DETAILED ACTION
The preliminary amendment filed February 29, 2024 has been entered. Claims 23-44 remain pending.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 27 ends with a semi-colon rather than a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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. Claim limitations “signaling device,” “reading device,” and “reading unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the limitations recited a function and a generic placeholder for “means” without reciting sufficient structure for performing the function.
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.
Claims 23, 25-28, 30-31, 33, 36-37, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE202007015871 (DE’871) in view of EP0679605 (EP’605). Both of these documents are cited by Applicant on an IDS and a copy thereof filed with the application. Therefore, copies have not been included with this office action. A machine translation of DE’871 has also been filed with the application. A machine translation of EP’605 has been included with this office action. References to specific portions of the disclosure of these documents refer to the translation documents.
Regarding claim 23, DE’871 discloses a system for treating kegs (see [0001]), said system comprising at least one treatment module (each of the respective filling locations; see Fig. 2), each of which comprises a keg receiver (13) for receiving at least one keg (containers 1 are kegs; [0027]), a treatment head (4) configured for treating the keg, at least one interface (valve 20) for a discharge line (16) and for at least one cleaning line (15) and/or at least one filling line; at least one signaling device (the portion of the controller which receives signals from the sensors and sends signals to the treatment modules and loading devices) for signaling activities which are to be carried out in conjunction with the treatment modules, and/or at least one loading device for delivering and discharging the kegs to and from the individual treatment modules; and a controller (11) for controlling the at least one treatment module, and for controlling the signaling device and/or loading device (controller 11 is responsible for controlling the treatment heads, loading device, and the signaling device). DE’871 does not disclose a reading device connected to the controller for reading the information deposited on the data carrier, and said controller being configured to carry out a treatment of the kegs, based on the information deposited on the data carrier read by the reading device. EP’605 teaches a keg treatment system ([0001] and the figure) which includes a reading device (reader 9) connected to a controller (the plant control system; see [0018]) for reading the information deposited on the data carrier (transponders 5 which is coupled to keg 2), and said controller being configured to carry out a treatment of the kegs, based on the information deposited on the data carrier read by the reading device ([0018]-[0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included data carriers on the kegs and a reader connected to the controller as taught by EP’605 in the system of DE’871 for tracking the kegs through the system, ensuring that all of the necessary treatment steps have taken place in a timely manner, and for individually controlling the treatment steps of each keg (EP’605, paragraphs [0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 25, DE’871 discloses a loading device (transfer devices 8 and 9) for delivering kegs to said treatment modules and for receiving kegs discharged from said treatment modules. EP’605 further teaches the reading device has a first reading unit (reading device 9 positioned at conveying device 1) and configured to read the information deposited on the data carriers while the kegs are transported by the loading device to the at least one treatment module (the cleaning and/or filling device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned a first reading unit at the loading device as taught by EP’605 in the system of DE’871 for tracking the state and location of each keg through its movement in the plant to increase product safety (EP’605, [0019]).
Regarding claim 26, EP’605 further teaches a further reading unit of the reading device is arranged at or in the at least one treatment module (“by arranging the transponder readers 9 at all treatment stations” [0018]; EP’605 teaches readers positioned at the conveyor(s) and at “all treatment stations”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned a second reading unit at the treatment station(s) as taught by EP’605 in the system of DE’871 for tracking the state and location of each keg through its movement in the plant to increase product safety (EP’605, [0019]).
Regarding claim 27, DE’871 further discloses the at least one treatment module is a plurality of treatment modules (there are a plurality of treatment modules; see figures). EP’605 further teaches the reading device has a plurality of reading units ([0018]), and each reading unit is arranged at or in the respective treatment modules ([0018]); and the plurality of reading units are configured for reading the information deposited on the data carriers (readers 9 read information from transponders 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a reading unit at each of the plurality of treatment modules of DE’871 as taught by EP’605 for tracking the state and location of each keg through its movement in the plant to increase product safety (EP’605, [0019]).
Regarding claim 28, EP’605 further teaches the reading device is configured to read the information deposited on the data carriers while the kegs are in the at least one treatment module (the readers positioned at the treatment stations read the kegs in that station; [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned a reading unit at the treatment station(s) as taught by EP’605 in the system of DE’871 for tracking the state and location of each keg through its movement in the plant to increase product safety (EP’605, [0019]).
Regarding claim 30, EP’605 further teaches the reading device is formed as a combined writing and reading device (see [0018]; information from the transponder 5 is read by reader 9 and is stored in a data processing unit), and the reading device is configured to write information onto the data carriers and/or into a databank (data processing unit which stores data). This feature is present in the combination as set forth above.
Regarding claim 31, EP’605 further teaches the reading device (9) is configured to write information provided by the controller onto the data carrier and/or into the databank (data processing unit which stores data) after the treatment in the at least one treatment module ([0018]-[0019]). This feature is present in the combination as set forth above.
Regarding claim 33, DE’871 discloses the at least one treatment module is a plurality of treatment modules (there are a plurality of treatment modules; see figures), and the treatment head of at least one of the plurality of treatment modules is configured for both filling the keg with a filling product and for cleaning the interior cleaning of the keg (the treatment heads are used for both cleaning and filling; [0038]).
Regarding claim 36, DE’871 discloses the keg receiver of the at least one treatment module is configured for the static receiving of one or more kegs (receiver 13 can receive a keg while static).
Regarding claim 37, DE’871 discloses the at least one treatment module is a plurality of treatment modules (there are a plurality of treatment modules; see figures), and the keg receiver of at least one of the plurality of treatment modules is configured to receive one single keg (each receiver 13 receives a single keg).
Regarding claim 42, both DE’871 and EP’605 disclose the controller has a work plan memory (the memory of the controller which stores the programming information for controlling the filling line/plant) for filling and/or cleaning orders to be carried out, and the controller has a computer module (the processor of the controller) configured to control the at least one treatment module based on the cleaning and/or filling orders (the processor carries out the programming to control the treatment of the kegs).
Claims 29, 32, 41, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE’871 as modified by EP’605 and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2007/0169834 to Monzel (Monzel).
Regarding claims 29 and 33, DE’871 as modified by EP’605 discloses the system of claims 23, but does not specify the reading device is configured to read the information deposited on the data carriers using radio waves, wherein the reading device is configured as an RFID reading device, and the data carriers are configured as RFID transponders. Monzel teaches a keg filling system (abstract) using RFID transponders (101) and at least one RFID reader (the RFID reader of control unit 102; see col. 5, lines 17-27) which read the information using radio waves (RFID uses radio waves). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to used RFID transponders and readers as taught by Monzel in the system of DE’871 as modified by EP’605. Such a change requires only the substitution of one known transponder/reader with another transponder/reader for performing the same function. Further RFID is known for having advantages such as not requiring line of sight for reading, being able to read many transponders very quickly, and allowing data to be encrypted to increase security.
Regarding claims 41, DE’871 as modified by EP’605 discloses the apparatus of claim 23 (see above) and further discloses a plurality of treatment modules (see figures). DE’871 does not disclose said first treatment modules and said second treatment modules are connected to different filling-product lines and the controller controls said treatment modules in such a way that said first kegs are filled with a first product and said second kegs are filled with a second product. Monzel discloses a keg filler which includes filling different products (abstract) via different filling-product lines and the controller controls said treatment modules in such a way that said first kegs are filled with a first product and said second kegs are filled with a second product (different product supplies coupled to the filling heads for supplying different products to the different types of kegs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DE’871 such that different products can be supplied to the first and second modules for filling different kegs with the different products. Configuring the system to supply different types of products to different heads allows increases the number of uses for the system and helps to reduce change-over time.
Regarding claim 44, DE’871 as modified by EP’605 discloses the apparatus of claim 23 (see above), but does not disclose each of said treatment modules comprises one of a first treatment head and a second treatment head, wherein said first treatment head is configured to engage a first type of keg fitting and said second treatment is configured to engage a second type of keg fitting. Monzel teaches a keg filling apparatus having filling heads configured to engage a first type of keg fitting and a second type of keg fitting ([0031] and [0038]-[0039]) such that different types of kegs can be filled without the need to change filling heads. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated filling heads configured for filling first types of keg fittings and second types of keg fittings as taught by Monzel in the system of DE’871 as modified by EP’605 such that different types of kegs can be filled without the need to change filling heads.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE’871 in view of EP’605 as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of US Patent 11,524,850 to Eckes et al. (Eckes).
Regarding claim 24, DE’871 as modified by EP’605 discloses the system according to claim 23, but does not disclose the controller is configured to control a duration and/or an intensity of the treatment by each of the at least one treatment module based on the information deposited on the data carrier read by the reading device. Eckes teaches a container treatment system (title/abstract) which includes a controller configured to control a duration of the treatment by each of the at least one treatment module based on the information about the container (see col. 7, lines 56-67) to ensure each container receives the proper cleaning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of DE’871 to include controlling a duration of the treatment based on the keg information as taught by Eckes to ensure each container receives the proper cleaning. Further, as modified by EP’605, the data about each keg is stored on its individual transponder and is read by the reading device and supplied to the controller.
Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE’871 in view of EP’605 and further in view of US Patent 6,494,238 to Sindermann (Sindermann).
Regarding claims 34 and 35, DE’871 as modified by EP’605 discloses the apparatus of claim 23, and DE’871 further discloses a plurality of treatment modules (there are a plurality of treatment modules; see figures) and a loading device (8, 9), but does not disclose an external cleaning module for cleaning an exterior surface of said kegs. Sindermann teaches a container filler which includes an external cleaning module (exterior washer; see col. 9, lines 31-35) to remove contaminates from the exterior of the bottle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an exterior washer as taught by Sindermann in the treatment modules of DE’871 as modified by EP’605 to remove contaminates from the exterior of the keg. Further, the loading devices of DE’871 move the kegs through the treatment line and would also be used for moving kegs to and from the external cleaning module.
Claims 39-40 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE’871 in view of EP’605 as applied to claims 23 and 42 above, and further in view of US Patent 4,820,101 to Fenn (Fenn).
Regarding claims 39-40, DE’871 as modified by EP’605 discloses the system according to claim 23, and further discloses wherein the system has a loading device (8, 9), and the controller is configured to calculate and carry out a delivery and discharge path of each keg (the controller determines the path of the keg through the filling line), but does not disclose the controller calculates the movement of the loading device based on an optimization criterion, wherein the optimization criterion has a criterion for the optimization of at least one of the path, time, and energy. Fenn teaches manufacturing facility in which a controller calculates the movement of the loading device based on an optimization criterion, wherein the optimization criterion has a criterion for the optimization of at least energy (col. 18, lines 19-34) to reduce power consumption of the facility. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the controller of DE’871 to calculate a path for the keg which optimizes energy usage as taught by Fenn to reduce power consumption of the facility.
Regarding claim 43, DE’871 as modified by EP’605 discloses the system according to claim 42, and further discloses the computer module of the controller is configured to control the at least one treatment module, and the signaling device and/or the loading device (the processor controls the treatment modules, signaling device and loading device), but does not disclose the processing of the cleaning and/or filling orders is based on at least one of the following optimization criteria: time optimization, optimization of the filling and/or cleaning capacity, energy optimization, optimization of the actuation paths of the feed device, and minimization of the cleaning effort and/or cleaning media consumption. Fenn teaches manufacturing facility in which a controller operates the functions of the facility based on at least energy optimization (col. 18, lines 19-34) to reduce power consumption of the facility. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the controller of DE’871 to operate the processing and treatment of the kegs in a way which optimizes energy usage as taught by Fenn to reduce power consumption of the facility.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLAS A ARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M- F, 8AM - 3PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached on 571-272-4881. 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.
/NICOLAS A ARNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753 December 12, 2025