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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-16 remain pending. Claims 12-14 and 16 remain withdrawn from consideration. By presentation of the claim amendments filed 1/21/2026 claims 1-2, 7-11, and 15 are amended.
With regard to Applicant’s remarks contending the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), these remarks are not persuasive. Even though Applicant has added some features relating to the types of cleaning devices, the structural features of such are not disclosed. It seems that these cleaning devices could be interpreted as a sink with a faucet, a hose, a sprayer, etc. Also, the question remains as to whether these cleaning steps are performable by hand? There is no apparent machinery that makes it clear what types of cleaning devices are required by the claims. Even though the term “devices” are recited, its unclear what types of devices are being referred to. As previously noted, the specification at paragraph 15 lists general cleaning devices, the actual cleaning tools are not apparent. Similarly, the drawings do not show specific cleaning tools, but rather a schematic representation, furthering the question of whether these steps are performable by a human?
Replacement of the terms “in particular” and/or “particularly” with the term “optionally” makes clear the claim language does not necessarily require the features listed thereafter.
Claim Interpretation
The previously applied claim interpretation is maintained for the reasons noted above:
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: movement device, cleaning device, and control device in claim 1.
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:
[0013] In particular, the movement device is a conveyor belt with fluid-permeable openings. For example, the movement device may comprise a metal mesh.
[0014] The at least one cleaning device is arranged and designed to clean the container units within at least one cleaning portion of the cleaning path. The at least one cleaning device is particularly arranged and designed to apply a cleaning fluid to the container units vertically from below. The container units are usually moved by the movement device in such a manner that their open end is directed downwards and their closed end is directed upwards. As a result, interior spaces of the container units are impacted with the cleaning fluid when it is directed vertically upward from the cleaning device into the interior spaces of the container units.
[0015] It is particularly preferred that the cleaning system comprises two or more cleaning devices. It is further preferred that a cleaning device for pre- rinsing, a cleaning device for pre-washing, a cleaning device for rinsing, a cleaning device for washing, a cleaning device for further rinsing, a cleaning device for chemical treating, a cleaning device for further rinsing and/or a cleaning device for surface treating is provided.
Specific details regarding what comprises a control device are not apparent in the original disclosure; broadest reasonable interpretation is taken into consideration. Is a control device feasible to be performed by a user/by hand?
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 § 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) 1-11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Engesser et al. herein referred to as “Engesser” (USPN 10,420,450, previously cited in PTO-892 filed 8/22/2025).
As to claim 1, Engesser discloses a cleaning system for cleaning container units, in particular cans (col. 4, lines 19-20: cups, plates, glasses, bowls or dishes can be named as examples hereof),
comprising a movement device arranged and designed to move container bundles including a plurality of container units along a cleaning path (conveying device 118 moves in a conveying direction 120 through cleaning chamber 122 of the cleaning apparatus 110),
at least one cleaning device arranged and designed to clean the container units within at least one cleaning portion of the cleaning path (see several cleaning zones 132, comprising a wash zone 146, pre-wash zone 148, main wash zone 150, final rinse zone 160, etc., with associated spray nozzle systems) and
a control device signal-coupled to the at least one cleaning device and/or the movement device (col. 27, para at line 20: cleaning device 110 additionally includes a control means 194, for example a control means 194 with a data processing device. The control means 194 can be set up, for example, to control an operation of the cleaning apparatus 110, for example by different sensors being interrogated and/or pumps 168, 172, 176 being actuated and/or by the conveying device 118 being actuated.),
which is configured, to put the at least one cleaning device into an energy-saving mode when a predefined bundle spacing between two successive container bundles is exceeded (see col. 29, lines 7-20: Accordingly, the control means 194 can be set up to engage just those final rinse nozzle units 196 which act upon an impingement region 202 with final rinse fluid, in which articles 112 to be cleaned are actually present. The remaining final rinse nozzle units 196 can be disengaged or remain disengaged by correspondingly switching the switching elements 208 such that no unnecessary spraying out of final rinse fluid is effected in said impingement regions 202. In this way, enormous quantities of final rinse fluid, in particular fresh water, can be saved, independently of the development chosen in each case, for example according to FIG. 2 or FIG. 3, as a result of disengaging, where required, the final rinse nozzle units 196.), optionally to set a movement speed of the movement device in such a manner that a bundle spacing between two successive container bundles is smaller than the predefined bundle spacing (col. 29, lines 25-36: control means 194 detects a loading of the conveying device 118 with articles to be cleaned 112 by means of the sensor 212 for the articles to be cleaned and is set up to select at least one operating mode of the cleaning apparatus 110 corresponding to the detected loading and to propose the selected operating mode to a user of the cleaning apparatus 110. The operating mode, for example, can be a cleaning program, a conveying speed of the conveying device 118 or also, simply a partial occupancy of the conveying device 118 with articles to be cleaned.).
As to claim 2, as noted above Engesser discloses wherein the control device is configured, upon placing the cleaning device into the energy-saving mode, to place the cleaning device in an idle mode and/or deactivate the cleaning device (pausing or turning off specific rinse sprayers, for example as discussed above, reads on the idle mode as claimed).
As to claim 3, Engesser discloses comprising a distance detection unit signal-coupled to the control device and arranged and designed to detect the bundle spacing between two successive container bundles (spacing between articles is measured by sensor 212, so that it can be known at any moment in time which belt occupancy is present in impingement regions, and thus the control means can be set to engage only those corresponding nozzles; this ensure cleaning only occurs when an object is actually present, see col. 28, last line through col. 29, line 11).
