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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS), filed 06 October 2025, which have been placed of record in the file. An initialed, signed, and dated copy of each PTO-1449 or PTO-SB-08 form is attached to the Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the figures are unclear. The lines are too blurry, pale, and undefined, and do not clearly depict the elements of the device. The lines of the drawings must be clear and dark so that the drawings are reproducible for publication purposes.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the written description does not include a brief description of Figure 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 9, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassani et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2010/0115888) in view of Haynes et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2006/0162285).
With respect to claim 1, Bassani et al. disclose a method of capping containers in a capping machine (capping machine 10, fig. 1) that includes a container path along which containers move (path 12, fig. 1) and a capping station at which threaded caps are rotated onto threaded finishes of the containers (caps 32 are screwed onto containers 30, cap applying station 14, torque measuring station 16, rotation of belts 54, 56 may cause cap 32 to be further tightened, [0029], [0064], fig. 2), wherein the capping station includes a pair of laterally opposed cap screwing belts that are operated and configured to screw threaded caps during container movement (cap engaging belts 26, 27, 28, 29, 54, 56 rotate caps 32 while container gripping belts 22, 24 move containers 30, fig. 2), the method comprising: automatically determining a torque applying characteristic during application of the threaded caps (processing entity 76, torque reading assembly 74 obtains measurement of torque applied to caps 32, stations 14, 16 are operational during cap application, [0057], fig. 5); automatically comparing the torque applying characteristic to an established torque criteria (processing entity 76 compares the torque reading with a predetermined torque range, [0069]-[0072]).
Bassani et al. disclose that, if a result of the comparison indicates that the torque applying characteristic is not consistent with the established torque criteria, then automatically rejecting the container ([0081]), and adjusting at least one component of the capping machine to bring the torque applying characteristic back into consistency with the established torque criteria (the parameters of the capping machine can be adjusted, [0089]-[0094]).
Bassani et al. fail to disclose automatically adjusting at least one component of the capping machine to bring the torque applying characteristic back into consistency with the established torque criteria.
Haynes et al. disclose in a similar type of system that it is old and well known to automatically adjust a component of a capping machine to bring a torque applying characteristic back into consistency with established torque criteria (control system 246 automatically adjusts amount of torque applied by the capping head in response to detected torque on capped container, [0056]).
It 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 to modify the Bassani et al. method to substitute automatically adjusting at least one component of the capping machine as suggested by Haynes et al., for adjusting at least one component of the capping machine of Bassani et al., as a mere matter of providing automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity, which is considered a routine expedient requiring only ordinary skill in the art, especially since Bassani et al. disclose automatically rejecting a container based on torque readings, and adjusting capping machine parameters based on torque readings. Providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 III.
With respect to claim 2, Bassani et al. disclose the torque applying characteristic is a running average of detected finish torque for a plurality of threaded capping operations (processing unit 76 may consider an average of the torque values obtained, [0075]).
With respect to claim 3, Bassani et al. disclose the established torque criteria comprises a set acceptable finish torque range (caps are tightened to within a predetermined torque range, [0038], [0054], [0069], [0070]).
With respect to claim 4, Bassani et al. fail to disclose automatically adjusting a slipping torque of a slip clutch associated with one of the cap screwing belts, wherein the slip clutch is mounted to prevent substantial movement of one of the cap screwing belts until the slip clutch slips.
Bassani et al. disclose that, if a result of the comparison indicates that the torque applying characteristic is not consistent with the established torque criteria, then adjusting at least one component of the capping machine to bring the torque applying characteristic back into consistency with the established torque criteria (the parameters of the capping machine can be adjusted, [0089]-[0094]). Bassani et al. disclose adjusting a slipping torque of a slip clutch associated with one of the cap screwing belts, wherein the slip clutch is mounted to prevent substantial movement of one of the cap screwing belts until the slip clutch slips (the amount of force to be applied by the belts to the caps can be selected and calibrated by a clutch that may slip, [0037], [0053]).
Haynes et al. disclose in a similar type of system that it is old and well known to automatically adjust a component of a capping machine to bring a torque applying characteristic back into consistency with established torque criteria (control system 246 automatically adjusts amount of torque applied by the capping head in response to detected torque on capped container, [0056]).
It 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 to modify the Bassani et al. method to substitute automatically adjusting a slipping torque of a slip clutch associated with one of the cap screwing belts as suggested by Haynes et al., for adjusting a slipping torque of a slip clutch associated with one of the cap screwing belts of the capping machine of Bassani et al., as a mere matter of providing automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity, which is considered a routine expedient requiring only ordinary skill in the art, especially since Bassani et al. disclose automatically rejecting a container based on torque readings, and adjusting capping machine parameters based on torque readings. Providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 III.
With respect to claim 5, Bassani et al. disclose automatically determining the torque applying characteristic involves the use of an output of a torque sensor (load cells in communication with pulleys 58b, belts 54, 56, [0053]) when the slip clutch is slipping during cap tightening (mechanical clutch that slips, [0053]).
With respect to claim 6, Bassani et al. fail to disclose automatically adjusting a lateral position of at least one of the cap screwing belts relative to the container path based upon a sensed condition.
Bassani et al. disclose that, if a result of the comparison indicates that the torque applying characteristic is not consistent with the established torque criteria, then adjusting at least one component of the capping machine to bring the torque applying characteristic back into consistency with the established torque criteria (the parameters of the capping machine can be adjusted, [0089]-[0094]). Bassani et al. disclose adjusting a lateral position of at least one of the cap screwing belts relative to the container path based upon a sensed condition (adjusting the distance between the cap engaging belts, 26, 27, 28, 29, 54, 56, to permit closing of different container and cap combinations, [0033], [0047]).
Haynes et al. disclose in a similar type of system that it is old and well known to automatically adjust a component of a capping machine to bring a torque applying characteristic back into consistency with established torque criteria (control system 246 automatically adjusts amount of torque applied by the capping head in response to detected torque on capped container, [0056]).
It 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 to modify the Bassani et al. method to substitute automatically adjusting a lateral position of at least one of the cap screwing belts based upon a sensed condition as suggested by Haynes et al., for adjusting a lateral position of at least one of the cap screwing belts based upon a sensed condition of Bassani et al., as a mere matter of providing automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity, which is considered a routine expedient requiring only ordinary skill in the art, especially since Bassani et al. disclose automatically rejecting a container based on torque readings, and adjusting capping machine parameters based on torque readings. Providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 III.
With respect to claim 9, Bassani et al. disclose the capping station includes an initial cap rotating section (cap applying assembly 18) and a downstream cap rotating section (cap torquing assembly 20, torque measuring assembly 50), wherein the pair of laterally opposed cap screwing belts that are located in the downstream cap rotating section (belts 28, 29, 54, 56), and the initial cap rotating section includes a further pair of laterally opposed cap screwing belts that are operated and configured for initial screwing of caps onto containers (belts 26, 27).
With respect to claim 15, Bassani et al. disclose a capping machine (capping machine 10, fig. 1), comprising: a container path along which containers move (path 12, fig. 1); and a capping station at which threaded caps are rotated onto threaded finishes of the containers (caps 32 are screwed onto containers 30, cap applying station 14, torque measuring station 16, rotation of belts 54, 56 may cause cap 32 to be further tightened, [0029], [0064], fig. 2), wherein the capping station includes a pair of laterally opposed cap screwing belts that are operated and configured to screw threaded caps during container movement (cap engaging belts 26, 27, 28, 29, 54, 56 rotate caps 32 while container gripping belts 22, 24 move containers 30, fig. 2); a control system (processing entity 76, fig. 5) configured to: automatically determine a torque applying characteristic during application of the threaded caps (torque reading assembly 74 obtains measurement of torque applied to caps 32, stations 14, 16 are operational during cap application, [0057]); automatically compare the torque applying characteristic to an established torque criteria (processing entity 76 compares the torque reading with a predetermined torque range, [0069]-[0072]).
Bassani et al. disclose that, if a result of the comparison indicates that the torque applying characteristic is not consistent with the established torque criteria, then automatically rejecting the container ([0081]), and adjusting at least one component of the capping machine to bring the torque applying characteristic back into consistency with the established torque criteria (the parameters of the capping machine can be adjusted, [0089]-[0094]).
Bassani et al. fail to disclose automatically adjusting at least one component of the capping machine to bring the torque applying characteristic back into consistency with the established torque criteria.
Haynes et al. disclose in a similar type of system that it is old and well known to automatically adjust a component of a capping machine to bring a torque applying characteristic back into consistency with established torque criteria (control system 246 automatically adjusts amount of torque applied by the capping head in response to detected torque on capped container, [0056]).
It 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 to modify the Bassani et al. device to substitute automatically adjusting at least one component of the capping machine as suggested by Haynes et al., for adjusting at least one component of the capping machine of Bassani et al., as a mere matter of providing automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity, which is considered a routine expedient requiring only ordinary skill in the art, especially since Bassani et al. disclose automatically rejecting a container based on torque readings, and adjusting capping machine parameters based on torque readings. Providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 III.
With respect to claim 16, Bassani et al. disclose the torque applying characteristic is a running average of detected finish torque for a plurality of threaded capping operations (processing unit 76 may consider an average of the torque values obtained, [0075]), wherein the established torque criteria comprises a set acceptable finish torque range (caps are tightened to within a predetermined torque range, [0038], [0054], [0069], [0070]).
With respect to claim 17, Bassani et al. fail to disclose automatically varying a slipping torque of a slip clutch associated with one of the cap screwing belts, wherein the slip clutch is mounted to prevent substantial movement of one of the cap screwing belts until the slip clutch slips.
Bassani et al. disclose that, if a result of the comparison indicates that the torque applying characteristic is not consistent with the established torque criteria, then adjusting at least one component of the capping machine to bring the torque applying characteristic back into consistency with the established torque criteria (the parameters of the capping machine can be adjusted, [0089]-[0094]). Bassani et al. disclose adjusting a slipping torque of a slip clutch associated with one of the cap screwing belts, wherein the slip clutch is mounted to prevent substantial movement of one of the cap screwing belts until the slip clutch slips (the amount of force to be applied by the belts to the caps can be selected and calibrated by a clutch that may slip, [0037], [0053]).
Haynes et al. disclose in a similar type of system that it is old and well known to automatically adjust a component of a capping machine to bring a torque applying characteristic back into consistency with established torque criteria (control system 246 automatically adjusts amount of torque applied by the capping head in response to detected torque on capped container, [0056]).
It 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 to modify the Bassani et al. device to substitute automatically varying a slipping torque of a slip clutch associated with one of the cap screwing belts as suggested by Haynes et al., for adjusting a slipping torque of a slip clutch associated with one of the cap screwing belts of the capping machine of Bassani et al., as a mere matter of providing automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity, which is considered a routine expedient requiring only ordinary skill in the art, especially since Bassani et al. disclose automatically rejecting a container based on torque readings, and adjusting capping machine parameters based on torque readings. Providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 III.
With respect to claim 19, Bassani et al. disclose determining the torque applying characteristic involves the use of an output of a torque sensor (load cells in communication with pulleys 58b, belts 54, 56, [0053]) when the slip clutch is slipping during cap tightening (mechanical clutch that slips, [0053]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassani et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2010/0115888) in view of Haynes et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2006/0162285), as applied to claim 17, and further in view of Lubus et al. (US Patent No. 6,023,910).
With respect to claim 18, Bassani et al. fail to disclose a pressure control assembly that is operated to vary the slipping torque.
Bassani et al. disclose adjusting a slipping torque of a slip clutch associated with one of the cap screwing belts (the amount of force to be applied by the belts to the caps can be selected and calibrated by a mechanical or electrical clutch that may slip, [0037], [0053]).
Lubus et al. disclose in a similar system that it is old and well known to provide a pressure control assembly that is operated to vary slipping torque (by controlling the air pressure, the maximum gripping force of the capping belts is regulated, col. 3, l. 66 - col. 4, l. 6).
It 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 to provide a pressure control assembly as suggested by Lubus et al. to the Bassani et al. device, to adjust the slipping torque for different cap and container configurations, especially since Bassani et al. teaches a mechanical or electrical clutch that may be varied. In this instance, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the provision of the pressure control assembly from the Lubus et al. reference to the Bassani et al. reference involves no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could have provided a known element and the results would have been predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 are allowed.
Claims 7-8 and 20 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:
With respect to claim 10, the subject matter of claim 10 is allowable over the prior art because of the combination of structural limitations and their functional relationship to one another. Claim 10 includes the following limitations which in combination with the other limitations of the claim are not taught or suggested by the prior art:
“the method comprising at least one of: the controller detecting whether the threaded cap causes a specified lateral shift in at least one of the cap screwing belts and, if not, automatically decreasing a lateral spacing between the cap screwing belts;
and/or
the controller detecting whether a specified one of the cap screwing belts moves at least a specified distance during application of the threaded cap onto the container and, if not, automatically lowering a pressure applied to a slip-clutch associated with the specified one of the cap screwing belts”.
Bassani et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2010/0115888) is considered to be the closest prior art.
Bassani et al. disclose a method of adjusting a capping machine (capping machine 10, fig. 1) that includes a container path along which containers move (path 12, fig. 1) and a capping station at which threaded caps are rotated onto threaded finishes of the containers (caps 32 are screwed onto containers 30, cap applying station 14, torque measuring station 16, rotation of belts 54, 56 may cause cap 32 to be further tightened, [0029], [0064], fig. 2), wherein the capping station includes a pair of laterally opposed cap screwing belts that are operated and configured to screw threaded caps during container movement (cap engaging belts 26, 27, 28, 29, 54, 56 rotate caps 32 while container gripping belts 22, 24 move containers 30, fig. 2), the capping machine including a controller (processing entity 76). Bassani et al. fail to disclose the controller detecting whether the threaded cap causes a specified lateral shift in at least one of the cap screwing belts and, if not, automatically decreasing a lateral spacing between the cap screwing belts; and/or the controller detecting whether a specified one of the cap screwing belts moves at least a specified distance during application of the threaded cap onto the container and, if not, automatically lowering a pressure applied to a slip-clutch associated with the specified one of the cap screwing belts.
Haynes et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2006/0162285) disclose in a similar type of system that it is old and well known to automatically adjust a component of a capping machine to bring a torque applying characteristic back into consistency with established torque criteria (control system 246 automatically adjusts amount of torque applied by the capping head in response to detected torque on capped container, [0056]).
Lubus et al. (US Patent No. 6,023,910) disclose a capping machine including reciprocating load shoes 74 to apply a load to the container caps through belts 54.
Jalbert et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2017/0233233) disclose a capping machine including laterally movable belt deforming elements 110.
Ochs et al. (US Patent No. 4,199,914) disclose a capping machine including biased capping belts 34.
The difference between the claimed subject matter and Bassani et al., or a combination of Bassani et al., Haynes et al., Lubus et al., Jalbert et al., and Ochs et al. is that Bassani et al., or a combination of Bassani et al., Haynes et al., Lubus et al., Jalbert et al., and Ochs et al. do not disclose or teach “the method comprising at least one of: the controller detecting whether the threaded cap causes a specified lateral shift in at least one of the cap screwing belts and, if not, automatically decreasing a lateral spacing between the cap screwing belts; and/or the controller detecting whether a specified one of the cap screwing belts moves at least a specified distance during application of the threaded cap onto the container and, if not, automatically lowering a pressure applied to a slip-clutch associated with the specified one of the cap screwing belts”.
The difference between the claimed subject matter and Bassani et al., or a combination of Bassani et al., Haynes et al., Lubus et al., Jalbert et al., and Ochs et al., would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since such modifications to the Bassani et al. structure would have gone beyond mere substitution or incorporation of a known structure capable of achieving predictable results. Any modification to the Bassani et al. method to arrive at the claimed subject matter would have required a reworking of the structure and manipulative steps and the principle of operation in a manner which would not have been apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art, and would have required the improper benefit of the teachings of Applicant’s disclosure.
Claims 11-14 depend from claim 10, and are likewise allowable.
With respect to claim 7, the prior art fails to disclose or teach the method of claim 6, wherein the sensed condition is whether caps cause a specified lateral shift in at least one of the cap screwing belts based upon an output from a sensor associated with a biasing system that urges the at least one of the cap screwing belts toward the container path.
Claim 8 depends from claim 7, and would likewise be allowable.
With respect to claim 20, the prior art fails to disclose or teach the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the control system is further configured to automatically adjust a lateral position of at least one of the cap screwing belts relative to the container path based upon sensing of whether the at least one of the cap screwing belts is shifted laterally by a cap.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brown (US Patent No. 2,630,959) disclose a capping machine including biased pressure elements for container moving belts.
Hildebrandt et al. (US Patent No. 3,280,534) disclose a capping machine including biased cap feeding and rotating belts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Linda J. Hodge whose telephone number is (571)272-0571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/LINDA J. HODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights