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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filing on 05/26/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of reference Linke et al. (11,518,665) modified by reference Lühmann et al. (5,538,054). Due to the introduction of new rejections, this action is made NON-FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 4 line 3, the phrase “for a time t where” should be written as “for a time (t) where” because the reference character needs to be enclosed within parentheses. Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4 line 5, the phrase “where 10 ms ≤ t ≤ 300 before the closing” renders claim 4 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what “t” represents. The phrase also renders claim 4 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what unit of measurement “300” presents. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “wherein the time is equal to or between 10 ms and 300 ms before the closing”.
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 1-3, 5-6, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Linke et al. (11,518,665) in view of reference Lühmann et al. (5,538,054).
Regarding claim 1, Linke et al. disclose a method of filling and closing containers, wherein the method comprises the steps of:
positioning at least an upper portion of a container (13) in a treatment chamber (15);
filling the container (13), positioned in the treatment chamber (15), with a carbonated filling material via a filling member (11),
wherein the filling member (11) and a container mouth (14) of the container (13) are pressed against one another in a sealed manner;
removing the filling member (11) from the container mouth (14) after the filling,
wherein a pressure in the treatment chamber (15) is greater than a saturation pressure of the carbonated filling material; and
closing the container (13), positioned in the treatment chamber (15), via closing member (19, 22) after the removing the filling member (11).
(Figure 1 and Column 3 lines 14-17, Column 5 lines 29-41, 61-66)
However, Linke et al. do not disclose reducing the pressure in the treatment chamber thereby causing foaming.
Lühmann et al. disclose a method of filling containers, wherein the method comprises the steps of:
filling the container (3) with a carbonated filling material;
reducing the pressure in the container (3) below the saturation pressure of the carbonated filling material, thereby causing foaming of the carbonated filling material in the head space of the filled container.
(Column 8 lines 19-29)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Linke et al. by incorporating the step of reducing the pressure as taught by Lühmann et al., since column 4 lines 37-42 of Lühmann et al. states such a modification would prevent entry of air into the foam-filled head space while also preventing loss of foam.
Regarding claim 2, Linke et al. disclose that the treatment chamber is pressurized so that there is no significant collapse of pressure level when the filling member has been removed. (Column 4 lines 10-17)
Therefore, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. is interpreted to disclose the pressure in the treatment chamber is reduced below the saturation pressure of the carbonated filling material after the filling member has been removed.
Regarding claim 3, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. disclose the closing takes place immediately after the gas volume has been completely or substantially completely force out of the head space, wherein the close takes place at a time at which the foamed filling material reaches the container mouth (Linke et al. – 14) or protrudes beyond the container mouth (Linke et al. – 14) without overfoaming or without overfoaming significantly. (Linke et al. – Column 2 lines 38-42, Column 4 lines 33-40) (Lühmann et al. – Column 4 lines 37-42)
Regarding claim 5, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. disclose a pressure difference between the pressure in the treatment chamber (Linke et al. – 15) upon the removing of the filling member (Linke et al. – 11) and the reduced pressure in the treatment chamber (Linke et al. – 15) below the saturation pressure is adjustable. (Lühmann et al. – Column 8 lines 19-29)
Regarding claim 6, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. disclose the pressure difference between the pressure in the treatment chamber (Linke et al. – 15) upon the removing of the filling member (Linke et al. – 11) and the reduced pressure in the treatment chamber (Linke et al. – 15) below the saturation pressure after the removing of the filling member (Linke et al. – 11) is adjustable in order to influence the foaming. (Lühmann et al. – Column 8 lines 19-29)
Regarding claim 17, Linke et al. disclose that the treatment chamber is pressurized so that there is no significant collapse of pressure level when the filling member has been removed. (Column 4 lines 10-17)
Therefore, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. is interpreted to disclose the pre-pressurizing the treatment chamber to a pressure above the saturation pressure of the carbonated filling material before the removing the filling member form the container mouth.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Linke et al. (11,518,665) in view of reference Lühmann et al. (5,538,054) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Götz et al. (4,827,988).
