DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-18 have been examined and rejected. This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on January 30, 2026, which has been entered in the above identified application.
Drawings
3. The replacement sheet for Figure 1 submitted on January 30, 2026 has been considered and is entered into the application. The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
4. The corrections to claims 2, 12, and 13 have been approved, and the objections to the claims are withdrawn.
5. Claim 5 has been canceled and thus, the objection to the claim is withdrawn.
6. Claims 3, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein environmental data and/or measurement data by which a treated container are assigned to the inspected container and/or the at least one value characteristic of the performance” in [lines 2-5] of the claim. Grammatical correction is requested. Examiner suggests amending “a treated container” in the above limitation to --a container is treated--.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the inspected container” in [line 4] of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
In [lines 12-15] of claim 16, Examiner suggests changing “for generating at least one identification information for the container and a variable which is characteristic of a performance of these containers can be uniquely identified and brought into association with one another” to add a comma as follows: --for generating at least one identification information for the container, and a variable which is characteristic of a performance of these containers can be uniquely identified and brought into association with one another--.
d. In [lines 3-5] of Claim 17, Examiner suggests changing “the apparatus comprises an assignment device which assigns a container to be inspected and/or a value characteristic of the performance working parameters used on a treated container” to -- the apparatus comprises an assignment device which assigns, to a container to be inspected and/or to a value characteristic of the performance, working parameters used on a treated container--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The correction to claim 3 has been approved, and the rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
8. Claim 15 has been canceled and thus, the rejection to the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
10-1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the container” in [lines 6 and 9] of the claim. It is unclear which of the containers in [line 1] of the claim is being referred to.
10-2. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the performance data are measurement data that cannot be recorded inline and in real time” in [line 11] of the claim. It is unclear what prevents the performance data from being recorded inline and in real time.
10-3. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the production data” in [line 15] of the claim. It is unclear whether “the production data” refers to the determined production data in [line 4], the production data that refers to the at least one value characteristic of a performance of the container in [line 6], the production data of a container in [line 14], or all of the previously mentioned production data.
10-4. Claim 2 recites the limitation “the container” in [line 3] of the claim. It is unclear which of the containers in [line 1] of claim 1 is being referred to.
10-5. Claim 10 recites the limitation “the production data” in [line 1] of the claim. It is unclear whether “the production data” refers to the determined production data in [line 4] of claim 1, the production data that refers to the at least one value characteristic of a performance of the container in [line 6] of claim 1, the production data of a container in [line 14] of claim 1, the production data in [line 3] of claim 9, or all of the previously mentioned production data.
10-6. Claim 14 recites the limitation “the production data” in [line 3] of the claim. It is unclear whether “the production data” refers to the determined production data in [line 4] of claim 1, the production data that refers to the at least one value characteristic of a performance of the container in [line 6] of claim 1, the production data of a container in [line 14] of claim 1, the production data in [line 3] of claim 9, or all of the previously mentioned production data.
10-7. Claim 16 recites the limitation “the container” in [line 11] of the claim. It is unclear which of the containers in [line 1] of the claim is being referred to.
10-8. Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the performance data are measurement data that cannot be recorded inline and in real time” in [lines 15-16] of the claim. It is unclear what prevents the performance data from being recorded inline and in real time.
10-9. Claim 16 recites the limitation “the production data” in [line 18] of the claim. It is unclear whether “the production data” refers to the determined production data in [line 5], the production data of a container in [line 17], or all of the previously mentioned production data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
12. Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feilloley et al (Pub. No. US 2019/0031383).
12-1. Regarding claim 1, Feilloley teaches the claim for treating containers, wherein the containers are transported along a predetermined transport path by a transport device, by disclosing a container production facility [paragraph 6] that produces of a series of containers from a series of preforms made of plastic materials where the series of containers are transported for treatment by a transport device [paragraphs 9-13, 60-61].
Feilloley teaches wherein the containers are treated in a predetermined manner by a first treatment device, by disclosing that stations are arranged to apply a particular treatment to the containers [paragraphs 59, 63, 68, 74, 77, 79].
Feilloley teaches wherein predetermined working parameters are used for the treatment of the containers, wherein production data or working parameters are determined, during operation, by disclosing that each station performs a particular treatment [paragraphs 59, 63, 70-72] and comprises machine parameters that may be adjusted [paragraph 40].
Feilloley teaches wherein individual containers are inspected after their treatment, by disclosing that containers may be tested to detect faults [paragraph 7] and such containers may be ejected from the production following a production fault, or for sampling [paragraph 90].
Feilloley teaches at least one value characteristic of a performance of the container, referred to as production data, is determined, by disclosing determining one or more physical values of a container [paragraph 37].
Feilloley teaches wherein the container and the at least one value characteristic of a performance of these containers are unambiguously identified and associated with one another by identification information, by disclosing applying a marking to each container [paragraph 79] where the marking comprises a number of pieces of information [paragraphs 36, 80-82] and compiling a mixed database that matches, for each individually identified containers, the physical measurements of the container and the number of pieces of information [paragraph 38].
Feilloley teaches wherein the performance data are measurement data that cannot be recorded inline and in real time, by disclosing that containers may be tested to detect faults [paragraph 7] and such containers may be ejected from the production for sampling (i.e. taken offline) [paragraph 90] where one or more physical values of the container are measured (i.e. performance data) [paragraph 37] and matched with data collected while the container was in-line [paragraph 38] for use in detecting any imminent faults [paragraph 39].
Feilloley teaches wherein the containers to be inspected are discharged from a transport path of the containers downstream of the treatment device, whereby off-line measurements are carried out, by disclosing that the series of containers are transported for treatment by a transport device [paragraphs 9-13, 60-61]. Containers may be tested to detect faults [paragraph 7] and such containers may be ejected from the production following a production fault, or for sampling [paragraph 90].
Feilloley teaches wherein production data of a container can be associated with its performance data, wherein there are two classes, wherein the production data are classified in the first class and the performance data are classified in the second class, by disclosing for each individual container that is produced, recording a series of specific data relative to the forming and/or treatment stations and/or relative to the elements that have held said container during its production, and/or a series of general data relative to the operation of the facility during the production of said container (i.e. production data) [paragraph 36] and measuring one or more physical values of the container (i.e. performance data) [paragraph 37]. Both these types of data are associated with each other based on a marking that matches said container with each type of data [paragraphs 36-38].
12-2. Regarding claim 2, Feilloley teaches all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the work parameters by which the container was treated are assigned to an inspected container and/or to at least one value characteristic of the performance, by disclosing that the mixed database matches, for each individually identified containers, the physical measurements of the container and the number of pieces of information [paragraph 38]. The number of pieces of information comprise, on the one hand, the marking that matches the container, and, on the other hand, a series of specific data relative to the forming and/or treatment stations and/or relative to the elements that have held said container during its production, and/or a series of general data relative to the operation of the facility during the production of said container [paragraph 36]. Such information includes the number of a particular treatment station the container has passed through [paragraph 81, lines 14-20] and thus, the machine parameters with which a treatment station is run and which the container has passed through is considered assigned to the container.
12-3. Regarding claim 3, Feilloley teaches all the limitations of claim 1, wherein environmental data and/or measurement data by which the a treated container are assigned to the inspected container and/or the at least one value characteristic of the performance, by disclosing that the mixed database matches, for each individually identified containers, the physical measurements of the container and the number of pieces of information [paragraph 38]. The number of pieces of information comprise, on the one hand, the marking that matches the container, and, on the other hand, a series of specific data relative to the forming and/or treatment stations and/or relative to the elements that have held said container during its production, and/or a series of general data relative to the operation of the facility during the production of said container [paragraph 36].
12-4. Regarding claim 4, Feilloley teaches all the limitations of claim 1, wherein a marking is applied to a container to be inspected, by disclosing applying a marking to each container [paragraph 79]
12-5. Regarding claim 6, Feilloley teaches all the limitations of claim 1, wherein a point in time is detected at which a specific container is inspected and/or rejected from a transport path, by disclosing that the marking comprises time-stamping information relative to the movement at which the container is marked [paragraph 82] such that a complete traceability of the container in the facility is acquired [paragraph 87]. Peripheral marking stations are provided at locations where containers are removed from the facility outside of the normal production path, such as following a production fault, or for sampling [paragraph 90].
12-6. Regarding claim 7, Feilloley teaches all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the identification information contains a time stamp, by disclosing that the marking comprises time-stamping information relative to the movement at which the container is marked [paragraph 82].
12-7. Regarding claim 8, Feilloley teaches all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the identification information is stored, by disclosing compiling a mixed database that matches, for each individually identified containers, the physical measurements of the container and the number of pieces of information [paragraph 38].
12-8. Regarding claim 9, Feilloley teaches all the limitations of claim 1, wherein a model is created that combines production data and performance data, by disclosing a diagnostic step, during which the container data are compared against pre-set target values corresponding to measured values, and a detected or imminent malfunction at one or more of the torming and/or treatment stations and/or
holding elements of the facility is determined [paragraph 39, lines 1-6]. The detection of an imminent fault can be detected by measuring a derivative of a container datum and/or a machine datum and by detecting that this derivative exceeds a pre-set threshold [paragraph 39, lines 6-9].
12-9. Regarding claim 10, Feilloley teaches all the limitations of claim 9, wherein the production data are selected from work parameters, environmental data, measurement data and combinations thereof, by disclosing analyzing the mixed database, during which at least one law of correlation between the container data and the machine data is established, and a correction step in which according to the correlation law(s), one or more likely adjusted machine parameters is/are calculated during the next production cycle for producing containers, one or more physical values of which will be closer to the pre-set target(s) than during the first step [paragraph 40].
12-10. Regarding claim 11, Feilloley teaches all the limitations of claim 9, wherein the working parameters are adjusted based on the model to achieve optimal performance data, by disclosing analyzing the mixed database, during which at least one law of correlation between the container data and the machine data is established, and a correction step in which according to the correlation law(s), one or more likely adjusted machine parameters is/are calculated during the next production cycle for producing containers, one or more physical values of which will be closer to the pre-set target(s) than during the first step [paragraph 40].
12-11. Regarding claim 12, Feilloley teaches all the limitations of claim 1, wherein a plurality of containers are inspected and a model for controlling the first treatment device is derived from measured values determined during inspections, by disclosing that containers may be tested to detect faults [paragraph 7] and such containers may be ejected from the production following a production fault, or for sampling [paragraph 90]. The mixed database is analyzed, during which at least one law of correlation between the container data and the machine data is established, and a correction step in which according to the correlation law(s), one or more likely adjusted machine parameters is/are calculated during the next production cycle for producing containers, one or more physical values of which will be closer to the pre-set target(s) than during the first step [paragraph 40].
12-12. Regarding claim 13, Feilloley teaches all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the first treatment device is selected from a group of treatment devices comprising a heating device for heating plastic preforms, a forming device for forming plastic preforms into plastic containers, a labelling device for labelling containers, a filling device for filling containers, a printing device for printing containers and a closing device for closing containers and/or the treatment of the containers is selected from a group of treatment operations comprising heating of plastic containers, forming of plastic preforms into plastic containers, labelling of containers, filling of containers, printing of containers and closing of containers, by disclosing that stations comprise a heating station [paragraph 59], a forming machine [paragraph 63], a labeling unit [paragraph 70], a filling machine [paragraph 74], a capping station [paragraph 77], and a marking device [paragraph 79].
12-13. Regarding claim 14, Feilloley teaches all the limitations of claim 9, wherein the production data are working parameters and/or, interference values or environmental parameters and/or measurement data, by disclosing that the information used in the model comprise, on the one hand, the marking that matches the container, and, on the other hand, a series of specific data relative to the forming and/or treatment stations and/or relative to the elements that have held said container during its production, and/or a series of general data relative to the operation of the facility during the production of said container [paragraph 36].
12-14. Regarding claim 16, Feilloley teaches the claim of an apparatus for treating containers, having a transport device which transports the containers along a predetermined transport path, by disclosing a container production facility [paragraph 6] that produces of a series of containers from a series of preforms made of plastic materials where the series of containers are transported for treatment by a transport device [paragraphs 9-13, 60-61].
Feilloley teaches the apparatus having a first treatment device which treats the containers in a predetermined manner, by disclosing that stations are arranged to apply a particular treatment to the containers [paragraphs 59, 63, 68, 74, 77, 79].
Feilloley teaches wherein the first treatment device uses predetermined working parameters for the treatment of the containers, wherein production data or working parameters are determined, during operation, by disclosing that each station performs a particular treatment [paragraphs 59, 63, 70-72] and comprises machine parameters that may be adjusted [paragraph 40].
Feilloley teaches the apparatus has a discharge device arranged downstream of the first treatment device configured to discharge individual containers treated by the first treatment device from the transport path and/or an inspection device arranged downstream of the first treatment device in order to inspect the containers treated by the first treatment device, by disclosing a capping unit that removes the containers from the production facility [paragraphs 77-78]. Further, containers may be tested to detect faults [paragraph 7] and such containers may be ejected from the production following a production fault, or for sampling [paragraph 90].
Feilloley teaches whereby off-line measurements are carried out, referred to as performance data, by disclosing that containers may be tested to detect faults [paragraph 7] and such containers may be ejected from the production for sampling (i.e. taken offline) [paragraph 90] where one or more physical values of the container are measured (i.e. performance data) [paragraph 37].
Feilloley teaches wherein the apparatus has an information-generating device configured for generating at least one identification information for the container and a variable which is characteristic of a performance of these containers can be uniquely identified and brought into association with one another, by disclosing applying a marking to each container [paragraph 79] where the marking comprises a number of pieces of information [paragraphs 36, 80-82]. One or more physical values of a container are determined [paragraph 37] and a mixed database is compiled that matches, for each individually identified containers, the physical measurements of the container and the number of pieces of information [paragraph 38].
Feilloley teaches wherein the performance data are measurement data that cannot be recorded inline and in real time, by disclosing that containers may be tested to detect faults [paragraph 7] and such containers may be ejected from the production for sampling (i.e. taken offline) [paragraph 90] where one or more physical values of the container are measured (i.e. performance data) [paragraph 37] and matched with data collected while the container was in-line [paragraph 38] for use in detecting any imminent faults [paragraph 39].
Feilloley teaches wherein production data of a container can be associated with its performance data, wherein there are two classes, wherein the production data are classified in the first class and the performance data are classified in the second class, by disclosing, for each individual container that is produced, recording a series of specific data relative to the forming and/or treatment stations and/or relative to the elements that have held said container during its production, and/or a series of general data relative to the operation of the facility during the production of said container (i.e. production data) [paragraph 36] and measuring one or more physical values of the container (i.e. performance data) [paragraph 37]. Both these types of data are associated with each other based on a marking that matches said container with each type of data [paragraphs 36-38].
12-15. Regarding claim 17, Feilloley teaches all the limitations of claim 16, wherein the apparatus comprises an assignment device which assigns a container to be inspected and/or a value characteristic of the performance working parameters used on a treated container, by disclosing that the mixed database matches, for each individually identified containers, the physical measurements of the container and the number of pieces of information [paragraph 38]. The number of pieces of information comprise, on the one hand, the marking that matches the container, and, on the other hand, a series of specific data relative to the forming and/or treatment stations and/or relative to the elements that have held said container during its production, and/or a series of general data relative to the operation of the facility during the production of said container [paragraph 36]. Such information includes the number of a particular treatment station the container has passed through [paragraph 81, lines 14-20] and thus, the machine parameters with which a treatment station is run and which the container has passed through is considered assigned to the container.
12-16. Regarding claim 18, Feilloley teaches all the limitations of claim 16, wherein the working parameters are adjustable based on a model to achieve optimal performance data, by disclosing analyzing the mixed database, during which at least one law of correlation between the container data and the machine data is established, and a correction step in which according to the correlation law(s), one or more likely adjusted machine parameters is/are calculated during the next production cycle for producing containers, one or more physical values of which will be closer to the pre-set target(s) than during the first step [paragraph 40].
Response to Arguments
13. The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-3, 12-13, and 16-17 and the cancellation of claims 5 and 15.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant alleges that Feilloley et al (Pub. No. US 2019/0031383) does not teach or suggest that performance data, which are unambiguously identified and associated with the container, are measurement data that cannot be recorded inline and in real time and that this offline measured performance data is gathered during inspection of the containers when they are discharged from a transport path of the containers downstream of the treatment device, because all the addressed data in [paragraphs 37-38] of Feilloley are data recorded inline and in real time.
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Feilloley discloses that containers may be tested to detect faults [paragraph 7]. Peripheral marking stations may be at locations where containers are removed from the facility outside of the normal production path such that additional codification can be added [paragraph 90, lines 1-8]. Removing a container from the production is considered as taking the container off-line. Containers may be ejected to sample the containers as a control [paragraph 90, lines 7-13]. In other words, containers are taken offline such that attributes of the container under particular operating conditions of the production line can be observed. Feiloley discloses data acquisition steps in [paragraphs 36-37] where a container that already has a marking is associated with data relative to the forming and/or treatment stations and/or relative to the elements that have held said container during its production, and/or series of general data relative to the operation of the facility during the production of said container (i.e. production data) [paragraph 36], and one or more physical values of the container (i.e. performance data) [paragraph 37]. Thus, such data regarding the physical values of the container may be measured offline when the container has been removed from the production line for inspection.
Applicant alleges that it is not shown that the production data of a container, which is determined during operation, can be associated with its performance data, wherein there are two classes and the production data are classified in the first class and the performance data are classified in the second class, as has been amended to the claim.
Examiner notes that the claim does not specify what “during operation” refers to. Thus, it could refer to the operation of a particular machine or to the operation of the facility as a whole. Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Feiloley discloses recording two types of data, which may be considered different classes of data. The first type is a series of specific data relative to the forming and/or treatment stations and/or relative to the elements that have held said container during its production, and/or a series of general data relative to the operation of the facility during the production of said container [paragraph 36]. The second type is one or more physical values of the container [paragraph 37]. The first type is determined during operation of the facility, after the container has been marked, and, as discussed above, the second type is measured after the container has been taken offline. Both these types of data are associated with each other based on a marking that matches said container with each type of data [paragraphs 36-38].
Similar arguments have been presented for independent claim 16 and thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons.
Applicant states that dependent claims 2-4, 6-14, and 17-18 recite all the limitations of the independent claims, and thus, are allowable in view of the remarks set forth regarding independent claims 1 and 16. However, as discussed above, Feiloley is considered to teach claims 1 and 16, and consequently, claims 2-4, 6-14, and 17-18 are rejected.
Conclusion
14. 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8595. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALVIN H TAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights