DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an RCE with amendment/arguments filed on 4/20/2026 which was in response to the office action mailed on 1/20/2026 (hereinafter the prior office action).
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are independent.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 (and parallel claim 13) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The arguments are moot because the newly amended limitation has been addressed by the secondary art of Draghetti (Fig. 1) in the 103 rejection which has replaced the prior 102 rejection over Cocco alone.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocco (U.S. Pat. No. 7,379,782) (hereinafter “Cocco”) in view of Draghetti et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7,117,872) (hereinafter “Draghetti”).
Regarding claim 1, Cocco teaches a production line for producing packaged products, (Col. 6 Lines 23-39 - - various products including packaged products, can be produced)
the production line comprising: a plurality of workstations for performing different work steps, (Col. 6 Lines 23-39 - - plurality of workstations can function independently, performing different work steps)
wherein each of the workstations is configured to predictively determine, during operation, time data defining directly or indirectly, as an interaction time, a time at which an operator interaction with the respective workstation is required in the future, (Col. 3 Lines 14-48, Col. 12 Lines 21-49, Claim 1 - - expected, i.e. predicted, time spent at each workstation is calculated, i.e. predictively determined, during operation)
…and a central processing unit, wherein the workstations are configured to transmit the time data to the central processing unit. (Fig. 1 - - workstations 102 transmit/communicate data to central processing unit 128)
But Cocco does not explicitly teach wherein the operator interaction comprises a human interaction;
However, Draghetti teaches wherein the operator interaction comprises a human interaction; (Fig. 1, 6 - - human operators interact with production workstations)
Cocco and Draghetti are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain workstations being used in manufacturing facilities.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Cocco, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Draghetti.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to allow communication with operators, i.e. humans, minding the system, as suggested by Draghetti (Col. 4 Lines 28-42).
Regarding claim 2, Cocco further teaches wherein the workstations are configured to communicate to the central processing unit interaction data corresponding to the time data, (Col. 7 Lines 20-47 - - data transmitted to CPU includes specific data at each workstation related to interaction data and time data)
wherein the interaction data define a type of operator interaction required at the corresponding interaction time. (Col. 7 Lines 20-47 - - data transmitted to CPU includes specific data at each workstation related to asset/operator interaction)
Regarding claim 3, Cocco further teaches wherein the central processing unit is configured to determine a next upcoming operator interaction based on the time data from the workstations. (Col. 3 Lines 14-48, Col. 12 Lines 21-49, Claim 1 - - expected, i.e. predicted, time spent at each workstation is calculated, i.e. predictively determined, during operation)
Regarding claim 4, Cocco further teaches wherein the production line comprises a display device. (Fig. 1 - - display device 132 is used)
Regarding claim 5, Cocco further teaches wherein the central processing unit is configured to control the display device so as to display the interaction times. (Col. 7 Line 48 – Col. 8 Line 2 - - status of assets, which includes interaction times, is displayed)
Regarding claim 6, Cocco further teaches wherein the central processing unit is configured to control the display device so as to display interaction times by displaying a time remaining until the respective interaction time is reached. (Col. 19 Lines 4-14 - - workstation behavior is calculated in real-time; Fig. 1, 8 - - workstation behavior is displayed)
Regarding claim 7, Cocco further teaches wherein the central processing unit is configured to control the display device so as to display for each interaction time a type of operator interaction required at the interaction time. (Col. 12 Lines 50-60 - - task data is stored in database; Claim 9 - - information relating to each workstation is displayed)
Regarding claim 8, Cocco further teaches wherein the central processing unit is configured to control the display device so as to indicate which operator interaction is due next. (Fig. 1 - - display 132 displays production line information, i.e. including next step)
Regarding claim 9, Cocco further teaches wherein the central processing unit is configured to determine, based on the time data, a chronological order of the operator interactions required in the future. (Fig. 1 - - display 132 displays production line information, i.e. including next/future step)
Regarding claim 10, Cocco further teaches wherein the production line comprises a display device, and the central processing unit is configured to control the display device to display the chronological order. (Fig. 1 - - display 132 displays production line information, i.e. including chronology)
Regarding claim 11, Cocco further teaches wherein the central processing unit is configured to send electronic instruction messages based on the time data. (Fig. 1 - - communication includes electronic instruction messages to coordinate production line)
Regarding claim 12, Cocco further teaches wherein the plurality of workstations comprises one or more of the following: a portioning station, a labelling device, a packaging machine, a station of a packaging machine. (Col. 6 Lines 23-39 - - various products including packaged products, can be produced)
Regarding claim 13, Cocco teaches a method for operating a production line for manufacturing packaged products, (Col. 6 Lines 23-39 - - various products including packaged products, can be produced)
the method comprising: operating a plurality of workstations of the production line so as to perform different work steps; (Col. 6 Lines 23-39 - - plurality of workstations can function independently, performing different work steps)
predictively determining, by the workstations during operation, time data defining directly or indirectly, as an interaction time, a time at which an operator interaction with the respective workstation is required in the future, (Col. 3 Lines 14-48, Col. 12 Lines 21-49, Claim 1 - - expected, i.e. predicted, time spent at each workstation is calculated, i.e. predictively determined, during operation)
…and displaying the interaction times at a central display device. (Fig. 1 - - workstations 102 transmit/communicate data to central processing unit 128)
But Cocco does not explicitly teach wherein the operator interaction comprises a human interaction;
However, Draghetti teaches wherein the operator interaction comprises a human interaction; (Fig. 1, 6 - - human operators interact with production workstations)
Cocco and Draghetti are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain workstations being used in manufacturing facilities.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Cocco, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Draghetti.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to allow communication with operators, i.e. humans, minding the system, as suggested by Draghetti (Col. 4 Lines 28-42).
Regarding claim 14, Cocco further teaches wherein a type of operator interaction required at the interaction time is displayed at the central display device together with each interaction time. (Col. 7 Line 48 – Col. 8 Line 2 - - status of assets, which includes interaction times, is displayed)
Regarding claim 15, Cocco further teaches wherein displaying the interaction times at the central display device comprises displaying a time remaining until the respective interaction time is reached. (Col. 19 Lines 4-14 - - workstation behavior is calculated in real-time; Fig. 1, 8 - - workstation behavior is displayed)
Regarding claim 16, Cocco further teaches wherein a chronological order of operator interactions required in the future is displayed at the central display device. (Fig. 1 - - display 132 displays production line information, i.e. including chronology)
Regarding claim 17, Cocco further teaches wherein the operator interaction required in the future comprises at least one of: a replenishment of consumables, a supply roll change, an emptying of a waste receptacle, a re-setting of a machine, a changeover of a machine, a deactivation of a machine, a cleaning of a machine, or a servicing of a machine. (Col. 6 Lines 23-39 - - various products including packaged products, can be produced)
Regarding claim 18, Cocco further teaches wherein the operator interaction required in the future comprises at least one of: a replenishment of consumables, a supply roll change, an emptying of a waste receptacle, a re-setting of a machine, a changeover of a machine, a deactivation of a machine, a cleaning of a machine, or a servicing of a machine. (Col. 6 Lines 23-39 - - various products including packaged products, can be produced)
Regarding claim 19, Cocco further teaches wherein the workstations are configured to communicate to a processing unit interaction data corresponding to the time data, (Col. 7 Lines 20-47 - - data transmitted to CPU includes specific data at each workstation related to interaction data and time data)
wherein the interaction data define a type of operator interaction required at the corresponding interaction time. (Col. 7 Lines 20-47 - - data transmitted to CPU includes specific data at each workstation related to asset/operator interaction)
Regarding claim 20, Cocco further teaches determining, by a processing unit, a next upcoming operator interaction based on the time data from the workstations. (Col. 3 Lines 14-48, Col. 12 Lines 21-49, Claim 1 - - expected, i.e. predicted, time spent at each workstation is calculated, i.e. predictively determined, during operation)
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0330560 by Zecher et al., which discloses processing products in a processing line comprising multiple work stations. (Title/Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/SAAD M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights