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 .
Status of Claims
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment, filed on 03/23/2026, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-5 and 9-10 are pending for examination.
Claims 6-8 are cancelled.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on
03/23/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cai (CN 105564703 A).
Regarding claim 1, Cai discloses a cap rotating equipment (Fig. 1) comprising:
a power rotating shaft (1);
a cap rotating housing (3) connecting to the power rotating shaft (1), wherein the cap rotating housing (3) comprises an opening (opening of 3); and
a cap fixing device (2) installed in the opening (Fig. 1) of the cap rotating housing (3) to clamp and hold a bottle cap (Fig. 1) of a bottle (Fig. 1); wherein the cap rotating housing (3) comprises:
a bottle storage area (8 and region beneath the housing where the bottle is received);
a first guiding portion (See Annotated Fig. 1 below) connected to the bottle storage area to guide a bottle body of the bottle into the bottle storage area (Fig. 4);
a bottle cap storage area (See Annotated Fig. 1 below); and
a second guiding portion (See Annotated Fig. 1 below) connected between the bottle cap storage area and the bottle storage area to guide the bottle cap of the bottle into the bottle cap storage area (See Annotated Fig. 1 below),
wherein a diameter of the bottle storage area (See Annotated Fig. 1 below) is greater than a diameter of the bottle cap storage area (See Annotated Fig. 1 below),
wherein a height of the bottle storage area (See Annotated Fig. 1 below) plus the first guiding portion (See Annotated Fig. 1 below) is greater than a height measured from a bottle cap (C) top surface to a bottle shoulder of the bottle body (See Annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
658
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, wherein the cap fixing device (1; Fig. 1) comprises a pneumatic expansion ring (5) to clamp or release the bottle cap of the bottle according to a value of air pressure in the pneumatic expansion ring (Fig. 1; Page 11 lines 46-49 of Cai).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heebner (US 5353665 A).
Regarding claim 1, Heebner discloses a cap rotating equipment (10), comprising:
a power rotating shaft (25);
a cap rotating housing (18, 26) connecting to the power rotating shaft (25), wherein the cap rotating housing (18, 26) comprises an opening (cavity of 20, 18); and
a cap fixing device (20) installed in the opening (416) of the cap rotating housing (18) to clamp and hold a bottle cap (C) of a bottle (B; Fig. 2); wherein the cap rotating housing (18, 26) comprises:
a bottle storage area (Area between 16A and 16A);
a first guiding portion (12, 14) connected to the bottle storage area (Area between 16A and 16B) to guide a bottle body of the bottle into the bottle storage area (Fig. 2);
a bottle cap storage area (Area inside of 20; See Annotated Fig. 4 below); and
a second guiding portion (See Annotated Fig. 4 below) connected between the bottle cap storage area and the bottle storage area (Area between 16A and 16B) to guide the bottle cap (C) of the bottle (B; Fig. 2) into the bottle cap storage area (Area inside of 20; See Annotated Fig. 4 below),
wherein a diameter of the bottle storage area (Area between 16A and 16A) is greater than a diameter of the bottle cap storage area (See Annotated Fig. 4 below),
wherein a height of the bottle storage area (Area inside of 20; See Annotated Fig. 4 below) plus the first guiding portion (12, 14) is greater than a height measured from a bottle cap (C) top surface to a bottle shoulder of the bottle body (Fig. 2; See Annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
766
695
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heebner (US 5353665 A) in view of Cai (CN 105564703 A).
Regarding claim 2, Heebner discloses a cap rotating equipment (10), including the cap fixing device (20) to clamp or release the bottle cap of the bottle (Col 3 lines 40-50 and Col 4 lines 38-61).
However, Heebner is silent with regards to wherein the cap fixing device comprises a pneumatic expansion ring to clamp or release the bottle cap of the bottle according to a value of air pressure in the pneumatic expansion ring.
Cai in a related invention teaches a cap fixing device (1; Fig. 1) comprises a pneumatic expansion ring (5) to clamp or release the bottle cap of the bottle according to a value of air pressure in the pneumatic expansion ring (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cap fixing device of Heebner by incorporating a pneumatic expansion ring as taught by Cai in order to greatly improve the tightening of the bottle cap and prevent damage during clamping (Page 11 lines 46-49 of Cai)
Regarding claim 3, wherein the cap fixing device (20 of Heebner) further comprises: a corrosion-resistant contact layer formed inside the pneumatic expansion ring (Heebner in Col 3 lines 25-30 describes element 20 as made from resilient elastomeric polymer as a form of silicon rubber-which is known to be corrosion resistant).
Claims 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heebner (US 5353665 A) in view of Cai (CN 105564703 A), and in further view of Fadeev et al. (US 9428302 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Heebner as modified discloses the cap rotating equipment (10 of Heebner), including the cap fixing device (20 of Heebner) having a corrosion resistant layer.
However, Heebner as modified is silent with regards to wherein the corrosion-resistant contact layer is a perfluoroalkoxy alkane (PFA) contact layer.
Fadeev in the analogous art of pharmaceutical bottle teaches to provide a corrosion resistance layer as a perfluoroalkoxy alkane (PFA) layer as a coating for heat resistance coating layer (Col 38 lines 57-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the corrosion-resistant contact layer of Heebner as modified by incorporating perfluoroalkoxy alkane (PFA) as taught by Fadeev in order to provide superior chemical and thermal resistance suitable for pharmaceutical capping, preventing corrosion. This would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it involves simple substitution of one known corrosion resistant material for another to yield predictable results of enhanced longevity in bottle cap contact surfaces.
Claims 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heebner (US 5353665 A) in view of Cai (CN 105564703 A), and in further view of Naaber (US 20110225928 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Heebner as modified discloses the cap rotating equipment (10 of Heebner), including the cap fixing device (20 of Heebner) having a corrosion resistant layer (silicone rubber, 20 of Heebner).
However, Heebner as modified is silent with regards to wherein the corrosion-resistant contact layer comprises a corrugated surface complementary to a texture on a side surface of the bottle cap.
Naaber teaches corrosion-resistant contact layer (17) comprises a corrugated surface (21; Fig. 3) complementary to a texture on a side surface of the bottle cap (3; Fig. 3 and [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the contact layer of Heebner as modified by incorporating a corrugated surface as taught by Naaber which allows at least a partial form fit by interlocking of opposing surface contours. ([0002]).
Claims 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heebner (US 5353665 A) in view of Choueirl (US 20200207601 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Heebner as discloses the cap rotating equipment (10 of Heebner).
However, Heebner is silent with regards a bottle cap sensor equipped in the bottle cap storage area of the cap rotating housing to detect the bottle cap of the bottle.
Choueirl teaches a bottle cap sensor (206) equipped in the bottle cap storage area (Fig. 2) of the cap (301) rotating housing to detect the bottle cap of the bottle ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cap rotating equipment of Heebner by incorporating a bottle cap sensor) as taught by Choueirl in order to capture an image of the cap and provide data about the beverage and/or cap (Abstract and [0042]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the bottle cap sensor (206 of Choueirl) is a limit switch, a proximity switch, an optical sensor, a laser sensor or an infrared sensor ([0042] Choueirl).
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 USC 102 and 103:
Applicant's arguments, see pages 4-11 of the Remarks, filed on 09/16/2025, with respect to the rejections of the independent claim under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered but are deemed moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant has amended claim 1, therefore Application of Heebener and Cai is now relied upon for teaching the newly added subject matter. Please see the new rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights