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 filing on 06/12/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 4, 8 and 18-20 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 claim 4, the phrases “for ≥ 10ms or ≥ 20ms” and “for ≤ 300 ms or ≤ 200 ms” renders claim 4 vague and indefinite because it is a narrow range that falls within a broad range. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “for ≥ 10ms” and “for ≤ 300 ms”.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “at least one of a pressurizing and flushing gas channel of the filling member” renders claim 8 to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear what the list of features are. The phrase “a pressurizing and flush gas channel” can be interpreted a single channel that does both pressurizing and flushing gas, or be interpreted as a pressurizing channel and a separate flushing gas channel. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “at least one of a pressurizing channel of the filling member and a flushing gas channel of the filling member”.
Regarding claim 18 line 4, the phrase “can be positioned” renders claim 18 vague and indefinite because the feature is not definitively recited. The phrase “can be” implies that container may or may not be positioned in the treatment chamber. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “is positioned”.
Claims 19-20 are dependent of claim 18 and include all the same limitations.
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 1-4, 7-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Habersetzer et al. (10,626,002) in view of reference Clüsserath et al. (2014/0157726).
Regarding claim 1, Habersetzer et al. disclose a method for filling and closing containers, wherein the method comprises the steps of:
positioning at least an upper portion of a container (120) in a treatment chamber (2);
filling the container (120), positioned at least in portions in the treatment chamber (2), with a carbonated filling material via a filling member (3),
wherein the filling member (3) and a container mouth (122) of the container (120) are pressed against one another in a sealed manner, and
wherein the container is filled with the carbonated filling material up to a gas volume in a head space of the container;
removing the filling member (3) from the container mouth after the filling,
wherein a pressure in the treatment chamber (2) is greater than a saturation pressure of the carbonated filling material; and
closing the container (120), positioned at least in portions in the treatment chamber (2), via a closing member (4) after the removing of the filing member (3).
(Figure 1-3 and Column 5 lines 47-59)
However, Habersetzer et al. do not disclose the step of reducing pressure in the treatment chamber.
Clüsserath et al. disclose a method of filling containers, wherein the method comprises the steps of:
positioning the container (2) in a treatment chamber (10);
filling the container (2) with a carbonated filling material,
wherein a pressure in the container (2) is greater than a saturation pressure of the carbonated filling material; and
reducing the pressure in the container (2) 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 (2).
(Figure 1 and Page 1 paragraph 17, Page 2 paragraph 20, Page 3 paragraph 31)
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 Habersetzer et al. by incorporating the step of reducing pressure as taught by Clüsserath et al., since page 7 paragraph 64 of Clüsserath et al. states such a modification would allow controlled foaming which would force out unwanted residual air and/or vapor and/or gas from the head space of the container.
Regarding claim 2, Habersetzer et al. disclose that when the filling member (3) is sealed against the mouth (122) of the container (120), the pressure in the treatment chamber (2) does not influence the pressure in the container (120). (Column 7 lines 19-27)
Therefore, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath et al. is interpreted to disclose the pressure in the treatment chamber (Habersetzer et al. – 2) is reduced below the saturation pressure of the carbonated filling material after the filling member (Habersetzer et al. – 3) has been removed.
Regarding claim 3, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath et al. disclose at least one of the following is met:
the closing takes place immediately after the gas volume has been completely or substantially completely force out of the head space; and
the closing takes place at a time at which the foamed filling material reaches the container mouth (Habersetzer et al. – 122) or protrudes beyond the container mouth (Habersetzer et al. – 122) without overfoaming or without overfoaming significantly
(Habersetzer et al. – Column 7 lines 41-44) (Clüsserath et al. – Page 7 paragraph 64)
Regarding claim 4, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath et al. disclose at least one of the following is met;
the pressure in the treatment chamber (Habersetzer et al. – 2) is reduced below the saturation pressure for ≥ 10ms before the closing takes place, and
the pressure in the treatment chamber (Habersetzer et al. – 2) is reduced below the saturation pressure for ≤ 300ms before the closing takes place.
(Clüsserath et al. – Page 6 paragraph 58, 60)
Regarding claim 7, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath et al. disclose discharging the pressurizing gas from the treatment chamber (Habersetzer et al. – 2) via the filling member (Habersetzer et al. – 3) removed from the container mouth (Habersetzer et al. – 122). (Habersetzer et al. – Column 9 lines 8-11, 17-23)
Regarding claim 8, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath 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, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath et al. disclose at least in part reusing the discharged pressurizing gas as flushing gas when flushing a subsequent container (Habersetzer et al. – 120) via the filling member (Habersetzer et al. – 3). (Habersetzer et al. – Column 9 lines 56-62)
Regarding claim 10, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath et al. disclose positioning the closing member (Habersetzer et al. – 4) in a standby position directly above the container mouth (Habersetzer et al. –122), wherein the closing member (Habersetzer et al. – 4) is positioned at least in portions in the treatment chamber (Habersetzer et al. – 2) 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 (Habersetzer et al. – 2) below the saturation pressure of the carbonated filling material. (Habersetzer et al. – Figure 1 and Column 8 lines 58-62)
Regarding claim 11, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath et al. disclose, in the standby position, there is a distance between the closing member (Habersetzer et al. – 4) and the container mouth (Habersetzer et al. –122). (Habersetzer et al. – Figure 1)
Regarding claim 12, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath 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 (Habersetzer et al. – 122). (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. modified by Clüsserath et al. disclose, in the standby position, there is a distance between the closing member (Habersetzer et al. – 4) and the container mouth (Habersetzer et al. – 122). (Habersetzer et al. – Figure 1)
However, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath et al. 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)]
On page 5 paragraph 16 of the Specification, the closing member is situated a distance away from the mouth of the container, preferably more than 0.5mm away, preferably less than 3mm away, or particularly preferably 1.5mm away. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose criticality for the specific claimed feature. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the Habersetzer et al. and Clüsserath 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, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath et al. disclose evacuating the container (Habersetzer et al. – 120), positioned at least in portions in the treatment chamber (Habersetzer et al. – 2), via the filling member (Habersetzer et al. – 3) before the filling, wherein the filling member (Habersetzer et al. – 3) and the container mouth (Habersetzer et al. – 122) are pressed against one another in a sealed manner during the evacuating. (Habersetzer et al. – Column 7 line 57-65)
Regarding claim 16, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath et al. disclose flushing the container (Habersetzer et al. – 120) positioned at least in portions in the treatment chamber (Habersetzer et al. – 2), after the evacuating and before the filling, wherein the filling member (Habersetzer et al. – 3) and the container mouth (Habersetzer et al. – 122) are pressed against one another in a sealed manner during the flushing. (Habersetzer et al. – Column 7 lines 57-67)
Regarding claim 17, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath et al. disclose pre-pressurizing the treatment chamber (Habersetzer et al. – 2) to a pressure above the saturation pressure of the carbonated filling material before the removing the filling member (Habersetzer et al. – 3) from the container mouth (Habersetzer et al. – 122). (Habersetzer et al. – Column 8 lines 23-27, 46-53)
Regarding claim 18, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath et al. disclose an apparatus for filling and closing containers (Habersetzer et al. – 120), wherein the apparatus comprises:
at least one treatment station (Habersetzer et al. – 1) comprising:
a filling member (Habersetzer et al. – 3);
a closing member (Habersetzer et al. – 4); and
a treatment chamber (Habersetzer et al. – 2) in which at least an upper portion of a container (Habersetzer et al. – 120) is positioned; and
a control device (Habersetzer et al. – 9) configured to operate the apparatus according to the method of claim 1.
(Habersetzer et al. – Figure 1 and Column 5 lines 47-54, Column 8 lines 7-11)
Regarding claim 19, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath 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 (Habersetzer et al. – 120), and a drive unit for moving the closing element (Habersetzer et al. – 40) for closing the container (Habersetzer et al. – 120); and
the treatment chamber (Habersetzer et al. – 2) is sealable to the container (Habersetzer et al. – 120).
(Habersetzer et al. – Figure 1 and Column 6 lines 22-29, 37-41, 45-49)
Regarding claim 20, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath et al. disclose at least one of:
the apparatus is a rotary apparatus:
the treatment chamber (Habersetzer et al. – 2) 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 (Habersetzer et al. – 120); and
the treatment chamber (Habersetzer et al. – 2) is sealable to the container (Habersetzer et al. – 120) neck.
(Habersetzer et al. – Figure 1 and Column 6 lines 6-8, 45-49)
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Habersetzer et al. (10,626,002) in view of reference Clüsserath et al. (2014/0157726) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Götz et al. (4,827,988).
Regarding claim 5, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose adjusting the period of time or adjusting the pressure difference.
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 Habersetzer et al. by incorporating the adjusting of the period of time of foaming 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.
Regarding claim 6, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath et al. and Götz et al. disclose at least one of:
the period of time is between 10 ms and 300 ms;
the pressure difference between the pressure in the treatment chamber upon the removing of the filling member and the reduced pressure in the treatment chamber below the saturation pressure after the removing the filling member is adjustable in order to influence the foaming; and
the pressure difference between the pressure in the treatment chamber upon the removing of the filling member and the reduced pressure in the treatment chamber below the saturation pressure is adjustable in order to influence the foaming between 0.5 bar and 2 bar.
(Clüsserath et al. – Page 6 paragraph 58, 60)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Habersetzer et al. (10,626,002) in view of reference Clüsserath et al. (2014/0157726) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Sullivan (3,660,963).
Regarding claim 13, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath 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 Habersetzer 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, Habersetzer et al. modified by Clüsserath et al. and Sullivan is interpreted to disclose the adjustment of the standby position influences the foaming.
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 February 20, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731