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 .
Application Status
This action is responsive to the claims filed 2 January 2026.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and being examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hache (FR 3105196 A1), reference made to the Espacenet translation provided with the non-final office action, in view of Froehlich (US 2018/0009553).
PNG
media_image1.png
447
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1: Hache teaches a container treatment system (fig.1) according to the invention for treating containers, comprising a first treatment block (1-fig.1) with a first single-line container exit point (A-annotated fig.1), a second treatment block (3-fig.1, B-annotated fig.1) arranged downstream of the first treatment block (see annotated fig.1 showing B downstream of A) comprising, a first single-line container feed point (C-annotated fig.2) upstream from the second treatment block (see annotated fig.1 showing C is upstream of B), and a second single-line container exit point (D-annotated fig.1) downstream from the second treatment block (see annotated fig.1 showing D downstream of B), and a third treatment block (E-annotated fig.1) arranged downstream from the second treatment block (see annotated fig.1 showing E is downstream of B) with a second single-line container feed point (F-annotated fig.1), wherein the single-line container exit point of the first treatment block (A-annotated fig.1) is connected to the single-line container feed point of the second treatment block (C-annotated fig.1) by a first single- line conveying device (see annotated fig.1 showing A and C connected by a single line conveying device 4; ¶[0012]), and the single-line container exit point of the second treatment block is connected to the single-line container feed point of the third treatment block by a second single-line conveying device (see annotated fig.1 showing D and F connected by a single line conveying device).
Hache does not expressly teach the second treatment block comprising a buffer system for containers.
However, Froehlich teaches a treatment block (¶[0017]) comprising a buffer system for containers (38-42 – fig.1; ¶[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the system of Hache, by having a treatment block comprising a buffer system, as taught by Froehlich, because “a buffer station that holds a container so that it does not proceed downstream. This suppresses the possibility of treatment backlogs that arise from differences between treatment speeds of the cleaning stations and filling stations. Having buffer stations means that such differences will not require stopping or interrupting the operating sequence of the container-treatment machine. Having a buffer station also provides an extra degree of freedom to achieve optimum occupancy of the first and second transport devices and hence improved overall performance.” (Froehlich ¶[0017]).
Hache as modified by Froehlich further teaches:
Claim 2: The container treatment system according to claim 1, wherein the buffer system (Froehlich: 38-42 – fig.1; ¶[0058]) comprises a row buffer comprising at least two single-line buffer tracks (Froehlich: see fig. 1 showing at least 4 single-line buffer tracks).
Claim 4: The container treatment system according claim 1, wherein the first treatment block comprises a filler (Hache: “at least one filling and closing unit, forming an assembly generically called a “filler” 1” ¶[0012]).
Claim 5: The container treatment system according to claim 1, wherein the third treatment block comprises an inspection device for inspecting the containers (Hache: “The level of their contents can then be checked again, by a second check 8 in order to verify the tightness of the closure and the absence of leaks.” ¶[0014]).
Claim 6: The container treatment system according to claim 1, wherein the third treatment block comprises a coding device for applying a code to containers (Hache: “a recognizable mark to be affixed to the exterior of a non-compliant product. For example, said marking may consist of placing a label or “tag” on a product 10, or a visually distinguishable dot, or even an ink dot.” ¶[0078]).
Claim 7: The container treatment system according to claim 1, wherein no treatment of containers takes place in in the region of the second conveying device (Hache: see annotated fig.1 showing no treatment between D and F, only containers being conveyed).
Claim 14: A method for treating containers is provided, wherein the containers are treated in a container treatment system according to claim 1 (Hache: see claim 1 above), and at least one treatment step of the containers is carried out in the first treatment block (Hache: A-annotated fig.1), the second treatment block (Hache: B-annotated fig.1) and the third treatment block (Hache: C-annotated fig.1).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hache (FR 3105196 A1), reference made to the Espacenet translation provided with the non-final office action, in view of Froehlich (US 2018/0009553), further in view of Clusserath (US 2010/0000182).
Claim 3: Hache as modified by Froehlich teaches the container treatment system according to claim 1.
Hache as modified by Froehlich does not teach a single-line container exit point, single-line conveying device and single-line container feed point are designed for the single-line transportation of containers on at least two vertical transportation routes.
PNG
media_image2.png
577
567
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Clusserath teaches a single-line container exit point (annotated fig.1), single-line conveying device (annotated fig.1) and single-line container feed point (annotated fig.1) are designed for the single-line transportation of containers on at least two vertical transportation routes (see fig.2 showing a multilevel container filling machine, 13 and 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Hache and Froehlich, by having a multilevel container processing stations, as taught by Clusserath, to increase the number of containers being processed at one time without increasing the area the apparatus takes up.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hache (FR 3105196 A1), reference made to the Espacenet translation provided with the non-final office action, in view of Froehlich (US 2018/0009553), further in view of Schuesslburner (US 2022/0063295).
Claim 8: Hache as modified by Froehlich teaches the container treatment system according to claim 1.
Hache as modified by Froehlich does not explicitly teach upstream from a first treatment block, a fourth treatment block is arranged with a wet 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.
However, Schuesslburner teaches upstream from a first treatment block (103-fig.1), a fourth treatment block (102-fig.1) is arranged with a wet region (“a container washing machine” ¶[0016],[0047]), comprising a mass conveyor for containers (¶[0052]), wherein the fourth treatment block comprises a third single-line container exit point (¶[0052]), and the first treatment block comprises a third container feed point (¶[0052]), 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 (¶[0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Hache as modified by Froehlich, by adding a further treatment machine to wash the bottles, as taught by Schuesslburner, to ensure the bottles are free from debris and contaminants before filling the bottles.
Hache as modified by Froehlich and Schuesslburner further teaches:
Claim 9: The container treatment system according to claim 8, wherein the fourth treatment block comprises a container washing machine (Schuesslburner: “a container washing machine” ¶[0016],[0047]).
Claim 11: The container treatment system according to claim 8, wherein the fourth treatment block (Schuesslburner: 102-fig.1) comprise a buffer region for the random
PNG
media_image3.png
486
669
media_image3.png
Greyscale
buffering of containers outside the temperature control region (Schuesslburner: ¶[0060]) and downstream from the container feed point of the treatment block (Schuesslburner: ¶[0060]) and upstream from the container exit point of the treatment block (Schuesslburner: ¶[0060],[0019]-[0021]).
Claim 12: An assortment of container treatment systems, wherein each of the container treatment systems comprises a container treatment system according to claim 8, and 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 (Hache: ¶[0018],[0028]).
Claim 13: The assortment of container treatment systems according to claim 12, wherein for two different container treatment systems in the assortment of container treatment systems, the treatment blocks are substantially of identical design (Schuesslburner: 102-105-fig.1; ¶[0045]-[0049],[0016]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hache (FR 3105196 A1), reference made to the Espacenet translation provided with the non-final office action, in view of Froehlich (US 2018/0009553) and Schuesslburner (US 2022/0063295), further in view of Clusserath (US 2010/0000182).
Claim 10: Hache as modified by Froehlich and Schuesslburner teaches the container treatment system according to claim 8.
Hache as modified by Froehlich and Schuesslburner does not teach a single-line container exit point, single-line conveying device and single-line container feed point are designed for the single-line transportation of containers on at least two vertical transportation routes.
PNG
media_image2.png
577
567
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Clusserath teaches a single-line container exit point (annotated fig.1), single-line conveying device (annotated fig.1) and single-line container feed point (annotated fig.1) are designed for the single-line transportation of containers on at least two vertical transportation routes (see fig.2 showing a multilevel container filling machine, 13 and 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the system of Hache, Froehlich, and Schuesslburner, by having a multilevel container processing stations, as taught by Clusserath, to increase the number of containers being processed at one time without increasing the area the apparatus takes up.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but Applicant is arguing the propriety of the prior art as it relates to the newly amended language and that such is not deemed persuasive, because the prior art does render obvious the newly amended claim language as set forth in the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
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 KATIE L GERTH whose telephone number is (303)297-4602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-4pm (CT).
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571)272-4524. 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.
/KATIE L GERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights