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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues that Lecomte does not teach the method steps of “selecting” and “assembling” the several categories of modules from the construction system and assembling the installation from the selected modules. Lecomte teaches handling of hollow bodies, and more specifically the handling of preforms and plastic containers in a container production line and such a production line comprises several processing units designed to perform each one (or more) treatment (s) given (s) on the preform or the container P1 L5-15. It can be seen that the production line of the transport of Lecomte was designed from “selecting” and “assembling” various processing units to be used and are capable to be placed and coupled to the various interfaces for completing the task of required by the installation. In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) (Fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results. The claim language as presented does not provide a distinct methodology. The use of terms “can be” or “coupled” leave the claim open to the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification. Merely claiming something “can be” moved around as a design choice is not a patentable technology. Applicant has not shown in the claim language how the “modular” component is being used differently from an initial design installation that any other transport unit as known in the conveyor technologies.
Regarding claim 1, the substance of the examiner’s obviousness rejection as argued on pages 16-17 of the remarks, the requirements for obviousness are discussed in MPEP § 2142. Like the claimed invention, both Achhammer and Lecomte are directed to a transport handling system. Having one of ordinary skill in the art using the process as taught by Lecomte for in addition of the process of Achhammer would have been within the skill of the art and yielded the predictable result of using the system to achieve a system with various capabilities. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B) and § 2143.02. The rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Achhammer in view of Lecomte is, therefore, maintained.
For the foregoing reasons, the claims stand rejected.
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) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lecomte FR-3050446-A1.
Claim 14, Lecomte teaches a method for producing a modular container-processing installation 1 using a modular construction system P3 L30-35, comprising: selecting a conveyor main module 8 from a plurality of different conveyor main modules of the modular construction system P3 L35-36; P4 L1-15, wherein: the plurality of different conveyor main modules 8 can each be arranged for conveying containers 2,3 through the modular container-processing installation 1; and the plurality of different conveyor main modules 8 each comprises a plurality of main module interfaces 9; selecting a plurality of container-processing main modules 4A-H from a plurality of different container-processing main modules 4A-H of the modular construction system 1, wherein: the plurality of different container-processing main modules 8 can be coupled to the plurality of main module interfaces 9; the plurality of different container-processing main modules 4A-H each comprises a plurality of sub-module interfaces 14; and the plurality of different container-processing main modules 8 each comprises a conveyor sub-module 5 which is connectable to the selected conveyor main module 8 for receiving the containers from the selected conveyor main module 8 and for transferring the containers 2,3 back to the selected conveyor main module 8; selecting a plurality of container-processing sub-modules 5 from a plurality of different container-processing sub-modules 4 of the modular construction system 1, wherein: the plurality of different container-processing sub-modules 4 can be coupled to the plurality of sub-module interfaces 14; assembling the modular container-processing installation 1 from the selected conveyor main module 8, the selected main container-processing modules 8 and the selected container-processing sub-modules 4,5 P16 L3-20.
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) 1, 3-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achhammer U.S. Patent No. 8,862,263 in view of Lecomte FR-3050446-A1.
Claim 1, Achhammer teaches a modular container-processing installation 10 Figs. 1-2 comprising: a conveyor main module 12, which is arranged for conveying containers through the modular container-processing installation 10 a plurality of sub-module of 12 interfaces a plurality of container-processing sub-modules 14,18 C2 L50-67; C3 L1-10; C7 L15-40, which can be coupled to and uncoupled from the plurality of sub-module interfaces using a driverless transport vehicle 22 C7 L40-65; and a control system which, in a self-configuring manner, is configured to automatically adapt the operation of the modular container-processing installation C7 L40-65; depending on at least one of a coupling of at least one of the plurality of container-processing sub-modules 14,18 to at least one of the plurality of sub-module interfaces via 22, and an uncoupling of at least one of the plurality of container-processing sub-modules from at least one of the plurality of sub-module interfaces via 22 C8 L50-67; C9 L1-15; a plurality of container-processing main modules 14,18 which can be coupled to and uncoupled from a plurality of main module 12 interfaces of the conveyor main module 12; using a driverless transport vehicle 22, wherein the plurality of container-processing main modules 14,18 each comprise: at least one of the plurality of sub-module interfaces of 12; but does not teach as Lecomte teaches a conveyor sub-module 14,9 connected or connectable to the conveyor main module 8 for receiving the containers 2,3 from the conveyor main module 8 and for transferring the containers back to the conveyor main module 8 Abstract Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Achhammer with the conveyor configuration taught in Lecomte with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 3, Achhammer teaches the control system is configured: to receive production order information for handling the containers; and to automatically adapt at least one of the operation of the modular container-processing installation 10 and a respective coupling and uncoupling of the plurality of container-processing sub-modules 14,18 to the plurality of sub-module interfaces 14,18 depending on the received production order information C3 L10-30.
Claim 4, Achhammer teaches the control system is configured at least one of: when automatically adapting the operation, to generate a movement path of the containers through the modular container-processing installation 10 including at least a portion of the plurality of container-processing sub-modules 14,18 and to control a movement of the containers in accordance with the generated movement path; when automatically adapting the operation, to adapt operating parameters of at least one of the conveyor main module 12 and the plurality of container-processing sub-modules 14,18; and to automatically adapt at least one of the operation and the respective coupling and uncoupling depending on empirical data in which previous operations of at least one of the modular container-processing installation 10 and other container-processing installations 14,18 are stored at 20 C3 L10-55.
Claim 5, Achhammer teaches a parking station 20; and a driverless transport vehicle 22 for transporting at least one of the plurality of container-processing sub-modules 14,18 between the parking station 20 and the plurality of sub-module interfaces of 12.
Claim 6, Achhammer teaches the control system is configured to control, depending on received production order information, using the driverless transport vehicle 22, a transport 12 of at least one of the plurality of container-processing sub-modules 14,18 between the parking station 20 and at least one of the plurality of sub-module interfaces of 12 for coupling or uncoupling the respective container-processing sub-module 14,18.
Claim 7, Achhammer teaches the control system is configured to control, depending on received production order information, using the driverless transport vehicle 22, a transport 12 of at least one of the plurality of container-processing main modules 14,18 between the parking station 20 and at least one of the plurality of main module interfaces of 12 for coupling or uncoupling the respective container-processing main module 12.
Claim 9, Achhammer teaches the plurality of container-processing sub-modules 14,18 comprise at least one of: at least one labeling sub-module for labeling the containers; at least one testing sub-module for testing the containers; at least one printing sub-module for printing on the containers; at least one cleaning sub-module for cleaning the containers; at least one filling sub-module for filling the containers; at least one closing sub-module for closing the containers; at least one heating sub-module for heating preforms of the containers; at least one molding sub-module for molding the containers from preforms; at least one turning sub-module for turning the containers; at least one cooling sub-module for cooling the containers; at least one coating sub-module for coating the containers; at least one pasteurization module for pasteurizing the containers; at least one drying module for drying the containers; at least one grouping module for grouping the containers; at least one packing module for packing the containers; at least one palletizing module for palletizing the containers; at least one depalletizing module for depalletizing the containers; at least one unpacking module for unpacking the containers; and at least one dating module for dating the containers C4 L10-45.
Claim 10, Achhammer teaches printing sub-module are included, which are jointly coupled to a plurality of sub-module interfaces of 12 of one of the plurality of container-processing main modules 8 C6 L50-67; C7 L1-15, but does not teach as Lecomte teaches at least one testing sub-module 4 and at least one labeling sub-module 4F and; a plurality of filling sub-modules 4D and a plurality of closing sub-modules 4E are included, which are jointly coupled to a plurality of sub-module interfaces 9 of one of the plurality of container-processing main modules 4; and a plurality of heating sub-modules 4A and a plurality of molding sub-modules 4B are included, which are jointly coupled to a plurality of sub-module interfaces 14,9 of one of the plurality of container-processing main modules 4 P6 L20-65; P7 L1-25. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Achhammer with the conveyor configuration and processing system taught in Lecomte with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 12, Achhammer teaches at least one of: the plurality of sub-module interfaces of 12 each comprises at least one of an electrical connection of 12, a communication connection via control, a fluid connection of 12 and a mechanical connection of 12; and the plurality of sub-module interfaces of 12 are identical in construction CC2 L50-67; C3 L1-10.
Claim 13, Achhammer teaches at least one of the following features is fulfilled: the conveyor main module 12 is arranged centrally in the container-processing installation 14,18 Fig. 1; the conveyor main module 12 is configured as a transport carousel, as a long stator or short stator linear drive conveyor, as a planar drive conveyor, as a belt conveyor, or as a neck handling conveyor C2 L50-67; C3 L1-10; and the plurality of container-processing sub-modules 14,18 is arranged in a manner distributed around the conveyor main module 12 C3 L10-30.
Claim 15, Achhammer teaches automatically adapting an operation of the modular container-processing installation 10 using self-configuration of the control system depending on at least one of a coupling and uncoupling of at least one of the plurality of container-processing sub-modules 14,18 C30-55.
Claim 16, Achhammer teaches automatically adapting an operation of the modular container-processing installation 10 by self-configuring the control system depending on at least one of a coupling and uncoupling of at least one of the plurality of container-processing main modules 12 C4 L1-15.
Claim 18, Achhammer teaches the plurality of container-processing sub-modules 14,18 can be coupled to and uncoupled from the plurality of sub-module interfaces of 12 automatically using the driverless transport vehicle 22; the plurality of container-processing main modules 14,18 can be coupled to and uncoupled from the plurality of main module interfaces of 12 of the conveyor main module 12 automatically using the driverless transport vehicle 22; the control system is further self-configuring for automatically adapting an operation of the modular container-processing installation 10 depending on at least one of the coupling of at least one of the plurality of container-processing main modules 14,18 to at least one of the plurality of main module interfaces of 12 and on the uncoupling of at least one of the plurality of container-processing main modules 12 from at least one of the plurality of main module interfaces 12; the control system includes a central data source with variety-dependent data, production-dependent data and system data stored in the central data source C5 L20-50; but does not teach as Lecomte teaches the plurality of container-processing sub-modules 4 includes at least one molding sub-module 4B for molding the containers from preforms using stretch blowing P6 L20-65; P7 L1-25. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Achhammer with the conveyor configuration and processing system taught in Lecomte with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 20, Achhammer teaches the at least one testing sub-module 14,18 and the at least one labeling sub-module 14,18 and printing sub-module 14,18 are jointly coupled to the plurality of sub-module interfaces of 12 of the one of the plurality of container-processing main modules 12 for forming a container equipping main module Fig. 1; but does not teach as Lecomte teaches the plurality of filling sub-modules 4D and the plurality of closing sub-modules 4E are jointly coupled to the plurality of sub-module interfaces of 8 of the one of the plurality of container-processing main modules 4 for forming a container filling and closing main module 4D,E; and the plurality of heating sub-modules 4A and the plurality of molding sub-modules 4B are jointly coupled to the plurality of sub-module interfaces 14,9 of the one of the plurality of container-processing main modules 8 for forming a container-producing main module 8 P6 L20-65; P7 L1-25. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Achhammer with the conveyor configuration and processing system taught in Lecomte with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim(s) 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achhammer U.S. Patent No. 8,862,263 in view of Lecomte FR-3050446-A1 in view of Winzinger WO-2013/060549-A1.
Claim 8, Achhammer does not teach as Winzinger teaches the control system is configured to at least one of generate and receive fault information via 44 indicating a predicted or current defect of a component 2,2a,2b and, depending on the fault information via 44, at least one of: to control at least one of an automatic repair or replacement of the component and a software code assigned to the component 2,2a,2b; to automatically adapt the operation of the modular container-processing installation Fig. 4 such that at least one of the component is bypassed by the containers and a software code assigned to the component is bypassed; and to control an automatic uncoupling of the container-processing sub-module Fig. 4 which comprises the component Abstract P26 L20-25. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Achhammer with the control configuration taught in Winzinger with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 19, Achhammer does not teach as Winzinger teaches the operation of the modular container-processing installation Fig. 4 is automatically adapted such that the at least one of the component is bypassed by the containers and the software code assigned to the component is bypassed while at least one of the component and the software code assigned to the component is automatically replaced or repaired P26 L20-25. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Achhammer with the control configuration taught in Winzinger with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achhammer U.S. Patent No. 8,862,263 in view of Lecomte FR-3050446-A1 in view of Kumagai U.S. Patent No. 10,410,895.
Claim 11, Achhammer does not teach as Kumagai teaches the control system 1 comprises a plurality of decentralized control units 2,3,21,22,23,24,31,32 associated to at least one of the conveyor main module 6 and the plurality of container-processing sub-modules 5, and a central data source 1; and the plurality of decentralized control units 2,3,21,22,23,24,31,32 and the central data source 1 are configured to jointly coordinate the adaptation of the operation of the modular container-processing installation when at least one of coupling and uncoupling one of the plurality of container-processing sub-modules for self-configuration of the control system 1 C5 L1-25. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Achhammer with the control configuration taught in Kumagai with a reasonable expectation of success because
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KAVEL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-2362. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/KAVEL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
KS
Prosecution Insights