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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 6/26/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/26/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1, line 1, “Apparatus for automatically” would be better recited as “An apparatus for automatically”.
-Claim 1, line 15, “configure to hold” should instead be recited as “configured to hold”.
-Claim 1, line 19, “being characterized by” should be removed.
-Claim 1 should be revised such that each new feature or structure introduced begins on a subsequent line.
-Claims 2-13 begin with “Apparatus” but this should instead be recited as “The apparatus”.
-Claims 4-8 recite either “a possible positioning error” or “a possible capping error” but these would be better recited as “a positioning error” or “a capping error”, respectively.
-Claim 14, line 1, “Method for” should instead be “A method for”.
-Claim 14 recites several structures already defined in Claim 1 which is incorporated into Claim 14 but Claim 14 appears to reintroduce the same structures such as “a first pick and place device” and “a second transport member” which should instead be recited as “the first pick and place device” and “the second transport member” respectively. The other recitations of structures in Claim 14 should be amended in a consistent manner.
-Claim 15, line 1, “Method as” should instead be “The method as”.
-Claim 15, line 3, “command” should instead be “commands”.
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.
Claims 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, lines 2-6 recite “a first transport member which is movable on the first driving surface in a contactless manner by means of magnetic interaction between a first rotor magnetic field of said first transport member and a first stator magnetic fields generated by first electric means associated to said first driving surface”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what is being encompassed by “means of magnetic interaction”. Specifically, it is unclear as to whether the “means” is attempting to claim further structure or if the “means” is referring to the “magnetic interaction” itself and what structure is attempting to be implied by such interaction. Further based on this lack of clarity and the manner in which the claim is drafted, it is unclear if this limitation is attempting to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see “Claim Interpretation” section below). It is noted that for examination purposes, such “means of magnetic interaction” is being viewed as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as outlined below.
Further regarding Claim 1, lines 9-10 and 21 also recite “means of magnetic interaction” which render the claim indefinite for the reasoning outlined above and further for examination purposes, are being viewed as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as outlined below.
Further regarding Claim 1, line 8 recites “a second transport member which is movable on a second driving surface” and lines 19-20 recite “a third transport member which is movable on a third driving surface”. These limitations render the claim further indefinite as it is unclear as to whether or not the Applicant is attempting to positively claim the “second driving surface” and the “third driving surface” as the manner in which the claim is drafted renders it unclear if the transport members are intended to interact with such driving surfaces or if the driving surfaces are comprised by the apparatus and associated with the transport members. Note for examination purposes, the driving surfaces are being interpreted as being positively claimed as comprised by the apparatus.
Claims 2-15 either depend from Claim 1 or include the apparatus of Claim 1 and therefore are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
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.
Claim limitation on lines 2-6 of “a first transport member which is movable on the first driving surface in a contactless manner by means of magnetic interaction between a first rotor magnetic field of said first transport member and a first stator magnetic fields generated by first electric means associated to said first driving surface” as well as the limitations on lines 8-12 and lines 19-23 of Claim 1 have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is not readily clear if “means” is attempting to be utilized as a generic placeholder or merely referring to the “magnetic interaction” (see 112(b) rejection above). The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; 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.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
For examination purposes the claim limitations reciting “means” will be interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and as follows:
-Claim 1, lines 3-4, lines 9-10, and line 21, “means of magnetic interaction” is being interpreted in light of Page 10, line 27 through Page 11, line 6 of the specification which outlines “transport members 21 operatively associated with the first driving surface 17 and capable of moving with respect to the latter by means of magnetic fields generated by the electric energizing means…magnetic means, such as for example permanent magnets of a known type …configured to interact with the magnetic fields”. Therefore the “means of magnetic interaction” is being interpreted as encompassing “permanent magnets” and equivalents thereof of the transport member in combination with magnetic fields generated by the “electric energizing means”/”electric means” (as claimed).
-Claim 1, lines 5, 11 and 23, “electric means” is being interpreted in light of Page 10, lines 10-16 of the specification which recites “a first driving surface 17 below which there are associated electric energizing means, of a known type and not visible in the drawings, which are configured to selectively generate one or more magnetic fields, even locally distributed, along the movement path PM. For example, the electric energizing means comprise a plurality of electric coils or windings which, during use, are connected to an electric energy supply network having suitable electric voltage and current values”. Therefore “electric means” is being interpreted as comprising “a plurality of electric coils or windings” and equivalents thereof.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter / Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding Claim 1, none of the prior art references, alone or in combination, disclose and/or render obvious the claimed invention.
First attention can be brought to Eberhardt (US PGPUB 2018/0229866-cited in IDS) which discloses several driving surfaces (13; Figure 4) for a transport member (20) for containers (36) and a transport member (21) for closures (37) each comprising respective support members for the containers and closures, wherein the transport members (20, 21) comprise magnet (19; Figure 2) configured to interact with electric means/coils (18) of the driving surface (13; Para. 0020) to allow the transport members to move along the surfaces in a contactless manner. However, Eberhardt does not readily disclose pick and place devices for picking the containers and closures from the respective transport members and placing them onto a common further transport member in the manner as claimed and further does not disclose a further/third transport member and a third driving surface thereof.
Other references such as Ronchi (US PGPUB 2022/0380077) disclose use of pick and place devices (30, 40; Figure 1) for transporting closures and containers from respective feed stations to a common processing station (70) but as in Eberhardt, Ronchi does not disclose the pick and place devices are configured to move the respective containers and closures onto a common transport member that moves along a drive surface in a contactless manner as claimed.
Hauer (US PGPUB 2021/0331878) discloses a transport member (4; Figure 1) movable along a driving surface (2) in a contactless manner to transport a container (3) to a processing station (1) which can be a closing station for applying closures thereto (Para. 0059) but does not disclose moving closures on a transport member or pick and place devices for placing the closures and containers on a different transport member together.
Lastly, Scheri (US PGPUB 2022/0035345) discloses an apparatus for filling and capping/closing containers (12; Figure 1) wherein the apparatus comprises a transport member (18) driven in a contactless manner on a driving surface (16) to several processing stations (22) including filling and closing stations (Paras. 0085, 0088) but does not disclose several claimed features including transport members and driving surfaces configured to transport closures and pick and place devices for moving the containers and closures from respective transport members to a common different transport member.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites “method for automatically filling and capping containers by means of an apparatus according to claim 1” and therefore includes the structures of claim 1 and therefore is viewed as allowable subject matter for the same reasoning above.
Examiner notes that the following proposed amendment to Claim 1 would overcome the 112(b) rejections above and would be allowable if amended in such a manner.
1. An apparatus for automatically filling and capping containers comprising:
a first driving surface,
a first transport member which is movable on the first driving surface in a contactless manner by magnetic interaction between a first rotor magnetic field generated by a magnet of said first transport member and a first stator magnetic fields generated by first electric means associated to said first driving surface, so that a selective energization of said first electric means allows a movement of the first transport member relative to the first driving surface,
a first feeding station comprising a second driving surface,
a second transport member which is movable on [[a]] the second driving surface of [[a]] the first feeding station in a contactless manner by magnetic interaction between a second rotor magnetic field generated by a magnet of said second transport member and a second stator magnetic fields generated by second electric means associated to said second driving surface, so that a selective energization of said second electric means allows a movement of the second transport member relative to the second driving surface, said second transport member being provided with a second support member configure to hold a plurality of said containers, and
a first pick and place device is provided that is configured to pick up one or more containers from the second support member at a first pick-up zone and place the picked-up one or more containers on said first transport member,
a second feeding station comprising a third driving surface,
a third transport member which is movable on [[a]] the third driving surface of [[a]] the second feeding station in a contactless manner by magnetic interaction between a third rotor magnetic field generated by a magnet of said third transport member and a third stator magnetic fields generated by third electric means associated to said third driving surface, so that a selective energization of said third electric means allows a movement of the third transport member relative to the third driving surface, said third transport member being provided with a third support member configured to hold a plurality of closure elements, and
a second pick and place device is provided that is configured to pick up one or more closure elements from the third support member at a second pick-up zone and place the picked-up closure elements directly on the container which has been placed on the first transport member by the first pick and place device and filled with liquid or on said first transport member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See “Notice of References Cited”.
-Chianura (US PGPUB 2022/0244090), Pedain (US PGPUB 2017/0131309), Eberhardt (US PGPUB 2017/0225814), Heise (US PGPUB 2013/0034410) , Baechle (US PGPUB 2017/0225911) disclose further planar drive systems for containers and processing thereof.
-Chianura (US PGPUB 2022/0227008) discloses a planar drive system for container gripping structures.
-Chianura (US PGPUB 2024/0166448) disclose a planar drive systems for objects such as caps.
-Use (US PGPUB 2023/0146784) discloses a planar drive system for conveying groups of containers and a pick and place device (9; Figure 1) for moving the containers to and from a transport member.
-Guggisberg (US PGPUB 2014/0331618) discloses a pick and place device for closures at a feeding station.
- Touhent (US PGPUB 2024/0316704) discloses a planar drive system for conveying a work piece to processing stations.
-Phillip (US PGPUB 2019/0152724) discloses a planar drive system for filling containers.
-Shindo (US PGPUB 2022/0301921) discloses an apparatus comprising a planar drive system with pick and place devices for transferring the products being worked.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA G KOTIS whose telephone number is (571)270-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6am-430pm.
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.
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 8/5/2026
Prosecution Insights