As to claim 4, Engesser discloses wherein the control device is configured to compare the bundle spacing between two successive container bundles with the predefined bundle spacing (col. 29 at lines 32-40: The operating mode, for example, can be a cleaning program, a conveying speed of the conveying device 118 or also, as stated below as an example, simply a partial occupancy of the conveying device 118 with articles to be cleaned. Thus, the control means 194 can detect, for example, that on account of the current utilization of the cleaning apparatus 110, that is to say on account of the current occupancy of the cleaning apparatus 118 with articles to be cleaned 112.).
As to claim 5, Engesser discloses wherein the distance detection unit is a light barrier (sensor 212 for the articles to be cleaned can include a visual sensor, for example a camera system; a camera system includes light, particularly as used inside a tunnel conveyor).
As to claim 6, Engesser discloses comprising a temperature control unit signal-coupled to the control device for tempering a cleaning fluid, wherein the control device is configured to control the temperature control unit as a function of the bundle spacing and/or the movement speed (col. 18, first para: for example, said at least one property can be selected from the group consisting of a temperature of the cleaning fluid, a purity of the cleaning fluid and a concentration of at least one component of the cleaning fluid, for example of a cleaning agent concentrate, of a disinfection means or of a rinse agent. Accordingly, the preparation device can be selected, for example, from the group consisting of: a tempering device for adjusting a temperature of the cleaning fluid, in particular a heating device and, particularly preferred, an instantaneous water heater and/or a boiler; based on disclosure above, the lack of dishware would create a stop or pause of cleaning functions as a resource and energy-saving means).
As to claim 7, Engesser discloses wherein the cleaning device has a plurality of cleaning units for dispensing the cleaning fluid, which are arranged and configured in such a manner that they can be deactivated individually and/or in groups, wherein the control device is configured to deactivate the cleaning units depending on the movement speed and/or the bundle spacing.
As to claim 8, Engesser discloses wherein the cleaning units each have cleaning nozzles for dispensing the cleaning fluid, and the cleaning nozzles are separately controllable in such a manner that the cleaning nozzles can be separately deactivated (col. 27: lines 30-34: nozzle systems 164 are developed so as to be switchable. For this purpose, the switchably developed nozzle systems 164 can include in each case, for example, two or several nozzle units which can be switchable individually and selectively, for example switched by means of the control means 194).
As to claim 9, Engesser discloses wherein the cleaning fluid has a predefined exposure time and the control device is configured to control the cleaning device, in particular the cleaning units, and/or to adjust the movement speed in such a manner that the container units are exposed to the cleaning fluid for a cleaning time, wherein the cleaning time substantially corresponds to the exposure time (as noted above, Engesser discloses both control features of the conveyor speed and nozzle on/off/idling controls based on presence of articles on the conveyor and type of cleaning required).
As to claim 10, Engesser discloses comprising a first fluid flow device arranged and designed to evacuate a fluid, particularly air, from the cleaning device (suction blower 188 can be used for sucking-in hot air from the cleaning chamber 122).
As to claim 11, Engesser discloses comprising two cleaning devices, wherein a second fluid flow device is arranged and designed between the two cleaning devices in such a way as to remove cleaning fluid from the container units (As discussed above, see various cleaning stages, i.e. pre-wash, wash, rinse, etc. and various nozzles in each).
As to claim 15, Engesser discloses in particular with a cleaning system as discussed above with regard to claim 1 further comprising the steps of: moving container bundles including a plurality of container units along a cleaning path at a movement speed, cleaning the container units within at least one cleaning portion of the cleaning path, putting the cleaning device into an energy-saving mode, in particular reducing a cleaning power or deactivating the cleaning device, if a predefined bundle spacing between two successive container bundles is exceeded, and/or reducing a movement speed to adjust the predefined bundle spacing (see analysis above with regard to at least claim 1, as these steps are achieved by the apparatus disclosed as these cleanings steps are how the apparatus of Engesser is utilized).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with regard to the prior art rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that Engesser does not teach the use of container “bundles”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Further, it seems Applicant’s disclosure of a container “bundle” is a tightly packed bundled (see Remarks at page 8, last para). However, the claims does not recite that the items must be tightly packed, nor is it apparent what “tightly packed” means. Use of a dish rack or holding tray would create a bundle that is tightly packed when filled with items to be washed.
Also, at Applicant’s remarks filed at page 9, first para, it is asserted that Engesser fails to teach or disclose each of the cleaning zones, namely a chemical treatment device or a surface treating device. Although the claims recite these cleaning zones used together with others as being used in an or statement with “or any combination thereof”, thus not requiring each of these devices. Moreover, chemical and surface treatments are taught by Engesser’s disclosure of: “The at least one cleaning fluid can fundamentally include, for example, at least one cleaning liquid, in particular at least one aqueous cleaning liquid, for example water, in the form of fresh water and/or with one or several additives, for example with one or several cleaning agent concentrates and/or one or several rinse agent concentrates and/or one or several disinfecting means. Other types of cleaning fluids can also be used in principle. Reference is made below as an example and without restricting further developments, in particular with regard to the solution according to the invention, to the final rinse nozzle system and to the final rinse fluid.”. For these reasons, the claims remain rejected under Engesser.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RITA P ADHLAKHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5pm EST.
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 Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights