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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/26/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14, 16-18, 20-23, 25-26 and 28-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US20220196567 to Colle et al. (hereinafter “Colle”), in view of WO2018095958 to Silva et al. (hereinafter “Silva”), in view of US20080041944 to Rowe et al. (hereinafter “Rowe”), in view of US20150235233 to Dangmann et al. (hereinafter “Dangmann”), in view of US20110061347 to Stoiber et al. (hereinafter “Stoiber”).
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 27 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Group I being claim(s) 14, 16-18, 20-23, 25-26 and 28-29, Group II being claim(s) 27, the groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: the special technical feature of the Group I invention: wherein an identifier generator of the system retrieves an identifier from an ID pool, wherein the ID pool provides a collection of identifiers, and wherein the identifier generator provides the identifier for a unique identification of a container to the system/ wherein the communication device has at least one wired communication bus for transmitting data, via which communication of the treatment apparatus with the memory device takes place as claimed therein is not present in the invention of Group II. The special technical feature of the Group II invention: wherein the system has two cloud-based memory devices, which differ in an access authorization as claimed therein is not present in the invention of Group I. Group I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of wherein the treatment apparatus has at least one data collection device which is configured for data collection of at least one data value with respect to at least one treatment step, wherein the system has at least one detection device for detecting an ID of the containers by which the containers are uniquely identified, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of US20220196567 to Colle et al., Colle et al. discloses wherein the treatment apparatus has at least one data collection device which is configured for data collection of at least one data value with respect to at least one treatment step, wherein the system has at least one detection device for detecting an ID of the containers by which the containers are uniquely identified (Colle, see Fig. 16, [0111]-[0123], [0152]-[0156], [0075] and [0279]-[0285]). Since none of the special technical features of the Group I and II inventions are found in more than one of the inventions, unity of invention is lacking.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 27 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: treatment apparatus in claims 20 and 25, data collection device, communication device, heating apparatus, a forming apparatus, a sterilizing apparatus, a production apparatus, a filling apparatus, an inspection device, a labeling apparatus, a sealing apparatus, an assembling apparatus, a destroying apparatus in claim 20, data transmission device in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220196567 to Colle et al. (hereinafter “Colle”), in view of WO2018095958 to Silva et al. (hereinafter “Silva”), in view of US20080041944 to Rowe et al. (hereinafter “Rowe”).
As per claim 14, Colle substantially discloses a method for operating a container treatment system for treating a plurality of containers and providing traceability of the treatment of the plurality of containers in the container treatment system (Colle, see [0285], it is noted that inspection is a type of treatment), comprising the steps of:
providing at least one container which has an ID by which the container is uniquely identified (Colle, see [0075] and [0283]);
assigning an identifier to the container based on the ID and storing the identifier in at least one memory device (Colle, see Fig. 16, [0075], [0079], [0111] and [0279]-[0283]);
provides the identifier for a unique identification of a container to the system (Colle, see [0075] and [0283]);
treatment the container with at least one treatment apparatus of the container treatment system (Colle, see Fig. 16 and [0152]-[0156]);
transporting the container at least temporarily in the treatment apparatus with at least one transport device (Colle, see Fig. 16 and [0152]-[0156]);
detecting the ID by which the container is uniquely identified with at least one detection device (Colle, see [0075] and [0279]);
collecting at least one data with respect to at least one treatment step of the container, wherein at least two data values of different kinds are collected, which are assignable to the same ID detected by the at least one detection device and by which the container is uniquely identified and/or the same identifier assigned to the container based on the ID detected by the at least one detection device and by which the container is uniquely identified and which are collected by at least two different treatment apparatuses (Colle, see Fig. 16, [0152]-[0156], [0075] and [0279]-[0285], it is noted that at least one finish inspection information, the at least one base inspection information and the at least one measurement for this inspected container are performed by different inspection apparatuses according to Fig. 16);
automatically providing the at least one data value for transmission and/or storage in the memory device (Colle, see Fig. 16, [0075], [0111], [0201] and [0283]);
automatically producing a retrievable assignment between the data value and the respective identifier of the container stored in the memory device (Colle, see [0201] and [0279]-[0285]).
Colle does not explicitly disclose container treatment system for treating a of food and beverage container, the treatment of the of food and beverage container in the container treatment system, wherein an identifier generator of the system retrieves an identifier from an ID pool, wherein the ID pool provides a collection of identifiers, and wherein the identifier generator provides the identifier, storing information in a data storage which is cloud-base.
However, Silva in an analogous art discloses container treatment system for treating food and beverage container (Silva, see abstract, page 1 lines 9-10), the treatment of the of food and beverage container in the container treatment system (Silva, see abstract, page 1 lines 9-10 and page 8 lines 15-29), storing information in a data storage which is cloud-base (Silva, see Fig. 2, page 8 lines 15-20 and page 9 lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Silva into the method of Colle. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to enable consumers to access all that information regarding the specific product acquired, so as to trace and confirm, among other purposes, the origin of that product (Silva, see abstract).
The combination of Colle and Silva does not explicitly disclose wherein an identifier generator of the system retrieves an identifier from an ID pool, wherein the ID pool provides a collection of identifiers, and wherein the identifier generator provides the identifier.
However, Rowe in an analogous art discloses wherein an identifier generator of the system retrieves an identifier from an ID pool, wherein the ID pool provides a collection of identifiers, and wherein the identifier generator provides the identifier (Rowe, see [0028]-[0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Rowe into the combination of Colle and Silva. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to efficiently managing serialization of identifiers (Rowe, see [0002]).
As per claim 17, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, Colle further discloses wherein the ID is detected at least once before the container is discharged from the treatment apparatus (Colle, see Fig. 16, [0152]-[0156]).
As per claim 18, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, wherein the data value is selected from a group containing information relating to the container (Colle, see [0279]-[0285]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colle, in view of Silva, in view of Rowe, further in view of US20150235233 to Dangmann et al. (hereinafter “Dangmann”).
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, the combination of Colle, Silva and Rowe does not explicitly disclose the container is provided with the ID during their production. However, Dangmann in an analogous art discloses the container is provided with the ID during their production (Dangmann, see Fig. 2 and [0036]-[0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Dangmann into the combination of Colle, Silva and Rowe. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide authentication method, by which both the authenticity and the traceability of a beverage product and its container can be ensured by producers to the consumers (Dangmann, see [0002] and [0006]).
Claim(s) 20, 23, 26 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colle, in view of Silva, further in view of US20110061347 to Stoiber et al. (hereinafter “Stoiber”).
As per claim 20, Colle substantially disclose container treatment system for treating a plurality of containers and providing traceability of the plurality of containers in the container treatment system, having at least one treatment apparatus which is configured for carrying out at least one treatment step on the containers, wherein the treatment apparatus has at least one data collection device which is configured for data collection of at least one data value with respect to the container and/or with respect to at least one treatment step (Colle, see Fig. 16, [0075], [0079], [0111] and [0279]-[0285]), wherein the container treatment system has at least one detection device for detecting an ID of the containers by which the containers are uniquely identified (Colle, see [0075] and [0279]); wherein
the container treatment system has a communication device which is configured to at least temporarily establish a communication connection with at least one memory device which is connected or connectable to the container treatment system (Colle, see Fig. 16, [0075], [0201], [0111] and [0279]-[0285]),
wherein the communication device has at least one communication bus for transmitting data, via which communication of the treatment apparatus with the memory device takes place (Colle, see Fig. 16, [0075], [0079], [0111]-[0120], [0201] and [0279]-[0285]),
wherein an identifier which is uniquely assigned to the ID is automatically stored and/or are stored in the memory device, wherein the treatment apparatus is configured to automatically provide the at least one data value to the communication device for transmission to and/or for storage in the memory device (Colle, see Fig. 16, [0075], [0079], [0111]-[0120], [0201] and [0279]-[0285]),
wherein the treatment apparatus is an inspection device for inspecting a plastic preform or bottle (Colle, see Fig. 16 and [0111]-[0120]).
Colle does not explicitly disclose treating a plurality of food and beverage containers and providing traceability of the plurality of food and beverage containers, data storage which is cloud-based, wired communication bus for transmitting data.
However, Silva in an analogous art discloses treating a plurality of food and beverage containers and providing traceability of the plurality of food and beverage containers (Silva, see abstract, page 1 lines 9-10, Fig. 2, page 8 lines 15-20 and page 9 lines 3-5), data storage which is cloud-based (Silva, see Fig. 2, page 8 lines 15-20 and page 9 lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Silva into the system of Colle. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to enable consumers to access all that information regarding the specific product acquired, so as to trace and confirm, among other purposes, the origin of that product (Silva, see abstract).
The combination of Colle and Silva does not explicitly disclose wired communication bus for transmitting data. However, Stoiber in an analogous art discloses wired communication bus for transmitting data (Stoiber, see [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Stoiber into the combination of Colle and Silva. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to achieve predictable result of delivering fast, stable and secure data transmission by utilizing wired communication bus for transmitting data.
As per claim 23, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated, Colle further discloses wherein the communication device has at least one communication bus for transmitting data, via which communication of the treatment apparatus with the memory device takes place (Colle, see Fig. 16, [0075], [0079], [0111]-[0120], [0201] and [0279]-[0285]).
Stoiber further discloses wired communication bus for transmitting data. However, Stoiber in an analogous art discloses wired communication bus for transmitting data (Stoiber, see [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Stoiber into the combination of Colle and Silva. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to achieve predictable result of delivering fast, stable and secure data transmission by utilizing wired communication bus for transmitting data.
As per claim 26, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated, Silva further discloses treating a plurality of food and beverage containers, and at least one cloud-based storage device (Silva, see page 1 lines 9-10, Fig. 2, page 8 lines 15-20 and page 9 lines 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Silva into the system of Colle. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to enable consumers to access all that information regarding the specific product acquired, so as to trace and confirm, among other purposes, the origin of that product (Silva, see abstract).
As per claim 29, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, Silva further discloses the identifier is a matrix code (Silva, see page 9 lines 16-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Silva into the system of Colle. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to enable consumers to access all that information regarding the specific product acquired, so as to trace and confirm, among other purposes, the origin of that product (Silva, see abstract).
Claim(s) 21 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colle, in view of Silva, in view of Stoiber, in view of translation of JP2006039656A to Takahashi et al. (hereinafter “Takahashi”).
As per claim 21, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated, the combination of Colle, Silva, and Stoiber does not explicitly disclose a data transmission device is provided which collects the data values of at least two treatment apparatuses to be transmitted to the memory device before they are transmitted to the memory device. However, Takahashi in an analogous art discloses a data transmission device is provided which collects the data values of at least two treatment apparatuses to be transmitted to the memory device before they are transmitted to the memory device (Takahashi, see page 2, Fig. 5 and its corresponding paragraphs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Takahashi into the above combination of Colle, Silva, and Stoiber. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a liquid container management system and a management server system that can reliably determine number of times the container is used (Takahashi, see page 2).
As per claim 28, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, the combination of Colle, Silva, and Stoiber does not explicitly disclose a data transmission device is provided which collects the data values of at least two treatment apparatuses to be transmitted to the memory device before they are transmitted to the memory device. However, Takahashi in an analogous art discloses a data transmission device is provided which collects the data values of at least two treatment apparatuses to be transmitted to the memory device before they are transmitted to the memory device (Takahashi, see page 2, Fig. 5 and its corresponding paragraphs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Takahashi into the above combination of Colle, Silva, and Stoiber. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a liquid container management system and a management server system that can reliably determine number of times the container is used (Takahashi, see page 2).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colle, in view of Silva, in view of Stoiber, in view of US20210398059 to Gravelle et al. (hereinafter “Gravelle”).
As per claim 22, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated, Colle further discloses the communication device has an integration layer, wherein a communication connection between the treatment apparatus and the memory device is established (Colle, see Fig. 16, [0111]-[0127] and [0201]). The combination of Colle, Silva, and Stoiber does not explicitly disclose communication connection is established exclusively. However, Gravelle in an analogous art discloses communication connection can be established exclusively (Gravelle, see [0207]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Gravelle into the combination of Colle, Silva, and Stoiber. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide multi-entity inventory management system and method for managing product inventory of multiple different entities at one or more of multiple facilities comprising one or more storage structures served by robotic handlers, that digitally transferring ownership of product inventory to a needful vendor, even if the needful vendor does not have inventory within the supply chain ecosystem (Gravelle, see [0008]-[0009]).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colle, in view of Silva, in view of Stoiber, in view of US20190234975 to Pothini et al. (hereinafter “Pothini”).
As per claim 25, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated, the combination of Colle, Silva and Stoiber does not explicitly disclose the treatment apparatus is configured to receive data relating to a container to be treated, transmitted by the communication device from the memory device, and to make a change in at least one setting and/or size and/or at least one process parameter relating to the treatment of the container to be treated. However, Pothini in an analogous art discloses the treatment apparatus is configured to receive data relating to a container to be treated, transmitted by the communication device from the memory device, and to make a change in at least one setting and/or size and/or at least one process parameter relating to the treatment of the container to be treated (Pothini, see Fig. 1 and its corresponding paragraphs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Pothini into the combination of Colle, Silva, and Stoiber. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to improve the overall ease, flexibility, and reliability of workflow regarding the container (Pothini, see [0061] and [0065]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
