predetermined torque T1 then the next step is step 334” which “In step 334 after the correct torque has been applied the chuck 18 is stopped”).
Note although Humphries does not explicitly disclose the phrase “pneumatic motor” as part of the chuck assembly, Humphries discloses a “chuck air supply” supplied through line (50) to move jaws (62; Col 4, lines 35-47) and therefore such air supply and transmission into mechanical movement of the jaws will therefore form a “pneumatic motor”. Further it can be reasonably implied that some form of motor must be included in order to provide such “air supply”.
Further as outlined above, although Humphries does not recite a “servo motor” in association with the “torque limiter assembly”, Humphries discloses a motor (20) and further outlines the motor driver (30) being a ““servo-amplifier” type motor drive” (Col 8, lines 36-38) and therefore , it can be at least implied that the motor (20) is configured as a servo motor.
Regarding Claim 6, Humphries discloses the attachment component of the container top (40) is a threaded portion, and the corresponding attachment component of the container (2) is a corresponding threaded portion (Col 7, line 65 through Col 8, line 7).
Regarding Claim 7, Humphries discloses alignment of the threaded portion of the container top and the corresponding threaded portion of the container comprises rotating the chuck assembly (18) counterclockwise (Col 7, line 65 through Col 8, line 7 refer to “slow reverse of the chuck” to find the start of the threads prior to forward fastening rotation).
Regarding Claim 8, Humphries discloses the container top (40) is a sprayer cap including a diptube (note although the cap 40 is not disclosed as a “sprayer cap including a diptube”, the system of Humphries is capable of use with such a sprayer cap).
Regarding Claim 10, Humphries discloses method for assembling a container (10 with cap 40; Figure 1), the method comprising:
gripping a container top (40) using a chuck assembly (18) by operating a pneumatic motor (associated with “chuck air supply” supplied through line 50 to move jaws 62; Col 4, lines 35-47; see “note” below)associated with the chuck assembly (18; Col 4, lines 35-47);
positioning the container top (40) proximal to the container (10; Col 3, lines 65-68; Col 4, lines 45-48);
receiving orientation data associated with the chuck assembly (18) from an encoder (26; Col 3, lines 30-36; Col 6, lines 50-52 discloses monitoring position based on the encoder);
determining, based on the orientation data (i.e. derived speed and torque data from positional data; shown in Figure 8), an orientation of an attachment component (start of thread) of the container top (40) relative to a corresponding attachment component (start of thread) of the container (10; Col 7, line 65 through Col 8, line 7 refer to aligning the threads based on detection of the “blip in the torque” corresponding to the start of the thread; further note Col 6, lines 50-52 which outline positional control arrangements based on encoder output);
aligning the attachment component (start of the thread) of the container top (40) and the corresponding attachment component (start of the thread) of the container (10) based on the orientation of the attachment component by rotating the chuck assembly (18) through operating a servo motor(20; Note Col 8, lines 36-38 which outlines a “servo-amplifier” type motor drive and therefore it can be at least implied motor 26 is a servo type motor) associated with a torque limiter assembly (20, 26, 30; Col 3, lines 33-44) selectively coupled to the chuck assembly (18; see Figure 8; Col 7, line 65 through Col 8, line 7 refer to aligning the threads based on detection of the “blip in the torque” corresponding to the start of the thread); further note Col 6, lines 50-52 which outline positional control arrangements based on encoder output); and
securing the container top (40) to the container (10) by operating the servo motor (20) associated with the torque limiter assembly (20, 26, 30) to rotate the chuck assembly (18) such that torque applied to the container top (40) remains below a torque threshold (i.e. “predetermined overtorque value T2”; Col 7, lines 34-48 outline “If this measured torque Tm is greater than or equal to the predetermined torque T1 then the next step is step 334” which “In step 334 after the correct torque has been applied the chuck 18 is stopped”).
Note although Humphries does not explicitly disclose the phrase “pneumatic motor” as part of the chuck assembly, Humphries discloses a “chuck air supply” supplied through line (50) to move jaws (62; Col 4, lines 35-47) and therefore such air supply and transmission into mechanical movement of the jaws will therefore form a “pneumatic motor”. Further it can be reasonably implied that some form of motor must be included in order to provide such “air supply”.
Further as outlined above, although Humphries does not recite a “servo motor” in association with the “torque limiter assembly”, Humphries discloses a motor (20) and further outlines the motor driver (30) being a ““servo-amplifier” type motor drive” (Col 8, lines 36-38) and therefore , it can be at least implied that the motor (20) is configured as a servo motor.
Regarding Claim 15, Humphries discloses the attachment component of the container top (40) is a threaded portion, and the corresponding attachment component of the container (2) is a corresponding threaded portion (Col 7, line 65 through Col 8, line 7).
Regarding Claim 16, Humphries discloses aligning of the threaded portion of the container top and the corresponding threaded portion of the container comprises rotating the chuck assembly (18) counterclockwise (Col 7, line 65 through Col 8, line 7 refer to “slow reverse of the chuck” to find the start of the threads prior to forward fastening rotation).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphries (US Patent 5,400,564), in view of Joplin (US PGPUB 2020/0407093).
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Humphries discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not disclose a second chuck assembly; and a second torque limiter assembly coupled to the second chuck assembly such that the second torque limiter assembly is configured to rotate the chuck assembly, wherein the controller is configured to command the second torque limiter assembly independently from the torque limiter assembly.
Attention can be brought to the teachings of Joplin which includes a capping system (304; Figure 5D-5E) including a plurality of chuck assemblies (520 including 520a, 520b, etc.; Figures 5D-5E) and a plurality of torque limiter assemblies (associated with individual “torque response”; Para. 0067) coupled to respective chuck assemblies (520) such that the torque limiter assemblies are configured to rotate the chuck assemblies (520), and wherein a controller (302; Figure 3) is configured to command torque limiter assemblies independently of one another (see Para. 0067 which outlines independent torque responses of the cappers to cease when desired torque is received and therefore each capper must have an interruptible transmission of power that forms part of a torque limiter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Humphries to include multiple chuck assemblies and corresponding torque limiter assemblies independently controllable as taught by Joplin as such a modification will readily allow for multiple containers to be capped simultaneously and therefore the throughput of the system can be readily increased.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphries (US Patent 5,400,564), in view of Cirio (US PGPUB 2004/0139811).
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, Humphries discloses the orientation data indicates one of a plurality of possible orientations (angular positions) of the chuck assembly (18; Col 3, lines 30-36).
However, Humphries does not explicitly disclose the encoder (26) is an absolute encoder.
Attention is brought to Cirio which outlines use of an absolute encoder (51; Figure 4) for detecting an angular position of a pillar (8) in a container processing machine (Para 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Humphries to include an absolute encoder as taught by Cirio in order to provide instantaneous angular positioning feedback relative to a fixed reference as taught by Cirio (Para. 0053).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphries (US Patent 5,400,564), in view of Strauss (US PGPUB 2021/0087037).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, Humphries discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not disclose the controller (28) is further configured to receive feedback data associated with the securement of the container top to the container or the step of receiving such feedback, and adjusting the torque threshold based on the feedback data.
Attention can be brought to Strauss which discloses another capping device (1; Figure 1) which includes a controller (9) which receives feedback data (parameters of the motor 2) from a sensor (8; Para. 0042-0043) associated with securement of a container top (7) to a container (6), and adjust a torque threshold based on the feedback data (see Para. 0048-0051 which outlines determining and outputting values including motor torque limits based on measured values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated a dynamic control of torque thresholds including receiving feedback data and adjusting a torque threshold as taught by Strauss into the controller/control process of Humphries in order to reduce the deviation (i.e. due to inertia, friction, etc.; see Para. 0008 of Strauss) of the actual closing torque applied from the target closing torque as taught by Strauss (Para. 0009).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphries (US Patent 5,400,564), in view of Uriel (US PGPUB 2015/0166317).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, Humphries discloses the controller (28) is further configured to provide a graphical user interface (see Col 4, lines 16-21 outlines input control programmed by the operator which at least implies some form of graphical user interface) and while it can be implied that the inputs can include a torque threshold from the operator, this is not explicitly disclosed.
Attention is brought to the teachings of Uriel which includes another capping assembly (Figure 1) which includes a user interface providing an on screen torque adjustment with feedback (Para. 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated the ability of the interface of Humphries to allow the user to input a torque threshold as taught by Uriel as such a modification allows for an easy manual adjustment so the user can obtain the desired torque.
Claims 8, 9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphries (US Patent 5,400,564), in view of Ramnarain (US PGPUB 2011/0036060).
Alternatively regarding Claim 8 and regarding Claim 17, assuming arguendo that the system of Humphries is not capable of use a sprayer cap including a diptube, in which the Examiner does not concede to, attention is brought to Ramnarain which includes another packaging system (4; Figure 14) which includes chuck assemblies (210) for gripping and applying a sprayer cap (12) including a diptube (38) on a container (2; Para. 0050-0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized the system of Humphries in a sprayer cap system as taught by Ramnarain as such a modification would allow for sprayer caps of Ramnarain to be applied in a speed and torque controlled manner as taught by Humphries (Col 2, lines 55-60) and thereby damage due to overtightening or improperly sealed containers can be avoided.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Humphries, as modified, specifically Ramnarain discloses the packaging system further comprises a diptube guide assembly (213; Figure 14 of Ramnarain) for directing the diptube into the container (see Para. 0051 of Ramnarain) and the method step of guiding the diptube (38 of Ramnarain) into the container using a diptube guide assembly (213; see Para. 0051 of Ramnarain).
Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphries (US Patent 5,400,564), in view of Kitamoto (US PGPUB 2001/0018820).
Alternatively, regarding Claim 1 and 10 assuming arguendo that the controller (28) of Humphries cannot be viewed as configured to determine, based on the orientation data, an orientation of an attachment component (start of thread) of the container top (40) relative to a corresponding attachment component (start of thread) of the container (10) and align the attachment component (start of the thread) of the container top (40) and the corresponding attachment component (start of the thread) of the container (10) based on the orientation of the attachment component (start of the thread) by rotating the chuck assembly and the corresponding method steps of Claim 10, in which the Examiner does not concede to, attention can be brought to the teachings of Kitamoto which outlines a controller (11; Figure 1) configured to:
grip the container top (5) using a chuck assembly (chuck 7);
receive, from an encoder (13), orientation data associated with the chuck assembly (7; Para. 0037);
determine, based on the orientation data (data associated with angle of encoder), an orientation (“incipient position P of meshing engagement” associated with ϴ1) of an attachment component (5a’; Figure 2) of the container top (5) relative to a corresponding attachment component (2a’) of a container (10; Paras. 0047-0048, 0051) and
align the attachment component (5a’) of the container top (5) and the corresponding attachment component (2a’) of the container (2) based on the orientation of the attachment component(“incipient position P of meshing engagement” associated with ϴ1) by rotating the chuck assembly (7; see Para. 0050, 0052-0053 which outline adjusting the clamping rotation to join the threads based on the detected “incipient position P of meshing engagement”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the steps and controller of Humphries to comprise such determining orientation and aligning of attachment components based on the determined orientation as taught by Kitamoto as such position/orientation monitoring and control allows for an engagement position of the threads to be detected accurately, and a subsequent clamping/fastening operation takes place uniformly as the cap is capped to assure a capping operation of a high precision as taught by Kitamoto (Para. 0055).
Regarding Claims 6-8, 15, and 16 refer to the previous 103 rejection over Humphries.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphries (US Patent 5,400,564), in view of Kitamoto (US PGPUB 2001/0018820), as applied to Claims 1 and 10, and in further view of Joplin (US PGPUB 2020/0407093).
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, see the previous rejection of Claims 2 and 11 as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Humphries to include multiple chuck assemblies and corresponding torque limiter assemblies independently controllable as taught by Joplin as such a modification will readily allow for multiple containers to be capped simultaneously and therefore the throughput of the system can be readily increased.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphries (US Patent 5,400,564), in view of Kitamoto (US PGPUB 2001/0018820), as applied to Claims 1 and 10, and in further view of Cirio (US PGPUB 2004/0139811).
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, see the previous rejection of Claims 3 and 12 as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Humphries to include an absolute encoder as taught by Cirio in order to provide instantaneous angular positioning feedback relative to a fixed reference as taught by Cirio (Para. 0053).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphries (US Patent 5,400,564), in view of Kitamoto (US PGPUB 2001/0018820), as applied to Claims 1 and 10, and in further view of Strauss (US PGPUB 2021/0087037).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, see the previous rejection of Claims 4 and 13 as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated a dynamic control of torque thresholds including receiving feedback data and adjusting a torque threshold as taught by Strauss into the controller/control process of Humphries in order to reduce the deviation (i.e. due to inertia, friction, etc.; see Para. 0008 of Strauss) of the actual closing torque applied from the target closing torque as taught by Strauss (Para. 0009).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphries (US Patent 5,400,564), in view of Kitamoto (US PGPUB 2001/0018820), as applied to Claims 1 and 10, and in further view of Uriel (US PGPUB 2015/0166317).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, see the previous rejection of Claims 5 and 14 as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated the ability of the interface of Humphries to allow the user to input a torque threshold as taught by Uriel as such a modification allows for an easy manual adjustment so the user can obtain the desired torque.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphries (US Patent 5,400,564), in view of Kitamoto (US PGPUB 2001/0018820), as applied to Claims 1 and 10, and in further view of Ramnarain (US PGPUB 2011/0036060).
Regarding Claim 8 and Claim 17, see the previous rejection of Claims 8 and 17 as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized the system of Humphries in a sprayer cap system as taught by Ramnarain as such a modification would allow for sprayer caps of Ramnarain to be applied in a speed and torque controlled manner as taught by Humphries (Col 2, lines 55-60) and thereby damage due to overtightening or improperly sealed containers can be avoided.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, see the previous rejection of Claims 9 and 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see “Notice of References Cited”.
-Canalini (US PGPUB 2018/0282001) discloses a capping system which comprises pneumatically moveable grippers, an encoder, torque limiters and alignment of threads.
-Takebe (US PGPUB 2002/0148205) discloses a capping system which locates the beginning of the threads between the cap and container during an initial rotation.
-Schulz (US PGPUB 2009/0293437), Fukuda (US PGPUB 2012/0311963), Servadel (US PGPUB 2006/0242929), Bernhard (US PGPUB 2010/0154364) discloses capping systems with torque limiting control.
-Yamagata (US PGPUB 2019/0310276) discloses a controllable chuck assembly which retrieves and screws caps onto a container.
-Neff (US Patent 10,865,085), Mavin (US PGPUB 2004/0216430) and Kim (US PGPUB 2024/0208787) disclose a cap applier that is controllable in a reverse direction to align thread ends.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA G KOTIS whose telephone number is (571)270-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6am-430pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 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 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.
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 12/22/2025