DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07 July 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation & Response to Arguments
Applicant argues against Examiner’s interpretation that the claimed “movement device,” “cleaning device,” and “control device” recitations are generic placeholders and should be interpreted as means plus function language under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Applicant further argues that “because the claims do not use the word “means” or “step,’ there is a strong presumption that § 112(f) does not apply”, alleging that “[t]he Examiner has not provided the required evidentiary showing to overcome this presumption.” Examiner disagrees and submits this presumption has not been overcome.
As indicated in MPEP § 2181, “[t]he presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply to a claim limitation that does not use the term "means" is overcome when "the claim term fails to 'recite sufficiently definite structure' or else recites 'function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.'" Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349, 115 USPQ2d at 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (quoting Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880, 56 USPQ2d 1836, 1838 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, 161 F. 3d 696, 704, 48 USPQ2d 1880, 1887 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In the instant case, the term “device” is a well-recognized generic placeholder (see MPEP § 2181). And, the current amendment fails to provide any additional structure to the claimed apparatus, only the container bundles which are not structural limitations of the recited “movement device” but rather intended use of the items to be cleaned.
Regarding Applicant’s indication that “the Specification provides concrete structural descriptions of each of the recited devices”, this is not persuasive because these are not limiting examples and are not structural features recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the claimed devices require industrial machinery - conveyor belts, nozzle systems, electronic control devices with signal coupling - that cannot be performed by hand,” this is not persuasive because the alleged industrial machinery components are not recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Turning to the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it is noted that the terminology in a pending application's claims is to be given its broadest reasonable
interpretation (In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989))
and limitations from a pending application's specification will not be read into the claims
(Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and
every element of a claimed invention. See Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices. Inc.,
848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892
(1988); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Moreover, anticipation by a prior art reference does not
require either the inventive concept of the claimed subject matter or the recognition of
properties that are inherently possessed by the prior art reference. Verdegaal Brothers
Inc. v. Union Oil co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). A prior art reference anticipates the subject
matter of a claim when that reference discloses each and every element set forth in the
claim (In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990));
however, the law of anticipation does not require that the reference teach what
Applicant is claiming, but only that the claims "read on” something disclosed in the
reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984) (and overruled in part on another
issue), SRI Intel v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. Of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1118, 227 USPQ
577, 583 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Also, a reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the
claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with
his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention. See In re
Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1362 (1996), quoting from In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936, 133 USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962).
Regarding the § 102 rejection over Essenger, Applicant argues that the “container bundles” are “a structural requirement, not a recitation of intended use.” Examiner disagrees and submits that such features are not positively recited as part of the claimed “cleaning system.” The claims are directed to a cleaning system with the intended use of being “for cleaning container units.” The “movement device” is a part of the claimed “cleaning system” and claimed with the intended use to be “arranged and designed to move container bundles…”. Such recitation describes the use of the movement device and not additional structural limitations of either the movement device or the cleaning system, but rather part of the items to be cleaned (i.e. the cleaning container units). The position is taken that the cleaning system of Engesser is fully capable of the intended use of using the movement device having an arrangement and design capable of performing the recited intended use of cleaning the articles being worked upon. MPEP 2115 and caselaw is replete with teachings disclosing that expressions relating an apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Further regarding the rejection under § 102, Applicant argues that Engesser does not disclose, teach or suggest a “chemical treatment device” or a “surface treating device” because “[t]he claims recite a discrete device dedicated to chemical treatment, not merely a cleaning fluid with chemicals dispensed by the same nozzle system used for washing and rinsing.” This is not persuasive because the terminology “device” is a generic placeholder and the claim is interpreted as means plus function, and Engesser reads on the apparatus as currently claimed. Applicant may wish to positively recite additional structure to the means plus function language to address this concern. It is further noted that “chemical treatment” and “surface treating” are quite generic and broad, and could read on any chemical application or any treatment of a surface.
In conclusion, Applicant is strongly urged to more clearly recite the structural features of the cleaning system while particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming their invention. Applicant is also urged to provide corresponding patentability arguments pointing out precisely how and why the invention as claimed serves to patentably distinguish over the prior art of record, as no patentability is readily apparent based on the current record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, wherein each container bundle includes a plurality of container units packed together so that adjacent container units mutually stabilize one another in a generally vertical position (conveying device 118 moves in a conveying direction 120 through cleaning chamber 122 of the cleaning apparatus 110; note the recitation of container bundles is intended use of articles to be worked upon, such bundles are not recited as a structural limitation of the movement device or cleaning system as “arranged and designed to move” does not impart any structural limitations to the movement device),
a plurality of cleaning devices arranged and designed to clean the container units within at least one cleaning portion of the cleaning path, wherein the plurality of cleaning devices includes at least one of a chemical treatment device or a surface treating device (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, which any spray nozzle configuration for spraying a chemical or surface treatment (e.g. a wash fluid and a rinse fluid) at least reads on the broadly recited “chemical treatment device” and “surface treating device” means plus function recitations absent additional structurally recited limitations) 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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 E. 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.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights