DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Sheet
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specifications
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0044] of the specification recites, “…for specifying the position of the ejector unit #120…” However, the ejector unit has previously been identified as element #20. It appears that the identified passage should instead recite, ““…for specifying the position of the ejector unit #20
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC §112f
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 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.
The following elements are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Regarding claims 1 and 15, “ejector unit” (because A – “ejector unit” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “configured to eject the container closure received in the closure receptacle” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “ejector unit” is understood as equivalent to “means for ejecting the container closure received in the closure receptacle”). A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure is a guide roller #22 which rolls on a guide curve #130 (see ¶ [0045] of the specification) or equivalent.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, “ejector part” (because A – “ejector part” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “configured to eject the container closure” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “ejector part” is understood as equivalent to “means for ejecting the container closure”). A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure is an ejector shield (see ¶ [0044]) or equivalent. It is interpreted that a shield is a round frustoconical object as depicted in figure 2.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, “coupling mechanism” (because A – “coupling mechanism” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “ejector part arranged on the ejector unit on its side facing the closure receptable, detachably attached to the ejector unit” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “coupling mechanism” is understood as equivalent to “means for detachably attaching the ejector part to the ejector unit side facing the closure receptacle”). A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure is comprised of correspondingly formed stop surfaces #23 & #32 (see ¶ [0050] of the specification) or equivalent.
If the applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre -AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre –AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim specifically recites that the ejector part comprises a “ejector screen.” However, outside of the abstract and the text of claim 2 itself, there is no description as to the structure or function of the claimed ejector screen such that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize what is claimed. See MPEP 2163.03(V).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(b)
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.
Claim 2 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim does not describe the element of an ejector screen in sufficient detail such that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the metes and bounds of the claim. For purposes of examination, the ejector screen is interpreted as a similar structure as the ejector shield, which is identified and described in section 5 above.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10-11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirt (WO 2022/058032 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hirt discloses an apparatus (Figure 1, #1000) for applying a container closure (Figure 2, #101) to a container (Figure 2, #100) comprising:
an application unit (Figure 2, #14) having a closure receptacle (Figure 2, #2) configured to receive the container closure (Illustrated in figure 2 and described in ¶'s [0048] & [0050] - [0051]);
an ejector unit (Figure 3A, #4) movable relative to the application unit and configured to eject the container closure received in the closure receptacle (Movement of the ejector unit relative to the application unit described in ¶'s [0058] - [0059]); and
an ejector part (Figure 3A, #41) arranged on the ejector unit (Shown in figure 3A) on its side facing the closure receptacle (Shown in figure 3A), configured to eject the container closure (Described in ¶'s [0062] - [0066]), and detachably attached to the ejector unit via a coupling mechanism (The coupling mechanism is described in ¶'s [0062] - [0063] & [0070]), wherein when the container closure is ejected, the ejector part physically contacts the container closure (Illustrated in figure 3A and described in ¶ [0063]).
Regarding claim 2, Hirt teaches an ejector shield (Illustrated in figure 3A); based on the interpretation presented in section 10 above.
Regarding claim 3, Hirt further discloses wherein the coupling mechanism comprises a coupling part fastened to the ejector unit to which the ejector part is detachably coupled (Described in ¶'s [0062] - [0063] & [0070]).
Regarding claim 4, Hirt further discloses wherein the ejector unit forms the coupling part (Described in ¶'s [0062] - [0063] & [0070] & illustrated in figure 3A).
Regarding claim 10, Hirt further discloses wherein the coupling part comprises at least one detent body receptacle configured to receive at least one detent body (Figure 4 illustrates a detent body receptable #43 to receive a detent body #52/#51).
Regarding claim 11, Hirt further discloses an actuating part that is movable relative to the ejector part and arranged on the ejector part (Described in ¶'s [0058] - [0059], [0062], and [0070]).
Regarding claim 15, Hirt discloses a closer (Shown in figure 3A) for closing containers (#100) with a container closure (#101) comprising:
a container holder configured to hold an unsealed and filled container (Shown in figures 1-3B); and an apparatus (Figure 1, #1000) for applying the container closure (Figure 2, #101) to a container (Figure 2, #100) comprising:
an application unit (Figure 2, #14) having a closure receptacle (Figure 2, #2) configured to receive the container closure (Illustrated in figure 2 and described in ¶'s [0048] & [0050] - [0051]);
an ejector unit (Figure 3A, #4) movable relative to the application unit and configured to eject the container closure received in the closure receptacle (Movement of the ejector unit relative to the application unit described in ¶'s [0058] - [0059]); and
an ejector part (Figure 3A, #41) arranged on the ejector unit (Shown in figure 3A) on its side facing the closure receptacle (Shown in figure 3A), configured to eject the container closure (Described in ¶'s [0062] - [0066]), and detachably attached to the ejector unit via a coupling mechanism (The coupling mechanism is described in ¶'s [0062] - [0063] & [0070]), wherein when the container closure is ejected, the ejector part physically contacts the container closure (Illustrated in figure 3A and described in ¶ [0063]).
Regarding claim 16, Hirt discloses wherein the apparatus is arranged on a transport unit that is movable in a transport direction (Transport unit and apparatus shown in figure 1).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
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.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirt in view of Ochs (US 5,284,001).
Regarding claim 17, Hirt does not specifically teach wherein the closer is configured as a rotary-type closer and the transport unit is configured as a transport carousel.
Ochs teaches wherein the closer is configured as a rotary-type closer and the transport unit is configured as a transport carousel (Col 4, ln 63 - col 5, ln 29 describes the use of a rotary-type closure, wherein the transport unit is configured as a transport carousel).
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 Hirt to incorporate the teachings of Ochs to include a rotary-type closure with a fixed guide curve with the motivation of providing the structures for applying a closure to a container at a higher rate, as recognized by Ochs in col 3, lns 48-52.
Regarding claim 18, Hirt does not specifically teach a fixed guide curve configured to specify a position of the ejector unit relative to the closure receptacle.
Ochs teaches a fixed guide curve configured to specify a position of the ejector unit relative to the closure receptacle (Shown in figures 9 and 10).
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 Hirt to incorporate the teachings of Ochs to include a rotary-type closure with a fixed guide curve with the motivation of providing the structures for applying a closure to a container at a higher rate, as recognized by Ochs in col 3, lns 48-52.
Regarding claim 19, Hirt does not specifically teach wherein the ejector unit comprises a guide roller configured to roll on the fixed guide curve.
Ochs teaches wherein the ejector unit comprises a guide roller configured to roll on the fixed guide curve (Shown in figure 10).
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 Hirt to incorporate the teachings of Ochs to include a rotary-type closure with a fixed guide curve with the motivation of providing the structures for applying a closure to a container at a higher rate, as recognized by Ochs in col 3, lns 48-52.
Regarding claim 20, Hirt does not specifically teach wherein the fixed guide curve is configured to be height-adjustable in a direction of movement of the ejector unit.
Ochs teaches wherein the fixed guide curve is configured to be height-adjustable in a direction of movement of the ejector unit (Shown in figures 9 - 10).
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 Hirt to incorporate the teachings of Ochs to include a rotary-type closure with a fixed guide curve with the motivation of providing the structures for applying a closure to a container at a higher rate, as recognized by Ochs in col 3, lns 48-52.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 12-14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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 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.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731