DETAILED ACTION
The Office acknowledges receipt of the Applicant’s amendment and response filed 20 May 2026.
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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2 of the claim it reads, “a plurality of biassing members”. This is understood to be a typographical error and should read “a plurality of biasing members”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2 of the claim it reads, “Wherein”. This is understood to be a typographical error and should read “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 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.
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) 1-7, 11, 15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hirano (JP 2008-13210 A) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hirano (JP 2008-13210 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hirano discloses a capping head (4; figs. 1-2) for attaching a cap (25) having a topped cylindrical shape (fig. 1; paragraph 0037) to a mouthpiece portion of a threaded can (26; paragraphs 0036-0037) having a bottomed cylindrical shape (figs. 3 and 5), the capping head comprising:
a body (6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13; see also alternative interpretation presented in rejection of claim 16 below) centered on a center axis (axis shared by #19 and 24 in fig. 2) extending in an up-down direction;
a plurality of cam followers (14; figs. 1, 2 and 4), each of which is disposed on an upper side of the body (fig. 2) and configured to roll on an outer peripheral surface of a cone cam (16; paragraphs 0025 and 0036);
a plurality of forming rollers (2, 3; paragraphs 0021, 0044 - “as the number of forming rollers increases… With the capping device of this invention (two forming rollers, two bottom tightening rollers) the capping pressure is not affected by the number of forming rollers”), each of which is disposed on a lower side of the body, connected to the each of the cam followers, and configured to move in a radial direction as the each of the cam followers moves in the radial direction (paragraphs 0025, 0036, 0041, 0047); and
at least one biasing member (18) configured to bias the each of the cam followers and the each of the forming rollers toward a radially inner side (paragraphs 0037 and 0040),
wherein the plurality of the cam followers (14) are arranged in a circumferential direction of the body (fig. 2; paragraphs 0024, 0025, 0036, 0047 – “the cam follower 14 and the rollers 2 and 3 in contact with the cam surface of the conical cam 16”),
the plurality (paragraph 0044 – “as the number of forming rollers increases… With the capping device of this invention (two forming rollers, two bottom tightening rollers) the capping pressure is not affected by the number of forming rollers”) of the forming rollers (2, 3) are provided in the same number as the number of the plurality of the cam followers and arranged in the circumferential direction (paragraph 0024 – “A cam follower 14 is attached to the tip of each swing arm 13”; paragraph 0025; paragraph 0036 – “accordingly each oscillating arm 13, 13 and each arm 10, 12 move, and each roller 2, 3 moves toward the center.”),
the plurality of the forming rollers (2, 3) include:
a plurality of thread forming rollers (2) configured to form a thread portion to be threaded with the mouthpiece portion on a peripheral wall of the cap (paragraphs 0036-0037), and
at least one tuck under forming roller (3) configured to tuck under forming a lower end of the peripheral wall of the cap onto the mouthpiece portion (paragraphs 0036, 0038),
the body (6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13; see also alternative interpretation presented in rejection of claim 16 below) has a body recess portion (see annotated figs. 1 and 2 below; see also alternative interpretation presented in rejection of claim 16 below) depressed downward from an upper surface of the body and configured to accommodate at least a lower end portion of the cone cam (see annotated figs. 1 and 2 below; see also alternative interpretation presented in rejection of claim 16 below),
the each of the cam followers is configured to roll on a small-diameter rolling surface (figs. 1 and 4, #14 on left side; see also annotated figs. 1 and 2 below for location of surface), a large-diameter rolling surface (fig. 2, #14 rolling on large-diameter surface; see annotated figs. 1 and 2 below for location of surface) and a taper rolling surface (fig. 1, intermediate position of #14 on left and #14 on right; see annotated figs. 1 and 2 below for location of surface) which are outer peripheral surfaces of the cone cam (16),
an outer diameter dimension of the large-diameter rolling surface is larger than an outer diameter dimension of the small-diameter rolling surface (see annotated figs. 1 and 2 below),
the taper rolling surface is disposed between the small-diameter rolling surface and the large-diameter rolling surface in the up-down direction (see annotated fig. 2 below), and
the body recess portion is configured to accommodate at least the large-diameter rolling surface and the taper rolling surface (see annotated figs. 1 and 2 below; see also alternative interpretation put forward in rejection of claim 16 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
956
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
791
974
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1031
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wherein the Applicant may argue that the plurality of cam followers (14) are not disclosed as being configured to roll, the Office alternatively notes that Hirano further teaches that cam followers (30, 37) roll along a cam surface (paragraphs 0030 and 0033).
Given the further teachings of Hirano, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the cam followers (14) of Hirano with the rolling along a came surface feature as in other cam followers of Hirano. Doing so would allow for the cam followers (14) to smoothly travel and reduce wear as was commonly understood in the field of cam followers before the time of effective filing.
Regarding claim 2, Hirano discloses wherein an inner diameter dimension of the body recess portion (see annotated figs. 1 and 2 above) is larger (see figs. 1-2) than an outer diameter dimension of a lower end portion of the cone cam (16; the inner diameter dimension of the body recess portion is what allows 16 to descend into it) with which the each of the cam followers (14) comes into contact.
Regarding claim 3, Hirano discloses wherein the body (6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13) has a spindle attachment portion (paragraph 0022 – “a spin body 6 is attached to the lower end of the spindle shaft 5”; Part of spin body 6 that holds end of spindle 5) attached to a spindle (5) inserted into the cone cam (16; figs. 1-2), and the spindle attachment portion is disposed at a bottom portion of the body recess portion having a bottomed hole shape (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Hirano discloses wherein an inner diameter dimension of the body recess portion (see annotated figs. 1 and 2 above) is larger (figs. 1-2) than a diameter dimension of the spindle attachment portion (paragraph 0022 – “a spin body 6 is attached to the lower end of the spindle shaft 5”; Part of spin body 6 that holds end of spindle 5).
Regarding claim 5, Hirano discloses wherein, in a case in which a dimension of the cone cam (16) in the up-down direction from an upper end position (fig. 2; and figs. 1 and 4 where #14 first contacts 16 as seen on the right hand side) with which the each of the cam followers (14) comes into contact to a lower end position (figs. 1 and 4 where #14 is in a recess of 16 as seen on the left hand side) is defined as a forming dimension H (see annotated fig. 2 above), a depth dimension h (see annotated fig. 2 above) of the body recess portion (see annotated figs. 1 and 2 above) in the up-down direction is 1.58H or less (see annotated fig. 2 above; figs. 1 and 4; hollow portion in top of 6 that accommodates 16 as it moves downward; This is shown as having a height that is no larger than the distance traveled by 16 in figs. 1 and 4 and thus is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 6, Hirano discloses wherein the each of the cam followers (14) has a shaft portion (see shaft with axis in center of 14 in figs. 1-2) extending in the up-down direction, and a rolling element (14) rotationally supported (paragraph 0009; alternatively see also 30, 37, paragraphs 0030 and 0033 as modified above) by a lower end portion of the shaft portion and pressed against the outer peripheral surface of the cone cam by a biasing force of the biasing member (18; paragraphs 0025 and 0040).
Regarding claim 7, Hirano discloses a pressure block (1) disposed on a lower side of the body and configured to press a top wall of the cap (paragraphs 0021, 0027, 0032).
Regarding claim 11, Hirano discloses wherein the body (6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13) has a spindle attachment portion (paragraph 0022 – “a spin body 6 is attached to the lower end of the spindle shaft 5”; Part of spin body 6 that holds end of spindle 5) attached to a spindle (5) inserted into the cone cam (16), and the spindle attachment portion is disposed to overlap the body recess portion (see annotated figs. 1 and 2 above) when seen in the radial direction (Fig. 2; These two portions have overlap in the overhead (i.e. radial) direction).
Regarding claim 15, Hirano discloses a pressure block (1) disposed on a lower side of the body (6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13; fig. 2) and configured to press a top wall of the cap (paragraphs 0021, 0027, 0032), wherein the body has an accommodation cylinder (lower section of 6 that has seal 22 as seen in fig. 2) protruding downward from a lower surface of the body, and a part of the pressure block is accommodated in the accommodation cylinder (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Hirano discloses a part of the small-diameter rolling surface is disposed in the body recess portion (see annotated figs. 1 and 2 above).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (JP 2008-13210 A) in view of Sasaki et al. (JP 2007-015727 A) hereinafter referred to as Sasaki.
Regarding claim 8, Hirano discloses wherein there can be various numbers of forming rollers provided (paragraph 0044 – “as the number of forming rollers increases…”), but does not disclose wherein six or more forming rollers are provided, and the number of the thread forming rollers is larger than the number of the tuck under forming rollers.
However, Sasaki teaches a capping head (22) wherein six or more forming rollers (16, 18, and 20; fig. 4; paragraphs 0031-0032) are provided, and the number of the thread forming rollers (16, 18; fig. 4 shows at least four of these rollers; paragraph 0032) is larger than the number of the tuck under forming rollers (20; fig. 4 shows two of these rollers; paragraph 0032).
Given the teachings of Sasaki and the suggestion of Hirano (paragraph 0044), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the number of forming rollers of Hirano with the number of forming rollers of Sasaki. Hirano already suggests having an increasing number of forming rollers. Sasaki teaches the number and type of rollers claimed on the same type of capping head. Making this change would allow for the total side pressure to increase and thus allow for the capping and threading of caps that have greater thicknesses or provide for caps that have a larger diameter to be threaded in a more efficient manner.
Regarding claim 9, Hirano as modified Sasaki above discloses by wherein four thread forming rollers (Sasaki - 16, 18; fig. 4 shows at least four of these rollers; paragraph 0032) are provided, and two tuck under forming rollers (Sasaki - 20; fig. 4 shows two of these rollers; paragraph 0032) are provided.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (JP 2008-13210 A) in view of Matsusei et al. (JP 2005-212904 A) hereinafter referred to as Matsusei.
Regarding claim 10, Hirano discloses thread forming rollers (2; paragraphs 0021, 0044) adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction, but fails to disclose wherein positions of the thread forming rollers adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction are displaced from each other in the up-down direction.
However, Matsusei teaches wherein positions of the thread forming rollers (55a) adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction are displaced from each other in the up-down direction (fig. 10D; paragraph 0016).
Given the teachings of Matsusei, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the adjacent thread forming rollers of Hirano be displaced from each other in the up-down direction. Doing so would allow the rollers to more quickly cover the vertical range of the thread by having different rollers responsible for forming different sections of the threads.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (JP 2008-13210 A) alternatively in further in view of Johnson (US Patent 1,560,059).
Regarding claim 12, Hirano discloses wherein, the at least one biasing member comprises a plurality of the biasing members (18), the plurality of the biasing members are provided in the same number as the number of the plurality of cam followers (14; paragraph 0025) and are arranged in the circumferential direction, the body (6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13; fig. 2) has a plurality of biasing member accommodation holes (see hole in fig. 2 that accommodates #18), each of which extends in the up-down direction, the plurality of the biasing member accommodation holes are provided in the same number as the number of the biasing members and are arranged in the circumferential direction, and each of the biasing members is accommodated in each of the biasing member accommodation holes (fig. 2; paragraph 0025).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that Hirano does not disclose biasing member accommodation holes, the Office alternatively points to Johnson which teaches biasing member accommodation holes (hole in frame 9 for #30 as seen in fig. 2) for each of the plurality of biasing members (30).
Given the teachings of Johnson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify each of the biasing members of Hirano to have biasing member accommodation holes. Doing so would ensure that the biasing members stayed in their proper position during use of the capping head.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (JP 2008-13210 A) in view of Gorton et al. (US Patent 4,086,747) hereinafter referred to as Gorton in view of Von Segebaden et al. (US Patent 2,108,932) hereinafter referred to as Segebaden.
Regarding claim 13, Hirano discloses wherein, the at least one biasing member (18) comprises a plurality of biasing members (18), the plurality of the biasing members (18) are provided in the same number as the number of the plurality of the cam followers (14; paragraph 0025) and are arranged in the circumferential direction.
Hirano fails to disclose the body has a plurality of pockets, each of which has a recessed shape, depressed from an outer peripheral surface of the body toward the radially inner side, and extending in the up-down direction, the plurality of the pockets are provided in the same number as the number of the biasing members and are arranged in the circumferential direction, each of the biasing members is accommodated in each of the pockets, and the capping head further comprises a cover having a cylindrical shape and configured to surround the body from a radially outer side over a whole circumference in the circumferential direction.
However, Gorton teaches the body (4; fig. 1) has a plurality of pockets (slots 38 for 68, 68’ as seen in figs. 1 and 3), each of which has a recessed shape, depressed from an outer peripheral surface of the body toward the radially inner side (figs. 1 and 3), and extending in the up-down direction (figs. 1 and 3), the plurality of the pockets are provided in the same number as the number of the biasing members and are arranged in the circumferential direction, each of the biasing members is accommodated in each of the pockets (figs. 1 and 3; col. 3 lines 47-61).
Given the teachings of Gorton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the biasing members of Hirano to have the respective pockets of Gorton. Doing so would ensure the alignment and protect the biasing elements as the biasing member were being compressed repeatedly.
Hirano in view of Gorton fails to disclose the capping head further comprises a cover having a cylindrical shape and configured to surround the body from a radially outer side over a whole circumference in the circumferential direction.
However, Segebaden teaches the capping head further comprises a cover (1, 3; fig. 1) having a cylindrical shape and configured to surround the body from a radially outer side over a whole circumference in the circumferential direction
Given the teachings of Segebaden, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the capping head of Hirano in view of Gorton to include a cover as taught by Segebaden. Doing so would help to protect the inner workings of the capping head from debris and dust.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (JP 2008-13210 A) in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP 2009-214901 A) hereinafter referred to as Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 14, Hirano discloses a body, but fails to disclose wherein the body is made of an aluminum alloy.
However, Yamamoto teaches a capping head wherein the body is made of aluminum alloy (paragraph 0031).
Given the teachings of Yamamoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the body of Hirano to be made of aluminum alloy. Aluminum alloy was a well-known material that had the known benefits of being light, durable, rust resistant and easy to manufacture into a desired shape.
Alternatively, the Office took official notice in the Office Action of 20 February 2026 that making body and housing elements out of aluminum alloy was notoriously well-known in the art and would have been obvious to have the body of Hirano made out of an aluminum alloy because it has the benefits of being light, durable, rust resistant and easy to manufacture into a desired shape. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice (MPEP 2144.03 C).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (JP 2008-13210 A) in view of Gorton (US Patent 4,086,747).
Regarding claim 16, Hirano discloses a body (6, 7, 8; fig. 2) centered on a center axis (axis shared by #19 and 24 in fig. 2) extending in an up-down direction;
the body (6, 7, 8) has a body recess portion (see alternative interpretation annotation of fig. 2 below) depressed downward from an upper surface of the body and configured to accommodate at least a lower end portion of the cone cam (see alternative interpretation annotation of fig. 2 below), the body recess portion is configured to accommodate at least the large-diameter rolling surface and the taper rolling surface (see alternative interpretation annotation of fig. 2 below; large-diameter rolling surface and at least the beginning of the taper rolling surface are deemed to be positioned within the body recess when cone cam 16 is in the lowered position), and further comprising
a support member (9-13) configured to support the each of the cam followers (14) and the forming roller (2, 3),
wherein the support member has:
a support shaft (9, 11) extending in the up-down direction (fig. 2),
an upper arm (13) configured to connect the support shaft and the each of the cam followers, and
a lower arm (10, 12) configured to connect the support shaft and the forming roller (paragraphs 0024-0025).
PNG
media_image4.png
862
1234
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Hirano fails to disclose the upper arm has an upper clamp portion configured to surround the support shaft around its axis and being deformable to press an outer peripheral surface of the support shaft, the lower arm has a lower clamp portion configured to surround the support shaft around its axis and being deformable to press the outer peripheral surface of the support shaft, and at least one of the upper clamp portion or the lower clamp portion has a deformation assist groove disposed on a clamp portion peripheral surface and extending in the up-down direction.
However, Gorton teaches a support member (18, 24, 28) configured to support the cam follower (34) and the forming roller (RO, PP; 8, 10, 12, 14, 15), wherein the support member has a support shaft (24) extending in the up-down direction (fig. 3), an upper arm (28) configured to connect the support shaft and the cam follower (col. 3 lines 34-42; fig. 3), and a lower arm (18) configured to connect the support shaft and the forming roller (col. 3 lines 28-42; fig. 3), the upper arm (28) has an upper clamp portion (portion located @ #32) configured to surround the support shaft around its axis and being deformable to press an outer peripheral surface of the support shaft (col. 5 lines 35-37 – “the cam follower arms 28 are clamped on the pre-loaded pivot shaft 24”; col. 3 lines 37-40 – “To the other end of the pivot shaft 24 is attached a cam follower arm 28 (FIG. 3) via hole 30 and fastener 32, such as a screw or the like”), the lower arm (18) has a lower clamp portion (portion located @ 26) configured to surround the support shaft around its axis and being deformable to press the outer peripheral surface of the support shaft (col. 3 lines 34-37 – “The pivot arm 18 is provided with another hole 22 adapted to receive a pivot shaft 24 for securement thereto upon tightening of a fastener 26, such as a screw or the like”), and at least one of the upper clamp portion or the lower clamp portion has a deformation assist groove disposed on a clamp portion peripheral surface and extending in the up-down direction (fig. 3; holes for tightening screws 26, 32 can be considered deformation assist grooves and they have a dimensional component in the up-down direction; alternatively, the slots shown on the underside of 18 and 28 which allow for the relative movement of the clamping surfaces and which extend vertically through 18 and 28 could be considered deformation assist grooves).
Given the teachings of Gorton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the support member of Hirano with the one of Gorton. Doing so would allow for modular construction by allowing the arms to be tightened/loosened and allow for minor adjustments to the arms as might otherwise be needed.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (JP 2008-13210 A) in view of in view of Hidetoshi (JPH 06-027598 Y2).
Regarding claim 18, Hirano discloses a spindle assembly comprising: the capping head (4; figs. 1-2) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); an elevation shaft (19, 44) extending in the up-down direction and to which a pressure block (1) configured to press a top wall of the cap (paragraphs 0021, 0027, 0032) is attached (fig. 4; paragraph 0026); a spindle (5) having a cylindrical shape (figs. 1, 2 and 4; paragraph 0022), into which the elevation shaft is inserted (paragraph 0026), and to which the body (6 and frame that holds #9 and 11) is attached (paragraph 0022); and an elevation cylinder (15) having a cylindrical shape (15) and into which the elevation shaft (19) and the spindle (5) are inserted (figs. 2 and 4; paragraphs 0025-0026), wherein the elevation shaft (19, 44) has an upper cam follower (44) configured to move the elevation shaft in the up-down direction (paragraph 0026 – “The pressure rod 19 is a hollow shaft that is held in a suspended state at an upper position (not shown) and moves up and down without rotating”; paragraphs 0045-0047 – “This cam follower 44 can be configured by a rolling element such as a roller, in order to enable smooth movement of the pressure rod 19”), the spindle being configured to rotate around the center axis (paragraph 0022) and the elevation cylinder (15) has a lower cam follower (30) configured to move the elevation cylinder (15) in the up-down direction (paragraphs 0025, 0030; fig. 3).
Hirano discloses the spindle being configured to rotate around the center axis (paragraph 0022), but fails to disclose the spindle has a spindle gear configured to rotate the spindle around the center axis.
However, Hidetoshi teaches a similar spindle assembly (figs. 1-3) where the spindle (2, 20; includes 23, 24, 26) has a spindle gear (26) configured to rotate the spindle around the center axis (p. 3 of 14 of Provided Translation: “The drive sleeve 24 has a capping head 3 attached to its lower portion and has a driven gear 26 that meshes with the ring gear 6 of the turret 1, so that the capping head 3 is rotated when the drive gear portion 7 of the turret 2 is driven.”)
Given the teachings of Hidetoshi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Hirano with the spindle gear of Hidetoshi. Hirano is already concerned with the problem of having the spindle rotate. Hidetoshi teaches a well-known way of creating that rotational motion through the use of a spindle gear. Doing so allows the spindle to be driven with a desired mechanical advantage at a desired speed.
Regarding claim 19, Hirano as modified by Hidetoshi discloses a capping device comprising: a turret (Hirano – 27; Hidetoshi - 1) configured to rotate around a turret axis (Hirano - paragraph 0029; Hidetoshi – 4, p. 2 of 14 of Provided Translation: “The turret 1 rotates the roll spindles 2 and capping heads 3 in its circumferential direction and has a central support pillar 4 at its center, which serves as the axis of rotation for the roll-on spindles 2 and capping heads 3.”); the spindle assembly according to claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18) disposed on an outer peripheral portion of the turret (Hirano - paragraph 0029; Hidetoshi – fig. 3); a fixed gear (Hidetoshi – 6, p. 3 of 14 of Provided Translation: “The drive sleeve 24 has a capping head 3 attached to its lower portion and has a driven gear 26 that meshes with the ring gear 6 of the turret 1, so that the capping head 3 is rotated when the drive gear portion 7 of the turret 2 is driven.”) configured to mesh with the spindle gear (Hidetoshi - 26) and extending around the turret axis (Hidetoshi – fig. 3); an upper cam (Hirano – 41; Hidetoshi – 9, 9a) extending around the turret axis and with which the upper cam follower (Hirano – 44; Hidetoshi - 31) engages; and a lower cam (Hirano – 29A; Hidetoshi - 5) extending around the turret axis and with which the lower cam follower (Hirano – 30; Hidetoshi - 27) engages.
Given the teachings of Hidetoshi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to incorporate the features of the turret of Hidetoshi, including the turret axis, fixed gear, cams and cam followers, with the invention of Hirano. Turrets are a well-known means of providing for a compact design of capping machines that provide for a smaller footprint in a factory and allow for the redirection of products into additional lines of manufacturing.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (JP 2008-13210 A) in view of in view of Hidetoshi (JPH 06-027598 Y2) in view of Trendel (US Patent 4,663,913).
Regarding claim 20, Hirano as modified by Hidetoshi discloses a capping system comprising: a supplier (Hirano - 45) configured to infeed threaded cans (Hirano - 26; paragraphs 0035, 0037); and the capping device according to claim 19 (see rejection of claim 19) to which the threaded can discharged from the supplier is supplied.
Hirano as modified by Hidetoshi discloses a supplier of threaded cans, but does not specifically disclose that the supplier is a filler configured to fill a threaded can with a content.
However, Trendel teaches a capping system comprising: a filler (10; figs. 1-2; col. 3 lines 31-40) configured to fill a threaded can (66; fig. 8) with a content (col. 3 lines 59-60).
Given the teachings of Trendel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the supplier of Hirano to comprise a filler as in Trendel. Doing so would provide the capping device with a container that was filled with a desired product so that the container could seal and preserve the product for sale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the body recess of Hirano cannot accommodate the tapered cam surface (17) and that it is “structurally impossible for the cam surface to be placed (accommodated) in the alleged body recess portion 6”. The Office is not persuaded by this argument and has detailed a rejection in the Office Action above to better explain how Hirano is deemed to read on the claim limitation of “the body recess portion is configured to accommodate at least the large-diameter rolling surface and the taper rolling surface”. The Office has put forward two interpretations of the body and body recess portion limitations. The first is the primary interpretation (used for claim 1 and dependent claims other than claim 16) and the second is an alternative interpretation which is (used for claim 1 and dependent claim 16).
The primary interpretation is that the body comprises elements (6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13) and that the body recess portion begins at the top side elements 13 (see annotated fig. 2 in claim 1 rejection above). This interpretation places the large-diameter rolling surface, small-diameter rolling surface and the taper rolling surface all within the bounds of the cited body recess portion (see annotated fig. 1 in the rejection of claim 1 above).
The alternative interpretation (used mainly for rejecting claims 1 and 16, but which is applicable to claims 2-20) is that the body comprises elements (6, 7, 8) and that the body recess portion is the recess in the top of 6 as indicated in annotated fig. 2 provided in the rejection of claim 16. As detailed in the annotations of fig. 2 in the rejection of claim 16, the cone cam 16 is deemed to be seated in the indicated body recess. The depth of this recess is such that it extends at least to the beginning of the tapered portion of the cone cam follower. The Applicant’s argument that it is “structurally impossible for the cam surface to be placed (accommodated) in the alleged body recess portion 6” is not deemed to be accurate. The claim does not provide for how much of the tapered cam surface is accommodated in the body recess. Given the shown depth of the body recess compared to the cone cam tapered surface in Hirano, the Office deems at least a portion of this tapered surface is accommodated in the body recess and therefore reads on the claim as written.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the Applicant appears to be directing their arguments toward the limitations of claim 1 which were previously argued. In claims 8 and 9, Sasaki is used to teach a certain number of forming and tuck under rollers. This feature is already suggested by Hirano and more explicitly taught by Sasaki. The modification that Sasaki is teaching does not appear to be argued by the Applicant.
Regarding claim 10, the Applicant appears to be directing their arguments toward the limitations of claim 1 which were previously argued. As those arguments were not persuasive, the rejection of claim 10 is maintained.
Regarding claim 12, the Applicant appears to be directing their arguments toward the limitations of claim 1 which were previously argued. As those arguments were not persuasive, the rejection of claim 12 is maintained.
Regarding claim 13, the Applicant appears to be directing their arguments toward the limitations of claim 1 which were previously argued. As those arguments were not persuasive, the rejection of claim 13 is maintained.
Regarding claim 14, the Applicant appears to be directing their arguments toward the limitations of claim 1 which were previously argued. As those arguments were not persuasive, the rejection of claim 14 is maintained. The Applicant also appears to try to point out some feature of Yamamoto regarding its body recess portion. However, the Office is not modifying Hirano with the body recess of Yamamoto, so this point is moot.
Regarding claims 16-17, the Applicant appears to be directing their arguments toward the limitations of claim 1 which were previously argued. As those arguments were not persuasive, the rejection of claims 16-17 are maintained.
Regarding claims 18-19, the Applicant appears to be directing their arguments toward the limitations of claim 1 which were previously argued. As those arguments were not persuasive, the rejection of claims 18-19 are maintained
Regarding claim 20, the Applicant appears to be directing their arguments toward the limitations of claim 1 which were previously argued. As those arguments were not persuasive, the rejection of claim 20 is maintained.
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
Prosecution Insights