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 .
Claim Status
This Office action is in response to the filing of 3/7/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-15 have been amended in a preliminary amendment. Claims 16-20 are newly added.
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.
In this case, the following limitations use the word “means” and have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
the “elastic ejector means” of claim 1 corresponding to springs 11a and 11b;
the “coupling means” of claim 1 corresponding to the polygonal block 13a;
the “elastic pre-centering means” of claim 5 corresponding to spring 9;
the “coupling means” of claims 10 and 16 corresponding to the rod end 214a; and
the “first fixing means” of claims 12 and 18-20 corresponding to slots 55.
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 “crimping end” of claim 1 corresponding to the cone 5;
the “ejector assembly of claim 1 corresponding to cylindrical body 7;
the “first element” of claims 12 and 18-20 corresponding to the sleeve 51;
the “second element” of claims 12 and 18-20 corresponding to the sleeve 61;
the “second fixing elements” of claims 12 and 18-20 corresponding to locking pegs 65;
the “adjusting system” of claim 13 corresponding to the gears 252, 350, and 354.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: lines 1-2 read “for capping head for capping machine” when they should read “for capping heads for a capping machine.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality: the last line reads “said or more capping heads” when it should read “said one or more capping heads.” 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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “preferably a square coupling” is vague and indefinite because it is not clear if the limitation is a part of the claimed invention. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to not be a part of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Preti (EP 1182165 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Preti discloses a closing assembly for capping heads for a capping machine comprising a movable part (6 – Fig. 1) which is provided, at a lower end thereof, with a crimping end (the lower end of 6 – Fig. 1 holds a crimping member as seen in the crimping process depicted in Figs. 2a-2d) and which in turn houses an ejector assembly (9 – Fig. 1), wherein said ejector assembly is slidable with respect to said movable part (para. 0011, lines 1-3) and elastic ejector means (11 – Fig. 1) are arranged between said movable part and said ejector assembly (see Fig. 1, 11 is between 6 and 9’’), characterized in that said ejector assembly is connected to an internal rod (the unlabeled fastener, see annotated Fig. 1 below) which protrudes from said movable part and is provided with coupling means (the uppermost end of the unlabeled fastener is interpreted to be a coupling means because an element from another device may be coupled to it).
Annotated Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
776
865
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Preti further discloses:
Claim 2, said coupling means (see annotated Fig. 1 above) of said internal rod (see annotated Fig. 1 above) are anti-rotation coupling means (note that the term “anti-rotation” is a recitation of functional language; the coupling means are interpreted to be anti-rotation coupling means because another device may be coupled to the coupling means in a fixed manner).
Claim 9, the coupling means (see annotated Fig. 1 above) are provided at an upper end of the internal rod (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3 and 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preti (EP 1182165 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Preti discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1.
However, Preti does not expressly disclose the form of the coupling means.
In this case, the examiner takes Official Notice that fasteners having polygonal heads are old and well-known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used an internal rod having a coupling means in the form of a polygonal coupling since the coupling means is a head of a fastener it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to use known fasteners including those that have a polygonal head.
Regarding claim 6, Preti discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1 with Preti further disclosing that the closing assembly has an extension in the longitudinal direction (7 – Fig. 1 is interpreted to be the claimed extension and the longitudinal direction is the same as the vertical direction; as can be seen in Fig. 1, 7 extends in the vertical direction).
However, Preti does not disclose the exact length of the extension.
In this case, it is noted that the general conditions of the claim are satisfied since Preti discloses the claimed structural features. Furthermore, it is noted that the length of the extension is a result effective variable because the length must be sized to the specific closing assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have sized the closing assembly to any appropriate size, including one which requires an extension between 20 and 30 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are satisfied by the prior art, discovering the workable ranges of a result effective variable requires simply routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 10-20, each claim recites a capping head that incorporates the closing assembly of claim 1. However, it is not clear how Preti may be coupled to the capping head since the coupling means of Preti has been interpreted broadly to be the fastener head and there is no known capping head that has coupling means cooperating with a fastener head as disclosed by Preti.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 7-8, Preti simply doesn’t disclose that the elastic ejector means comprises two or more concentric ejector springs or that the elastic pre-centering means arranged between the ejector assembly and the movable part and it is not clear how such features may be included without substantially redesigning Preti and engaging in hindsight analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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 at 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
1/7/2026