DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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.
Application Status
This office action is in response to the claims filed 5/18/2026.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 of this title, 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagler et al. US 2024/0001568 in view of Diaz Guerrero US 2019/0337658 (hereinafter “Diaz”) and Grifols Lucas US 2004/0139698 (hereinafter “Grifols”).
Regarding claims 1 and 18:
Nagler teaches a barrier system ([0014]), the barrier system comprising: a restricted-access environment ([0015]), a feeding apparatus for feeding closure elements (at least [0016] discusses feeding the closures 12 via conveyor or hopper), and a handling robot/device (16/17; [0052]) for transferring the closure elements ([0072]), the handling device is arranged within the restricted-access environment ([0006], [0014], [0015]), the handling device is configured to transfer a fed closure element from the feeding apparatus to an inspection position within the restricted-access environment (e.g., [0046], “this check can be carried out if the nest with closures is not placed on the receptacle, but is held, e.g., with the robot arm into the detection field of the sensor device (or capture window of the camera)”), wherein the barrier system further comprises an inspection device (camera 26), the inspection device is configured to inspect the closure element at the inspection position and to determine whether the closure element has a defect ([0059], [0074], [0075] discuss inspecting for defects and rejecting the defective closures).
While Nagler does teach “[s]ubsequently, the closures 12 can be further processed. A next processing step can be, for example, placing the closure 12 on a container (not shown) directly by the handling device 16 or transferring it to another handling device not shown” ([0072]; Note: the underlined portion suggests transferring non-defective closures to a device for seating the closures), Nagler does not explicitly teach a sealing station arranged within the restricted-access environment for sealing containers using the closure elements, the handling device is configured to transfer the closure element from the inspection position to the sealing station when the closure element has no defect.
Diaz teaches a sealing station (40) arranged within the restricted-access environment (20) for sealing containers using the closure elements.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Nagler, such that upon inspection, the handling device is configured to transfer the closure element from the inspection position to a sealing station within the restricted environment when the closure element has no defect, as taught by Diaz Guerrero, in order to seal the containers with defect-free closures in the restricted environment.
Nagler and Diaz do not explicitly disclose feeding closure elements into the restricted-access environment [which implies the closure elements move from outside to inside the restricted access environment].
Grifols discloses a related closure element sealing system within a sterile environment, where closure elements are fed from outside into the restricted-access environment where the sealing is conducted (e.g., [0022] first sentence; see FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Nagler and Diaz, by providing the feeding apparatus with means to feed a supply of external closures into the restricted-access environment, as suggested by Grifols, since this would allow for a potentially unlimited supply of closures to be processed in the restricted-access environment, without the need to also store the same in the expensive-to-operate restricted environment.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Nagler, Diaz, and Grifols teaches the barrier system according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the feeding apparatus is configured to provide the closure elements on a surface (28), and the handling device is configured to transfer the closure element from the surface to the inspection position ([0074]; [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Nagler, Diaz, and Grifols teaches the barrier system according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the barrier system further comprises a disposal device for disposing of defective closure elements (e.g., where the defected closures are sorted out to in [0075]), and the handling device is configured to transfer the closure element from the inspection position to the disposal device when the closure element has a defect ([0075]).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Nagler, Diaz, and Grifols teaches the barrier system according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the barrier system further comprises a control device (30; [0029]) for controlling the handling device, and the inspection device comprises the control device ([0064]) and the control device is further configured to determine whether the closure element has a defect ([0074]).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Nagler, Diaz, and Grifols teaches the barrier system according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the inspection device further comprises a camera system, the camera system is configured to capture at least one image of the closure element at the inspection position ([0024]), and the inspection device is configured to determine, on the basis of the at least one captured image, whether the closure element has a defect ([0059]).
Regarding claim 6-8:
The combination of Nagler, Diaz, and Grifols teaches the barrier system according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the closure elements are formed with a substantially circular cross-section (shown in FIG. 1), and the inspection device is configured to inspect the closure element at the inspection position ([0024]).
The combination of Nagler, Diaz, and Grifols does not teach the inspection device is configured to inspect the closure element at the inspection position for its roundness, wherein the inspection device is configured to determine, on the basis of the at least one captured image, a parameter which indicates a measure for the roundness of the outer edge of the closure element, and to determine, on the basis of a comparison of the determined parameter with a threshold value, whether the closure element has a defect.
However, given the limited number of ways the camera can analyze and compare images of an inspected closure to an expected reference closure, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of the combination of Nagler, Diaz, and Grifols, by inspecting the roundness of the outer edge of the closure and comparing its detected roundness to a reference threshold/tolerance roundness, in order to determine whether the closure is defective.
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Nagler, Diaz, and Grifols teaches the barrier system according to claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach wherein the sealing station is a crimping station, and the closure elements are crimp caps.
Grifols, however, discloses the sealing station is a crimping station, and the closure elements are crimp caps ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of the combination of Nagler, Diaz, and Grifols, by utilizing crimp caps such that the sealing station is a crimping station, and the closure elements are crimp caps, as taught by Grifols, since this would make the system applicable to a larger variety of cap types.
Regarding claims 10 and 19:
The combination of Nagler, Diaz, and Grifols teaches a method for processing closure elements in a restricted-access environment, comprising the steps of: feeding the closure elements into the restricted-access environment by means of a feeding apparatus; first transferring a fed closure element from the feeding apparatus to an inspection position within the restricted-access environment by means of a handling robot/device; inspecting the closure element at the inspection position by means of an inspection device, wherein the inspection device determines whether the closure element has a defect; second transferring the closure element from the inspection position to a sealing station within the restricted-access environment by means of the handling device, when the closure element has no defect; and sealing a container in the sealing station by means of the closure element transferred to the sealing station (all limitations addressed above in rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Nagler, Diaz, and Grifols teaches the method according to claim 10, as discussed above, wherein in the feeding step the feeding apparatus provides the closure elements on a surface (28), and in the first transferring step the handling device transfers the closure element from the surface to the inspection position ([0074]; [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Nagler, Diaz, and Grifols teaches the method according to claim 10, as discussed above, wherein the method further comprises the steps of: third transferring the closure element from the inspection position to a disposal device (e.g., where the defected closures are sorted out to in [0075]) within the restricted-access environment by means of the handling device, when the closure element has a defect; and disposing of the closure element transferred to the disposal device by means of the disposal device ([0075]).
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Nagler, Diaz, and Grifols teaches the method according to claim 12, as discussed above, wherein in the inspecting step a camera system of the inspection device captures at least one image of the closure element at the inspection position ([0024]), and the inspection device determines, on the basis of the at least one captured image, whether the closure element has a defect ([0059]).
Regarding claim 14-16:
The combination of Nagler, Diaz, and Grifols teaches the method according to claims 14-16, as discussed in the rejections of claims 6-8 above.
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of Nagler, Diaz, and Grifols teaches the method according to claim 10, as discussed above, but does not teach wherein the sealing station is a crimping station, and the closure elements are crimp caps.
Grifols, however, discloses the sealing station is a crimping station, and the closure elements are crimp caps ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of the combination of Nagler, Diaz, and Grifols, by utilizing crimp caps such that the sealing station is a crimping station, and the closure elements are crimp caps, as taught by Grifols, since this would make the system applicable to a larger variety of cap types.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument that “Nagler clearly states that the closures 12 are located in receptacle 14 when they are inspected for damage, see, for example, paragraph [0074]” relies on a specific alternative embodiment disclosed by Nagler not used in the rejections. In the above rejections of claims 1 and 10, Examiner has relied upon the fact that Nagler teaches “[i]t is conceivable that this check can be carried out if the nest with closures is not placed on the receptacle, but is held, e.g., with the robot arm into the detection field of the sensor device (or capture window of the camera)” ([0046]), which makes clear the handling device may itself move closures into an inspection position to be inspected, as required by the claims.
Applicant’s argument regarding the absence of an explicit sealing station in Nagler is persuasive, and the rejections of claims 1 and 10 have been modified with a prior art reference that more clearly discloses this aspect.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408)918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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 at 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.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights