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
Receipt is acknowledged of response to restriction requirement, filed on 06/25/2026, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 27-49 are pending for examination.
Claim 40 is withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (claims 27-39, and 41-49) in the reply filed on 06/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 40 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of an Information Disclosure Statement, filed 03/07/2025, which has been placed of record in the file. An initialed, signed and dated copy of the PTO-1449 or PTO-SB-08 form is attached to this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 35, line 2, the word “that that” should be changed to --that--.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “steering device” of claim 28 corresponding Grids of different designs, several essentially parallel pipes, rotating elements such as rotors, pumps, turbines, etc. and/or its equivalent.
the “shut-off device” of claim 30-33 corresponding to pressure relief valves, pressure control valves, switching valves, load holding valves, gate valves, butterfly valves, ball valves, etc. and/or its equivalent
the “movement device” of claim 44 no corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function
the “seaming unit adjustment device” of claim 36 corresponding to a form of an off-center screw, a slide, a screw, etc. And/or its equivalent
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If 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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 36 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 48 depend on claim 27 but omits the lid holder and does not require the filling tube to pass through the lid holder and recites “at least one seaming roller” instead of seaming rollers. It does not incorporate all limitations of claim 27 and does not specify a further limitation of that claim. Claim 36 further depends on claim 27 but restates the independent claim in full and then adds a single limitation. A dependent claim must refer to a prior claim and then specify a further limitation of that claim. Applicants may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 27-39 and 41-49 are 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.
Regarding claims 27-49, the claims are generally indefinite as they contain numerous phrases and terms that appear to be a result of idiomatic issues that make the claims difficult to follow or fully ascertain their scope. The claims are generally narrative, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Some pertinent examples are shown below.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites in part “wherein the system is designed in such a way that, when used as intended, one or more cans can be assigned to the hygienic compartment in such a way that it can be moved together with the can/cans in the system” in lines 3-5 which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “it” is referring to. It could refer to the compartment, any structure or the system in general. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites in part “A system for filling and closing cans” and “….one or more cans” in lines 1-4. No single “a Can” is ever positively introduced. The claim later recites “a filling tube for filling the can” (singular, definite article), which lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “the can” refers to one of the “one or more cans,” to the plural “cans” generically, or introduces a new, unclaimed element. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as the can is referring to one of the “one or more cans”.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites in part “wherein a filling tube for filling the can can be passed through the lid holder” in lines 7-8 (emphasis added) which renders the claim indefinite because the language “can be” is ambiguous as to whether a filling tube is positively required as part of the claimed system, or whether this clause merely describes the lid holders capability to accommodate an unclaimed, optional filling tube. Clarification is required to clarify whether the filling tube is a required element of the claimed system.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites in part “when used as intended” in line 4 which renders the claim indefinite because such language is a relative phrase whose scope is not defined by any objective standard within the claim itself. The term " when used as intended " is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree as to the bounds of “intended” use, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification and correction are required.
Regarding claim 31, the claim recites in part “system according to claim 29, including at least one shut-off device …” in line 1-2 which renders the claim indefinite because rather than depending from claim 30, which is the claim that first introduces “shut off devices”, it rather depend from claim 29 which creates ambiguity as the dependency structure is confusing. It is unclear whether the “shut off device” of claim 31 is intended to be the same one as introduced in claim 30, or an entirely new element. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the office will treat the shut off device as the same claimed in claim 30.
Regarding claim 36, the claim recites in part “The system for filling and closing cans under hygienic conditions according to claim 27, comprising a hygienic compartment…” in line 1-6 before adding “a seaming unit adjustment device” limitation which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 36 depends from claim 27 but redundantly re-recites the entire body of claim 27. This redundant restatement uses “arranged on” in place of claim 27’s “formed on” the hygienic compartment. It is unclear whether claim 36 intends to refer to the same inlet opening and same structural relationship required by claim 27 (in which case the restatement is redundant, and the different verb creates ambiguity as to whether a broader or different relationship is required), or whether claim 36 is introducing a second, different inlet opening. This inconsistent restatement of a parent independent claim s limitations using different claim language renders the scope of claim 36 unclear.
Regarding claim 37, the claim recites in part “when used as intended” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because the phrase does not identify which intended use, operating mode or which configuration of the platform and casing is required. It recites a method of use limitation into an apparatus claim without defining the use which creates ambiguity as to the scope of the claim. Additionally, the phrase “can be closed” in line 5 and “can be lifted” in line 3 is optional recites a capability rather than a required structure or a closed state statement. It is unclear whether the claim requires a casing and head plate that are in fact arranged to close the compartment or merely some unspecified capacity to close it at some time.
Regarding claim 44, the claim recites in part “the closed hygienic compartment” and “the filled can” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 46, the claim recites in part “The system for filling and closing cans under hygienic conditions according to claim 27, comprising a hygienic compartment…” in line 1-6 essentially rewriting claim 27 instead of further limiting it. The claim further recites “characterized in that the system comprises a feeding device for cans to be filled; or lids; or cans to be filled and lids; or a transport device for filled cans; or a feeding device for cans to be filled; or lids; or cans to be filled and lids; and a transport device for filled cans.” The first four alternatives are repeated later in the same list, and the list terminates with “and a transport device for filled cans,” which conflicts with the disjunctive (‘or”) structure used through the remainder of the clause. It cannot be whether the final “and” clause is together with the entire preceding list (requiring all elements) or is itself simply one more “or” alternative. Thus the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably ascertained.
Regarding claim 47, the claim recites in part “a can stopping device comprising at least two expandable barriers” in lines 3-4 then immediately follows with “wherein at least one expandable barrier is arranged on one side of the conveyor belt and at least one expandable barrier is arranged on the opposite side of the conveyor belt.” As written it is unclear whether the two “at least one expandable barrier” phrases are simply particularizing the placement of the same “at least two expandable barriers” already introduced (i.e. total of two) or each “at least one expandable barrier” phrase introduces an additional, separately claimed barrier, i.e. the claim could read to require at least four expandable barriers (two generically recited, plus one newly introduced per side). This creates ambiguity. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 48, the claim recites in part “characterized in that the system comprises a seaming unit, comprising a filling tube for filling the can and at least one seaming roller for closing the can; and wherein the seaming unit is insert-able into an inlet opening.” in line 6-9. Claim 48 is dependent on claim 27 and claim 27 requires a seaming unit comprising a lid holder and seaming rollers, and filling tube that can be passed through the lid holder. Claim 48 recites a filling tube and at least one seaming roller, omits the lid holder, and does not require the tube to pass through a lid holder making the scope of the claim unclear as it omits or contradicts the parent claim. The scope of the combination cannot be reasonably ascertained. Additionally, “an inlet opening” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is the same inlet opening as claimed in claim 27 or an entirely new structure. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 49, the claim recites in part “wherein the system is designed in such a way that,….” in line 10. “The system” lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, the preamble is a method claim, however the body of the claim requires that “the system is designed” and “the system comprises” without positively reciting any corresponding method. This creates ambiguity by improper mixing of statutory classes. A person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty whether the claims are directed solely to an apparatus claim or also require the recited method steps as a positive limitation and vice versa.
Claim limitation “movement device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Claim 44 recites “wherein a lid in the closed hygienic compartment is moved from a position next to the can to a position on the filled can by means of a movement device.” but there is no corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For examination purposes, as best understood, the Office has interpreted the above recitation to read – any structure capable of moving a lid --
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
These and any other informalities should be corrected so that the claims may 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, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 27, 35-39, 41-44, 46, and 48-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunzmann (WO 2020/260432 A1) in view of Olson et al. (US 11319200 B1).
Attention is directed to Applicants use of alternative language, “or” which means that only one of the requirements (A or B or C etc.) is needed to meet the claim, In this instance case, the office is only required to meet only one of the options.
Regarding claim 27, Kunzmann discloses a system (Fig. 1) for filling and closing cans (2) under hygienic conditions (Abstract), comprising a hygienic compartment (3) and an inlet opening (30) for filling material; wherein the inlet opening (30) is formed on the hygienic compartment (Abstract);
wherein the system is designed in such a way that, when used as intended, one or more cans (2) can be assigned to the hygienic compartment (3) in such a way that it can be moved together with the can/cans (2) in the system; characterized in that the system comprises a seaming unit (7, 72), and the seaming unit (72) comprises a lid holder (70, 71) and seaming rollers (“…The seaming device 72 comprises two rotatable seaming tools by means of which a first and a second seaming operation can be executed on the can 2 and its applied lid 20.…”);
wherein a filling tube (8; filling device) and vertical motion of lid holder (7) relative to the can and/or seaming tools (Fig. 5d).
Kunzmann doesn’t teach wherein a filling tube for filling the can can be passed through the lid holder; wherein the filling tube is arranged movably in the seaming unit.
Olson in a related invention teaches a filling tube for filling the can can be passed through the lid holder (Abstract; “The seaming chuck is configured to allow a beverage ingredient to pass therethrough and into said container”….see also claim 2 and 19); wherein the filling tube is arranged movably in the seaming unit (Fig. 8; filling nozzle 185 is located within seaming chuck, 115, the relative, controlled translation between the filling nozzle 185 and the seaming chuck 115/can 170 constitutes a filling tube arranged movably with respect to the seaming unit, under BRI).
Therefore, 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 the system of Kunzmann having a seaming device/lid applying device by incorporating fill through chuck as taught by Olson. Kunzmann already puts lid holder 7 and seaming tool 72 in or on compartment 3 (Figs. 3b-3c, and 5d) and already feeds product into that compartment (via line 81, and inlet 30). Routing line 81 through a bored holder 7, as Olsen does with nozzle 185 through chuck 115, is a known alternative to feeding around the holder. This allows for fewer openings in wall 80 and no need to fold wall 80 to apply lid, while keeping fill and seam in one compartment.
Kunzmann in view of Olson further teaches:
Regarding claim 35, wherein the hygienic compartment is designed such that that the hygienic compartment comprises a lid slide (70 of Kunzmann).
Regarding claim 36, Kunzmann discloses comprising a hygienic compartment (3) and an inlet opening (30) for filling material; wherein the inlet opening (30) is arranged on the hygienic compartment (3); wherein the system is designed in such a way that, when used as intended, one or more cans can be assigned to the hygienic compartment (3) in such a way that it can be moved together with the can/cans (2) in the system; but is silent regarding has a seaming unit adjustment device for adjusting the seaming unit wherein the seaming unit adjustment device is arranged outside the hygienic compartment.
Olsen further teaches a seaming unit adjustment device for adjusting the seaming unit (Col 5 lines 13-35 “First (125) and second (130) seam roller controller assemblies are configured to translate the first (135) and second (140) seaming rollers”) wherein the seaming unit adjustment device is arranged outside the hygienic compartment (125, 130 and motor 120 are arranged outside of wall 113; Fig. 1).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated the teachings of Olson such that a seaming unit adjustment device for adjusting the seaming unit and providing for means for adjusting seaming unit.
Regarding claim 37, wherein a platform (105 of Olson) is arranged in the hygienic compartment, on which a can can be placed, and wherein the platform (105 of Olson), when used as intended, can be lifted with the can/cans in the direction of the inlet opening for the filling material (Fig. 3 of Olsen); and the hygienic compartment can be closed with a casing arranged around the platform and a head plate; wherein the casing can be lifted in the direction of the inlet opening to close the hygienic compartment up to the head plate, or the casing (112 of Olsen) is attached to the head plate (113) in such a way that the platform (105 of Olson) can be lifted into the casing (Col 3 lines 47-51, Col 4 lines 38-51, Fig. 1 and 4 of Olsen).
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 Kunzmann to include a platform is arranged in the hygienic compartment, on which a can can be placed, and wherein the platform, when used as intended, can be lifted with the can/cans in the direction of the inlet opening for the filling material; and the hygienic compartment can be closed with a casing arranged around the platform and a head plate; wherein the casing can be lifted in the direction of the inlet opening to close the hygienic compartment up to the head plate, or the casing is attached to the head plate in such a way that the platform can be lifted into the casing, as taught by Olsen for a fast, pressure controlled can filling and closing.
Regarding Claim 38, wherein a storage compartment (4 of Kunzmann) for storing at least one lid is arranged next to the hygienic compartment.
Regarding Claim 39, wherein the storage compartment (4 of Kunzmann) further comprises: a feed opening for supplying a cleaning agent or gases; and an outlet for the discharge of liquids (“One or more entrances and exits are preferably arranged on the airlock compartment…..The airlock compartment advantageously comprises a cleaning device. A cleaning device which is used here is used to partially or completely clean and disinfect the lid and/or the compartment, and/or parts thereof. The cleaning device can comprise introducing gaseous, liquid, or solid cleaning agents or can function with the aid of particle radiation or electromagnetic radiation or a mechanical device. Mechanical devices can be brushes, sponges, scrapers, etc.” AND Pg 6 lines 8-30).
Regarding Claim 41, wherein the casing (112 of Olsen) is a hollow cylinder in shape (Fig. 4 of Olsen).
Regarding Claim 42, Kunzmann as modified discloses the platform but is silent wherein the platform has a concave curvature for aligning the can.
However, the limitation of the “the platform has a concave curvature” is deemed to be a matter of obvious design choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to adjust the shape of the platform to have a concave curvature as a matter of design choice. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Kunzmann and Olsen to obtain the invention specified in claims 42 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding Claim 43, wherein the casing (112 of Olsen) can be brought to a sealing stop (via 116 of Olsen) with the head plate (113 of Olsen).
Regarding Claim 44, Kunzmann discloses wherein a lid (20 of Kunzmann) in the closed hygienic compartment (3) is moved from a position next to the can to a position on the filled can by means of a movement device (Fig. 2, 3b, and 5b of Kunzmann).
Regarding Claim 46, system for filling and closing cans under hygienic conditions according to claim 27, comprising a hygienic compartment (3) and an inlet opening (30) for filling material; wherein the inlet opening (30) is arranged on the hygienic compartment; wherein the system is designed in such a way that, when used as intended, one or more cans (2) can be assigned to the hygienic compartment (3) for it to be movable together with the can/cans in the system (Fig. 1 of Kunzmann); characterized in that the system comprises a feeding device (6) for cans to be filled; or lids (20 of Kunzmann); or cans to be filled and lids; or a transport device for filled cans; or a feeding device for cans to be filled; or lids; or cans to be filled and lids; and a transport device for filled cans (via transport path 5).
Regarding Claim 48, The system for filling and closing cans under hygienic conditions according to claim 27, comprising a hygienic compartment (3) and an inlet opening (30) for filling material; wherein the inlet opening is arranged on the hygienic compartment; wherein the system is formed in such a way that, when used as intended, one or several cans can be assigned to the hygienic compartment in such a way that it can be moved together with the can/cans in the system (Kunzmann Figs. 1-6); characterized in that the system comprises a seaming unit (72), and at least one seaming roller for closing the can (“…The seaming device 72 comprises two rotatable seaming tools by means of which a first and a second seaming operation can be executed on the can 2 and its applied lid 20.…”); and wherein the seaming unit (7) is insert-able into an inlet opening ( opening formed int e apparatus by a folding outer wall).
Kunzmann doesn’t teach wherein a seaming unit, comprising a filling tube for filling the can
Olson in a related invention teaches seaming unit, comprising a filling tube for filling the can; and wherein the seaming unit is insert-able into an inlet opening (Abstract; “The seaming chuck is configured to allow a beverage ingredient to pass therethrough and into said container”….see also claim 2 and 19); wherein the filling tube is arranged movably in the seaming unit (Fig. 8; filling nozzle 185 is located within seaming chuck, 115, the relative, controlled translation between the filling nozzle 185 and the seaming chuck 115/can 170 constitutes a filling tube arranged movably with respect to the seaming unit, under BRI).
Therefore, 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 the system of Kunzmann having a seaming device/lid applying device by incorporating fill through chuck as taught by Olson. Kunzmann already puts lid holder 7 and seaming tool 72 in or on compartment 3 (Figs. 3b-3c, and 5d) and already feeds product into that compartment (via line 81, and inlet 30). Routing line 81 through a bored holder 7, as Olsen does with nozzle 185 through chuck 115, is a known alternative to feeding around the holder. This allows for fewer openings in wall 80 and no need to fold wall 80 to apply lid, while keeping fill and seam in one compartment.
Regarding Claim 49, Kunzmann discloses a method for filling and closing cans under hygienic conditions (Fig. 1) comprising the following steps: receiving a can (2) and a can lid (20) into a feeding device (6); moving the can to a hygienic compartment (3) and the can lid (20) to a storage compartment (4); filling the can (via 8); closing the can with the can lid (20 via 7, 71, 72); moving the filled and closed can to an ejection position (via path 5; Fig. 1); and ejecting the filled and closed can (Claim 13; Fig. 1); wherein an inlet opening (via 81) for filling material is formed on the hygienic compartment (3); wherein the system is designed in such a way that, when used as intended, one or more cans can be assigned to the hygienic compartment in such a way that it can be moved together with the can/cans in the system (Fig. 1); characterized in that the system comprises a seaming unit (7, 72), and the seaming unit (72) comprises a lid holder (70, 71) and seaming rollers (“…The seaming device 72 comprises two rotatable seaming tools by means of which a first and a second seaming operation can be executed on the can 2 and its applied lid 20.…”); wherein a filling tube (8; filling device) and vertical motion of lid holder (7) relative to the can and/or seaming tools (Fig. 5d).
