DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Action is in response to the Response to Non-Final filed 12/08/2025.
The status of the Claims is as follows:
Claim 6 has been cancelled;
Claim 17-20 are new;
Claims 1-3, 8 and 10 have been amended;
Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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 10 and 18 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "that particular container" in line 5 of the Claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Suggested limitation: the inspected container.
Claim 18 recites the following limitations “wherein the determination of at least one measured value and the determination of a plurality of the measured values of filling product, and/or the determination of data from the measured values…”
The string of alternate clauses is indefinite because it is unclear which combination of limitations the Applicant is attempting to claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the determination of a plurality of the measured values" in line 2 of the Claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the determination of data" in line 2 of the Claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Forestelli et al. (US 20170299455; Forestelli).
Regarding Claim 1 Forestelli discloses an installation (100) for producing containers filled with a liquid (par 15), comprising at least one transport device (130) configured to transport containers (30) along a predetermined transport path, comprising a filling device (115) configured to fill the containers (30), comprising a closure device (120) configured to close the filled containers (30), and an inspection device (10) that inspects the filled and closed containers (155), wherein said inspection device (10) is arranged downstream (Fig. 5) of the closure device (120) along the transport path, wherein the inspection device (10) is configured to output at least one measured value which is characteristic of a composition of the filling product (par 4, 40, 155, 218, 219) filled into the containers (30), wherein the installation has a spectrometer (par 9, 11, 91-92) and/or a monochromator (par 18) and/or a radiation device having a variable emission spectrum (par 18, 21-24)
Regarding Claim 2 Forestelli discloses the invention as described above. Forestelli further discloses the inspection device (10) is configured to inspect for inspecting the beverage containers during their transport. (par 51, 64, 108)
Regarding Claim 3 Forestelli discloses the invention as described above. Forestelli further discloses the measured value is characteristic of a property of the liquid which a concentration of a substance, and a concentration of components of the liquid. (par 78-80, 141, 218)
Regarding Claim 4 Forestelli discloses the invention as described above. Forestelli further discloses the measured value to be output is selected from a group of measured values. (par 212-213)
Regarding Claim 5 Forestelli discloses the invention as described above. Forestelli further discloses the inspection device (10) has a radiation device (11) configured to direct radiation on-to the containers and a radiation detector device (12) configured to detect the radiation passing through the containers (30).
Regarding Claim 7 Forestelli discloses the invention as described above. Forestelli further discloses the installation has an evaluation device configured to evaluate the measured values output by the inspection device. (par 179-184)
Regarding Claim 11 Forestelli discloses a method for producing liquid containers, wherein a transport device (130) transports containers (30) along a predetermined transport path and a filling device (110) fills the containers (30) and a closure device (120) closes the filled containers (30), and an inspection device (10) inspects the filled and closed containers, wherein said inspection device (10) is arranged downstream (Fig. 5) of the closure device (120) along the transport path, wherein the inspection device (10) outputs at least one measured value which is characteristic of a composition of the filling product filled into the containers. (par 155)
Regarding Claim 12 Forestelli discloses the invention as described above. Forestelli further discloses the inspection device inspects the containers during movement of the containers. (par 51, 64, 108)
Regarding Claim 13 Forestelli discloses the invention as described above. Forestelli further discloses radiation device (11) directs radiation onto the containers and a detector device (12) detects radiation passing through the containers.
Regarding Claim 14 Forestelli discloses the invention as described above. Forestelli further discloses the inspection device carries out a spectroscopic measurement. (par 9, 11, 91-92)
Regarding Claim 15 Forestelli discloses the invention as described above. Forestelli further discloses the measured values recorded by the inspection device are compared with comparative values. (par 179-184)
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.
Claims 8, 9, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forestelli (US 20170299455) in view of Griesbeck et al. (US 5729340; Griesbeck)
Regarding Claim 8 Forestelli discloses the invention as described above. Forestelli further discloses the installation
However Forestelli does not expressly disclose the installation has a discharge device which is arranged downstream of the inspection device in the transport direction of the containers and which is configured to discharge containers from the transport path, taking into account a result output by the inspection device.
Griesbeck teaches an installation that includes an inspection station (abstract; Col 1 lines 1-5). Griesbeck further teaches the installation has a discharge device which is arranged downstream of the inspection device in the transport direction of the containers and which is configured to discharge containers from the transport path, taking into account a result output by the inspection device removing containers with undesirable inspection results from product flow for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (Col 2 line 50- Col 3 line 14)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the installation taught by Forestelli to include a discharge device which is arranged downstream of the inspection device in the transport direction of the containers and which is configured to discharge containers from the transport path, taking into account a result output by the inspection device as taught by Griesbeck since (Col 2 line 50- Col 3 line 14) of Griesbeck suggests that such a modification removes containers with undesirable inspection results from product flow for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 9 Forestelli discloses the invention as described above. Forestelli further discloses the installation
However, Forestelli does not expressly disclose the installation has at least one further inspection device which is configured to inspect the filled containers.
Griesbeck teaches an installation that includes an inspection device (Col 2 - Col 3). Griesbeck further teaches the installation has at least one further inspection device which is configured to inspect the containers providing additional inspection improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (Col 5 lines 10-30)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the installation taught by Forestelli to include the installation has at least one further inspection device which is configured to inspect the filled containers as taught by Griesbeck since (Col 5 lines 10-30) of Griesbeck suggests that such a modification provides additional inspection improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 16 Forestelli discloses the invention as described above. Forestelli further discloses the installation
However, Forestelli does not expressly disclose the installation has a further inspection device which is configured for inspecting the containers.
Griesbeck teaches an installation for producing containers including an inspection device. Griesbeck further discloses the installation has a further inspection device which is configured for inspecting the containers providing additional quality control measures for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (Col 1 lines 40-56, Col 2 lines 42-45, 64- Col 3 line 1)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the installation of Forestelli with the second inspection device of Griesbeck since Col 1 lines 40-56, Col 2 lines 42-45, 64- Col 3 line 1 of Griesbeck suggests that such a modification provides additional quality control measures for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 17 Forestelli discloses the invention as described above. Forestelli further discloses the installation
However, Forestelli does not expressly disclose the installation has a further inspection device is configured to check the container itself for defects in the container, the presence of foreign bodies in the container, or a filling level of the filling product.
Griesbeck teaches an installation for producing containers including an inspection device. Griesbeck further discloses the installation has a further inspection device is configured to check the container itself for defects in the container providing additional quality control measures for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (Col 1 lines 40-56, Col 2 lines 42-45, 64- Col 3 line 1)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the installation of Forestelli with the second inspection device of Griesbeck since Col 1 lines 40-56, Col 2 lines 42-45, 64- Col 3 line 1 of Griesbeck suggests that such a modification provides additional quality control measures for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 19 Forestelli discloses the invention as described above. Forestelli further discloses the installation
However, Forestelli does not expressly disclose the installation has a discharge device which is arranged downstream of the inspection device in the transport direction of the containers and is configured to exclude or discharge containers from the transport path, taking into account a result or a measured value output by the inspection device.
Griesbeck teaches an installation for producing containers including an inspection device. Griesbeck further discloses the installation has a discharge device which is arranged downstream of the inspection device in the transport direction of the containers and is configured to exclude or discharge containers from the transport path, taking into account a result or a measured value output by the inspection device providing additional quality control measures for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (Col 2 lines 50-63; Col 3 lines 8-14; Col 5 lines 27-28)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the installation of Forestelli with a discharge device which is arranged downstream of the inspection device of Griesbeck since Col 2 lines 50-63; Col 3 lines 8-14; Col 5 lines 27-28 of Griesbeck suggests that such a modification provides additional quality control measures for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forestelli (US 20170299455) in view of Piana (US 20120032364)
Regarding Claim 10 Forestelli discloses the invention as described above. Forestelli further discloses the installation
However, Forestelli does not expressly disclose the installation has an assigning device which is configured to assign to an inspected container, which filling device has filled that particular container.
Piana teaches an installation that produces a container that includes an inspection device. Piana further teaches the installation has an assigning device which is configured to assign to an inspected container, which filling device has filled that particular container providing automatic adjustment for the installation for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 54-55, 68-69; 82-86)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the apparatus to modify the installation of Forestelli to include an assigning device as taught by Piana since par 54-55, 68-69; 82-86 of Piana suggests that such a modification provides automatic adjustment for the installation for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forestelli (US 20170299455) in view of Cochran et al. (US 20070107801)
Regarding Claim 18 Forestelli discloses the invention as described above. Forestelli further discloses the installation
However, Forestelli does not expressly disclose the determination of at least one measured value and the determination of a plurality of the measured values of filling product, and/or the determination of data from the measured values generated by the inspection device or data derived therefrom is based on machine learning methods.
Cochran teaches an installation for producing containers that includes an inspection device that outputs at least one measured value. Cochran further teaches the determination of at least one measured value and the determination of a plurality of the measured values of filling product, and/or the determination of data from the measured values generated by the inspection device or data derived therefrom is based on machine learning methods providing quality control devices for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 53, 64, 70)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the installation of Forestelli to include determining data based on machine learning methods as taught by Cochran since par 53, 64, 70 suggests that such a modification provides quality control devices for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forestelli (US 20170299455) in view of Gyula (US 20100116026)
Regarding Claim 20 Forestelli discloses the invention as described above. Forestelli further discloses the installation
However, Forestelli does not expressly disclose the filling device has a first reservoir configured for storing a first component of a beverage and a second reservoir configured for storing a second component of a beverage.
Gyula teaches an installation for producing containers that includes an inspection device and a filling device. Gyula further teaches the filling device has a first reservoir configured for storing a first component of a beverage and a second reservoir configured for storing a second component of a beverage providing dispensing devices for precise control of beverage components for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 54, 58)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the filling device of Forestelli to include a first reservoir and a second reservoir as taught by Gyula since par 54, 58 of Gyula suggests that such a modification provides dispensing devices for precise control of beverage components for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument: Forestelli fails to teach or suggest that the inspection device is configured to output at least one measured value which is characteristic of a composition of the filling product filled into the containers.
Examiner’s Response: Forestelli teaches that the inspection device (10) is configured to output at least one measured value which is characteristic of a composition (oxygen, water vapor and/or carbon dioxide; par 40, 75, 79, 91, 218) of the filling product filled into the containers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Calhoun US 20030052288; Inspect fill level par 6-7
Linder US 20130271755; Inspect defects par 69
Norriss US 20200173929; Inspect contaminants par 50
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 CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)270-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 4 pm - 11:59 pm Monday - Friday.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3731