Regarding claim 4, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. and Clüsserath et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose reducing the pressure for a period of time before the closing takes place.
Götz et al. disclose a method of filling and closing a container, wherein the method comprises the step of: causing a filling material in a container (2) to foam; waiting a period of time for the foam to form in the head-space of the container (2); and then closing the container (2), wherein the period of time is adjustable in order to influence the foaming. (Column 1 lines 56-64, Column 7 lines 59-68)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Linke et al. by incorporating the adjusting of the period of time before closing as taught by Götz et al., since column 7 lines 6-8 of Götz et al. states such a modification would allow optimum foaming time for different types of filling material.
However, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. and Götz et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not explicitly disclose reducing the pressure for a time between 10ms and 300ms before the closing takes place.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the period of time between 10ms and 300ms, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)] Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Linke et al., Lühmann et al. and Götz et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4 because such a modification would have been considered mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Claims 7-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Linke et al. (11,518,665) in view of reference Lühmann et al. (5,538,054) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Habersetzer et al. (10,626,002).
Regarding claim 7, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose discharging gas via the filling member.
Habersetzer et al. disclose an apparatus for filling and closing containers (120), wherein the apparatus comprises:
at least one treatment station (1) comprising:
a filling member (3);
a closing member (4); and
a treatment chamber (2) in which at least an upper portion of a container (120) is positioned; and
a control device (9) configured to operate the apparatus,
wherein the filling member (3) comprises:
a pressurizing channel (80)
a flushing gas channel (88)
(Habersetzer et al. – Figure 1 and Column 5 lines 47-54, Column 8 lines 7-11, Column 9 lines 8-11, 17-23)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Linke et al. by incorporating the filling member, closing member, and control device as taught by Habersetzer et al., since column 2 lines 17-19 of Habersetzer et al. states such a modification would allow the gas used in the treatment chamber to be used to rinse subsequent containers to be filled.
Regarding claim 8, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. and Habersetzer et al. disclose the discharging is via at least one of a pressurizing channel (Habersetzer et al. – 80) of the filling member (Habersetzer et al. – 3) and a flushing gas channel (Habersetzer et al. – 88) of the filling member (Habersetzer et al. – 3). (Habersetzer et al. – Column 9 lines 8-11, 17-23)
Regarding claim 9, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. and Habersetzer et al. disclose at least in part reusing the discharged pressurizing gas as flushing gas when flushing a subsequent container (Linke et al. – 13) via the filling member (Habersetzer et al. – 3). (Habersetzer et al. – Column 9 lines 56-62)
Regarding claim 10, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. and Habersetzer et al. disclose positioning the closing member (Habersetzer et al. – 4) in a standby position directly above the container mouth (Linke et al. – 14), wherein the closing member (Habersetzer et al. – 4) is positioned at least in portions in the treatment chamber (Linke et al. – 15) after the removing of the filling member (Habersetzer et al. – 3) and at least before and during the reducing the pressure in the treatment chamber (Linke et al. – 15) below the saturation pressure of the carbonated filling material. (Habersetzer et al. – Figure 1 and Column 8 lines 58-62)
Regarding claim 11, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. and Habersetzer et al. disclose, in the standby position, there is a distance between the closing member (Habersetzer et al. – 4) and the container mouth (Linke et al. – 14). (Habersetzer et al. – Figure 1)
Regarding claim 12, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. and Habersetzer et al. disclose, in the standby position, there is an annual gap (Habersetzer et al. – see figure 1 below) between the closing member (Habersetzer et al. – 4) and the container mouth (Linke et al. – 14). (Habersetzer et al. – Figure 1)
[AltContent: textbox (Annual Gap)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Habersetzer et al.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
659
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Habersetzer et al. disclose, in the standby position, there is a distance between the closing member (4) and the container mouth (122). (Figure 1)
However, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. and Habersetzer et al. do not explicitly disclose the distance is between 0.5mm and 3mm.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the distance to be between 0.5mm and 3mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)] Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Linke et al., Lühmann et al., and Habersetzer et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. and Habersetzer et al. disclose evacuating the container (Linke et al. – 13), positioned at least in portions in the treatment chamber (Linke et al. – 15), via the filling member (Habersetzer et al. – 3) before the filling, wherein the filling member (Habersetzer et al. – 3) and the container mouth (Linke et al. – 14) are pressed against one another in a sealed manner during the evacuating. (Habersetzer et al. – Column 7 line 57-65)
Regarding claim 16, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. and Habersetzer et al. disclose flushing the container (Linke et al. – 13) positioned at least in portions in the treatment chamber (Linke et al. – 15), after the evacuating and before the filling, wherein the filling member (Habersetzer et al. – 3) and the container mouth (Linke et al. – 14) are pressed against one another in a sealed manner during the flushing. (Habersetzer et al. – Column 7 lines 57-67)
Regarding claim 18, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. and Habersetzer et al. disclose an apparatus for filling and closing containers (Linke et al. – 13), wherein the apparatus comprises:
at least one treatment station comprising:
a filling member (Habersetzer et al. – 3);
a closing member (Habersetzer et al. – 4); and
a treatment chamber (Linke et al. – 15) in which at least an upper portion of a container (Linke et al. – 13) is positioned; and
a control device (Habersetzer et al. – 9) configured to operate the apparatus according to the method of claim 1.
(Linke et al. – Figure 1 and Column 3 lines 14-17, Column 5 lines 29-41, 61-66)
(Habersetzer et al. – Figure 1 and Column 5 lines 47-54, Column 8 lines 7-11)
Regarding claim 19, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. and Habersetzer et al. disclose at least one of the following is fulfilled:
the closing member (Habersetzer et al. – 4) has a closing element (Habersetzer et al. – 40) for closing the container (Linke et al. – 13), and a drive unit for moving the closing element (Habersetzer et al. – 40) for closing the container (Linke et al. – 13); and
the treatment chamber (Linke et al. – 15) is sealable to the container (Linke et al. – 13).
(Linke et al. – Figure 1 and Column 5 lines 35-44)
(Habersetzer et al. – Figure 1 and Column 6 lines 22-29, 37-41, 45-49)
Regarding claim 20, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. and Habersetzer et al. disclose at least one of:
the apparatus is a rotary apparatus:
the treatment chamber (Linke et al. – 15) is sealable at least one of a top side via the closing member (Habersetzer et al. – 4) and on a bottom side via seal to the container (Linke et al. – 13); and
the treatment chamber (Linke et al. – 15) is sealable to the container (Linke et al. – 13) neck.
(Linke et al. – Figure 1)
(Habersetzer et al. – Figure 1 and Column 6 lines 6-8, 45-49)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Linke et al. (11,518,665) in view of references Lühmann et al. (5,538,054) and Habersetzer et al. (10,626,002) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of reference Sullivan (3,660,963).
Regarding claim 13, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al. and Habersetzer et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not explicitly disclose adjusting the distance and/or the annular gap.
Sullivan discloses a closing member (50) positioned at a standby position (Figure 6), wherein, in the standby position, there is an annular gap between the closing member (50) and a container mouth, and wherein the size of the annular gap is adjustable by adjusting the standby position. (Figures 6-8 and Column 4 lines 38-51)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Linke et al.by incorporating the step of adjusting the standby position of the closing members as taught by Sullivan, since column 4 lines 50-51 of Sullivan states such a modification would allow a crown to be crimped to a threadless bottle.
When the annular gap is adjusted, the amount of space for gas to escape will be altered. Therefore, Linke et al. modified by Lühmann et al., Habersetzer et al., and Sullivan is interpreted to disclose the adjustment of the standby position influences the foaming.
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 05/26/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Habersetzer et al. (10,626,002) modified by reference Clüsserath et al. (2014/0157726), in view of the arguments, Exmainer withdraws the 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of reference Linke et al. (11,518,665) modified by reference Lühmann et al. (5,538,054). Due to the introduction of new rejections, this action is made NON-FINAL.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 August 12, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights