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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/8/2026 has been entered.
Responses to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments filed 02/09/2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 14 are amended, and Claim 6 is canceled. Claims 1-5, 7-12 and 14-20 remain pending in the application.
Applicant's argument and amendments filed 02/09/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1-12 and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
On pages 8-10 of Remarks, Applicant alleges that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea of a mathematical calculation or a mental process, but to systems and methods for predictively maintaining a receptacle handling installation. … the step of assigning the handling operation a quality class from a plurality of quality classes based on the process data is not a mental process. … Claims 10 and 20 specifically recite that the process data includes one or more of a bottling pressure, a pressurization time, a pressurization pressure, an evacuation pressure, a fill rate, a fill curve, or a depressurization time. Such parameters originate exclusively from machine-integrated sensors and cannot exist independently of the physical filling process. Their evaluation cannot be performed by a human mind without the corresponding physical measurements.
Applicant further alleges that Independent claim 1 is amended to recite that the predictive maintenance apparatus is configured to "report the derived state of wear for the one or more of the multiple filling elements or …, or report an action recommendation derived from the state of wear …, that enables a predictive maintenance measure …” … This reporting step creates a meaningful feedback loop between the data analysis and the physical industrial equipment, ensuring that the information obtained via the alleged judicial exception is used that enables actionable, machine-level interventions on specific industrial filling equipment. … In Example 45, … because it employs the information provided by the judicial exception to control the operation of physical equipment. Similarly, in Example 46, … because the limitation does not merely link the judicial exceptions to a technical field, … The USPTO explained that using the information obtained via the judicial exception to take corrective action on physical equipment is "an other meaningful limitation" that integrates the judicial exception into the overall livestock management scheme. … the amended claims similarly employ the information provided by the alleged judicial exception (the quality classification and wear state derivation) that enables corrective action on the physical receptacle handling installation. The predictive maintenance apparatus reports the state of wear or an action recommendation back to the installation, which enables predictive maintenance measures to be performed on the installation before a fault occurs. This is precisely the type of practical application that the USPTO has recognized as integrating a judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
On pages 10-13 of Remarks, Applicant alleges that the filler carousel and multiple filling elements recited in claims 1 and 14 are not merely "field of use" limitations, as the Office Action alleges. The claims require deriving wear states specifically for the filling elements-the same physical components that perform the filling operation and are installed on the outer circumference of the filler carousel. The wear state information is then reported back to the installation that enables maintenance on those specific components. This creates an integral relationship between the data analysis and the specific industrial. …. The apparatus that includes the filler carousel and multiple filling elements is not a general purpose computer or a generic computer component. Instead, it is a specific piece of physical equipment that is used to collect data. This data is then used to perform maintenance on the physical equipment. … the claims address a technical problem with a technical solution. These actions improve the physical functioning of the filler machine itself. In view of the above, independent claims 1 and 14 are directed to patentable subject matter. … Thus, it is respectfully requested that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be reconsidered and withdrawn.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the step of “assign the handling operation a quality class from a plurality of quality classes based on the process data” and “derive a state of wear for one or more of the multiple filling elements, and derive a state of wear for one or more components of the first receptacle handling installation from an analysis of the assigned quality class” may encompass manually performing mathematical calculations related to assigning/classifying a quality class to the handling operation based on the routine data (i.e., process data), which may be performed by a generic computer function of a generic computer component using a mathematical algorithm or arithmetic program algorithm. Note that the process data is indicative of mathematical concept and/or routine data such as “a bottling pressure, a pressurization time, a pressurization pressure, an evacuation pressure, a fill rate, a fill curve, or a depressurization time” which are merely collected to perform abstract idea (i.e., the steps of assigning and deriving). Note that the added limitation of “report the derived state of wear for the one or more of the multiple filling elements or …, or report an action recommendation derived from the state of wear …, that enables a predictive maintenance measure …” is an insignificant extra-solution activity to merely report the inferred result performed by abstract idea.
Note that the filler carousel and the multiple filling elements configured in the first receptacle handling installation are recited at high-level of generalities to merely gather routine data (i.e., process data of the handling operation) and to perform a generic computer function related to data processing itself of a generic computer component. The filler carousel and the multiple filling elements are indicative of a field of use for where the data (i.e., process data of the handling operation) comes from, and merely recited to perform an insignificant extra-solution activity related to reporting the inferred result (i.e., the derived state of wear and/or the action recommendation) to the first receptacle handling installation to thereby enable the predictive maintenance measure, in which the claim does not present specific features/structure of these elements themselves (i.e., the filler carousel and the multiple filling elements) without improvements and/or meaningful features related to the features related to, for example, introducing the filling product and enabling the predictive maintenance measure. Note that the wear state information is indicative of mathematical/inferred result obtained/derived from the previous mathematical/mental processes performed based on the routine data (i.e., the process data).
Further, the feature of “an apparatus that comprises a filler carousel and multiple filling elements …” does not present an inventive concept but a field of use for where the data (i.e., process data of the handling operation) comes from, because this limitation is not indicative of specifying a feature related to machine maintenance decisions of abstract idea itself in the claims but a filler machine used to collect the data, and further is well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, as the MONTANARI reference (EP 3187948 A1) teach (see at least Fig. 2 and its related description). Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are ineligible.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 02/09/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments however raise a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over MONTANARI in view of PIANA as provided below.
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.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
The 35 USC 101 analysis between each element of claims and its combination is presented in the table below
Claim number and elements
Judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one)
Practical application (Step 2A Prong two)/ Significantly more (Step 2B)
Claim 1
Step 1: Yes, statutory class
Step 2A Prong two: No / Step 2B: No
A system comprising:
Step2A Prong one: Yes
a first receptacle handling installation comprising an apparatus that comprises a filler carousel and multiple filling elements installed on an outer circumference of the filler carousel, wherein the multiple filling elements are configured to introduce the filling product into one or more receptacles; and
“a first receptacle handling installation comprising an apparatus that comprises a filler carousel and multiple filling elements” is high level of generality.
“an apparatus that comprises a filler carousel and multiple filling elements …” is insignificant extra-solution activity and indicative of a field of use for where the process data come from.
a predictive maintenance apparatus in communication with an installation control of the first receptacle handling installation, wherein the predictive maintenance apparatus is configured to:
“a predictive maintenance apparatus” is high level of generality to perform a generic computer function to communicate with the first receptable handling installation.
receive process data of a handling operation performed by the first receptacle handling installation on one or more receptacles,
assign the handling operation a quality class from a plurality of quality classes based on the process data,
derive a state of wear for one or more of the multiple filling elements, and
derive a state of wear for one or more components of the first receptacle handling installation from an analysis of the assigned quality class.
abstract idea
mental process or mathematical concept
“receive process data~” is insignificant extra-solution activity to collect routine data (the process data).
“assign the handling operation …” is math or mental process based on the collected data.
“derive a state of wear for one or more of the multiple filling elements, … derive a state of wear ~ from analysis of the assigned quality class” is a math or mental process.
report the derived state of wear for the one or more of the multiple filling elements or the one or more other components of the first receptacle handling installation to
the first receptacle handling installation, or
report an action recommendation derived from the state of wear for the one or more of the multiple filling elements or the one or more other components of the first receptacle handling installation to the first receptacle handling installation, that enables a predictive maintenance measure to be performed on the first receptacle handling installation.
“report the derived state of wear ~, or report an action recommendation ~” is an insignificant extra-solution activity to merely report the inferred result performed by abstract idea.
Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 14-20 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as addressed below and presented in the above table.
Step 2A: Prong One
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations recited in Claim 1, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or the mind, as presented in the above table. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or the mathematical calculations. For example, “assign the handling operation a quality class from a plurality of quality classes based on the process data” and “derive a state of wear for one or more of the multiple filling elements, and derive a state of wear for one or more components of the first receptacle handling installation from an analysis of the assigned quality class” in the context of this claim may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring operation state of the components by classifying a quality class (i.e., state levels or variable) based on the collected routine data (i.e., process data). Note that the process data is indicative of mathematical concept and/or routine data such as “a bottling pressure, a pressurization time, a pressurization pressure, an evacuation pressure, a fill rate, a fill curve, or a depressurization time” which are merely collected to perform abstract idea (i.e., the steps of assigning and deriving).
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is abstract ideal itself and not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the specification details use of a data processor of a computer to perform mathematical calculations of “assign the handling operation a quality class from a plurality of quality classes based on the process data” and “derive a state of wear for one or more of the multiple filling elements, and derive a state of wear for one or more components of the first receptacle handling installation from an analysis of the assigned quality class”. The first receptacle handling installation, the apparatus comprising the filler carousel and the multiple filling elements, and the predictive maintenance apparatus are recited at high-level of generalities to merely gather routine data (i.e., process data of the handling operation) and to perform a generic computer function related to data processing itself of a generic computer component. The limitation of “an apparatus that comprises a filler carousel and multiple filling elements installed on an outer circumference of the filler carousel, wherein the multiple filling elements are configured to introduce the filling product into one or more receptacles” is insignificant extra-solution activity necessary merely recited to be indicative of a field of use for where the data (i.e., process data of the handling operation) comes from, and merely recited to perform an insignificant extra-solution activity related to reporting the inferred result (i.e., the derived state of wear and/or the action recommendation) to the first receptacle handling installation to thereby enable the predictive maintenance measure, in which the claim does not present specific features/structure of these elements themselves (i.e., the filler carousel and the multiple filling elements) without improvements and/or meaningful features related to the features related to, for example, introducing the filling product and enabling the predictive maintenance measure. Further, the filler carousel and the multiple filling elements configured in the first receptacle handling installation are recited at high-level of generalities to merely gather routine data (i.e., process data of the handling operation) and to perform a generic computer function related to data processing itself of a generic computer component. The limitation of “receive process data of a handling operation performed by the first receptacle handling installation on one or more receptacles” is insignificant extra-solution activity necessary to merely gather data (i.e., process data of the handling operation) to be used for performing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation of “report the derived state of wear for the one or more of the multiple filling elements or the one or more other components of the first receptacle handling installation to the first receptacle handling installation, or report an action recommendation derived from the state of wear for the one or more of the multiple filling elements or the one or more other components of the first receptacle handling installation to the first receptacle handling installation, that enables a predictive maintenance measure to be performed on the first receptacle handling installation” is insignificant extra-solution activities to merely report the inferred result performed by abstract idea and enable the predictive maintenance measure, which may be performed by generic computer functions of a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(g). There is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “receive process data of a handling operation performed by the first receptacle handling installation on one or more receptacles” are insignificant pre-solution activities to merely gather routine data (the signal) to be used for performing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation of “an apparatus that comprises a filler carousel and multiple filling elements installed on an outer circumference of the filler carousel, wherein the multiple filling elements are configured to introduce the filling product into one or more receptacles” is insignificant extra-solution activity necessary merely recited to be indicative of a field of use for where the data (i.e., process data of the handling operation) comes from, and merely recited to perform an insignificant extra-solution activity related to reporting the inferred result (i.e., the derived state of wear and/or the action recommendation) to the first receptacle handling installation to thereby enable the predictive maintenance measure, in which the claim does not present specific features/structure of these elements themselves (i.e., the filler carousel and the multiple filling elements) without improvements and/or meaningful features related to the features related to, for example, introducing the filling product and enabling the predictive maintenance measure. The limitation of “an apparatus that comprises a filler carousel and multiple filling elements …” does not present an inventive concept but a field of use for where the data (i.e., process data of the handling operation) comes from, because this limitation is not indicative of specifying a feature related to machine maintenance decisions but a filler machine used to collect the data. The feature related to “an apparatus that comprises a filler carousel and multiple filling elements installed on an outer circumference of the filler carousel, wherein the multiple filling elements are configured to introduce the filling product into one or more receptacles” is well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, as the MONTANARI reference (EP 3187948 A1) teach (see at least Fig. 2 and its related description). See MPEP 2106.05(d). The limitation of “report the derived state of wear for the one or more of the multiple filling elements or the one or more other components of the first receptacle handling installation to the first receptacle handling installation, or report an action recommendation derived from the state of wear for the one or more of the multiple filling elements or the one or more other components of the first receptacle handling installation to the first receptacle handling installation, that enables a predictive maintenance measure to be performed on the first receptacle handling installation” is insignificant extra-solution activities to merely report the inferred result performed by abstract idea and enable the predictive maintenance measure, which may be performed by generic computer functions of a generic computer component, in which the claim does not present specific features/structure of these elements themselves (i.e., the filler carousel and the multiple filling elements) without improvements and/or meaningful features related to the features related to, for example, introducing the filling product and enabling the predictive maintenance measure.
As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the data processor of the computer to perform “assign the handling operation a quality class from a plurality of quality classes based on the process data” and “derive a state of wear for one or more components of the first receptacle handling installation from an analysis of the assigned quality class” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept cannot provide statutory eligibility. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-5 and 7-11, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 1. The limitation of “analyze a past handling operation assigned a quality class characterized as unacceptable and to derive a further quality class from process data of the past handling operation, and the further quality class characterizes a limit-value handling operation” in the context of claim 4 may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring operation state of the components based on the collected routine data. Claim 5 has similar limitations as of a part of claim 1 above, and it is therefore rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
The limitation of “the first receptacle handling installation comprises a beverage bottling installation, and the beverage bottling installation comprises an apparatus configured to fill the one or more receptacles with a filling product” in claim 11 is insignificant extra-solution activities to merely perform a generic function of filling product. Therefore, the functions and/or structures related to the “a beverage bottling installation, and the beverage bottling installation comprises an apparatus configured to fill the one or more receptacles with a filling product” are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, as the MONTANARI reference (EP 3187948 A1) teach (see at least Fig. 2 and its related description). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 2-11, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 14, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claims 15-20, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 14, 2-5 and 7-10. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 14, 2-5 and 7-10, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MONTANARI et al. (EP 3187948 A1, hereinafter referred to as “MONTANARI”, cited in IDS dated 11/30/2022), in view of PIANA STEFAN et al. (WO 2021219499 A1, hereinafter referred to as “PIANA”, a family case of DE 102020111674 A1 cited in IDS dated 06/01/2023). Sobol et al.
Regarding Claim 1, MONTANARI teaches a system (Fig. 3, 25), comprising:
a first receptacle handling installation (Fig. 2, a filling machine 10) comprising an apparatus that comprises a filler carousel (Fig. 2, a rotating conveyor (or carousel) 14) and multiple filling elements (Fig. 2, 15 and 18) installed on an outer circumference of the filler carousel, wherein the multiple filling elements are configured to introduce the filling product into one or more receptacles (Fig. 2, 12) (Para 0007-0008 teach receiving empty container 12 and releasing filled containers 12); and
a predictive maintenance apparatus (Fig. 3; central managing unit 32) in communication with an installation control (Fig. 3; the machine control units 22) of the first receptacle handling installation, wherein the predictive maintenance apparatus is configured to:
receive process data of a handling operation performed by the first receptacle handling installation on one or more receptacles (Fig. 2, 102) (Para 0026-0028 teach receiving operating data from sensors in each respective container processing plant 1; “receive in real time (i.e. during operation) a number of readings of operating data from monitoring sensors 35 coupled on-site (i.e. on-board the machine) to the various operating parts and components thereof, these operating data being indicative of the operations performed”),
assign the handling operation a quality class (state variables) from a plurality of quality classes based on the process data (paragraphs 0026-0028 and 0032-0035 teach executing analysis of the receiving data to determine performance measurements, indicative of the performance of the operations performed in the related processing machine 2, where the assigned quality class is taught by the determined performance measurements, “… For example, in case of a filler, operating data acquired from these readings may relate to operation of the filling units 20, e.g. in terms of valve opening time, valve closing time and flow-rate. Each machine control unit 22 is configured to execute a pre-analysis of the acquired data, in order to determine performance measurements, indicative of the performance of the operations performed in the related processing machine 2 …. the performance measurements include the so called KPIs (Key Performance Indicators). In a known manner, here not discussed in detail, determination of KPIs involve statistical analysis of the acquired data, e.g. in terms of mean or average value and standard deviation thereof … check if their value lies within a predetermined range of values, being indicative of a normal or proper operation of the related processing machine 2”)
…
report an action recommendation … enables a predictive maintenance measure to be performed on the first receptacle handling installation (paragraphs 0040-0041 teach perform predictive analysis and action plan for a predictive maintenance; “perform predictive analysis on the operation of the processing machines 2 … The result of the above data analysis performed by the central managing unit 32 is an action plan (or a so-called "to-do list"), including a list of actions designed to assure the desired product quality in the container processing plants 1, e.g. envisaging repair or replacement of one or more parts of the processing machines 2 that are determined to be a cause of decreased quality”).
MONTANARI fails to explicitly disclose derive a state of wear for one or more of the multiple filling elements; derive a state of wear for one or more other components of the first receptacle handling installation from an analysis of the assigned quality class; and report the derived state of wear for the one or more of the multiple filling elements or the one or more other components of the first receptacle handling installation to the first receptacle handling installation, or report an action recommendation derived from the state of wear for the one or more of the multiple filling elements or the one or more other components of the first receptacle handling installation to the first receptacle handling installation, that enables a predictive maintenance measure to be performed on the first receptacle handling installation.
However, PIANA teaches derive a state of wear (anomalies, malfunctions, errors) for one or more of the multiple filling elements (other parts of the container treatment machine) (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “deriving a state of wear for one or more of the multiple filling elements” is indicative of determining operating state (anomalies, malfunctions, errors) related to components/parts of the maintenance apparatus for operating machine maintenance. Under this interpretation, PIANA teaches determining/deriving if the operating state (e.g., anomalies or errors) of the part of the container handling machine in normal operation to thereby operate in a maintenance mode to replace worn parts.; “collect the data from the container treatment systems and then carry out an evaluation of this data. Based on this evaluation, the status of the individual container treatment machines can then be monitored … to determine whether there are any anomalies in the entirety of the state variables … a large part of this data is not relevant for individual malfunctions” in page 1 of English machine translation; “parts of the container treatment machine come into consideration as components, which can output data relating to an operating state either about themselves and / or the entire container treatment machine and / or other parts of the container treatment machine. … is not operated in normal operation, but is operated, for example, in a maintenance mode. It is known that approximately annual maintenance cycles are carried out by container treatment machines, during which operation is stopped and, for example, worn parts are replaced” in page 4 of English machine translation), and derive a state of wear (anomalies, malfunctions, errors) for one or more other components of the first receptacle handling installation from an analysis of the assigned quality class (“collect the data from the container treatment systems and then carry out an evaluation of this data. Based on this evaluation, the status of the individual container treatment machines can then be monitored … to determine whether there are any anomalies in the entirety of the state variables … a large part of this data is not relevant for individual malfunctions” and “parts of the container treatment machine come into consideration as components, which can output data relating to an operating state either about themselves and / or the entire container treatment machine and / or other parts of the container treatment machine. …” in pages 1 and 4 of English machine translation teaches determine/derive operation status (e.g., anomalies or errors) of the individual container treatment machines based on the state variables); and
report the derived state of wear for the one or more of the multiple filling elements or the one or more other components of the first receptacle handling installation to the first receptacle handling installation, or report an action recommendation derived from the state of wear for the one or more of the multiple filling elements or the one or more other components of the first receptacle handling installation to the first receptacle handling installation, that enables a predictive maintenance measure to be performed on the first receptacle handling installation (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this claimed limitation is indicative of transmitting data (i.e., the derived operation state or maintenance action to thereby perform/enable an action related to the predictive maintenance action. Under this interpretation, Abstract and pages 1-2 in PINAN teaches determining operation state of the container treatment machine and transmitting additional data to the machine as part of predictive maintenance, which also explicitly or inherently teaches performing/initiating an action related to the predictive maintenance measure. (“As part of such maintenance, a data volume of additional data (for example several 100 MB of additional data) can be transmitted to the container handling machine” in page 2 of English machine translation)).
MONTANARI and PIANA are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a container processing plants and a container handling machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MONTANARI to incorporate the teachings of PIANA by providing operations for determining/deriving if the operating state (e.g., anomalies or errors) of the part of the container handling machine and transmitting the determined operation state to a machine to thereby perform/enable an action related to predictive maintenance, as taught by PIANA at least in pages 1, 2 and 4 of English machine translation.
Regarding Claim 2, MONTANARI fails to explicitly disclose, but PIANA teaches wherein one of the plurality of quality classes characterizes a first type of handling operation and another of the plurality of quality classes characterizes a second type of handling operation (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “a first type of handling operation” and “a second type of handling operation” are indicative of operations of the container treatment machine, which are taught by page 1 of English machine translation (“carry out an evaluation of this data …a large number of parameters, also called state variables, are continuously monitored and examined by appropriate computing units ...”)).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MONTANARI to incorporate the teachings of PIANA by providing the first and second types of operations of the container treatment machine, as taught by PIANA at least in page 1 of English machine translation.
Regarding Claim 3, MONTANARI fails to explicitly disclose, but PIANA teaches wherein the first type of handling operation comprises an acceptable handling operation and the second type of handling operation comprises an unacceptable handling operation (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “an acceptable handling operation” and “an unacceptable handling operation” are respectively indicative of a normal operation state and anomaly/error operations state of the machine which are taught by Abstract and page 1 of English machine translation (“trained to use the data to determine whether a deviation of the operating state of the container treatment machine (100) from a normal state is present and/or imminent …. Based on this evaluation, the status of the individual container treatment machines can then be monitored … to determine whether there are any anomalies in the entirety of the state variables”)).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MONTANARI to incorporate the teachings of PIANA by providing operations for a normal operation state and anomaly/error operations state of the machine, as taught by PIANA at least in page 1 of English machine translation.
Regarding Claim 4, MONTANARI fails to explicitly disclose, but PIANA teaches wherein the predictive maintenance apparatus is further configured to analyze a past handling operation assigned a quality class characterized as unacceptable and to derive a further quality class from process data of the past handling operation, and the further quality class characterizes a limit-value handling operation (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this claimed limitation is indicative of updating processes of operation state variables as part of the maintenance cycle to thereby modify parameters related to operation states, which is taught by page 4 of English machine translation (“recorded by the corresponding components and / or pre-processing can have taken place. This pre-processing can also include processing of this data at a central point, for example in a server architecture outside the container handling machine, and make a modification of parameters of the neural network immediately available so that not original data from components, but rather updates "the parameters of the neural network can be made available from outside the container handling machine as part of the maintenance cycle.”)).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MONTANARI to incorporate the teachings of PIANA by providing operations for a normal operation state and anomaly/error operations state of the machi updating processes of operation state variables, as taught by PIANA at least in page 4 of English machine translation.
Regarding Claim 5, MONTANARI fails to explicitly disclose, but PIANA teaches wherein the predictive maintenance apparatus is further configured to: receive process data of a handling operation performed by a second receptacle handling installation, and assign the handling operation performed by the second receptacle handling installation to a quality class from the plurality of quality classes based on the received process data, or create a quality class from the received process data (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Abstract, page 1 and claim 13 in PIANA teaches receiving data related to operations states of one more container treatment machines and classifying/assigning operation state variables of the machines. (“the additional data include data on an operational status of at least one further container treatment machine of a container treatment system to which the container treatment machine belongs; and or wherein the additional data include data about an operating state of a container handling machine of the same type” in claim 13 of English machine translation)).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MONTANARI to incorporate the teachings of PIANA by providing operations for receiving data related to operations states of one more container treatment machines and classifying/assigning operation state variables of the machines, as taught by PIANA at least in Abstract, claim 13 and page 1 of English machine translation.
Regarding Claim 7, MONTANARI fails to explicitly disclose, but PIANA teaches wherein the predictive maintenance apparatus comprises an Internet/cloud application or a data processing device (“collect the data from the container treatment systems and then carry out an evaluation of this data …a large number of parameters, also called state variables, are continuously monitored and examined by appropriate computing units, such as servers in a cloud architecture, to determine whether there are any anomalies in the entirety of the state variables” in page 1 of English machine translation).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MONTANARI to incorporate the teachings of PIANA by providing an Internet/cloud application or a data processing device, as taught by PIANA at least in page 1 of English machine translation.
Regarding Claim 8, MONTANARI fails to explicitly disclose, but PIANA teaches wherein the data processing device comprises a database, a server, or an artificial intelligence (AI) application (“collect the data from the container treatment systems and then carry out an evaluation of this data …a large number of parameters, also called state variables, are continuously monitored and examined by appropriate computing units, such as servers in a cloud architecture, to determine whether there are any anomalies in the entirety of the state variables … neural networks are also used in corresponding cloud solutions to evaluate such large amounts of data, in particular for pattern recognition.” in page 1 of English machine translation).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MONTANARI to incorporate the teachings of PIANA by providing computing units, such as servers in a cloud architecture, as taught by PIANA at least in Abstract, claim 13 and page 1 of English machine translation.
Regarding Claim 9, MONTANARI fails to explicitly disclose, but PIANA teaches wherein: the handling operation comprises a filling operation that places a filling product into a receptacle from the one or more receptacles (Fig. 1; “shaping a preform into a container, filling the container, closing the container, providing the container with decorative elements, …” in page 2 of English machine translation), and the process data comprises a process parameter (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, page 1 of PIANA teaches data related to operation states and parameters called state variable “collect the data from the container treatment systems and then carry out an evaluation of this data. Based on this evaluation, the status of the individual container treatment machines can then be monitored a large number of parameters, also called state variables”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MONTANARI to incorporate the teachings of PIANA by providing operations for shaping a preform into a container, filling the container, and parameters called state variable, as taught by PIANA at least pages 1-2 of English machine translation.
Regarding Claim 10, MONTANARI fails to explicitly disclose, but PIANA teaches wherein the process parameter comprises one or more of: a bottling pressure, a pressurization time, a pressurization pressure, an evacuation pressure, a fill rate, a fill curve, or a depressurization time (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, page 1 and 3 of PIANA teaches pressure sensors to provide operation state variables (i.e., parameter) related to pressure measured by pressure sensors (“pressure sensors, light sensors, speed sensors and the like come into consideration as sensors, since all values measured by such sensors can usually be indicative or relevant for the operating state of a container handling machine” in page 3 of English machine translation).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MONTANARI to incorporate the teachings of PIANA by providing pressure sensors to provide operation state variables (i.e., parameter) related to pressure measured by pressure sensors, as taught by PIANA at least in page 3 of English machine translation.
Regarding Claim 11, MONTANARI teaches wherein the first receptacle handling installation comprises a beverage bottling installation, and the beverage bottling installation comprises the apparatus, wherein the apparatus is configured to fill the one or more receptacles with the filling product (Figs. 2 and 3; Para 0007-0008 teach receiving empty container 12 and releasing filled containers 12).
Regarding Claim 12, MONTANARI teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a filler control configured to control a filling operation, the filler control is in communication with the predictive maintenance apparatus, and the filler control is configured to send process data of the filling operation to the predictive maintenance apparatus (Figs. 2, 3 and paragraphs 0006-0013 and 0026-0028 teach and the machine control units 22 with which the filling operation is performed by communicating with the central managing unit 32).
Regarding Claim 14, it is a method type claim and has similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 15, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 16, it is dependent on claim 15 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 17, it is dependent on claim 16 and has similar limitations as of claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 18, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 19, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 9 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 9 above.
Regarding Claim 20, it is dependent on claim 19 and has similar limitations as of claim 10 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 10 above.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fiechter et al. (US 20030114965 A1) teaches A method and system for an improved vehicle monitoring system in order to provide a cost-effective and scalable system design for industrial application through the use of machine learning and data mining technologies on data acquired from a plurality of vehicles to create models. Frequent acquisition of vehicle sensor and diagnostic data enables comparison with the created models to provide continuing analysis of the vehicle with respect to repair, maintenance and diagnostics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 /LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights