DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 1/20/2026 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, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. (US 2020/0192337) in view of DeBates et al. (US 9,842,288). Hoffman discloses a handling plant for product containers with a conveyor (see para. 0100) for transporting the product containers, and with at least one container handling machine (42A-42C), which comprises a handling unit (see para. 0047) for handling the product containers, wherein the container handling machine comprises several interchangeable kit parts (see para. 0074) for processing different product types and receiving points provided therefor, and wherein the interchangeable kit parts comprise first data codes with first identification data for identification (see para. 0074) wherein the handling plant comprises a line management system (AMSA) which, for the processing of the different product types, is configured to provide in each case a production order with a configuration list of the at least one container handling machine, the configuration list comprising a selection of the interchangeable kit parts intended for the processing of the respective product type (see paras. 0079, 0125, and 0145), and the handling plant comprises a reader (128) for reading the first identification data from the first data code in order to identify the selection of interchangeable kit parts provided in the configuration list (see para. 0074, 0079, 0125, and 0145). Hoffman discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose that the kit parts have first data transponders, and it does not disclose that the reader can be configured to be attached to arm or hand of an operator. Rather, Hoffman discloses utilizing first data bar codes to identify the kit parts. However, Debates discloses a similar apparatus/method which includes kits having transponders (see col. 2, lines 12-25) and an RFID reader which can be configured to be attached to arm or hand of an operator (see col. 1, line 54 – col. 2, line 12). Debates discloses utilizing the transponder/wearable RFID reader combination for the purpose of ensuring that only the kit being handled is detected. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to modify Hoffman by utilizing data transponders rather than bar codes and have the reader configured to be attached to arm or hand of an operator, as disclosed by Debates, for the purpose of ensuring that only the kit being handled is detected. The line management system is connected to a database in which the assigned production order is stored for each of the different product types.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 9, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. (US 2020/0192337) in view of DeBates et al. (US 9,842,288), as recited in claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Spindler et al. (US 10,234,851). The combination of Hoffman and DeBates discloses all the limitations of the claims (see above), and Hoffman further discloses that reader is connected (thru the AMSA) to a machine control (44) via a stationary computer system (124) and a radio data interface, but the combination does not disclose the at least one container handling machine comprises a machine control, wherein the machine control is configured to compare the first identification data with the configuration list in order to preset and/or check a correct equipment of the at least one container handling machine with the selection of the interchangeable kit parts of the operator provided for the corresponding product type. However, Spindler discloses a similar apparatus/method which includes a container handling machine having a machine control (5), wherein the machine control is configured to compare the first identification data with a configuration list (target identifier) in order to preset and/or check a correct equipment of the at least one container handling machine with the selection of the interchangeable kit parts of the operator provided for the corresponding product type for the purpose of ensuring that the correct kit part is placed on the correct machine (see col. 5, lines 35-40). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to have the at least one container handling machine comprise a machine control, wherein the machine control is configured to compare the first identification data with the configuration list in order to preset and/or check a correct equipment of the at least one container handling machine with the selection of the interchangeable kit parts of the operator provided for the corresponding product type, as disclosed by Spindler, for the purpose of ensuring that the correct kit part is placed on the correct machine.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 13, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. (US 2020/0192337) in view of DeBates et al. (US 9,842,288), as recited in claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Ziegler (US 2011/0192704). The combination of Hoffman and DeBates discloses all the limitations of the claims (see above), but it does not disclose that the receiving points each comprise second RFID data transponders with second identification data for identification purposes, and wherein the reader is configured to read the second identification data from the second data transponders and wherein the machine control is configured to compare the first identification data and the second identification data with the assignment in order to check the correct equipment of the receiving points with the selection of the interchangeable kit parts provided for the corresponding product type. However, Ziegler discloses a similar apparatus/method that includes receiving points each comprising second RFID data transponders (26) with second identification data for identification purposes, and wherein a reader (24) is configured to read the second identification data from the second data transponders and wherein a machine control is configured to compare first identification data and the second identification data with an assignment in order to check the correct equipment of the receiving points with a selection of interchangeable kit parts provided for a corresponding product type (see para. 0036) for the purpose of ensuring that a correct part is placed in a correct location on the machine. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to have the receiving points each comprise second RFID data transponders with second identification data for identification purposes, and wherein the reader is configured to read the second identification data from the second data transponders and wherein the machine control is configured to compare the first identification data and the second identification data with the assignment in order to check the correct equipment of the receiving points with the selection of the interchangeable kit parts provided for the corresponding product type, as disclosed by Ziegler, for the purpose of ensuring that a correct part is placed in a correct location on the machine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant states “None of the cited references, even if considered in combination, disclose or suggest the specific combination of features required by claim 1, particularly: (1) a handling plant for product containers with interchangeable kit parts for processing different product types; (2) a line management system that provides production orders with configuration lists specifying which kit parts are required for each product type; and (3) a reader configured to be attached to an arm or hand of an operator for reading identification data from the kit parts to enable location-independent verification away from the container handling machine, such as in an inventory area, before the kit parts are transported to the machine.” The examiner disagrees with the applicant. At least in para. 0074, Hoffman discloses “a handling plant for product containers with interchangeable kit parts for processing different product types”; at least in paras. 0074, 0079, 0125, and 0145, Hoffman discloses “a line management system that provides production orders with configuration lists specifying which kit parts are required for each product type”; and the combination of Hoffman and Debates, in col. 1, line 54 – col. 2, line 25, discloses “a reader configured to be attached to an arm or hand of an operator for reading identification data from the kit parts to enable location-independent verification away from the container handling machine, such as in an inventory area, before the kit parts are transported to the machine”.
The applicant states Hoffman and Debates disclose unrelated technologies and that there would be no motivation to combine the teachings of Hoffman and Debates. The examiner disagrees with the applicant. Both Hoffman and Debates relate to the technology of identifying and tracking items. Moreover, as stated in the rejection, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Hoffman and Debates for the purpose of ensuring that only the kit being handled is detected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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 H MACKEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653