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 filing on 27 March 2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 27 March 2025, 12 May 2025, and 1 October 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
“a servo convertor” – claims 7, 8, and 16
“at least one container mouth” – claims 14 and 20. While a container B is shown and labeled in the drawings, the container mouth is not labeled.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 – 6, 8, and 18 are objected because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 5 and 6, remove the dashes.
Regarding claim 8 and claim 18, the limitation, “at least one of a target position, a speed, an acceleration, and a deceleration, of the closing element”, should read, “at least one of a target position, a speed, an acceleration, and a deceleration of the closing element”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 6 – 8, the limitation, “monitoring a following error of the electric drive device during operation of the electric drive device in order to move the closing element to the container via a processing device of the apparatus”, is indefinite because in a previously recited limitation in claim 1, lines 3 – 4, an electric drive device of the apparatus moves a closing element of the apparatus to a container – not a processing device. Moreover, it is ambiguous how the processing device, defined in paragraph [0027] as an electronic system, moves the closing element of the apparatus to the container. Please note, paragraph [0056] describes the processing device monitoring the following error, thus for the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean, “monitoring a following error of the electric drive device via a processing device of the apparatus during operation of the electric drive device to move the closing element to the container”. Please note, since claims 1 – 14 depend upon claim 1, claims 1 – 14 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness. Additionally, since claim 15 recites the limitation, “a processing device configured to carry out a method according to claim 1”, claim 15 and the claims that depend on claim 15, that is, claims 16 – 20, as also rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 2, line 7, the limitation, “the away movement”, is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean, “an away movement”.
Regarding claim 6, lines 4 – 5, the limitation, “the tracking error”, is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean, “the following error”.
Regarding claim 8, line 3, the limitation, “the away movement”, is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean, “an away movement”.
Regarding claim 12, lines 3, the limitation, “the away movement”, is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean, “the movement of the closing element away from the container”.
Regarding claim 12, lines 2 – 3, the limitation, “prespecifying, via a user interface of the apparatus, at least one parameter of the closing element, specifically for
Regarding claim 14, lines 2 – 3, the limitation, “the integrated filling-closing apparatus has a treatment chamber in which at least one container mouth of the container can be received in a sealed manner”, is indefinite because the terms, “can be”, indicates possibility such as it is possible that the at least one container mouth of the container is received in a sealed manner, thus the limitation is not positively recited since the limitation may not occur. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean, “the integrated filling-closing apparatus has a treatment chamber in which at least one container mouth of the container is received in a sealed manner”.
Regarding claim 14, lines 3 – 4, the limitation, “the filling and closing”, is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean, “filling and closing”.
Regarding claim 18, line 3, the limitation, “the away movement”, is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean, “the movement of the closing element away from the container”.
Regarding claim 20, line 3, the limitation, “the filling and closing”, is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean, “filling and closing”.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dewert (US 8,915,052 B2).
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); and
if the monitored following error reaches or exceeds a specified limit value, operating the electric drive device to abort the movement of the closing element to the container and to move the closing element away from the container (The limitation constitutes a contingent limitation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. See MPEP 2111.04(II). In the instant case, the contingent limitation recites, “if the monitored following error reaches or exceeds a specified limit value, operating the electric drive device to abort the movement of the closing element to the container and to move the closing element away from the container”; however, the claimed invention may be practiced without this contingent limitation – that is, if the monitored following error does not reach or exceed a specified limit value. Thus, this contingent limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is not required).
Regarding claim 2, Dewert discloses at least one of the following conditions is met: 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 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 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 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 discloses if the monitored following error reaches or exceeds the prespecified limit value: a warning is issued at a user interface; and/or the container assigned to the closing element during monitoring of the following error is subsequently ejected; and/or an operation of the apparatus for closing subsequent containers is continued without interruption (The limitation constitutes a contingent limitation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. See MPEP 2111.04(II). In the instant case, the contingent limitation recites, “if the monitored following error reaches or exceeds the prespecified limit value: a warning is issued at a user interface; and/or the container assigned to the closing element during monitoring of the following error is subsequently ejected; and/or an operation of the apparatus for closing subsequent containers is continued without interruption”; however, the claimed invention may be practiced without this contingent limitation – that is, if the monitored following error does not reach or exceed a specified limit value. Thus, this contingent limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is not required).
Regarding claim 8, Dewert discloses at least one of: 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 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 15 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 discloses one of: the apparatus is a pure closing apparatus (1, fig. 1);
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Claims 7, 11 – 12, 14, 16 – 20 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.
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 January 2026