DETAILED ACTION
The Office acknowledges receipt of the Applicant’s response and amendments filed 19 November 2025.
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 .
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.
Claim 6 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 6 recites the limitation "the side support" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation appears in claim 2, but claim 5 is not dependent on claim 2.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peronek et al. (US Patent 4,939,890) hereinafter referred to as Peronek in view of Dewert et al. (PG Pub 2011/0083405 A1) hereinafter referred to as Dewert alternatively in further view of Joplin (US Patent 10,800,565 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Peronek discloses a capping system (30) for use in a modular prescription medication filling system (This is a limitation of intended use. As the containers of Peronek could be used to hold prescription medication, it is deemed to read on this limitation), the capping system comprising:
a first position (#38; fig. 2; see cross section line 2 in fig. 1) in which an uncapped bottle (10) containing a fulfilled medication prescription (Deemed to be a limitation of intended use) is received;
a second position in which the uncapped bottle is capped (fig. 3; see cross section line 3 in fig. 1) with a cap (33), the second position comprising a capping member (one of the plurality of capping heads 32) axially aligned (col. 6 line 63 - col. 7 line 12) with a vertical centerline (45) of the uncapped bottle located at the second position;
a third position (When capping member 32 is at its lowermost position which would be at a position halfway between cross section line 3 in fig. 1 and the exit position of #39. This is because after snapping the cap into place at its lowest position, the capping member 32 would then need to travel the same distance upwards to release the bottle to the output conveyor at #39) in which the cap (33) is press-fit to the bottle (col. 7 lines 11-25 – “lock band 34 is crimped by capper head 32 under the lowermost thread in bottle neck portion 11”; alternatively “the flange on lock band 34 snaps underneath the neck flange to mechanically lock cap 33 in place”), the third position comprising a pressing cylinder (col. 6 line 55 – capping head turret; and one of the plurality of capping heads 32) that is configured to press vertically down onto a top of the respective cap causing the cap to snap downward to securely attach to the bottle (col. 7 lines 11-25);
a fourth position (39; col. 6 lines 39-41; col. 8 lines 12-17) in which the capped bottle is removed to a conveyor belt (col. 6 lines 39-41 – “conveyor”), wherein the first position, the second position, the third position, and the fourth position are located 90 degrees from each other (see fig. 1 below); and
an index wheel (14; 40a, 40b, 43) configured to support bottles within the capping system (figs. 1-3), and rotatable to convey the uncapped bottle from the first position to the second position (col. 6 lines 32-41), the index wheel configured to have four bottle supports (60 and/or 70; col. 7 lines 60 – col. 8 line 64; figs. 2-3) that are located 90 degrees from each other to correspond to the first through fourth positions (see fig. 1 below);
a lateral side support member (90 and/or 65) located at the second position (fig. 3) to provide lateral support for the bottle during the capping (fig. 3), the lateral side support member configured to press against the bottle during capping (fig. 3; col. 8 lines 9-17; col. 8 line 65 – col. 9 line 3) and release (@ 39; col. 8 lines 9-17) from the bottle after capping (col. 7 lines 1-11).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that the conveyor of Peronek is not specifically disclosed as being a belt, the Office alternatively takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the conveyor of Peronek be a belt. Conveyor belts were notoriously well-known as a means of moving bottled goods for further processing and packaging and doing so with even amount of velocity at a desired pace.
PNG
media_image1.png
690
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Peronek discloses providing caps (33), but fails to disclose a cap track that provides caps of a specified size to the capping member.
However, Dewert teaches a cap track (14; slanted supply for caps 4) that provides caps (4) of a specified size (caps 4 are sized to fit the bottle 2) to the capping member (3, 5).
Given the teachings of Dewert, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the cap track of Dewert with the capping system of Peronek. Doing so would provide the system with the needed caps for the containers and ensure they were available as needed and ready to be applied.
The Office deems Peronek as modified by Dewert to disclose the limitations of a capping system for use in a modular prescription medication filling system, an uncapped bottle containing a fulfilled medication prescription and a cap track. Wherein the Applicant may argue that Peronek as modified by Dewert does not explicitly teach prescription medication being filled in the bottles and a cap track, the Office further points to Joplin.
Joplin teaches prescription medication (col. 6 lines 36-53) being filled in the bottles (426a-e; 414) and a cap track (402; figs. 5A, C).
Given the teachings of Joplin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to modify the invention of Peronek in view of Dewert to have prescription medication is provided in the bottles ahead of capping and wherein the cap supply (14 - Dewert) is a cap track. Having prescription medication provided in bottles was notoriously well known and would have allowed a user to meet a specific market need. Having the cap supply of Peronek in view of Dewert specifically be a cap track similar to that in Joplin would allow for the controlled supply of caps to be provided at a particular location which is a need of Dewert.
Regarding claim 2, Peronek discloses wherein the index wheel (14; 40a, 40b, 43) includes: a lower member (61b, 61c; fig. 2) that includes at least one bottom support (60, 61b, 61c) that is configured to contact a bottom of the bottle (fig. 2); and an upper member (61a) that includes at least one side support (63a) that is configured to contact or partially cradle a side of the bottle (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Peronek discloses wherein the lower member includes four (fig. 1 – at least four) bottom supports (61b, c; col. 8 lines 1-10) that are positioned along a perimeter of the index wheel and the upper member includes four side supports (61a; col. 8 lines 1-10) that are positioned along a perimeter of the index wheel.
Regarding claim 4, Peronek discloses wherein the four bottom supports are respectively aligned with the four side supports (figs. 1-2; col. 8 lines 1-17; they maintain alignment of the bottle in the vertical position and therefore need to be aligned).
Regarding claim 6, Peronek discloses wherein the lateral support member (90 and/or 65) is operable with the side support (63a) at the second position (fig. 3) to cradle the bottle from opposing sides.
Regarding claim 7, Peronek discloses wherein the capping member (32) is configured to rotate the cap to fasten the cap to the bottle (col. 6 line 62 – col. 7 line 12).
Regarding claim 8, Peronek as modified by Dewert and Joplin above discloses wherein the capping member (Peronek – 32; Dewert – 3, 5) is configured to: move vertically to retrieve the cap (Peronek – 33; Dewert - 4) from the cap track (Dewert – #14, paragraphs 0031-0034; Joplin - 402); move laterally between the second position and the cap track (Rotational movement of capping members accomplishes this); and move vertically to place the cap on the bottle (Peronek – figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 9, Peronek as modified by Dewert and Joplin above discloses wherein the capping member (Peronek – 32; Dewert – 3, 5) is controlled (Dewert – via #17; paragraphs 8, 17) to obtain the cap from the cap track (Dewert – 14; Joplin - 402) while the index wheel (Peronek – 14; 40a, 40b, 43; Dewert – wheel holding bottle seen in fig. 1) is rotated to move the bottle from the first position to the second position (Dewert – paragraphs 0031-0041).
Regarding claim 11, Peronek discloses a capping system (30) comprising:
a first position (#38; fig. 2; see cross section line 2 in fig. 1) in which an uncapped bottle (10) containing a fulfilled medication prescription (This is a limitation of intended use. As the containers of Peronek could be used to hold prescription medication, it is deemed to read on this limitation) is received;
a second position in which the uncapped bottle is capped (fig. 3; see cross section line 3 in fig. 1) with a cap (33), the second position comprising a capping member (one of the plurality of capping heads 32) axially aligned (col. 6 line 63 - col. 7 line 12) with a vertical centerline (45) of the uncapped bottle located at the second position;
a third position (When capping member 32 is at its lowermost position which would be at a position halfway between cross section line 3 in fig. 1 and the exit position of #39. This is because after snapping the cap into place at its lowest position, the capping member 32 would then need to travel the same distance upwards to release the bottle to the output conveyor at #39) in which the cap (33) is press-fit to the bottle (col. 7 lines 11-25 – “lock band 34 is crimped by capper head 32 under the lowermost thread in bottle neck portion 11”; alternatively “the flange on lock band 34 snaps underneath the neck flange to mechanically lock cap 33 in place”);
a fourth position (39; col. 6 lines 39-41; col. 8 lines 12-17) in which the capped bottle is removed to a conveyor belt (col. 6 lines 39-41 – “conveyor”), wherein the first position, the second position, the third position, and the fourth position are located 90 degrees from each other (see fig. 1 above); and
an index wheel (14; 40a, 40b, 43) configured to support bottles within the capping system (figs. 1-3), and rotatable to convey the uncapped bottle from the first position to the second position (col. 6 lines 32-41), the index wheel configured to have four bottle supports (60 and/or 70; col. 7 lines 60 – col. 8 line 64; figs. 2-3) that are located 90 degrees from each other to correspond to the first through fourth positions (see fig. 1 above); and
a lateral side support member (90 and/or 65) located at the second position (fig. 3) to provide lateral support for the bottle during the capping (fig. 3), the lateral side support member configured to press against the bottle during capping (fig. 3; col. 8 lines 9-17; col. 8 line 65 – col. 9 line 3) and release (@ 39; col. 8 lines 9-17) from the bottle after capping (col. 7 lines 1-11).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that the conveyor of Peronek is not specifically disclosed as being a belt, the Office alternatively takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the conveyor of Peronek be a belt. Conveyor belts were notoriously well-known as a means of moving bottled goods for further processing and packaging and doing so with even amount of velocity at a desired pace.
Peronek discloses providing caps (33), but fails to disclose a cap track that provides caps to the capping member.
However, Dewert teaches a cap track (14; slanted supply for caps 4) that provides caps (4) to the capping member (3, 5).
Given the teachings of Dewert, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the cap track of Dewert with the capping system of Peronek. Doing so would provide the system with the needed caps for the containers and ensure they were available as needed and ready to be applied.
The Office deems Peronek as modified by Dewert to disclose the limitations of a capping system for use in a modular prescription medication filling system, an uncapped bottle containing a fulfilled medication prescription and a cap track. Wherein the Applicant may argue that Peronek as modified by Dewert does not explicitly teach prescription medication being filled in the bottles and a cap track, the Office further points to Joplin.
Joplin teaches prescription medication (col. 6 lines 36-53) being filled in the bottles (426a-e; 414) and a cap track (402; figs. 5A, C).
Given the teachings of Joplin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to modify the invention of Peronek in view of Dewert to have prescription medication is provided in the bottles ahead of capping and wherein the cap supply (14 - Dewert) is a cap track. Having prescription medication provided in bottles was notoriously well known and would have allowed a user to meet a specific market need. Having the cap supply of Peronek in view of Dewert specifically be a cap track similar to that in Joplin would allow for the controlled supply of caps to be provided at a particular location which is a need of Dewert.
Regarding claim 12, Peronek discloses the third position comprising a pressing cylinder (col. 6 line 55 – capping head turret; and one of the plurality of capping heads 32) that is configured to press vertically down onto a top of the respective cap causing the cap to snap downward to securely attach to the bottle (col. 7 lines 11-25).
Regarding claim 13, Peronek discloses wherein the index wheel (14; 40a, 40b, 43) includes: a lower member (61b, 61c; fig. 2) that includes at least one bottom support (60, 61b, 61c) that is configured to contact a bottom of the bottle (fig. 2); and an upper member (61a) that includes at least one side support (63a) that is configured to contact or partially cradle a side of the bottle (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Peronek discloses wherein the lower member includes four (fig. 1 – at least four) bottom supports (61b, c; col. 8 lines 1-10) that are positioned along a perimeter of the index wheel and the upper member includes four side supports (61a; col. 8 lines 1-10) that are positioned along a perimeter of the index wheel, and wherein the four bottom supports (61b, c) are respectively aligned (fig. 2 – aligned so as to support the linear bottle) with the four side supports (63a).
Regarding claim 15, Peronek discloses wherein the capping member (32) is configured to rotate the cap to fasten the cap to the bottle (col. 6 line 62 – col. 7 line 12).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peronek (US Patent 4,939,890) in view of Dewert (PG Pub 2011/0083405 A1) alternatively in further view of Joplin (US Patent 10,800,565 B1) in view of Markson et al. (US 2019/0156475 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Peronek discloses a first position (38; fig. 2) in which the bottle is uncapped, but fails to disclose a controller configured to confirm visually that a correct prescription was fulfilled for the bottle using a recorded image of at least one of contents of the bottle or a label or other identifier on an exterior of the bottle.
However, Markson teaches a controller (424, 500) configured to confirm visually (paragraph 0105; fig. 10) that a correct prescription was fulfilled for the bottle using a recorded image (via #420; paragraphs 0104, 0132-0137; fig. 10) of at least one of contents of the bottle (416) or a label or other identifier on an exterior of the bottle
Given the teachings of Markson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the first (uncapped) position of the combination of Peronek as modified by Dewert and Joplin above with the controller and for visually confirming the correct prescription was filled of Markson. Doing so would allow for better control for quality and ensure that a patient was not accidentally provided with the wrong medication.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims are primarily directed to the newly amended subject matter of “a lateral side support member located at the second position to provide lateral support for the bottle during the capping, the lateral side support member configured to press against the bottle during capping and release from the bottle after capping”. The Applicant argues that Peronek’s previously cited additional side support (90 and/or 65) of previous claim 5 does not constitute the newly claimed “lateral side support”. This is because the current “lateral side support” is claimed to “press against the bottle during capping and release from the bottle after capping” and Peronek’s lateral support (90 and/or 65) is “stationary”.
The Office contends that the lateral support being “stationary” is not prohibited by the claims as currently written. In fact, during capping, Peronek’s lateral support (90, 65) is in abutting contact (i.e. “pressing”) with the bottle (col. 8 lines 9-17; col. 8 line 65 – col. 9 line 3). After capping is completed, the bottle reaches an exit point (39), at which point it is released from contact (col. 7 lines 1-11; col. 8 lines 9-17). As such, while the lateral support (90, 65) of Peronek may be “stationary”, it still reads on the amended limitations as presently drafted.
Conclusion
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 ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731