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 .
This action is responsive to communications filed on 12/21/2023. As per claims on 12/21/2023
Claims 1-15 are currently pending
Claims 1 and 8 are independent claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of paper required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, line 7, it appears that one of “the” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 10 states “a deviation”, “a parameter”, and “a target value”. It is not understood if those are new deviation, parameter and target values, or the same values described in claims 1 and 8, respectively. For examining purposes, they will be considered the same values.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this office action:
Anderson et al. (US 4,691,496 A, which has a priority date of 01/31/1983), referred to as Anderson herein.
Truttmann (US 8,498,740 B2, which has a priority date of 09/01/2006), referred to as Truttmann herein.
Nakajima et al (US 10,832,226 B2, which has a priority date of 09/30/2014), referred to as Nakajima herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson.
Regarding Claim 1, Anderson teaches method for quality assurance of a container processing plant, (“The filler line monitor system of this invention automatically and accurately identifies and traces faulty containers, identifies the causes, estimates the fill line losses associated with the faults and decides whether to prevent fill operations in a malfunctioning valve or seamer.” (Col 1, line 61-66), disclosing a complete monitoring and control system for a container filler line);
wherein the container processing plant comprises at least two container processing components, (“A monitoring and control system for a fluid container filler line having an empty container in-feed conveyor (11), a multivalve fill station (14), a multihead scanner station (17)....” (Abstract), disclosing at least two distinct processing components: rotary fill station and seamer station. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim limitation);
wherein, on the basis of a periodicity with which a deviation of a parameter from a target value in a first container processing component is determined, (“The system utilizes a fill-height detector to inspect each container for under-fill or over-fill.... the fill line monitor system immediately records the corresponding filler valve number which is responsible for the under or over-filled container.... by a decision network counts the fault events in terms of improperly filled cans and decides, based on production schedules and time-to-end-of-shift,” (Col 1, line 66 – Col 2, line 9), meaning that the system uses the recurring frequency of fill height deviations per numbered value which is the periodicity with which a parameter deviation is determined at the first container processing component (fill station) to identify and localize the malfunctioning valve. Thereby detecting a malfunction in that container processing component);
a malfunction in at least one of the at least two container processing components is detected by means of a quality assurance device. (“controller means (50) responsive to said sensors to spacially track each container (12) through the system and to identify the particular fill valve for each particular container. A detector (54) is responsive to the controller and signals from the height detector to detect an improperly filled faulty container and identify the particular number valve which did the faulty filling.” (Abstract) and “The filler line monitor system of this invention automatically and accurately identifies and traces faulty containers, identifies the causes,” (Col 1, line 61-63), meaning the controller means (50 ) and detector (54) collectively create the quality assurance device, which detects a malfunction in at least one of the at least two container processing components (specifically, the particular numbered fill valve within the fill station) by identifying which valve is responsible for improperly filled containers. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim limitation);
therefore, Anderson anticipates all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Anderson teaches method according to claim 1, wherein, on the basis of a number of control interventions already performed on at least one of the at least two container processing components in order to eliminate the malfunction, (“by a decision network counts the fault events in terms of improperly filled cans and decides, based on production schedules and time-to-end of-shift, to close an infeed gate preventing a container programmed for positioning at a downstream malfunctioning fill or seal station from taking its position in the container line.” (Col 2, line 6-12), here the decision network counts the number of fault events already recorded for a given valve which is the number of control interventions already performed and uses this running count to decide the next corrective action. Thereby, acting on the basis of the number of control interventions already performed);
the quality assurance device either changes a machine parameter of the at least one of the at least two container processing components or outputs a signal that a faulty component in the one of the at least two container processing components needs to be replaced in order to eliminate the malfunction in the one of the at least two container processing components. (“If the malfunction is random and a decision is made that useful production from a randomly malfunctioning valve exceed losses from under or over-filled containers, such containers are ejected from the off conveyor to assure product quality control.” (Col 2, line 39-44) and “If a valve failure is significant enough, i.e., not random, the decision network will function to prevent a container from reaching a valve which would otherwise cause under-fill or over-fill losses. The malfunctioning valve would then normally be repaired at the end of the shift.” (Col 2, line 34-39), meaning when the fault count is high enough, the decision network either changes a machine parameter by closing the infeed gate to prevent container from reaching the faulty valve or flags the malfunctioning valve for physical repair at the end of the shift which enacts as outputting a signal that a faulty component needs to be replaced. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim limitation since both conditions are taught).
