DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 16th 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the references cited therein are considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
4. 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 8 recites the phrase “means for delivering a controlled blast of air directed toward the closure.”
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1-21 are allowed.
Regarding claim 1, the most relevant prior art is Cassoni et al. (US 2013/0092312; “Cassoni”) in view of Linner (US 5,473,860).
Cassoni discloses a system (Fig. 3) for inserting a closure (140) into a container (100) comprising:
a die (300) having a positioning portion (304) configured to retain a closure (140; para. [0047]) and a die opening (310) adjacent the positioning portion (304; Figs. 5-8); and
a mandrel assembly (200) comprising:
an outer mandrel (210);
an inner mandrel (220) configured to translate through an inner circumference of the outer mandrel (210) and the die opening (310; Figs. 6-8); and
wherein at least the outer mandrel (210) is configured to translate a first distance in a first time period (para. [0043]).
Cassoni fails to disclose an ejector disposed within an inner circumference of the inner mandrel, wherein the inner mandrel and the ejector are configured to translate a second distance in a second time period, wherein the inner mandrel is configured to retract a third distance in a third time period and wherein the ejector does not retract during such third time period, wherein the ejector is configured to retract the third distance in a fourth time period which occurs later than the third time period, and wherein each of the first distance, the second distance, and the third distance are different from each other.
However, Linner teaches an ejector (18), wherein the ejector (18) translates a distance in a time period, wherein the ejector (18) does not retract.
It would not have been obvious to modify the system of Cassoni with the ejector if Linner because placing the ejector in Linner in the center of Cassoni’s inner mandrel would interfere with the functioning of the conductive heater (226) of Cassoni, which is disposed in the center of said inner mandrel (220).
Regarding claim 11, the most relevant prior art is Cassoni et al. (US 2013/0092312; “Cassoni”) in view of Linner (US 5,473,860).
Cassoni discloses a method for inserting a closure (140) into a container (100; Figs. 5-8) comprising:
providing a die (300) having a positioning portion (304) configured to retain a closure (140; para. [0047]) and a die opening (310) adjacent the positioning portion (304; Figs. 5-8); and
providing a mandrel assembly (200) comprising:
an outer mandrel (210) which is sized to fit within an inner circumference of the positioning portion;
an inner mandrel (220) configured to translate through an inner circumference of the outer mandrel (210) and the die opening (310; Figs. 5-8).
Cassoni fails to disclose an ejector disposed within an inner circumference of the inner mandrel, translating at least the outer mandrel a first distance in a first time period, translating the inner mandrel and the ejector a second distance in a second time period, retracting the inner mandrel a third distance in a third time period wherein the ejector does not retract during such third time period, retracting the ejector the third distance in a fourth time period which occurs later than the third time period, and wherein each of the first distance, the second distance, and the third distance are different from each other.
However, Linner teaches an ejector (18), wherein the ejector (18) translates a distance in a time period, wherein the ejector (18) does not retract.
It would not have been obvious to modify the method of Cassoni with the ejector if Linner because placing the ejector in Linner in the center of Cassoni’s inner mandrel would interfere with the functioning of the conductive heater (226) of Cassoni, which is disposed in the center of said inner mandrel (220).
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYAMINDAE JALLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1927. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30am-5:00pm and alternating Fridays from 7:30am-4:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHELLEY 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.
7. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/EYAMINDAE C JALLOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731