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 .
This Office Action is in response to Application 18/704,857 filed on 4/25/2024.
Claims 1-17 have been examined and are pending in this application. As per the Preliminary Amendment filed on 4/25/2024, claims 3-6, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 15 have been amended; claims 16 and 17 have been newly added. Claims 1-17 are pending in this application.
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:
“container treatment machine for treating …”, “container treatment machine [] to transmit/grant access…”, and “central sights assignment system [] to transmit access data …” recited in claim 1.
“central rights assignment system [] to assign,” recited in claim 3;
“container treatment machine [] to grant …,” recited in claims 4-5;
“container treatment machine [] to be granted …,” recited in claims 15;
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 15 is/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.
Regarding claim 15: claim 15 calls for a "an identification element." However, the body of the claim does not positively recite any hardware embodiment. The claim recites a series of steps comprising a method for operating container treatment machine. It is unclear what statutory class the claim falls into. As a result, the claim renders indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as it does not reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of the statutory class of invention to which the claim is directed.
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, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pleasant, JR. et al. (US 2009/0320125 A1) (hereinafter, Pleasant).
Regarding Claim 1;
Pleasant discloses a container treatment system ([0006] - Embodiments of the present invention provide systems and methods that enhance the security various processes, as well as machines, computer-readable media and processes that employ or allow employment of such systems) comprising
at least one container treatment machine for treating containers and a central rights assignment system ([0018] - In some embodiments, user authentication data regarding a user is transmitted into a machine through a user's physical interaction with one or more input devices connected to a machine. An authentication determination is then made within the machine by comparing the user authentication data with one or more user authentication records within the machine, available to the machine, or both, to determine whether the user authentication data matches user authentication records for any person or group of persons and [0031] - Authentication data is used to enable access to the process. Authentication data is input into a machine using input devices (which may be different from, or entirely or partially the same as, the input devices that are used for access to the process... In some embodiments, the authentication records are stored in a location accessible to the machine, for example on a network server accessible to the machine),
wherein the container treatment machine ([0018]) comprises
a user interface for recognizing an identification element and for entering a user password ([0018] - In some embodiments, user authentication data regarding a user is transmitted into a machine through a user's physical interaction with one or more input devices connected to a machine and [0023] and [0026] and [0032] - In some embodiments, the authentication data may be one or more password, such as an alphanumeric password or a combination of an alphanumeric user identification code and a separate alphanumeric password), and
wherein the container treatment machine is designed to transmit identification data of a user to the central rights assignment system based on a recognized identification element and/or a recognized user password ([0031] - In some embodiments, the authentication records are stored in a location accessible to the machine, for example on a network server accessible to the machine. In some embodiments, authentication information is first compared against records in the machine and, if no match is found, additional sources connected to or networked with the machine may be consulted (i.e., transmit ... to the central rights assignment system) for further information. An example is an alphanumeric user identification and alphanumeric password stored on a server that is accessible to the machine or machines. In some embodiments, the server is separated from the machine by a firewall, but the process and firewall are configured to allow access to the server for the purpose of access user authentication data. The results of the comparison with stored data are used by the machine to determine whether the user matches the identity of any persons or group of persons for whom authentication records are available),
wherein the central rights assignment system is designed to transmit access data to the container treatment machine based on obtained identification data of a user ([0031] - In some embodiments, the authentication records are stored in a location accessible to the machine, for example on a network server accessible to the machine. In some embodiments, authentication information is first compared against records in the machine and, if no match is found, additional sources connected to or networked with the machine may be consulted for further information. An example is an alphanumeric user identification and alphanumeric password stored on a server that is accessible to the machine or machines. In some embodiments, the server is separated from the machine by a firewall, but the process and firewall are configured to allow access to the server for the purpose of access user authentication data. The results of the comparison with stored data are used by the machine (i.e., transmit access data to the container treatment machine) to determine whether the user matches the identity of any persons or group of persons for whom authentication records are available),
wherein the access data defines group-based and/or user-based access rights for the container treatment machine ([0018]-[0019] - If the authentication determination indicates that the user authentication data input matches user authentication records for any person or group of persons, an access determination is made within the machine through the use of records regarding access rights regarding the person or group of persons within the machine, available to the machine, or both), and wherein the container treatment machine is designed to grant access rights to a user depending on obtained access data ([0018]-[0019] - ...An authentication determination is made within the machine...).
Regarding Claim 2;
Pleasant discloses the container treatment system according to claim 1.
Pleasant further discloses wherein the identification element is an active or a passive identification element ([0026] - Some examples include a keyboard, a mouse, a tablet, a remote control or PDA, a touch screen, or a microphone. In some embodiments, such input devices generate input in response to physical interaction by the user (e.g. typing keystrokes, place a body part in front of or upon a scanner, speaking into a microphone, clicking a mouse, etc.) and [0039] - Input devices are used to enter input directed to the process as well as to enter authentication data. Any type of input device may be used. Some examples include a keyboard, a mouse, a tablet, a touch screen, or a microphone, a fingerprint reader, a scanner for biometric data (such as fingerprint and or thumbprints, retina, iris or geometry of one or more body parts) and electronic pad for signature or handwriting).
Regarding Claim 4;
Pleasant discloses the container treatment system according to claim 1.
Pleasant further discloses wherein the container treatment machine is designed to grant access rights granted to a user for a preset session time when an identification element has been detected and a user password has been ([0030] - In some embodiments, process access may end after a predetermined period of time after authentication, irrespective of activity levels, (e.g. one minute, two minutes, five, 10, 15, 30 or 60 minutes, etc.), or at specific times of day (for example, changes in employee shifts).
Regarding Claim 6;
Pleasant discloses the container treatment system according to claim 1.
Pleasant further discloses wherein the container treatment system comprises at least two container treatment machines, and wherein the central rights assignment system is provided separately from the at least two container treatment machines ([0022] and [0031] - In some embodiments, the authentication records are stored in a location accessible to the machine, for example on a network server accessible to the machine. In some embodiments, authentication information is first compared against records in the machine and, if no match is found, additional sources connected to or networked with the machine may be consulted for further information. An example is an alphanumeric user identification and alphanumeric password stored on a server that is accessible to the machine or machines. In some embodiments, the server is separated from the machine by a firewall, but the process and firewall are configured to allow access to the server for the purpose of access user authentication data and [0044] - In some embodiments, multiple computers or workstations are connected via a centralized network or server).
Regarding Claim 7;
Pleasant discloses the container treatment system according to claim 6.
Pleasant further discloses wherein access rights for each of the at least two container treatment machines are stored in the central rights assignment system ([0022] - In some embodiments, access to one process or some processes on the machine or groups of machines is controlled, and access to one or more other processes on the machine or groups of machines is not. In some embodiments, the controlled process or processes is or includes one carried out on one or more mechanical devices, such as manufacturing devices, power or energy generating devices, devices performing industrial operations, transportation devices, medical or veterinary treatment devices, medical or veterinary diagnostic devices, analytical or measuring devices and [0031] and [0044] - In some embodiments, the invention may provide autonomy for multiple automated processes... In some embodiments, multiple computers or workstations are connected via a centralized network or server).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, 10, 13, and 14; claim(s) 8, 10, 13, and 14 is/are directed to a/an method associated with the system claimed in claim(s) 1, 4, 6, and 7. Claim(s) 8, 10, 13, and 14 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 1, 4, 6, and 7, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim(s) 15; claim(s) 15 is/are directed to a/an element associated with the system/method claimed in claim(s) 1 and 8. Claim(s) 16 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 1 and 8 and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 3, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pleasant, JR. et al. (US 2009/0320125 A1) in view of Laverdiere-Papineau et al. (US 2013/0061331 A1).
Regarding Claim 3;
Pleasant discloses the container treatment system according to claim 1.
Pleasant fails to explicitly disclose wherein the central rights assignment system comprises a memory in which an identification element and/or a user password is assigned to a user, and group-based and/or user-based access rights for a group of users and/or at least one user can be entered by means of an input device of the central rights assignment system, and wherein the central rights assignment system is designed to assign the group-based and/or user-based access rights to the identification element and/or to the user password.
However, in an analogous art, Laverdiere-Papineau teaches wherein the central rights assignment system comprises a memory in which an identification element and/or a user password is assigned to a user, and group-based and/or user-based access rights for a group of users and/or at least one user can be entered by means of an input device of the central rights assignment system (FIG. 3 and [0026]-[0027] -The eDRM device 102 is configured to create the user groups and/or user templates upon receiving input data from the authorizer... The user data includes user identifier (ID) of the users... In one implementation, the eDRM device 102 includes an access rights assigning module 108 that receives the input data, i.e., the user data and/or the access rights data provided by the authorizer and creates the user group and/or the user template. Subsequent to the creation, the access rights assigning module 108 sends the user group and/or the user template to the eDRM server 104 for storage in a central repository 110, which is associated with the eDRM server 104), and wherein the central rights assignment system is designed to assign the group-based and/or user-based access rights to the identification element and/or to the user password (FIG. 3 and [0026]-[0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Laverdiere-Papineau to the central rights assignment system of Pleasant to include wherein the central rights assignment system comprises a memory in which an identification element and/or a user password is assigned to a user, and group-based and/or user-based access rights for a group of users and/or at least one user can be entered by means of an input device of the central rights assignment system, and wherein the central rights assignment system is designed to assign the group-based and/or user-based access rights to the identification element and/or to the user password.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Laverdiere-Papineau to Pleasant to do so as it provides / allows assigning specific access rights to the users [that is less] time consuming and laborious (as gleaned from Laverdiere-Papineau, [0012]).
Regarding Claim(s) 9; claim(s) 9 is/are directed to a/an method associated with the system claimed in claim(s) 3. Claim(s) 9 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 3, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 11;
Pleasant discloses the method according to claim 10.
Pleasant further discloses wherein the access rights granted to the user cannot be changed during the preset session time, regardless of whether... during the preset session time, and/or wherein the container treatment machine is blocked for the user during the preset session time when the access rights assigned to the user are changed in the central rights assignment system in such a way that the user receives less access rights for the container treatment machine ([0030] - If access is permitted to continue after the entry, the duration may be set in any suitable way. In some embodiments, access may continue until the authenticated user logs out of access to the process).
Pleasant fails to explicit disclose ... the access rights assigned to the user are changed in the central rights assignment system ...
However, in an analogous art, Laverdiere-Papineau teaches ... the access rights assigned to the user are changed in the central rights assignment system ... ([0043] and [0050] - In one implementation, the stored user group can be updated, in the event of any modification made to the user group. For example, if new user(s) are added to the user group or one or more existing users are deleted from the group, the group creation module 220 updates the user group and sends the updated user group for storage in the central repository 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Laverdiere-Papineau to regardless of whether... during the preset session time of Pleasant to include ... the access rights assigned to the user are changed in the central rights assignment system ....
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Laverdiere-Papineau to Pleasant to do so as it provides / allows assigning specific access rights to the users [that is less] time consuming and laborious (as gleaned from Laverdiere-Papineau, [0012]).
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pleasant, JR. et al. (US 2009/0320125 A1) in view of Lindsay (US 2007/0250920 A1).
Regarding Claim 5;
Pleasant discloses the container treatment system according to claim 1.
Pleasant fails to explicitly disclose wherein the container treatment machine is designed to grant group-based access rights for a user on the basis of a detected identification element if no access data are received from the central rights assignment system.
However, in an analogous art, Lindsay teaches wherein the container treatment machine is designed to grant group-based access rights for a user on the basis of a detected identification element if no access data are received from the central rights assignment system ([0108] - The user ID and password can be compared to information in the security database 46 to determine the level of access, if any, the user 60 may have to the asset 42. Specifically, according to predetermined security rules (not shown) in the security system 40, the password may be interpreted as a primary password for a first level of access (not shown), a secondary password for a second level of access substantially less than the first level of access, or an invalid password with access denied. (Denial of access does not require that an unauthorized user is physically removed or electronically completely cut off from the system, but that the level of access sought through entry of user credentials is not provided, and typically is a level of access no greater than is available to any unauthorized or unrecognized party, such as a "guest" account.) Further, in response to receiving a secondary password, various security actions may be automatically executed (not shown), according to preconfigured rules established by the user and stored in memory on the security server 44 or security database 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lindsay to the container treatment machine of Pleasant to include wherein the container treatment machine is designed to grant group-based access rights for a user on the basis of a detected identification element if no access data are received from the central rights assignment system.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lindsay to Pleasant to do so as it provides / allows improved means for reducing the risk of theft or misuse of assets, and for protecting related accounts, including measures to reduce identity theft and other forms of fraud (Lindsay, [0003]).
Regarding Claim(s) 12; claim(s) 12 is/are directed to a/an method associated with the system claimed in claim(s) 5. Claim(s) 12 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 5, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pleasant, JR. et al. (US 2009/0320125 A1) in view of Kikkoji et al. (US 2006/0179306 A1).
Regarding Claim 16;
Pleasant discloses the container treatment system according to claim 4.
Pleasant fails to explicitly disclose wherein the preset session time of the container treatment machine can be sent by the central rights assignment system as part of the access data.
However, in an analogous art, Kikkoji teaches wherein the preset session time of the container treatment machine can be sent by the central rights assignment system as part of the access data. ([0202] - Note that, as to the above authentication session ID information, on the use of it in user authentication processing or the like, a predetermined valid period based on the time when it was issued by the portal server 1003 (for example, approximately one minute) has been set).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kikkoji to the access data of Pleasant to include wherein the preset session time of the container treatment machine can be sent by the central rights assignment system as part of the access data.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kikkoji to Pleasant to do so as it provides / allows a predetermined valid period... for provision (Kikkoji, [0232]).
Regarding Claim(s) 17; claim(s) 17 is/are directed to a/an method associated with the system claimed in claim(s) 16. Claim(s) 17 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 16, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARI L SCHMIDT whose telephone number is (571)270-1385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm (MDT).
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, Luu Pham can be reached at (571)270-5002. 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.
/KARI L SCHMIDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439