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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 26, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: transport device, label providing device, label transfer device and gluing device in claim 1. The transport device is disclosed a container table in paragraph 32 of the Specification. The label providing device is disclosed as a label box in paragraph 35 of the Specification. The label transfer device is disclosed as a plate carousel in paragraph 34 of the Specification. The gluing device is disclosed as an inkjet with controllable glue nozzles in paragraph 38 of the Specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries 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, 3, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronseder (US 2018/0186492) in view of Wen et al (US 2022/0097889).
With regards to claim 1, Kronseder teaches a labeling device for labeling objects (Abstract) comprising:
A transport device for transporting objects (Figure 1 item 114)
A label providing device (Figure 1 item 101)
A label transfer device for transferring labels (Figure 1 item 103)
A gluing device for applying glue to the labels (Figure 1 items 124 and 125)
An open-loop and /or closed loop control device (Figure 1 item 140)
A sensor system having a plurality of sensor units for monitoring a plurality of operating parameters and quality parameters, and outputting a plurality of sensor data (Figure 1 items 109 and 110)
Where the open-loop and/or closed-loop control device is designed to obtain the sensor data from the sensor system and to fully automatically control and/or regulate the setting of the operating parameters on the basis of these sensor data (paragraph 73); and in which the operating parameters comprise parameters for the gluing device which comprise the amount, the pattern and the composition of the glue applied to the labels, which can be changed by an open-loop and/or closed-loop control device according to a subset of the sensor data (paragraphs 18, 20, 50, 76, 80 and 95)
Where the sensor system comprises first sensor units for monitoring parameters related to the glue applied to the labels and second sensor units for monitoring parameters related to the labels (Figure 1 item 109 and 110, paragraphs 73 and 80).
Kronseder fails to explicitly disclose that the control device is an artificial intelligence open-loop and/or closed-loop control device.
Wen discloses a robotic labeling device for labeling packages on a pallet (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Kronseder, where Wen discloses that the control device is one that operates with artificial intelligence and uses the data from sensor to regulate settings (paragraph 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an artificial intelligence algorithm included in the control device of Kronseder, as suggested by Wen. The rationale being that one of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate that the application of artificial intelligence within a control algorithm would increase the flexibility of the control system to adjust operational parameters based on changes detected by the sensor.
With regards to claim 3, the teachings of Kronseder and Wen are presented above. Additionally, Kronseder teaches that the operation of the labeling device comprises transporting the objects with the transport device, dispensing of labels by the label providing device, transferring of labels by the label transfer device and applying of glue onto the labels by the gluing device (as seen in Figure 1).
With regards to claim 9, the teachings of Kronseder and Wen are presented above. Additionally, Kronseder teaches that the second sensor units comprise a sensor unit for monitoring the adhesion of the labels to the objects and a sensor unit for monitoring the positioning of the labels on the objects (paragraph 73).
With regards to claim 10, the teachings of Kronseder and Wen are presented above. Additionally, Kronseder teaches that the gluing device is designed to glue the labels according to the inkjet method and in particular comprises a plurality of individually controllable glue nozzles (paragraph 76).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronseder (US 2018/0186492) in view of Wahl (WO 2022/238032 where US 2024/0217690 is used as an English translation).
With regards to claim 1, Kronseder teaches a labeling device for labeling objects (Abstract) comprising:
A transport device for transporting objects (Figure 1 item 114)
A label providing device (Figure 1 item 101)
A label transfer device for transferring labels (Figure 1 item 103)
A gluing device for applying glue to the labels (Figure 1 items 124 and 125)
An open-loop and /or closed loop control device (Figure 1 item 140)
A sensor system having a plurality of sensor units for monitoring a plurality of operating parameters and quality parameters, and outputting a plurality of sensor data (Figure 1 items 109 and 110)
Where the open-loop and/or closed-loop control device is designed to obtain the sensor data from the sensor system and to fully automatically control and/or regulate the setting of the operating parameters on the basis of these sensor data (paragraph 73); and in which the operating parameters comprise parameters for the gluing device which comprise the amount, the pattern and the composition of the glue applied to the labels, which can be changed by an open-loop and/or closed-loop control device according to a subset of the sensor data (paragraphs 18, 20, 50, 76, 80 and 95)
Where the sensor system comprises first sensor units for monitoring parameters related to the glue applied to the labels and second sensor units for monitoring parameters related to the labels (Figure 1 item 109 and 110, paragraphs 73 and 80).
18. Kronseder fails to explicitly disclose that the control device is an artificial intelligence open-loop and/or closed-loop control device.
Wahl discloses a labeling machine at least for labeling and/or printing containers that uses artificial intelligence in order to create the configuration parameters for a labeling machine (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Kronseder, where Wahl discloses that the control device is one that operates with artificial intelligence and uses the data from sensor to regulate settings (Abstract, paragraphs 19 and 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an artificial intelligence algorithm included in the control device of Kronseder, as suggested by Wahl. The rationale being that, as stated by Wahl, it improves labeling machines and method for configuring labeling machines (paragraphs 3 – 7).
With regards to claim 3, the teachings of Kronseder and Wahl are presented above. Additionally, Kronseder teaches that the operation of the labeling device comprises transporting the objects with the transport device, dispensing of labels by the label providing device, transferring of labels by the label transfer device and applying of glue onto the labels by the gluing device (as seen in Figure 1).
With regards to claim 4, the teachings of Kronseder and Wahl are presented above. Additionally, Wahl teaches that the artificial intelligence open-loop and/or closed-loop control device comprises at least one of a deep (learning) neural network, multiplayer perceptron, convolutional neural network and recursive neural network (paragraph 31).
With regards to claim 9, the teachings of Kronseder and Wahl are presented above. Additionally, Kronseder teaches that the second sensor units comprise a sensor unit for monitoring the adhesion of the labels to the objects and a sensor unit for monitoring the positioning of the labels on the objects (paragraph 73).
With regards to claim 10, the teachings of Kronseder and Wahl are presented above. Additionally, Kronseder teaches that the gluing device is designed to glue the labels according to the inkjet method and in particular comprises a plurality of individually controllable glue nozzles (paragraph 76).
Claim Objections
Claims 6 - 8 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states that the amendment to claim 1 overcomes the rejections because the prior art of Kronseder does not teach or suggest monitoring parameters related to the glue applied to the labels and parameters related to the labels. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As pointed out by the Applicant, Kronseder states in paragraph 73 that “sensors 109 and 110 may be provided which measure the condition of the surface to be labeled, e.g. smooth, rough, etc., and/or ambient conditions, such as e.g. an ambient temperature or humidity, and transmit this information to the open-loop and/or closed-loop control unit for controlling the labeling device”. One of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate that the condition of the surface to be labeled, the ambient temperature and/or humidity are parameters that are related to both the glue applied to the label and the label since the surface to be labeled affects the adhesion of the glue and the temperature and humidity affects both the label as well as the glue. Applicant should be more specific as to what parameters are being monitored.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHEL RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)270-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/JOSHEL RIVERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746