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.
Applicant’s amendment filed 5/4/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-18 remain pending.
Claims 19-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21 and 22 are new and now also pending.
Claims 1-18, 21 and 22 are pending, drawn to the elected invention, and examined 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 21 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.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites “the controller is configured to prevent rotational advancement of the chuck assembly until alignment of the thread start positions is confirmed”. This limitation constitutes new matter as there is not sufficient support within the original specification. There is no recitation of such a limitation within the original specification and further, it is noted that the chuck assembly rotates to achieve such alignment (i.e. see Para. 0019, 0027).
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 21 and 22 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.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites “the controller is configured to prevent rotational advancement of the chuck assembly until alignment of the thread start positions is confirmed”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to how the controller can prevent rotation of the chuck until alignment is confirmed as the specification outlines that in order to achieve alignment the chuck is rotated (i.e. see Para. 0019). Therefore, it is unclear as to what this limitation is attempting to encompass.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim recites “the encoder provides real-time feedback, allowing for precise control and adjustment of the position and speed of the servo motor”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what “precise control” is attempting to encompass and what can be readily viewed as “precise” with respect to the control.
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, 16, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyvarinen (WO 2016/026035 A1) , in view of Humphries (US Patent 5,400,564).
Regarding Claim 1, Hyvarinen discloses a packaging system (capping system 100; Figure 2) for assembling a container, the packaging system (100) comprising:
.a chuck assembly (315; Figure 3) to grip a container top (220) positioned proximal to the chuck assembly (315);
a torque limiter assembly including a servo motor (335; Figure 3) and an encoder (encoder; Page 15, lines 30-35) , wherein the torque limiter assembly is mechanically coupled to the chuck assembly (315 via 313, 321, 323, and 333; shown in Figure 5-6; Page 14, lines 1-7) such that the servo motor (335) directly controls rotational torque applied to the chuck assembly (315; Page 14, lines 1-7, Page 15, lines 29-35, Page 26, lines 6-9); and
a controller (PLC 250; Figure 8B) communicatively coupled to the chuck assembly (315) and the torque limiter assembly (335 and encoder), the controller (250) comprising a memory and at least one processor (note the PLC 250 must comprise a processor and memory to function) configured to:
grip the container top (220) using the chuck assembly (315);
receive, from the encoder (of 335), orientation data associated with the chuck assembly (315; Page 15, lines 30-35 outlines calculating rotation angle with the encoder and Page 16, lines 12-23 outlines detecting angular rotations of the closure, hence the chuck assembly and the container);
determine, based on the orientation data, an orientation of an attachment component (thread start of 203) of the container top (220) relative to a corresponding attachment component (thread start of 235) of the container (230) prior to thread engagement of the container (230) and the attachment component (of 203; Page 18, lines 21-26 outline the visual feature associated with the orientation of the thread starts and Page 16, lines 12-24 and Page 19, lines 29-34 outline detecting the orientations based on the feature positions);
align the attachment component (thread start of 203) of the container top (220) and the corresponding attachment component (thread start of 235) of the container (230) based on the orientation of the attachment component by rotating the chuck assembly (315) via the servo motor (335) of using the torque limiter assembly to align a start thread position (of 203) of the container top (220) with a corresponding thread start position (of 235) of the container (230) prior to thread engagement of the container (230) and the attachment component (of 203; Page 16, lines 19-24 and 34-35 and Page 17, lines 13-15; see also Page 19, lines 4-9); and
secure the container top (220) to the container (230) by rotating the chuck assembly (315) using the torque limiter assembly such that while actively monitoring torque via the encoder (associated with 335; Col 15, lines 29-32; see also Page 28, lines 15-18) and controlling the servo motor (335) to maintain applied torque to the container top (220) up to a predefined torque threshold (see Page 26, lines 5-12 discloses reaching a predetermined torque);
wherein the controller (250) is further configured to adjust rotational speed and applied torque of the servo motor during securing based on real-time feedback from the encoder to prevent over-torque and under-torque conditions (see Page 26, lines 5-12 discloses reaching a predetermined torque or angle and ceasing operation which is an adjustment of speed and torque being applied).
However, Hyvarinen does not readily disclose (1) the chuck assembly including a pneumatic motor, wherein operation of the pneumatic motor causes the chuck assembly to grip a container top positioned proximal to the chuck assembly, (2) the controller controls the motor to maintain the applied torque below a predefined threshold and (3) the controller is further configured to dynamically adjust rotational speed and applied torque of the servo motor during securing based on real-time feedback from the encoder to prevent over-torque and under-torque conditions.
Attention is brought Humphries which teaches 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 23-47);
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), 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); and
secure the container top (40) to the container (10) by rotating the chuck assembly (18) using the torque limiter assembly (20, 26, 30) while actively monitoring torque via the encoder (26) and controlling the servo motor (20) to maintain applied torque to the container top (40) below a predefined torque threshold (“predetermined overtorque value T2”; Col 7, lines 30-48 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”).
wherein the controller (28) is further configured to dynamically adjust rotational speed and applied torque of the servo motor (20) during securing based on real-time feedback from the encoder (26) to prevent over-torque and under-torque conditions (Col 5, lines 14-30 and Col 6, lines 16-61 outlines speed control input and closed loop control of the motor speed and further outlines a similar loop for torque control, see also Col 7, lines 30-48 which outlines controlling applied torque; see also Col 8, lines 6-15).
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”.
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a pneumatic drive/motor as taught by Humphries to close the chuck assembly of Hyvarinen. By utilizing such a pneumatic motor drive, the chuck assembly can be selectively opened and closed and effectively maintained in a gripped position with the container top.
Secondly, it is noted that whether the controller of Hyvarinen allows the torque to reach or stay below a desired threshold is merely a design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed as one could set controls such that if the applied torque is within a certain amount of the threshold or if the threshold is reached, the application is stopped. In either instance, the torque is readily controlled to prevent under torque and overtorque. Regardless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a overtorque threshold and prevent the applied torque from exceeding the overtorque threshold as taught by Humphries when monitoring the torque applied Hyvarinen. By modifying Hyvarinen in this manner, the occurrence of overtorque of the cap on the container can be reduced and readily rejected as taught by Humphries (Col 7, lines 30-48) and therefore the chances of a defective closed container being sent for distribution can be also reduced.
Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have further modified the controller of Hyvarinen to be configured to dynamically adjust rotational speed and applied torque based on real-time feedback from the encoder as taught by Humphries. By modifying Hyvarinen in this manner, the drive can be readily controlled in accordance with the container to be capped as taught by Humphries (Col 2, lines 14-21, 31-34 and 57-60). It is also noted that by being able to dynamically adjust the speed, the throughput of the capping machine can be readily increased.
Regarding Claim 6, Hyvarinen, as modified, discloses the attachment component (of 203) of the container top (220) is a threaded portion (203), and the corresponding attachment component (of 235) of the container (230) is a corresponding threaded portion (235; Page 6, lines 32-35).
Regarding Claim 7, Hyvarinen, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose alignment of the threaded portion (203) of the container top (220) and the corresponding threaded portion (235) of the container (230) comprises rotating the chuck assembly counterclockwise. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have performed the alignment by rotating the chuck assembly in a counterclockwise direction because Applicant has not disclosed that such rotation direction provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with alignment via rotation in either direction because in either instance, the thread starts will be aligned for the screwing operation.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Hyvarinen to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Regarding Claim 8, Hyvarinen, as modified, discloses the container top (220) is a sprayer cap including a diptube (note that the capping heads 210 of Hyvarinen are clearly capable of use with sprayer caps with diptubes).
Regarding Claim 10, Hyvarinen, discloses a method (see capping system 100; Figure 2) for assembling a container (220, 230), the method comprising:
gripping a container top (220) using a chuck assembly (315; Figure 3; Page 13, lines 22-24; Page 15, lines 5-8);
positioning the container top (220) proximal to the container (230; Page 15, lines 8-11, 24-27);
receiving, from an encoder (encoder; Page 14, lines 21-22; Page 15, lines 30-35) associated with a torque limiter assembly including a servo motor (335), orientation data associated with the chuck assembly (315; Page 14, lines 30-32; Page 15, lines 30-35 outlines calculating rotation angle with the encoder and Page 16, lines 12-23 outlines detecting angular rotations of the closure, hence the chuck assembly and the container);
determining, based on the orientation data (angular rotation data), an orientation of an attachment component (of 203) of the container top (220) relative to a corresponding attachment component (of 235) of the container (230) prior to thread engagement of the container (230) and the attachment component (of 203; Page 18, lines 21-26 outline the visual feature associated with the orientation of the thread starts and Page 16, lines 12-24 and Page 19, lines 29-34 outline detecting the orientations based on the feature positions);
aligning the attachment component (203) of the container top (220) and the corresponding attachment component (235) of the container (230) by rotating the chuck assembly (315) via the servo motor (335) to align a thread start position (of 203) of the container top (220) with a corresponding thread start position (of 235) of the container (230) prior to thread engagement (Page 16, lines 19-24 and 34-35 and Page 17, lines 13-15; see also Page 19, lines 4-9); and; and
securing the container top (220) to the container (230) by rotating the chuck assembly (315) using the servo motor associated with the torque limiter assembly while actively monitoring torque via the encoder (associated with 335; Col 15, lines 29-32; see also Page 28, lines 15-18) and controlling the servo motor (335) such that applied torque to the container top remains up to a predetermined torque threshold (see Page 26, lines 5-12 discloses reaching a predetermined torque);
wherein securing includes adjusting rotational speed and torque based on real-time feedback from the encoder to prevent over-torque and under-torque conditions (see Page 26, lines 5-12 discloses reaching a predetermined torque or angle and ceasing operation which is an adjustment of speed and torque being applied).
However, Hyvarinen does not readily disclose (1) the chuck assembly including a pneumatic motor, and operating the pneumatic motor to cause the chuck assembly to grip a container top, (2) controlling the motor to maintain the applied torque below a predefined threshold, and (3) dynamically adjusting rotational speed and applied torque of the servo motor during securing based on real-time feedback from the encoder to prevent over-torque and under-torque conditions.
Attention is brought Humphries which teaches a packaging system (Figure 1) and method of operation thereof for assembling a container (10 with cap 40; see rejection of Claim 1 for reference).
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized an operation of a pneumatic drive/motor as taught by Humphries to close the chuck assembly of Hyvarinen to grip a container top. By utilizing such a pneumatic motor drive, the chuck assembly can be selectively opened and closed and effectively maintained in a gripped position with the container top.
Secondly, it is noted that whether the controller of Hyvarinen allows the torque to reach or stay below a desired threshold is merely a design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed as one could set controls such that if the applied torque is within a certain amount of the threshold or if the threshold is reached, the application is stopped. In either instance, the torque is readily controlled to prevent under torque and overtorque. Regardless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a overtorque threshold and prevent the applied torque from exceeding the overtorque threshold as taught by Humphries when monitoring the torque applied Hyvarinen. By modifying Hyvarinen in this manner, the occurrence of overtorque of the cap on the container can be reduced and readily rejected as taught by Humphries (Col 7, lines 30-48) and therefore the chances of a defective closed container being sent for distribution can be also reduced.
Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have further modified the controller of Hyvarinen to dynamically adjust rotational speed and applied torque based on real-time feedback from the encoder as taught by Humphries. By modifying Hyvarinen in this manner, the drive can be readily controlled in accordance with the container to be capped as taught by Humphries (Col 2, lines 14-21, 31-34 and 57-60). It is also noted that by being able to dynamically adjust the speed, the throughput of the capping machine can be readily increased.
Regarding Claim 15, Hyvarinen, as modified, discloses the attachment component (of 203) of the container top (220) is a threaded portion (203), and the corresponding attachment component (of 235) of the container (230) is a corresponding threaded portion (235; Page 6, lines 32-35).
Regarding Claim 16, Hyvarinen, as modified, discloses aligning of the threaded portion (203) of the container top (220) and the corresponding threaded portion (235) of the container (230) comprises rotating the chuck assembly counterclockwise. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have performed the alignment by rotating the chuck assembly in a counterclockwise direction because Applicant has not disclosed that such rotation provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with alignment via rotation in either direction because in either instance, the thread starts will be aligned for the screwing operation.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Hyvarinen to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Regarding Claim 21, Hyvarinen, as modified, discloses the controller (250) is configured to prevent rotational advancement of the chuck assembly (315) until alignment of the thread start positions is confirmed (Page 19, lines 4-9).
Regarding Claim 22, Hyvarinen, as modified, discloses the encoder (of 335) provides real-time feedback, allowing for precise control and adjustment of the position and speed of the servo motor (335; Page 15, lines 29-35).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyvarinen (WO 2016/026035 A1) , in view of Humphries (US Patent 5,400,564), as applied to Claims 1 and 10, and in further view of Joplin (US PGPUB 2020/0407093).
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Hyvarinen, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention including a second chuck assembly (315 of multiple capping heads 210; Figure 2) but does not explicitly disclose 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 (250) is configured to command the second torque limiter assembly independently from the first torque limiter assembly under independent closed-loop torque control based on encoder feedback specific to each respective chuck assembly (315; Page 15, lines 29-35).
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 Hyvarinen 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 Hyvarinen (WO 2016/026035 A1) , in view of Humphries (US Patent 5,400,564), as applied to Claims 1 and 10, and in further view of Cirio (US PGPUB 2004/0139811).
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, Hyvarinen, as modified, discloses the orientation data indicates one of a plurality of possible orientations (angular positions) of the chuck assembly (Page 18, lines 21-26 outline the visual feature associated with the orientation of the thread starts and Page 16, lines 12-24 and Page 19, lines 29-34 outline detecting the orientations based on the feature positions).
However, Hyvarinen does not explicitly disclose the encoder (of 335) 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 Hyvarinen 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 Hyvarinen (WO 2016/026035 A1) , in view of Humphries (US Patent 5,400,564), as applied to Claims 1 and 10, and in further view of Strauss (US PGPUB 2021/0087037).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, Hyvarinen discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not disclose the controller (250) 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 Hyvarinen 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 Hyvarinen (WO 2016/026035 A1) , in view of Humphries (US Patent 5,400,564), as applied to Claims 1 and 10, and in further view of Uriel (US PGPUB 2015/0166317).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, Hyvarinen, as modified, does not disclose the controller (250) is further configured to provide a graphical user interface and inputs can include a torque threshold from the operator.
Attention is brought to the teachings of Uriel which includes another capping assembly (Figure 1) which includes a graphical 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 Hyvarinen 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 Hyvarinen (WO 2016/026035 A1), in view of Humphries (US Patent 5,400,564), as applied to Claims 1 and 10, and in further view of Ramnarain (US PGPUB 2011/0036060).
Alternatively regarding Claim 8 and regarding Claim 17, assuming arguendo that the system of Hyvarinen 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 Hyvarinen 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 controlled manner as taught by Hyvarinen and thereby damage due to overtightening or improperly sealed containers can be avoided.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Hyvarinen, 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).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes that if Applicant was to incorporate Claims 9 and 18 (and intervening Claims 8 and 17) into their respective independent claims and further include details of the diptube guide assembly such as “wherein the diptube guide assembly is configured to receive the diptube and move relative to the diptube to straighten the diptube for entry of the diptube into the container” (i.e. see Paras. 0087-0090 of specification), these combinations of features would appear to overcome the prior art rejections and be allowable over the cited prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/4/2026, with respect to Humphries have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, while other references such as Cirio (US PGPUB 2015/0033667) and Hyvarinen (WO 2016/026035 A1) disclose sensor systems for determining orientation and aligning the threads prior to thread engagement, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate such a system into Humphries without ruining the basic function/operation of Humphries as Humphries relies on a reverse rotation/thread engagement and torque detection for alignment of the thread starting portions. The previous 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
However, a new grounds of rejection has been necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see “Notice of References Cited”.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
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 6/8/2026
Prosecution Insights