Regarding Claim 3, Anderson teaches method according to claim 1, wherein the malfunction in the at least one of the at least two container processing components is determined on the basis of the periodicity with which a deviation of a parameter from a target value in the first container processing component is determined and on the basis of a characteristic variable characteristic of the at least one of the at least two container processing components. (“M is the total number of filler valves … N is the total number of seamer heads” (Col 5, line 33 – Col 6, line 56) and “The filler valve Number-one sensing signal from sensor 44 resets a valve counter to 1 whenever the #1 tag passes through the filler valve sensing module. The filler valve counter trigger sensing signal from sensor 45 triggers the valve counter and the calibration counter-1 whenever a filler valve passes through sensing module 22.” (Col 6, line 22-28), meaning that the malfunction is determined both on the basis of the periodicity (frequency of fault events per valve) and a characteristic variable of each processing component. Specifically, M is the total number of filler valves in the fill station, and N is the total number of seamer heads in the seamer station. These characteristic variables define the repeating cycle length used to correlate periodic faults back to a specific component. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim since both conditions are taught).
Regarding Claim 4, Anderson teaches method according to claim 3, wherein the characteristic variable is or comprises a number of container receptacles of the at least one of the at least two container processing components. (“The filler station typically comprises a series of can-carrying pockets which are positioned with respect to a series of full valves where simultaneous filling of the containers take place...seventy-two valves are employed with seaming, (e.g., can or bottle top application) taking place downstream at seven positions within the seamer.” (Col 1, line 15-22), meaning the can-carrying pockets (42) of the rotary filler station, of which seventy-two are present, are the container receptables of the container processing component. Their total number (72 for the filler and 7 for the seamer) establishes the characteristic variable used by the system to track periodicity of faults and identify which specific receptacle position caused the deviation. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
Regarding Claim 5, Anderson teaches method according to claim 1, wherein the parameter is a machine parameter of the first container processing component or a physical parameter of a container. (“The system utilizes a fill height detector to inspect each container for under-fill or over-fill.” (Col 1, line 66-67) and “Accurate, digital fill height detection allows inspection very close to the filler/seamer and direct monitoring of individual filler line performance as accomplished by the filler line monitor system.” (Col 2, line 17-21), here fill height is a physical parameter of a container. It is measured at the first container processing component (fill station) and compares it against preset target levels to detect under-fill or over-fill. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
Regarding Claim 8, a system claim that incorporates the method of claim 1, is being rejected using the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, it is being rejected using the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 10, it is being rejected using the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 11, it is being rejected using the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12, it is being rejected using the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Truttmann.
Regarding Claim 6, Anderson does not disclose whether the quality assurance device is checking for a replacement part for the faulty component is contained in a magazine assigned to the container processing plant.
However, Truttmann teaches method according to claim 2, wherein the quality assurance device checks whether a replacement part for the faulty component is contained in a magazine assigned to the container processing plant. (“The invention relates to an arrangement for the maintenance of a sliding closure mounted on the spout of a container for molten metal with at least one tool magazine, at least one replacement part magazine, and a robot provided with an automatic grip changing system that is at least operationally connected to a control unit.” (Col 1, line 8-13) and “the robot can, depending on the condition of individual components that might need to be replaced, grip tools or replacement parts from the magazines surrounding it and perform cleaning operations, dismantle components and replace or reinstall the same.” (Col 2, line 8-12), disclosing a control unit that directs a robot to assess the condition of individual components and, based on that assessment, retrieves replacement parts from dedicated replacement part magazines assigned to the processing facility. Thereby teaching that a quality assurance (control device) checks whether a needed replacement part is contained in a magazine assigned to the plant before initiating maintenance action).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Anderson’s fault detection and repair signaling system (which identifies a specific faulty fill valve or seamer head requiring replacement) with Truttmann’s teaching of a control unit directed system that checks replacement part magazines and performs automated component replacement, in order to create a complete fault response workflow that verifies parts availability before initiating replacement of the identified faulty component.
The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid initiating a replacement procedure when no replacement part is available in the on-site magazine. Thereby, preventing unnecessary production line stoppage and minimizing downtime. As Truttmann states the objective of the invention is “to provide an arrangement of the type specified at the start with which the maintenance and preparation operations can be substantially facilitated.” (Col 1, line 65-67), in other words, to reduce the manual effort and delay associated with component replacement by automating the check and replace workflow. One of ordinary skill in art would have recognized that verifying magazine availability is a necessary and routine step before attempting any component replacement, and that combining Anderson’s fault localization system with Truttmann’s magazine check and replace arrangement produces a predicted, expected result with no unexpected difficulties.
Regarding Claim 13, Anderson does not disclose a magazine for replacement parts and a quality assurance device that checks whether a faulty component is contained is such a magazine.
However, Truttmann discloses container processing plant according to claim 9, wherein the container processing plant comprises a magazine for replacement parts for the at least two container processing components, (“The invention relates to an arrangement for the maintenance of a sliding closure mounted on the spout of a container for molten metal with at least one tool magazine, at least one replacement part magazine, and a robot provided with an automatic grip changing system that is at least operationally connected to a control unit.” (Col 1, line 8-13), disclosing that the container processing facility is equipped with at least one dedicated replacement part magazine. Thereby, the container processing plant comprises a magazine for replacement parts);
and wherein the quality assurance device is designed to check whether the faulty component is contained in the magazine. (“the robot can, depending on the condition of individual components that might need to be replaced, grip tools or replacement parts from the magazines surrounding it and perform cleaning operations, dismantle components and replace or reinstall the same.” (Col 2, line 8-12), meaning the control unit assesses the condition of individual components and, based on that condition assessment, checks whether the needed replacement part is available in the surrounding magazines before directing the robot to retrieve it. Thereby, the quality assurance device (control unit) is designed to check whether the faulty component’s replacement is contained in the magazine. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill art to physically modify Anderson’s container processing plant apparatus by incorporating Truttmann’s replacement part magazine and control unit directed magazine checking function into Anderson’s quality assurance device. The modification involves adding a physical replacement part magazine assigned to the container processing plant, and logic within the quality assurance device to check whether the needed replacement part is present in that magazine before initiating corrective action.
The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent initiating a replacement procedure when no replacement part is on-site, thereby avoiding unnecessary halting of the production line and minimizing downtime. As Truttmann states the objective of the invention is “to provide an arrangement of the type specified at the start with which the maintenance and preparation operations can be substantially facilitated.” (Col 1, line 65-67), recognizing that automating the check and replace workflow, including verifying parts availability before acting, is a desirable goal in industrial container processing plant. Therefore, incorporating the magazine and check arrangement into Anderson’s plant is a reasonable expectation of success, as Truttmann demonstrates that both the physical magazine and the part availability checking function work together reliably in an analogous container processing environment, producing the predictable result of more efficient and less disruptive maintenance procedure.
Regarding Claim 14, Anderson does not teach container processing plant comprising a robot which is designed to replace the faulty component of the least one of the least two container processing components with a replacement part from the magazine.
However, Truttmann teaches container processing plant according to claim 13, wherein the container processing plant comprises a robot which is designed to replace the faulty component of the at least one of the at least two container processing components with a replacement part from the magazine. (“the robot can, depending on the condition of individual components that might need to be replaced, grip tools or replacement parts from the magazines surrounding it and perform cleaning operations, dismantle components and replace or reinstall the same.” (Col 2, line 8-12) and “The invention relates to an arrangement for the maintenance of a sliding closure mounted on the spout of a container for molten metal with at least one tool magazine, at least one replacement part magazine, and a robot provided with an automatic grip changing system that is at least operationally connected to a control unit.” (Col 1, line 8-13), disclosing a robot apparatus that is assigned to a container processing facility and is specifically designed to retrieve replacement parts from a magazine and install them, in place of faulty components. Thereby, teaching that the robot retrieves the replacement part from the magazine, replaces the faulty component, and it is assigned to the container processing plant).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to combine Anderson’s fault detection system with Truttmann’s robot and magazine replacement arrangement in order to achieve a fully automated maintenance workflow for a container processing plant that detects faulty components by periodicity of parameter deviations, and verifies and retrieves replacement parts from an on-site magazine using a robot.
The motivation for doing so would have been to complete maintenance without manual intervention, thereby minimizing production downtime and ensuring continuous availability of replacement parts. As Truttmann states the goal of substantially facilitating maintenance operations through automation. Combining Anderson and Truttmann achieves that stated goal of flawless and more efficient automated maintenance procedure for container processing plant.
Claim(s) 7, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Truttmann further in view of Nakajima.
Regarding Claim 7, Anderson does not disclose that if the replacement part is contained in the magazine, the faulty component is replaced with the replacement part by means of a robot assigned to the container processing plant or an operator is signaled that the replacement is present and the faulty component needs to be replaced.
However, Truttmann teaches method according to claim 6, wherein, if the replacement part is contained in the magazine, the faulty component is replaced with the replacement part by means of a robot assigned to the container processing plant, or an operator is signaled that the replacement part is present in the magazine assigned to the container processing plant and that the faulty component of the at least one of the at least two container processing components needs to be replaced, (“the robot can, depending on the condition of individual components that might need to be replaced, grip tools or replacement parts from the magazines surrounding it and perform cleaning operations, dismantle components and replace or reinstall the same.” (Col 2, line 8-12), disclosing a robot assigned to the processing facility that physically retrieves replacement parts from the on-site magazine and installs them in place of the identified faulty components. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
Nakajima teaches and/or wherein, if the faulty component is not contained in the magazine, the replacement part is automatically reordered by the quality assurance device, or wherein the the reorder of the faulty component by the quality assurance device has to be approved by an operator. (“When a result of the analysis on an analysis item from the analysis unit 254 satisfies the first condition or the second condition, the inventory checking unit 262 checks with the inventory management system 1400 whether a replacement part needed for maintenance related to the analysis item is in stock. If the replacement part is not in stock, the inventory checking unit 262 instructs the inventory management system 1400 to place an order for the replacement part.” (Col 13, line 12-32), disclosing a control system that upon determining a replacement part is unavailable in on-site stock, automatically initiates a reorder. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to physically modify Anderson’s fault detection and repair signaling system by incorporating Truttmann’s robot and magazine replacement arrangement and Nakajima’s automatic inventory reordering system into Anderson’s container processing plant. It would have been obvious to do so because combining known elements using known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Here, Anderson’s fault localization system, Truttmann’s robot and magazine replacement technology, and Nakajima’s automatic inventory reordering system each address a distinct, sequential step in the same maintenance workflow. First fault detection, then parts availability check, physical replacement, and lastly restocking. The result would be a fully automated maintenance loop with no manual intervention.
The motivation for doing so would have been to close the complete maintenance loop without manual intervention at any stage, thereby minimizing production downtime and ensuring continuous availability of replacement parts. As Nakajima states the object of its system is to reduce downtime by automatically handling reordering. Truttmann states the goal of substantially facilitating maintenance operations through automation. Anderson states the goal of preventing fill line losses from faulty valves. Therefore, combining these three references achieves the stated goal of each and with entirely predictable results.
Regarding Claim 15, Anderson in view of Truttmann does not explicitly teach the quality assurance device connected to a server and is designed to reorder the faulty component if the component is not contained in the magazine, wherein the reorder of the component is either carried out automatically by the quality assurance device or has to be approved by an operator.
However, Nakajima teaches container processing plant according to claim 13, wherein the quality assurance device is connected to a server and is designed to reorder the faulty component if the component is not contained in the magazine, wherein the reorder of the component is either carried out automatically by the quality assurance device or has to be approved by an operator. (“The inventory management system 1400 is a system including one or more information processing apparatuses, and manages inventories of replacement parts for the apparatus 100. The inventory management system 1400 is connected to the network 2…. When a result of the analysis on an analysis item from the analysis unit 254 satisfies the first condition or the second condition, the inventory checking unit 262 checks with the inventory management system 1400 whether a replacement part needed for maintenance related to the analysis item is in stock. If the replacement part is not in stock, the inventory checking unit 262 instructs the inventory management system 1400 to place an order for the replacement part.” (Col 13, line 12-32), disclosing a control system (quality assurance device) connected to a networked server (inventory management system 1400 connected to network 2) that checks whether a replacement part is in stock and, if not, automatically places a reorder. Thereby, teaching both “automatically reorder” and “server connected”. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Anderson’s fault detection apparatus with Truttmann’s robot and magazine maintenance system and Nakajima’s server connected automated inventory checking and reordering apparatus, in order to achieve a fully integrated automated maintenance system for a container processing plant that detects faulty components, verifies magazine availability, robotically replaces components, and automatically reorders depleted parts from a connected server.
The motivation for doing so would have been to eliminate manual inventory management and parts procurement delays, ensuring that production line maintenance proceeds without interruption regardless of initial magazine stock levels. Nakajima states that the purpose of its inventory checking and automatic ordering system is to prevent maintenance delays caused by parts unavailability. Therefore, combining these references would yield a container processing plant comprising server connected inventory management system with fault detection and replacement framework with no unpredictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANDNI PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm, every other Friday off.
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.
/CHANDNI PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights