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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10, and 12-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Py (U.S. Patent No. 7,967,034) in view of Hanan (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0031531) and further in view of Cochrane (U.S. Patent No. 5,749,201).
Regarding claims 1 & 30: Py discloses a system for engaging a closure to a container, the system comprising:
a conveying assembly configured to convey one or more containers along a conveying direction, see for example (Figs. 37A-37D; via the shown star wheels 2154, 2156, and 2158 carrying containers 2105), each container having an associated closure on a container neck of the container (via containers 2105 with the shown closure and/or Fig. 3; via cap 110), each closure comprising a top wall, a cylindrical skirt extending from a periphery of the top wall, and a tamper evidence band, see for example (Figs. 1; via cap 10 with top wall and cylindrical skirt and Fig. 14; via tamper-proof cover 1040); and
a laser assembly (Fig. 37A; via 2232, 2234, 2236, 2238) operable to irradiate at least a portion of the tamper evidence band of each closure with a substantially planar laser beam to cause the portion of the tamper evidence band to engage with the container neck as the container and the associated closure is conveyed along the conveying direction, see for example (Figs. 37A-37D; and/or “laser resealable portion” and “the tamper resistant feature can be created by using ultrasonic welding, adhesion, or any other connection technique”).
Py does not disclose that a tamper evidence band extending from the cylindrical skirt and using assembly oriented and operable to irradiate a portion of the tamper evidence band with a planar laser beam to cause the portion of the tamper evidence band to engage with the container neck. However, Hanan discloses similar system for engaging a closure to a container, using an assembly being oriented and operable to irradiate a portion of the tamper evidence band extending from the skirt of closure using a planar laser beam to cause the portion of the tamper evidence band to engage with the container neck, see for example (Figs. 1, 4 & 5; evidence band 166 and sealing sections/evidence bridges 180 using laser; paragraph 0056; “the tamper evidence ledge 170 by way of a laser…laser melting and joining advantageously…to form the finish 140 and the closure 164”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted Py’s laser system of securing a closure into the container from the top of the cover, by another laser system capable of applying the laser from the side towards the tamper evidence band to be applied to the cover and operable in a way to irradiate a portion of the tamper evidence band extending from the skirt of closure using a planar laser beam to cause the portion of the tamper evidence band to engage with the container neck, as suggested by Hanan, in order to come up with lighter packaging weight and decrease of the breakage of the actual container while lowering the process costs overall (paragraph 0004).
Py in view of Hana do not suggest the amended claim as filed on 08/19/2026; referring to the laser assembly comprises a laser source configured to emit a substantially linear laser beam and one or more optical devices configured to convert the substantially linear laser beam emitted by the laser source to a substantially planar laser beam. However, Cochrane discloses similar use of laser beam in the container closing system while having the laser beam emitted substantially to a planar laser beam, see for example (Figs. 9-11; via optic cables 110 and laser heads 126 over “substantially planar laser beam” regio).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted Py in view of Hana’s laser system of securing a closure into the container, by another laser system capable of applying the laser in a planar region, as suggested by Cochrane, in order to assure better bonding operation of the tamper proof into the cap and cover more bonding areas in short period of time (column 1, liners 55-60).
Regarding claims 2 & 30: Py discloses that the conveying assembly is configured to rotate each closure and/or each container, see for example (Figs. 37A-37D; via the shown rotation of each star wheel) to cause the substantially planar laser beam to irradiate an entire circumference of the tamper evidence band as the container moves along the conveying assembly (Fig. 37B; via the shown movement of the container while the laser assembly via 2232, 2234, 2236, 2238 operating).
Regarding claim 10: Py discloses that the laser assembly comprises a laser source (Fig. 20; via laser source 2080, 2082, 2084, and 2086 and/or Fig. 10; via laser source 246) configured to emit a substantially linear laser beam and one or more optical devices (via optic cables 2233) configured to modify one or more characteristics of the substantially linear laser beam emitted by the laser source (via “transmitting a respective laser beam onto a respective resealable stopper”).
Regarding claim 12: Py discloses that at least one of the one or more optical devices comprises a freeform mirror or lens (via “each laser source…a fiber-optic cable to respective collimating lens mounted over the vials” and/or Fig. 10; via mirror 278) for modifying an intensity distribution of the substantially planar laser beam.
Regarding claim 13: Py discloses that the freeform mirror (via “lens”) is configured to modify an intensity distribution of the substantially planar laser beam along the conveying direction, see for example (Fig. 37; via conveying of capped containers).
Regarding claim 14: Py discloses that the tamper evidence band comprises a wall extending in a vertical direction substantially orthogonal to the conveying direction (Fig. 14; via the shown vertical wall of tamper 1040), wherein the freeform mirror is configured to vary an intensity distribution of the substantially planar laser beam along the vertical direction of the wall, see for example (Figs. 37; via conveying of the capped container throughout different modules).
Regarding claim 15: Py discloses that the freeform mirror comprises an adjustment mechanism (via 278; inherently is movable and adjustable) to allow for adjustment of the modified intensity distribution provided by the freeform mirror.
Regarding claim 16: Py discloses that at least one of the one or more optical devices comprises a scanning lens and the system (Fig. 10; via scanning mechanism 278) is configured to direct, in use, the substantially planar laser beam through the scanning lens prior to irradiating the closure to provide the substantially planar laser beam with a substantially planar focal point along the conveying direction.
Regarding claim 17: Py discloses that the portion of the closure is a first portion, and the substantially planar laser beam is a first substantially planar laser beam, and further comprising a second laser assembly (Fig. 37; via multiple lasers means 2232, 2234, 2236, 2238 operating) configured to emit a second substantially planar laser beam to irradiate a second portion of the tamper evidence band.
Regarding claim 18: Py discloses that the conveying assembly comprises a rail for supporting a radial support flange of the container neck and a pair of conveyors engaging opposite sides of a container body depending from the container neck, see for example (Figs. 24-26; via the shown rails 2160, 2162, 2170, 2172, 2174, 2178 around multiple of conveying star-wheels to guide the conveyed containers); the pair of conveyors configured to both convey the container along the conveying direction and to rotate the container and closure as it is conveyed 5 along the conveying direction.
Regarding claim 19: Py discloses that a first of the conveyors is spaced further from the rail than a second of the conveyors (via different star-wheels spaced differently in respect to the rails 2160, 2162, 2170, 2172, 2174, 2178) for engaging opposite sides of the container body at a different axial location.
Regarding claim 20: Py discloses that the substantially planar laser beam is oriented along the conveying direction, see for example (Fig. 10; via the shown beam out of laser source 246 and/or impacted by mirror 278 over the conveyed container).
Regarding claim 21: Py discloses that the laser assembly is configured to irradiate portion of the tamper evidence band (via laser beam out of source 246) so as to create a predetermined temperature differential between an outer surface thereof and an inner surface thereof.
Regarding claim 22: Py further discloses a comprising a piercing assembly (Fig. 3; via needle 140) configured to perforate, slit, is or cut a membrane joining the tamper evidence band to the closure whilst it is installed on the container neck, thereby to provide a frangible connection therebetween.
Regarding claim 23: Py discloses that a power of the substantially planar laser beam is between 10W and 400W (via “the predetermined power of each laser is preferably less thana bout 30 watts, and preferably less than or equal to about 10 watts, or within the range of about 8 to about 10 watts).
Regarding claim 24: Py discloses that a power of the substantially planar laser beam is configured to be gradually reduced (via laser out of the source 246 capable and “configured to” being reduced) as the at least a portion of the tamper evidence band of each closure is irradiated by the substantially planar laser beam.
Regarding claim 25: Py in view of Keeler do not disclose the exact claimed range of the power of the substantially planar laser beam to be configured to and gradually reduced from 400W to 100W. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Py’s power range of the laser beam to be between 400 – 100 W (as a design choice to be made), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 26: Py discloses that the substantially planar laser beam is configured to irradiate the at least a portion of the tamper evidence band of each closure for less than 2 seconds (via “seal a needle aperture formed…in a predetermined time period of less than approximately 2 seconds”).
Regarding claim 27: Py discloses that the substantially planar laser beam is configured to irradiate the at least a portion of the tamper evidence band of each closure for between 0.3 seconds and 0.7 seconds (via “laser radiation…is preferably less than or equal to about 1.5 seconds”).
Regarding claim 28: Py discloses that the at least a portion of the tamper evidence band of each closure comprises a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) material (via the use of “polymeric material”).
Regarding claim 29: Py discloses that the one or more containers is a plurality of containers, and wherein the laser assembly is operable to simultaneously (Fig. 37; via the use of multiple laser mechanisms 2232, 2234, 2236, and 2238) irradiate at least a portion of the tamper evidence band of each closure on at least some of the plurality of containers with the substantially is planar laser beam as the plurality of containers and associated closures are conveyed along the conveying direction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 10, and 12-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely sole on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Office believes that the newly added limitations is broadly claimed using multiple broad and/or intended use terms. Being that said, as set forth above the Office indicated that such use of laser beam to cover wide planar surface is old and been used in the art, clearly suggested by Cochrane (U.S. Pat. No. 5,749,201; Figs. 9-11; via laser beams 126 covers “substantially” planar region).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 7,726,352 suggesting a use of rotation of bottle’s neck while being conveyed and operated under (Fig. 36 & 43) also U.S. Pub No. 2013/0233481 (Figs. 2-5).
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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached on 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights