DETAILED ACTION
The preliminary amendment filed October 9, 2024 has been entered. Claims 1-14 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 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. Currently, no claim limitation is being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/855936 (the ‘936 application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of claims 1-14 are recited by claims 1-14 of the ‘936 application. Therefore, in making or using the application of claims 1-14 of the ‘936 application, one of ordinary skill in the art would also make or use the invention of claims 1-14. As the claims of both applications use the same terminology and have the same arrangement, detailed claim element mapping is not necessary.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP2851334 to Le Guen (Le Guen). This document was cited on an IDS and a copy thereof filed with the instant application. Therefore, a copy has not been included with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Le Guen discloses a container processing installation (1) for processing containers (2) comprising a first processing block ("filling machine 5," "capping machine 6") with a first single-row container outlet (star conveyor 10), a second processing block ("cooling station 7") arranged downstream and comprising a wet and/or temperature control area (" cooling tunnel 17") with a mass conveyor for containers (see figure 1), a first single-row container inlet (figures 1 and 2) upstream of the mass conveyor and a second single-row container outlet (star conveyor at 8) downstream of the mass conveyor, and a third processing block ("labelling machine 9") arranged downstream of the second processing block (7) and having a second single-row container inlet (star conveyor 10), wherein the single-row container outlet of the first processing block (5, 6) is connected to the single-row container inlet of the second processing block (7) by a first single-row conveyor device (first linear conveyor belt 10; see figure 1) and the single-row container outlet of the second processing block (7) is connected to the single-row container inlet of the third processing block (9) by a second single-row conveyor device (second linear conveyor 10; see paragraphs 21, 38, and 39 and figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, Le Guen discloses the first treatment block comprises a filler, and/or a capper, and/or an inspection device for inspecting the containers (the first block includes at least a filler and capper).
Regarding claim 5, Le Guen discloses the third treatment block downstream from the second container feed point comprises a lane divider for dividing the containers from the second single-line conveying device into a plurality of lanes, and/or wherein the third treatment block comprises an inspection device for inspecting the containers, and/or wherein the third treatment block comprises a labeling machine and/or a direct printing machine (the third treatment block includes at least a labeling machine).
Regarding claim 6, Le Guen discloses the second treatment block and/or the third treatment block comprises a coding device for applying a code to containers (the third treatment block includes a labeling machine and commercial bottle labels include UPC codes).
Regarding claim 7, Le Guen discloses wherein no treatment of containers takes place in the region of the first conveying device and/or in the region of the second conveying device (treatment of the containers does not take place in the regions of conveyor belts 10).
Regarding claim 14, Le Guen discloses a method for treating containers, wherein the containers are treated in a container treatment system according to claim 1, and at least one treatment step of the containers is carried out in the first treatment block (filling), the second treatment block (cooling) and the third treatment block (labeling).
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Guen.
Regarding claims 12-13, Le Guen discloses the container treatment system of claim 1, but does not disclose an assortment of container treatment systems, wherein for two different container treatment systems of the assortment of container treatment systems, the first single-line conveying device, and/or the second single-line conveying device, and/or the third single-line conveying device have different forms and wherein for two different container treatment systems in the assortment of container treatment systems, the treatment blocks are substantially of identical design. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have supplied an assortment of container treatment systems where the treatment blocks are of identical design, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Providing an assortment of container treatment systems allows for runs of different products to be filled into containers at the same time and it is common for factories to have a plurality of filling lines. Further, configuring the different filling lines to have different conveyors allows for the filling lines to be used for filling containers of different sizes (for example, one line could be used for filling 20oz bottles while another is used for filling 2L bottles).
Claims 2, 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Guen in view of US Patent Application Publication 2024/0199401 to Winzinger (Winzinger).
Regarding claim 2, Le Guen discloses the container treatment system according to claim 1, but does not disclose the wet region and/or temperature control region is designed as a pasteurizer and/or the second treatment block comprises a blower for blowing off liquid on the surface of the containers. Winzinger teaches a container treatment system (abstract) which includes a blower (see [0057]) for blowing off liquid on the surface of the containers. 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 blower as taught by Winzinger in the system of Le Guen for blowing liquid off the surface of the container prior to labeling to ensure the labels are properly applied to the bottles.
Regarding claims 8-9, Le Guen discloses the container treatment system according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein upstream from the first treatment block a fourth treatment block is arranged with a wet region and/or temperature control region, comprising a mass conveyor for containers, wherein the fourth treatment block comprises a third single-line container exit point, and the first treatment block comprises a third container feed point, wherein the third single-line container exit point is connected to the third single-line container feed point by a third single-line conveying device. Winzinger teaches a container treatment system (abstract) including upstream from the first treatment block a fourth treatment block is arranged with a wet region and/or temperature control region (bottle rinser; see [0055]). 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 bottle rinser upstream of the filler in the system of Le Guen as taught by Winzinger for cleaning the bottles prior to filling. Further, Le Guen discloses using a mass conveyor for containers and single-line container exit point connected to a single line conveyor (see figures 1 and 2 of Le Guen), and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to keep the same arrangement for the rinsing system.
Regarding claim 11, Le Guen discloses the container treatment system according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the fourth treatment block and/or the second treatment block comprise a buffer region for the random buffering of containers outside the wet region and/or temperature control region and downstream from the container feed point of the treatment block and upstream from the container exit point of the treatment block. Winzinger further teaches the use of buffer regions (65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used buffer regions for buffering containers outside the wet region and downstream from the container feed point of the treatment block and upstream from the container exit point of the treatment block in the system of Le Guen as taught by Winzinger. The use of buffer regions is known in the art for maintaining a steady supply of containers so that, should one treatment device have an error or require maintenance, the others can continue to operate.
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 at 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 2, 2025