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
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/4/25 and 12/22/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that 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 all are understood within the container treatment industry to have structural meaning, so they should not be given 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, the examiner respectfully disagrees, the term “apparatus” is a generic placeholder, and “heating, forming, sterilizing, production, filling, inspection, labeling, sealing, assembling, destroying” are mere functional description, therefore, the generic placeholders are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. It is further noted that since the examiner maintained the 35 U.S.C.112(f) interpretation of 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, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are also maintained.
The applicant argued that the amendment resolved issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection without providing any detail explanation as to why the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is overcome in view of the amendment, the examiner has updated the grounds of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection based on the amendment. Please see below for detailed rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14-18 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 US20190084722 to Browning Jr et al. and in view of US20170323400 to Widner et al.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 20 and 24-26 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and the rejections of claims 21-23 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 US20190084722 to Browning Jr et al.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14-18, 20-23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental steps involving providing an ID by which the container is uniquely identified with a plurality of identifiers, an identifier assigned to the container based on the ID, generates and queries identifier, data values are assignable to the same ID and/or the same identifier, producing an assignment between the data value and the respective identifier of the container, provides the identifier which is suitable and intended for a unique identification of a container, the containers is uniquely identified, an identifier which is uniquely assigned to the ID, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), (claims 14, 15 and 20). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of at least two data values of different kinds are collected, and the data values are collected by at least two different treatment apparatuses, cloud-based and/or at least temporarily connected or connectable via a public network to the system for data communication; collecting at least one data value with respect to the container and/or with respect to at least one treatment step of the container; providing the at least one data value for transmission; the ID is detected at least once before the container is discharged from the treatment apparatus; the data value is selected from a group containing information relating to the container, to a measured value, to a treatment parameter, to a process data value, to a time stamp, to a production date, to a product for the container, to the treatment apparatus, to machine data, to an outer packaging, to the transport device, to a distribution modality, to a distribution location and similar; at least two data values of different kind are collected, which are assignable to the same ID and/or the same identifier and which are collected by at least two different treatment apparatuses; 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, at least one detection device for detecting an ID of the containers, a communication device which is configured to at least temporarily establish a communication connection with at least one memory device which is cloud-based and/or is connected or connectable to the system at least temporarily via a public network for data communication, provide the at least one data value to the communication device for transmission, 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; the communication device has an integration layer, wherein a communication connection between the treatment apparatus and the memory device can be established exclusively via the integration layer; 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; 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; at least one public network-accessible and/or cloud-based storage device, the data values are made available for transmission to a memory device represent insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering/transmission (claims 14, 17-23 and 26). The providing at least one container which has an ID, treating the container with at least one treatment apparatus of the system, transporting the container at least temporarily in the treatment apparatus with at least one transport device; the containers are provided with the ID during their production and/or temporal before and/or during a forming process from a plastic preform to the plastic container; at least one treatment apparatus which is configured for carrying out at least one treatment step on the containers, the treatment apparatus is selected from a group comprising a heating apparatus for heating a preform, a forming apparatus for forming a plastic preform into a plastic bottle, a sterilizing apparatus for sterilizing a container, a production apparatus for producing a glass bottle, a filling apparatus for filling a container with a product, an inspection device for inspecting a plastic preform or bottle, a labeling apparatus for labeling a container, a sealing apparatus for sealing a container, a control device, a packaging device, a direct printing device for printing a container, an assembling apparatus for assembling a plurality of containers into an assembly, a destroying apparatus for destroying the container, and similar (claims 14, 16, and 20) generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment because it claims field of use. The limitations of identifier is stored in at least one memory device, wherein an identifier which can be uniquely assigned to the ID is stored and/or can be stored in the memory device, retrievable assignment between the data value stored in the memory device (claims 14 and 20) represent insignificant extrasolution activity of mere data storage/retrieval. The memory device, processor, identifier generator (claims 14-15 and 20) are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the inclusion of a processor and memory represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea; mpep 2106.05(d); the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d), infra applied prior art, references cited. The insignificant extra-solution activity of data storage/retrieval is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d). The “field of use” limitation do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP2106.05(d)). The memory device, processor, identifier generator (claims 14-15 and 20) are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). The “field of use” limitation do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP2106.05(d)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20-23 and 25-26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, regarding claim 20, the claim limitations 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 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The support for the said device in the specification merely repeat the device and its functionality without describing the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, claim 20 lacks support from the specification.
Claims 21-23 and 25-26, included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiency of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations 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 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The support for the said modules in the specification merely repeat the modules and its functionality without describing the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 21-23 and 25-26, included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiency of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
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 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190234975 to Pothini et al. (hereinafter “Pothini”), in view of US6429016 to McNeil, in view of US20190084722 to Browning Jr et al. (hereinafter “Brwoning”, further in view of US20170323400 to Widner et al. (hereinafter “Widner”).
As per claim 14, Pothini substantially discloses a method for operating a system for treating a plurality of containers (Pothini, see [0005], Fig. 1, Fig. 2 and their corresponding paragraphs, it is noted that the reaction holders can be interpreted as the containers as claimed) having the steps:
providing at least one container which has an ID by which the container is uniquely identified with a plurality of identifiers (Pothini, see [0005]-[0008], [0041], Fig. 1 and its corresponding paragraphs),
wherein an identifier is assigned to the container based on the ID, which the plurality of identifier are stored in at least one memory device which is cloud-based and/or at least temporarily connected or connectable via a public network to the system for data communication, wherein the memory device has a processor which generates and queries identifiers (Pothini, see [0037]-[0039], Fig. 2, [0053] and [0095]-[0100]);
treating the container with at least one treatment apparatus of the system (Pothini, see Fig. 1 and its corresponding paragraphs for performing experiment (i.e. treatment) to the reaction holder with instrument 106),
collecting at least one data value with respect to the container and/or with respect to at least one treatment step of the container (Pothini, see Fig. 1 and its corresponding paragraphs); and
providing the at least one data value for transmission and/or storage in the memory device (Pothini, see [0053]-[0055], Fig. 1 and its corresponding paragraphs);
producing retrievable assignment between the data value and the respective identifier of the container stored in the memory device (Pothini, see [0053]-[0055], Fig. 1 and its corresponding paragraphs).
Pothini does not explicitly disclose transporting the container at least temporarily in the treatment apparatus with at least one transport device.
However, McNeil in an analogous art discloses transporting the container at least temporarily in the treatment apparatus with at least one transport device (McNeil, see Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and their 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 McNeil into the method of Pothini. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a gross positioning system for moving containers between various stations coupled with a precision positioning system at each station for precisely locating the containers with respect to a device that will interact with the sample (McNeil, see col. 2 lines 42-46).
The combination of Pothini and McNeil does not explicitly disclose treating food and beverage containers, at least two data values of different kinds are collected, which are assignable to the same ID, and which are collected by at least two different treatment apparatuses.
However, Browning in an analogous art discloses treating food and beverage containers (Browning, see [0006]).
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 Browning into the above combination of Pothini and McNeil. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide for an integrally, extrusion blow molded container, label and RFID tag combination (Browning, see [0004]).
The combination of Pothini, McNeil and Browning does not explicitly disclose at least two data values of different kinds are collected, which are assignable to the same ID, and which are collected by at least two different treatment apparatuses, retrievable assignment. However, Widner in an analogous art discloses at least two data values of different kinds are collected, which are assignable to the same ID, and which are collected by at least two different treatment apparatuses (Widner, see abstract, Fig. 3, and [0019]-[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 Widner into the above combination of Pothini, McNeil and Browning. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to improver overall equipment effectiveness by understanding containing quality characteristics (Widner, see [0033]).
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, Browning further discloses the container is provided with the ID during their production (Browning, see Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and their 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 Browning into the above combination of Pothini and McNeil. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide for an integrally, extrusion blow molded container, label and RFID tag combination (Browning, see [0004]).
As per claim 17, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, Pothini further discloses wherein the ID is detected at least once before the container is discharged from the treatment apparatus (Pothini, see Fig. 1-Fig. 2 and their corresponding paragraphs).
As per claim 18, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, Pothini further discloses wherein the data value is information relating to the container (Pothini, see [0053]-[0055], Fig. 1 and its corresponding paragraphs).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pothini, in view of McNeil, in view of Browning, in view of Widner, further in view of translation of JP2006039656A to Takahashi et al. (hereinafter “Takahashi”).
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, the combination of Pothini, McNeil, Browning and Widner does not explicitly disclose an identifier generator of the system provides the identifier which is suitable and intended for a unique identification of a container, the generator. However, Takahashi in an analogous art discloses an identifier generator of the system provides the identifier which is suitable and intended for a unique identification of a container, the generator (Takahashi, see 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 Pothini, McNeil, Browning and Widner. 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) 20 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pothini, in view of Browning.
As per claim 20, Pothini discloses a system for treating a plurality of containers, having at least one treatment apparatus which is configured for carrying out at least one treatment step on the containers (Pothini, see [0005], Fig. 1, Fig. 2 and their corresponding paragraphs, it is noted that the reaction holders can be interpreted as the containers as claimed), 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, wherein the system has at least one detection device for detecting an ID of the containers, by which the containers are uniquely identified (Pothini, see [0005], Fig. 1 and its corresponding paragraphs),
wherein
the system has a communication device which is configured to at least temporarily establish a communication connection with at least one memory device which is cloud-based and/or is connected or connectable to the system at least temporarily via a public network for data communication, wherein the memory device has a processor which is configured to generate and query identifier and communicates with the data collection device for said data values, wherein an identifier which are uniquely assigned to the ID is stored and/or are stored in the memory device, wherein the treatment apparatus is configured, and the data values are made available for transmission to a memory device, said memory device has a processor which is configured to generate and query an identifier, the treatment apparatus is configured to provide the at least one data value to the communication device for transmission to and/or for storage in the memory device (Pothini, see [0037]-[0039], [0053]-[0055], Fig. 1 and its corresponding paragraphs).
Pothini does not explicitly disclose treating a plurality of food and beverage container, wherein the treatment apparatus is a forming apparatus for forming a plastic preform into a plastic bottle. However, Browning in an analogous art discloses treating a plurality of food and beverage container, wherein the treatment apparatus is a forming apparatus for forming a plastic preform into a plastic bottle (Browning, see [0006], Fig. 1 and [0015]-[0020]).
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 Browning into the system of Pothini. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide for an integrally, extrusion blow molded container, label and RFID tag combination (Browning, see [0004]).
As per claim 25, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated, Pothini further 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).
As per claim 26, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated, Pothini further discloses a system of a system for treating a plurality of containers and at least one public network-accessible and/or cloud-based storage device (Pothini, see [0037]-[0039], [0053]-[0055], Fig. 1 and its corresponding paragraphs).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pothini, in view of Browning, in view in view of Takahashi.
As per claim 21, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated, the combination of Pothini and Browning 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 Pothini and Browning. 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 Pothini, in view of Browning, in view of US20210398059 to Gravelle et al. (hereinafter “Gravelle”).
As per claim 22, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated, Pothini further discloses the communication device has an integration layer, wherein a communication connection between the treatment apparatus and the memory device is established (Pothini, see [0037]-[0039], [0053]-[0055], Fig. 1 and its corresponding paragraphs). The combination of Pothini and Browning 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 Pothini and Browning. 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]).
As per claim 23, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated, Pothini further discloses the communication device has at least communication for transmitting data, via which communication of the treatment apparatus with the memory device takes place (Pothini, see [0053]-[0055], Fig. 1 and its corresponding paragraphs). The combination of Pothini and Browning does not explicitly disclose one wired communication bus. However, McNeil in an analogous art discloses one wired communication bus (McNeil, see Fig. 7 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 McNeil into the combination of Pothini and Browning. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a gross positioning system for moving containers between various stations coupled with a precision positioning system at each station for precisely locating the containers with respect to a device that will interact with the sample (McNeil, see col. 2 lines 42-46).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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