DETAILED ACTION
This final rejection is responsive to communication filed September 12, 2025. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 13, and 14 are currently amended. Claims 3 and 11 are canceled. Claims 1, 2, 4-8 and 12-15 are pending in this application.
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 .
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, 2, 4-8 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lapointe et al. (US 20170066020 A1) (‘Lapointe’) in view of Iwabuchi et al. (US 20150099216 A1) (‘Iwabuchi’).
With respect to claim 1, Lapointe teaches a management system, comprising:
a processor (paragraph 31); and
memory (paragraph 34) storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
detecting a state of contamination of cleaning solution after a first cleaning (Lapointe, paragraphs 112 and 115);
determining a cleaning method for the container based on the state of contamination detected by the detecting (Lapointe, paragraphs 96 and 137);
storing, within a database (120), a first cleanliness indicating liquid quality (paragraphs 36 and 80) of cleaning solution (paragraph 115) after using the cleaning method to perform a second cleaning (paragraphs 100 and 112) of a piece of equipment, wherein the equipment has been cleaned in association with identification information assigned to the piece of equipment (paragraphs 37 and 123);
searching the database for identification information associated with the first cleanliness that corresponds with a second cleanliness requested from the outside (paragraphs 74-75); and
outputting the identification information that was retrieved by the searching (paragraphs 34 and 74-75).
Although Lapointe teaches a cleaning unit that cleans pieces of equipment or components, and it obvious that the components can be containers, Lapointe does not explicitly teach cleaning containers; causing a first cleaning of a container with filler in the container; or performing a second cleaning of the container from which the filler was removed.
Iwabuchi teaches a first cleaning unit that cleans containers (paragraphs 28 and 40);
causing a first cleaning of a container with filler in the container (Iwabuchi, paragraphs 28 and 40);
detecting the state of contamination of cleaning solution after the first cleaning r (Iwabuchi, paragraph 48);
determining a cleaning method for the container based on the state of contamination (Iwabuchi, paragraphs 41, 47, and 55); and
using the cleaning method to perform a second cleaning of the container from which the filler was removed (Iwabuchi, paragraph 55).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lapointe to clean containers as taught by Iwabuchi because Lapointe’s measuring of cleanliness after cleaning can be applied to many surfaces/components that can be cleaned. Lapointe teaches that the piece of equipment to be cleaned may be selected from a piece of equipment from the field of… manufacture sector, etc. and the surfaces of the pieces of equipment to be cleaned can be made of materials such as, but not limited to metal, plastic, glass, ceramic, etc. (paragraph 143), which are materials that can also be used to make containers. Further, Iwabuchi similarly teaches cleaning pieces of equipment (paragraphs 40 and 49) and measuring cleanliness in a manufacture sector. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lapointe and Iwabuchi to enable improved cleaning methods in manufacturing equipment.
With respect to claim 2, Lapointe in view of Iwabuchi teaches determining the second cleanliness based on conditions that are received (Lapointe, paragraphs 74-75); and wherein searching comprises searches the database for identification information associated with the first cleanliness according to the determined second cleanliness (Lapointe, paragraphs 74-75).
With respect to claims 4 and 12, Lapointe in view of Iwabuchi teaches wherein the database stores usage history of the containers in association with the identification information assigned to the containers (Lapointe, paragraphs 92 and 123).
With respect to claims 5 and 13, Lapointe in view of Iwabuchi teaches acquiring location information (i.e. info from tracking device) indicating the location of the containers (paragraph 76),
wherein the database stores the location information of the container acquired by the acquiring in association with the identification information assigned to the container (paragraphs 36-37).
With respect to claims 6 and 14, Lapointe in view of Iwabuchi teaches detecting, via a sensor, whether the container has been used (Lapointe, paragraphs 39, 46, and 140),
wherein the database stores the results of the detection by the sensor in association with the identification information assigned to the container (Lapointe, paragraphs 36-37 and 140), when the sensor detects that the container has been used, in association with at least one from among a time of use and a duration of use (Lapointe, paragraphs 140 and 169).
With respect to claims 7 and 15, Lapointe in view of Iwabuchi teaches wherein the container is a cartridge with an inlet through which liquid flows and an outlet through which liquid that has flowed in flows out (Iwabuchi, Fig. 2; paragraphs 39, 41, 65 and 69).
With respect to claim 8, Lapointe teaches a management device, comprising:
a processor (paragraph 31); and
memory (paragraph 34) storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
acquiring identification information uniquely assigned to a piece of equipment/component (paragraphs 37, 76 and 123);
determining a cleaning method for the piece of equipment/component based on the state of contamination of cleaning solution after a first cleaning of the piece of equipment/component (paragraphs 96 and 137);
acquiring a first cleanliness indicating liquid quality of cleaning solution after a second cleaning using the cleaning method determined by the determining (paragraphs 100, 112, 115),
storing in a database the acquired first cleanliness in association with the identification information that was assigned to the piece of equipment/component and that was acquired by the acquiring (paragraphs 36-37, 80 and 123);
searching the database for identification information associated with the first cleanliness that corresponds with a second cleanliness requested from the outside (paragraphs 74-75); and
outputting the identification information retrieved by the searching (paragraphs 34 and 74-75).
Although Lapointe teaches cleaning pieces of equipment or components, and it obvious that the components can be containers, Lapointe does not explicitly teach cleaning containers; containers from which filler has been removed; a container cleaned with filler in it; cleaning the container from which the filler has been removed.
Iwabuchi teaches a first cleaning unit that cleans containers (paragraphs 28 and 40);
determines a cleaning method for the container from which filler has been removed based on the state of contamination of cleaning solution after a first cleaning of the container was cleaned with filler in it (paragraphs 41, 47, and 55);
second cleaning the container from which the filler has been removed using determined cleaning method (paragraph 55).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lapointe to clean containers as taught by Iwabuchi because Lapointe’s measuring of cleanliness after cleaning can be applied to many surfaces/components that can be cleaned. Lapointe teaches that the piece of equipment to be cleaned may be selected from a piece of equipment from the field of… manufacture sector, etc. and the surfaces of the pieces of equipment to be cleaned can be made of materials such as, but not limited to metal, plastic, glass, ceramic, etc. (paragraph 143), which are materials that can also be used to make containers. Further, Iwabuchi similarly teaches cleaning pieces of equipment (paragraphs 40 and 49) and measuring cleanliness in a manufacture sector. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lapointe and Iwabuchi to enable improved cleaning methods in manufacturing equipment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Iwabuchi does not teach cleaning a container from which the filler was removed. The examiner disagrees. Iwabuchi teaches that the steps of cleaning with the cleaning solution of the process (b), taking out the cleaning solution of the process (c), and analyzing the cleaning solution (calculating the concentration of the nonvolatile component(s)) of the process (d) are repeated. Therefore, the step of “taking out the cleaning solution of the process” represents removing filler. After the cleaning solution is removed, it is analyzed and the step of cleaning is performed again. Therefore, Iwabuchi teaches cleaning a container from which the filler was removed.
Applicant further argues that the prior art fails to teach a sensor that detects whether the container has been used. Lapointe teaches the CIAM, which comprises one or more sensors, acquires cleanliness information about a piece of equipment, wherein the piece of equipment in question may not yet have been cleaned, may be currently undergoing cleaning, or may have already been subjected to one or more cleaning steps (paragraph 39). Lapointe further teaches acquitting and storing cleanliness level along with parameters (temperature, time, cleaning agent used, etc.) thereof, how contaminated the piece of equipment was prior to the execution of the cleaning methodology, how clean the piece of equipment was thereafter (paragraph 140). Therefore, Lapointe teaches sensors that detect if equipment/container has been used and time or use. The cleanliness level, status of undergoing cleaning, how contaminated a piece was prior to cleaning all implied that the equipment/container is used. Even further, the actual step of cleaning the equipment can be considered detecting use of equipment/container.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
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 Beausoliel can be reached at 571-272-3645. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2167 September 30, 2025