Kunzmann doesn’t teach wherein a filling tube for filling the can can be passed through the lid holder; wherein the filling tube is arranged movably in the seaming unit.
Olson in a related invention teaches a filling tube for filling the can can be passed through the lid holder (Abstract; “The seaming chuck is configured to allow a beverage ingredient to pass therethrough and into said container”….see also claim 2 and 19); wherein the filling tube is arranged movably in the seaming unit (Fig. 8; filling nozzle 185 is located within seaming chuck, 115, the relative, controlled translation between the filling nozzle 185 and the seaming chuck 115/can 170 constitutes a filling tube arranged movably with respect to the seaming unit, under BRI).
Therefore, 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 the system of Kunzmann having a seaming device/lid applying device by incorporating fill through chuck as taught by Olson. Kunzmann already puts lid holder 7 and seaming tool 72 in or on compartment 3 (Figs. 3b-3c, and 5d) and already feeds product into that compartment (via line 81, and inlet 30). Routing line 81 through a bored holder 7, as Olsen does with nozzle 185 through chuck 115, is a known alternative to feeding around the holder. This allows for fewer openings in wall 80 and no need to fold wall 80 to apply lid, while keeping fill and seam in one compartment.
Claim 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunzmann (WO 2020/260432 A1) in view of Olson et al. (US 11319200 B1), and in further view of Crichton et al. (US 5862996 A).
Regarding Claim 28, Kunzmann as modified discloses essentially all elements of the claimed invention according to claim 27 including the filling tube (185 of Olsen) but fails to explicitly disclose the filling tube comprises a steering device in an end region at a filling tube outlet for forming a turbulence- reduced, laminar flow of the filling material.
Attention is brought to the teachings of Crichton. Crichton discloses that it is old and well known to provide a filling tube comprises a steering device (torpedo-like member 10; Abstract) in an end region at a filling tube outlet for forming a turbulence- reduced, laminar flow of the filling material (Figs. 2 and 4; Abstract and Col 3 lines 1-30).
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated the teachings of Crichton such that a steering device in an end region at a filling tube outlet for forming a turbulence- reduced, laminar flow of the filling material so as to dampen turbulence out of the fluid in the nozzle (Abstract).
Regarding claim 29, wherein the steering device is a static steering device (10 of Crichton is a fixed structure) or an adjustable steering device.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunzmann (WO 2020/260432 A1) in view of Olson et al. (US 11319200 B1), and in further view of DiChiara (US 4349055 A).
Regarding Claim 30, Kunzmann as modified discloses essentially all elements of the claimed invention according to claim 27 including the filling tube (185 of Olsen) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the filling tube comprises one or more shut-off devices or dosing devices.
Attention is brought to the teachings of DiChiara. DiChiara discloses that it is old and well known to provide a filling tube comprises one or more shut-off devices or dosing devices (Abstract; “filling valve includes a housing with a liquid filling orifice through it and a liquid flow valve for opening and closing that orifice”….see also Col 1 lines 8-14).
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Kunzmann as modified by incorporating the teachings of DiChiara such that a filling tube comprises one or more shut-off devices or dosing devices in order to prevent overfilling, to stop flow in the event of an absent or damaged can.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunzmann (WO 2020/260432 A1) in view of Olson et al. (US 11319200 B1), and in further view of McDonald (US 5472144 A).
Regarding Claim 31, Kunzmann as modified discloses essentially all elements of the claimed invention according to claim 27 including the filling tube (185 of Olsen) but fails to explicitly including at least one shut-off device for opening or closing of the filling tube, the at least one shut-off device arranged at an end of the filling tube facing the can when used as intended..
Attention is brought to the teachings of McDonald. McDonald discloses that it is old and well known to provide a filling tube comprises at least one shut-off device (56) for opening or closing of the filling tube (48), the at least one shut-off device (56) arranged at an end of the filling tube facing the can when used as intended. (can facing end of the filling tube/nozzle body; Fig. 2).
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed have modified the system of Kunzmann as modified by incorporating the teachings of McDonald such that at least one shut-off device for opening or closing of the filling tube, the at least one shut-off device arranged at an end of the filling tube facing the can when used as intended, to stop flow in the event of an absent or damaged can.
Claim 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunzmann (WO 2020/260432 A1) in view of Olson et al. (US 11319200 B1), and in further view of McDonald (US 5472144 A).
Regarding Claim 32, Kunzmann as modified discloses essentially all elements of the claimed invention according to claim 27 including the filling tube (185 of Olsen) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the filling tube comprises one or more shut-off devices or a feed element, one of the shut-off devices for opening or closing the filling tube or the feed element being arranged at an end of the filling tube facing away from the can when used as intended.
Attention is brought to the teachings of McDonald. McDonald discloses that it is old and well known to provide the filling tube comprises one or more shut-off devices or a feed element, one of the shut-off devices (20) for opening or closing the filling tube or the feed element being arranged at an end of the filling tube facing away from the can when used as intended (see check valve 20 located at the upper end of chamber 14).
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Kunzmann as modified by incorporating the teachings of McDonald such that a filling tube comprises one or more shut-off devices in order to prevent overfilling, to stop flow in the event of an absent or damaged can.
Regarding Claim 33, wherein the shut-off device (20 of McDonald) or feed element is arranged at an end of the filling tube facing away from the can when used as intended and that is formed in such a way that, liquids can be introduced (Col 2 lines 15-24 and Col 2 lines 15-18 of McDonald); or liquids can be dosed; or liquids can be introduced and dosed; or gases can be introduced; or gases can be dosed; or gases can be introduced and dosed; or liquids and gases can be introduced; or liquids and gases can be dosed; or liquids and gases can be introduced and dosed.
Claim 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunzmann (WO 2020/260432 A1) in view of Olson et al. (US 11319200 B1), and in further view of Krulitsch (US 10968091 B2).
Regarding Claim 34, Kunzmann as modified discloses essentially all elements of the claimed invention according to claim 27 including the filling tube (185 of Olsen) having a side wall (inner and outer surfaces; Figs. 8-9) but fails to explicitly disclose a hole, wherein the hole is arranged in the filling tube side wall such that the filling tube outer side wall is flushable with gases; or liquids; or gases and liquids.
Attention is brought to the teachings of Krulitsch. Krulitsch discloses that it is old and well known to provide a hole (18), wherein the hole (18, 19) is arranged in the filling tube (3) side wall (6.1) such that the filling tube outer side wall is flushable with gases; or liquids; or gases and liquids (Col 2 lines 8-30 and Col 5 lines 15-47).
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Kunzmann as modified by incorporating the teachings of Krulitsch such that outer surface of the tube, which sits in the hygienic compartment is flushable with CIP liquid or gas (Col 5 lines 15-47).
Claim 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunzmann (WO 2020/260432 A1) in view of Olson et al. (US 11319200 B1), and in further view of Walsh et al. (US 7337919 B2).
Regarding Claim 45, Kunzmann as modified discloses essentially all elements of the claimed invention according to claim 38 including the storage compartment (4 of Kunzmann) but fails to explicitly disclose a lid separator, which comprises a stack of lids, a drawer and a slide for separating the can lids.
Walsh in a related invention teaches a lid dispensing, a blade (30) supporting stacks of lid (17), the blade supporting a stack of lids by engaging a first lid in the stack of lids while the blade is in the first position, and the blade allowing the first lid to fall through an aperture in the blade away from the stack of lids, and still support the remaining stack of lids as the blade moves to the second position, a drawer (18) and a dispensing slide (28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Kunzmann as modified, by incorporating a lid separator, which comprises a stack of lids, a drawer and a slide for separating the can lids, as taught by Walsh, in order to aid in separating one lid at a time from a vertical stack via the blade/slide.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited. The art not relied upon, SLURINK (US 20170217615 A1) generally relates to a filling station 10 for filling containers 11 with a liquid is shown. The filling station comprises a number of container holders 12 which define respective container positions 14. The container holders are arranged in a circle for rotary movement in the direction of arrow 15.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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 on (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 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.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights