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
This office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 21 April 2026.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Since this Office action contains new grounds of rejection for the claims, this Office action is non-final.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 21 April 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, the limitation, “if”, should read, “when”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 9, 13, 15 – 16, and 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewert (US 8,915,052 B2) in view of Lang (JP 2004 519396 A).
Regarding claim 1, Dewert discloses a method for operating an apparatus (1, fig. 1) for closing containers, the method comprising:
operating an electric drive device (5, 9, fig. 1) of the apparatus for moving a closing element (4, fig. 1) of the apparatus to a container (2, fig. 1) received in a container receptacle (10, fig. 1) of the apparatus in order to apply a closure to the container;
monitoring (via electric current device 7 and monitoring device 9) a following error of the electric drive device via a processing device (an evaluation unit 15 discussed in Col. 7, ll. 9 – 15) of the apparatus during operation of the electric drive device to move the closing element to the container (Col. 5, ll. 48 – 55 describes a current IL being monitored as a closing cap 4 is being placed upon a bottle mouth 2b).
Dewert further discloses reaching or exceeding a specified limit value, the container with the applied closure is removed from the apparatus (Col. 6, ll. 51 – 63 describes if a current IL exceeds or falls below a threshold value I4, the closure applied to the container is incorrectly closed. Col. 7, ll. 22 – 27 describes incorrectly closed containers 2 being selectively discharged from the product stream by a (non-depicted) discharge device 18 downstream of the closing device).
However, Lang, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches reaching or exceeding a specified limit value, an evaluation device 17 operating the drive device (15, fig. 2) to abort the movement of the closing element to the container and to move the closing element away from the container ([0019] describes if a detection circuit 26 detects a voltage varies from a constant voltage of a certain magnitude, the closure may be defective. [0011] describes when the closure is defective, an evaluation device causing the container with the defective closure to be removed from the apparatus or the apparatus removing the defective closure from the container. Please note, in order to remove the defective closure from the container, the drive device must stops rotating in the tightening direction – that is, aborting the movement of the closing element to the container – and rotates in the loosening direction causing the defective closure to move away from the container).
The method of upon reaching or exceeding a specified limit value the container with the applied closure is removed from the apparatus of Dewert and the method of upon reaching or exceeding a specified limit value operating the drive device to abort the movement of the closing element to the container and to move the closing element away from the container of Lang both monitor the following error of the drive device via the processing device and remove the defective closures. In fact, Lang teaches both methods indicating that both methods are functionally equivalent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the method of Dewert for the method of Lang to achieve the predictable result of monitoring the following error of the drive device via a processing device and remove defective closures. KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another To Obtain Predictable Results
Regarding claim 2, Dewert, as modified by Lang, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Dewert discloses the movement of the closing element (4, fig. 1) to the container (2, fig. 1) takes place in a vertical direction downwards (As shown in figure 1 by the double arrow L’).
Regarding claim 3, Dewert, as modified by Lang, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Dewert discloses the monitoring of the following error of the electric drive device (5, 9, fig. 1) includes monitoring a deviation between a target position and an actual position (Col. 3, ll. 26 – 35 describes a monitoring means able to determine the position of a closing head 3 with respect to a linear axle wherein a position of the closing head can be associated to individual measured values of power consumption. Thus, one can correspondingly verify whether a current value at a certain position is admissible or not implying monitoring deviations between a target position and an actual position wherein the current value at the certain position is the actual position and being admissible is the deviation from the target position).
Regarding claim 4, Dewert, as modified by Lang, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Dewert discloses the monitoring (via monitoring device 9) of the following error takes place at the electric drive device (5, 9, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Dewert, as modified by Lang, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Dewert discloses the movement comprises moving the closing element to an application position for starting an application of the closure to a container mouth of the container (Col. 5, 48 – 60 describes a closing cap 4 being lowered in a closing head 3 at the beginning of the screw-on phase P2 and starts rotation at the beginning of phase P2a. The examiner deems the position of the closing cap when it starts rotation at the beginning of phase P2a as the claimed, “an application position”); and moving the closing element from the application position to a closing position for applying the closure to the container mouth (Col. 5, 48 – 60 describes a closing cap 4 being seated on a thread of the bottle mouth of a bottle at the beginning of phase P2b. The examiner deems the position of the closing cap 4 when it is seated on the thread of the bottle mouth of the bottle at the beginning of phase P2b as the claimed, “a closing position”); the monitoring of the following error takes place during operation of the electric drive device for moving the closing element to the application position (Figure 3 shows that monitoring of the following error between phases P2a and P2b).
Regarding claim 6, Dewert, as modified by Lang, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Dewert discloses when the monitored following error reaches or exceeds the prespecified limit value: a warning is issued at a user interface (Col. 7, ll. 15 – 17; “output units 16”) (Col. 6, ll. 51 – 63 describes if a current IL exceeds or falls below a threshold value I4, the closure applied to the container is incorrectly closed. Col. 7, ll. 15 – 17 describes error messages given by output units 16, for example by means of acoustic and/or optical signals).
Regarding claim 8, Dewert, as modified by Lang, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Dewert discloses the electric drive device (5, 9, fig. 1) is a servo drive unit (Col. 4, ll. 4 – 9 describes motor 5 as a servomotor).
Regarding claim 9, Dewert, as modified by Lang, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Dewert discloses the operation of the electric drive device for moving the closing element to the container in order to apply the closure to the container is carried out via the processing device (an evaluation unit 15 discussed in Col. 7, ll. 9 – 15) and a further processing device (a control unit 17 discussed in Col. 7, ll. 9 – 15) (Col. 7, ll. 9 – 15 describes the evaluation unit 15 comparing measured current IL or IR to determine the following error and further describes the control unit 17 controlling the production on the basis of the current measurements).
Regarding claim 13, Dewert, as modified by Lang, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Dewert discloses the apparatus is a pure closing apparatus (1, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Dewert discloses an apparatus for closing containers, wherein the apparatus comprises:
a container receptacle (10, fig. 1) for receiving a container;
a closing element (4, fig. 1) which is movable for movement to a container received in the container receptacle in order to apply a closure to the container;
an electric drive device (5, 9, fig. 1), wherein the electric drive device is connected to the closing element in order to drive the closing element to move to the container.
Dewert, as modified by Lang, discloses a processing device (Dewert – an evaluation unit 15 discussed in Col. 7, ll. 9 – 15) configured to carry out a method according to claim 1 (See claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Dewert, as modified by Lang, discloses the invention as recited in claim 15.
Dewert discloses the apparatus has a further processing device (a control unit 17 discussed in Col. 7, ll. 9 – 15) which, together with the processing device (an evaluation unit 15 discussed in Col. 7, ll. 9 – 15), is configured to operate the electric drive device to move the closing element to the container in order to apply the closure to the container (Col. 7, ll. 9 – 15 describes the evaluation unit 15 comparing measured current IL or IR to determine the following error and further describes the control unit 17 controlling the production on the basis of the current measurements).
Regarding claim 18, Dewert, as modified by Lang, discloses the invention as recited in claim 15.
Dewert discloses the apparatus is a rotary closing apparatus (1, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Dewert, as modified by Lang, discloses the invention as recited in claim 15.
Dewert discloses the apparatus is a pure closing apparatus (1, fig. 1).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewert (US 8,915,052 B2) in view of Lang (JP 2004 519396 A) in further view of Bernhard (US 9,233,820 B2).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Dewert, as modified by Lang, discloses the invention as recited in claims 13 and 19, respectively.
The modified Dewert does not explicitly disclose the integrated filling-closing apparatus has a treatment chamber in which at least one container mouth of the container is received for filling and closing of the container.
However, Bernhard, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the integrated filling-closing apparatus (105, 106, fig. 1A) has a treatment chamber (the aseptic filling system or clean room represented by the box around a container handling machine as shown in fig. 1B) in which at least one container mouth of the container (2, fig. 1) is received for filling and closing of the container (Figure 1B shows the entire beverage bottling plant 100 enclosed within the clean room wherein the examiner deems this clean room as the claimed, “a treatment chamber”).
Bernhard is evidence that having the integrated filling-closing apparatus with the treatment chamber in which at least one container mouth of the container is received for filling and closing of the container was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the apparatus and the method for operating the apparatus with the integrated filling-closing apparatus with the treatment chamber in which at least one container mouth of the container is received for filling and closing of the container of Bernhard. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified the apparatus and the method for operating the apparatus with the integrated filling-closing apparatus with the treatment chamber in which at least one container mouth of the container is received for filling and closing of the container of Bernhard in order to ensure that the final packaged product remains commercially sterile — meaning all harmful microorganisms are eliminated before packaging, and the process environment itself is kept free from contamination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10 – 12, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 7: the subject matter recited in claim 7 of the method for operating the apparatus is allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another.
Claim 7 includes the following limitation which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 7, is what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 7 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
“the processing device is part of a servo converter connected to the electric drive device”
The closest prior art is Dewert (US 8,915,052 B2) and Lang (JP 2004 519396 A). While Dewert discloses the electric drive motor as a servomotor, Dewert and Lang are silent regarding a servo convertor. The prior art of record is also silent regarding a servo convertor. Thus, it is examiner's opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed.
Regarding dependent claim 10: the subject matter recited in claim 10 of the method for operating the apparatus is allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another.
Claim 10 includes the following limitation which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 10, is what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 10 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
“the operation of the electric drive device for aborting the movement of the closing element to the container and for moving the closing element away from the container is carried out via the processing device, which overrides the further processing device”
The closest prior art is Dewert (US 8,915,052 B2) and Lang (JP 2004 519396 A). While Dewert discloses the processing device and the further processing device, Dewert and Lang are silent regarding the operation of the electric drive device for aborting the movement of the closing element to the container and for moving the closing element away from the container being carried out via the processing device, which overrides the further processing device. The prior art of record is also silent regarding this limitation. Thus, it is examiner's opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed.
Regarding dependent claim 11: the subject matter recited in claim 11 of the method for operating the apparatus is allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another.
Claim 11 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 11, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 11 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
“the further processing device is a higher-level processing device than the processing device; the further processing device has a longer cycle time than the processing device; and the further processing device is a central processing device of the apparatus”
The closest prior art is Dewert (US 8,915,052 B2) and Lang (JP 2004 519396 A). While Dewert discloses the processing device and the further processing device, Dewert and Lang are silent regarding the further processing device being a higher-level processing device than the processing device and the further processing device having a longer cycle time than the processing device; and the further processing device is a central processing device of the apparatus. The prior art of record is also silent regarding these limitations. Thus, it is examiner's opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed.
Regarding dependent claims 12 and 17: the subject matter recited in claims 12 and 17 of the apparatus and the method for operating the apparatus is allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another.
Claims 12 and 17 include the following limitation which, in combination with the other limitations of claims 12 and 17, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claims 12 and 17 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
“prespecifying, via a user interface of the apparatus, at least one parameter of the closing element for a movement of the closing element away from the container specifically for the away movement, wherein the operation of the electric drive device for moving the closing element away from the container takes place in accordance with the at least one specified parameter” (Claim 12)
“a user interface configured to receive, by a user input, at least one parameter, wherein the processing device is further configured to operate the electric drive device according to the at least one prespecified parameter for moving the closing element away from the container” (Claim 17)
The closest prior art is Dewert (US 8,915,052 B2) and Lang (JP 2004 519396 A). While Dewert discloses the user interface, Dewert and Lang are silent regarding the user interface being configured to receive, by a user input, at least one parameter, wherein the processing device is further configured to operate the electric drive device according to the at least one prespecified parameter for moving the closing element away from the container. The prior art of record is also silent regarding this limitation. Thus, it is examiner's opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 21 April 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 21 April 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102 has been withdrawn. However, applicant's amendment to independent claim 1 necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims to include independent claim 15 and its dependent claims since independent claim 15 requires the processing device configured to carry out a method according to claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 21 April 2026, with respect to the prior art reference of Dewert have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Dewert is directed to a different monitoring concept. Dewert consistently teaches evaluating the power consumption / current of the linear drive system as the relevant indicator for detecting incorrect closure. Even where Dewert additionally determines a position of the closing head, this serves only to assign current values to positions and to assess whether a current value at a certain position is admissible. Dewert does not teach, or even suggest, monitoring a following error of the electric drive device as specified in claim 1.
Claim 1 requires, inter alia, monitoring a following error of the electric drive device during operation of the electric drive device via a processing device of the apparatus. Dewert does not disclose this.
Dewert repeatedly states that its concept is based on monitoring the power consumption / current of the linear drive system. Dewert explains that:
"The power consumption of the linear drive system can be used as a measure for
the pressing force of the closing head" (Summary of the Disclosure);
and "...comparing [that] measured power consumption with at least one characteristic value of the power consumption [in order] to detect an imminent or already occurred incorrect closure..." (Abstract).
The Detailed Description is to the same effect. Dewert states that "the procedure is monitored by measuring the currents IL, IR and the linear position y of the closing head" (col. 4, 11. 49-52), explains that "the currents IL and IR are always represented as positive values" (col. 4, 11. 52-54), and then discusses current peaks and threshold values during the pick phase and screw phase (see, e.g., col. 5, 11. 1-31; col. 5, 1. 63 to col. 6, 1. 25). Thus, Dewert's monitoring concept is centered on current evaluation.
The Examiner appears to rely in part on Dewert's disclosure of position measurement. However, Dewert's position disclosure does not fill the gap. In particular, Dewert expressly teaches that "a position of the closing head can be associated to individual measured values of power consumption" and that "one can verify whether a current value at a certain position is admissible or not" (col. 2, 11. 9-14). Thus, position is used only as a reference point for evaluating current values. Dewert does not teach that position is itself the monitored fault quantity.
That distinction matters. Claim 1 requires monitoring a following error of the electric drive device. Dewert, by contrast, does not state that the measured position itself is evaluated as correct or incorrect, expected or unexpected. Rather, Dewert appears to treat the measured position simply as the position that has in fact been reached and at which current is being evaluated. In substance, Dewert measures whether the current at that actual position corresponds to what is admissible or expected there, not whether the electric drive device exhibits a following error.
This is consistent with Dewert's own formulation that position is associated with measured power-consumption values so that one can verify whether "a current value at a certain position is admissible or not" (col. 2, 11. 12-14). The position is thus not itself questioned as a fault variable. Instead, the actual position serves as the point of reference for assessing the current.
In response to applicant's argument that Dewert fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the monitoring concept of applicant’s invention using the position of the closing element) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the instant application, claim 1 recites:
monitoring a following error of the electric drive device via a processing device of the apparatus during operation of the electric drive device in order to move the closing element to the container via a processing device of the apparatus;
The claim is silent regarding that the monitoring of following error is required to be a monitoring of the position of the closing head thus other types of monitoring of the following error can be read on the claim. Dewert discloses an evaluation device monitoring of the following error by comparing measured power consumption of the electric drive device with at least one characteristic value of the power consumption to detect an imminent or already occurred incorrect closure and thus reads on the above limitation.
Please note, the term, “following error”, is not defined in the claim and not given a special definition in the specification thus the term is given its plain meaning. Lang discloses that examples of the following error are 1) the container slipping because the clamp is defective or worn, 2) the lid head being idle because the teeth of the lid cone are worn, and/or 3) the screw cap spinning due to a defect in the cap or container screw (Lang – [0010]). Thus, a defective closure improperly seated on the container, as described col. 6, ll. 51 – 63 in Dewert, is a type of following error.
Since Dewert reads on the above limitation, as presented in claim 1, applicant’s argument that Dewert fail to show certain features of the invention not recited in the claim is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is (571)272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, 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.
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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
10 July 2026
Prosecution Insights