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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/21/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 14-16, 18, 20, 23, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0231772) in view of Russell (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0357270).
Regarding Claim 1, Hahn discloses, A container treatment plant for treating containers (FIG. 1, Claim 1), comprising:
at least one container treatment machine (FIG. 1, #30, paras [0029 and 0045]) and a component (FIG. 1, #10).
Hahn further discloses, wherein the collaborating robot is configured to independently service multiple container treatment machines (FIG. 1, BP1-3, paras [0048-0052], Claims 1-2) of the container treatment plant.
Hahn does not disclose, a mobile, collaborating robot configured for robot-robot interaction and/or for robot-man interaction, wherein the collaborating robotis configured to cooperate in exchanging a component of the at least one container treatment machine, wherein the collaborating robot comprises a safety system, which is configured to continuously determine a risk of collision with a human being in a surroundings of the collaborating robot and to control movement of the collaborating robot, wherein the movement of the collaborating robot is controlled using a navigation system of the collaborating robot such that the risk of collision is continuously minimized.
However, Russell teaches, a mobile, collaborating robot (FIG. 2A, #212/214/216/218/226, paras [0065 — 0069]) configured for robot-robot interaction (216 interacts with 218, para [066]) and/or for robot-man interaction (para [0001 and 0091]), wherein the collaborating robot is configured to cooperate in exchanging a component of the at least one container treatment machine (FIG. 2B, para [0070)]), wherein the collaborating robot comprises a safety system (FIG. 2A, #250, para [0091] avoids collisions), which is configured to continuously (para [0077]) determine a risk of collision (para [0091] — minimize risk of collision with humans) with a human being (para [0048] — users or operators) in a surroundings (FIG. 2A) of the collaborating robot and to control movement of the collaborating robot (para [0126)), wherein the movement of the collaborating robot is controlled using a navigation system (FIGS. | and 2A, #100, paras 0053-0055]) of the collaborating robot such that the risk of collision is minimized (para [0091]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Russell before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container treatment plant (Claim 1) as disclosed by Hahn to include the mobile, collaborating robot (FIG. 2A, #212/ 214/ 216/ 218/ 226) that has a safety system (FIG. 2A, #250) and navigation system (FIGS. | and 2A, #100) so as to continuously determine the risk of collision (para [0091]) with human (para [0048]) in the surroundings (FIG. 2A) as taught by Russell. Since Russell teaches the aforementioned limitations that are known in the art and beneficial, thereby providing the motivation to utilize the same so as to improve the operations, such as moving between modules, of the treatment plant (Hahn, Claim 1) by enabling the operation autonomously or semi- autonomously by use of mobile robots (Russell, [0039]) as this allows the treatment plant to operate with minimal down time or human interaction.
Russell using a navigation system of the collaborating robot such that the risk of collision is continuously minimized, see for example (Figs. 2A, 2B, and 3A-3C; via robotic warehouse fleet 200 and/or mechanisms 212, 214, 216, and 222 and “navigation sensor 316 and a rear navigation sensor 318, and one or more sensors mounted on a robotic arm”); the collaborating robot is configured to independently service multiple container treatment machines of the at least two container treatment plants, see for example (Figs. 2-3; via the shown robotic fleet 200 and/or 222).
Also, Russell shows the navigation system is the collaborating robot’s own navigation system, see for example (Figs. 2-3; via the shown robots 212, 214, 216, 222 and/or navigations sensors 316/318; “control system local to the vehicle”).
Further per the filed amendments on 07/21/2025; the combined Hahn/Russell suggests that the collaborating robot is configured as a device controlled by a computer or a processing unit (Hahn, FIG. 3, via CPU 95, para [0092]), wherein the collaborating robot is equipped with a tool (Hahn, FIG. 3, #19 & 120, paragraph [0058] & 0085; “the adaptation device 120 can be a robot”) for interaction with the surroundings and is able to interact with humans (Russell, FIG. 2A, para [0091]) or with other robots in such a way that it can cooperate with the human (Russell, FIG. 2A, para [0091]) or with the robot in component exchange operations and/or either carry out substeps of the component exchange operations by itself or assist in such substeps in a supporting capacity, see for example (Russell, paragraph 0091; “Global control system 250 may generate the predetermined paths in order to synchronize the operations of the autonomous vehicles and minimize the probability of collisions…and/or human workers”).
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art discloses as previously claimed. As combined, Russell discloses, wherein the collaborating robot (FIG. 2A, #212/214/216/218).
As combined, the prior art does not disclose, wherein the collaborating robot does not comprise any separating protective device.
However, Russell teaches, wherein the collaborating robot does not comprise any separating protective device (FIG. 2A — illustrates no protective device for #2 12/214/216/218/226).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Russell before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container treatment plant (Claim 1) as disclosed by Hahn to not utilize any separating protective device (FIG. 2A) as taught by Russell. Since Russell teaches the aforementioned limitation that is known in the art and beneficial, thereby providing the motivation to utilize the no separating protective device (FIG. 2A) so as to optimize the strategies for the deployment and planning (Russell, para [0071] as this can provide cost saving of less time, space, and electricity.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art discloses as previously claimed. As combined, Hahn discloses, wherein the at least one container treatment machine includes a first container treatment machine (Claim Application/Control Number: 16/621,666 Page 7 Art Unit: 3666 1 — first treatment unit) and a second container treatment machine (Claim 1 - second treatment unit), wherein the collaborating robot is movable between the first container treatment machine and the second container treatment machine (Russell, FIG. 2A, #212/214/216/218/226).
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art discloses as previously claimed. As combined, Russell discloses, wherein the collaborating robot comprises a robot arm (FIG. 3A, #302), wherein the collaborating robot comprises a robot arm with a tool for interacting with the at least one container treatment machine, see for example (Figs. 2-3; via the shown robotic arms mechanisms for “lifting and moving goods or pallets of goods”); further intended use mechanism not given much patentable weight;
Wherein the robot arm comprises first and second segment arms (Figs. 2A & 3A; via the shown two separate arms of robot 222 and/or 216), inherently “threads” would be possible and clearly provided to install one segment to the other or a tool to the other as needed and/or very obvious as such use of “threads” is very old and well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art discloses as previously claimed. As combined, Russel discloses, wherein the collaborating robot comprises the tool of the collaborating robot; wherein the collaborating robot comprises a tool changing system by means of which the tool of the collaborating robot can be exchanged for some other tool carried along in the tool changing system (“the sensor with respect to the environment may change due to motion of the vehicle” and/or “The control system 118 may monitor and physically change the operating conditions”); further intended use mechanism not given much patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art discloses as previously claimed. As combined, Russell discloses, wherein the collaborating robot is arranged on a movable platform (FIG. 3A, #312).
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art discloses as previously claimed. As combined, Russell discloses, wherein the movable platform forms (312).
As combined, the prior art does not disclose, wherein the movable platform forms, together with a guide configured as a stator and extending through the container treatment plant, a linear drive.
However, Russell teaches, wherein the movable platform forms, together with a guide (para [0051]) configured as a stator (para [0051] — track) and extending through the container treatment plant, a linear drive (paras [0051 and 0055] — actuators).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Russell before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the movable platform (312) as disclosed by, as combined, Russell to include the guide that includes a stator (paras [0051 and 0055]) and linear drive (paras [0051 and 0055]) as taught by Russell. Since Russell teaches the aforementioned limitations that are known in the art and beneficial, thereby providing the motivation to utilize the same so as to improve the operational flexibility of the movable platform (Russell, 312) by including the stator (paras [0051 and 0055]) and linear drive (paras [0051 and 0055]) thereby enabling various configuration so the robot can perform based on operational requirements (Russell, para [0051]).
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art discloses as previously claimed. As combined, Russell discloses, the mobile, collaborating robot (Fig. 3C; via 360); wherein the mobile, collaborating robot is configured as a humanoid robot and comprises two arms and/or two legs configured to cooperate in activities performed by the robot (via 362 & 364); the robot comprises a hand on an arm (Fig. 3A; via 304).
Regarding Claim 14, Hahn discloses, A system, comprising: at least two container treatment machines for treating containers (Claim 1 — first and second treatment units) with at least one container treatment machine (FIG. 1, #30, paras [0029 and 0045]) and a component (FIG. 1, #10) for treating containers (Claim 1 - containers); at least two container treatment plants, each of the at least two container treatment plants comprising at least two container treatment machines for treating containers, wherein the system comprises at least one mobile, collaborating robot, which is configured for robot-robot interaction and/or for robot-man interaction, the collaborating robot being configured to cooperate in exchanging a component of a container treatment machine of one of the container treatment plants and to move independently between the container treatment machine of the container treatment plant and another container treatment machine of the other container treatment plant,
wherein the collaborating robot comprises a safety system, which is configured to continuously determine a risk of collision with a human being in a surroundings of the collaborating robot and to control movement of the collaborating robot, wherein the movement of the collaborating robot is controlled using a navigation system of the collaborating robot such that the risk of collision is minimized, see for example (Figs. 2 & 3; via the shown robotic mechanisms working in different sections and plants of fleet 200); further intended use mechanism not given much patentable weight.
Also, Russell discloses that the navigation system is the collaborating robot’s own navigation system, see for example (Figs. 2-3; via the shown robots 212, 214, 216, 222 and/or navigations sensors 316/318; “control system local to the vehicle”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Russell before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container treatment plant (Claim 1) as disclosed by Hahn to include the mobile, collaborating robot (FIG. 2A, #212/ 214/ 216/ 218/ 226) that has a safety system (FIG. 2A, #250) and navigation system (FIGS. | and 2A, #100) so as to continuously determine the risk of collision (para [0091]) with human (para [0048]) in the surroundings (FIG. 2A) as taught by Russell. Since Russell teaches the aforementioned limitations that are known in the art and beneficial, thereby providing the motivation to utilize the same so as to improve the operations, such as moving between modules, of the treatment plant (Hahn, Claim 1) by enabling the operation autonomously or semi- autonomously by use of mobile robots (Russell, [0039]) as this allows the treatment plant to operate with minimal down time or human interaction.
Further per the filed amendments on 07/21/2025; the combined Hahn/Russell suggests that the collaborating robot is configured as a device controlled by a computer or a processing unit (Hahn, FIG. 3, via CPU 95, para [0092]), wherein the collaborating robot is equipped with a tool (Hahn, FIG. 3, #19 & 120, paragraph [0058] & 0085; “the adaptation device 120 can be a robot”) for interaction with the surroundings and is able to interact with humans (Russell, FIG. 2A, para [0091]) or with other robots in such a way that it can cooperate with the human (Russell, FIG. 2A, para [0091]) or with the robot in component exchange operations and/or either carry out substeps of the component exchange operations by itself or assist in such substeps in a supporting capacity, see for example (Russell, paragraph 0091; “Global control system 250 may generate the predetermined paths in order to synchronize the operations of the autonomous vehicles and minimize the probability of collisions…and/or human workers”).
.
Regarding Claim 15, Hahn discloses the container treatment plants are configured as beverage filling plants and each of the container treatment plants comprising at least one filler for filling containers with a product and a capper arranged downstream of the filler and used for closing the containers, see for example (Figs. 1 & 3-5; paragraphs 0049 and 0069) and/or Russell (Fig. 2; via the shown plants); further intended use mechanism not given much patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 16, the prior art discloses as previously claimed. As combined, Hahn further discloses, wherein the containers are bottles (FIG. 1, #3).
Regarding Claim 18, the prior art discloses as previously claimed. As combined, Hahn discloses, wherein the component is a blow mold (FIG. 1, #2, para [0045]).
Regarding Claim 20, the prior art discloses as previously claimed. As combined, Hahn further discloses, wherein the collaborating robot is further configured to independently service at least one container treatment machine (para [0093] — via individual control means 60) of another container treatment plant.
Regarding Claim 23, the prior art discloses as previously claimed. As combined, Hahn discloses, wherein the component is a blow mold (FIG. 1, #2, para [0045]).
Regarding claim 25: Russell discloses that the movement of the collaborating robot is further controlled using a drive of the collaborating robot, see for example (“The program code and/or related data may be…a disk or hard drive or other storage medium”).
Regarding claim 26: Russell discloses that the robot further comprises a tool storage unit, and a second robot arm comprises a gripping element (Figs. 2A & 3A; via gripping arm 304 and storage area on the robotic vehicle). It is noted that the robot arms what is “configured to” is an intended use limitation, which not given much patentable weight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-9, 14-16, 18, 20, 23, and 25-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, the rejection modified to address the newly added limitations.
Applicant argues that the applied art of Russell ‘270 does not disclose the navigation system of the vehicle configured for controlling the movement of the collaborating robot such that a risk for collision is continuously minimized.
The Office draws applicant’s attention that the claims are given the broadest reasonable meaning, in this case it appears that applicant is arguing of an intended use matter of the claimed mobile “robot”. It is noted that, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a synchronize paths between different vehicles and to continuously minimize a risk of collision; which were eliminated limitations per the latest filed amendments) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In respect to applicant arguments that ‘270 does not disclose a collaborating robot configured for “robot-man interaction” nor as a device “controlled by a computer or a processing unit and the collaborating robot is equipped with a tool for interaction”. The Office as set forth above, believes that intended use limitations of the claimed “robot” not given much patentable weight. Being that said, the Office believes that ‘270 inherently suggest an interaction between the robot and man as the robot being controlled by a computer, see for example (paragraph 0091; “Global control system 250 may generate the predetermined paths in order to synchronize the operations of the autonomous vehicles and minimize the probability of collisions…and/or human workers”).
In respect to applicant’s argument that the main applied art of Hahn ‘772 does not disclose a robot that is configured to “robot-main interaction”.
The Office as set forth above while those are intended use limitations, yet believes that ‘772 indeed points out to a use of robot (Figs. 2-3; via 120 & paragraph 0085; “the adaption device 120 can be a robot”). Further, it is inherent that such robotic device controlled and capable of performing “interaction” with the operator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached on 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights