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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 5/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the specifics disclosed related to the monitoring unit is a special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because applicant’s arguments directed toward Kramer are moot. The rejection under 35 USC 103 below addresses all the claim features of claim 1 so there can be no common technical feature between the groups.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/26/2026.
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.
Claims 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the action of the pressurization" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the deformation of the containers " in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the operative condition" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the level of defectiveness" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "said problem of too low pressure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "said too high defectiveness" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the number of collapsed containers" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the detected defectiveness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the detected problem" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-14 depend from a rejected base claim, incorporate the indefinite language though dependency and are rejected for the same reasons as the base claim.
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 1-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoni et al. [US2016/0194189] in view of Zolfl [WO2015/040006, machine translation provided].
Zoni discloses a decorating machine (1) capable of decorating containers comprising: a plurality of transporting units (handling units 12/52) capable of transporting respective containers (paragraph 0036, 0084); a conveyor (5) configured for conveying the units so that the containers are transported by means of the units being conveyed (paragraph 0032); a decorating module (labelling unit 40) positioned on the periphery of the conveyor, the machine being configured so that the transported containers are sequentially decorated while being transported (paragraph 0057-58, 0069); wherein each transporting unit comprises: a respective lower support (support plate 15) capable of supporting the bottom of the container (paragraph 0037); a respective upper support (filling device 14/53) capable of holding the container on the lower support by acting on the top of the container and capable of pressurizing the inner volume of the container (paragraph 0042, 0047-49; 0085); the upper support comprising: a respective pressurization device (31) capable of pressurizing the inner volume of the container, by generating a fluid pressurization in the inner volume of the container (paragraph 0049); a respective holding head (25/82) capable of holding the top of the container (paragraph 0042; 0103); a respective actuation device (63, 67, 72) capable of pressing the head (82) against the action of the pressurization, to hold the container on the lower support (paragraph 0090; 0094; 0096).
Zoni fails to disclose a monitoring unit.
Zolfl discloses a machine for labeling and evaluating a container. Zolfl discloses a monitoring unit (camera or optical unit) which is configured for automatically and visually monitoring the deformation of the containers being conveyed to automatically detect, based on the monitored deformation, the operative condition of at least one of said devices and the level of defectiveness of the containers (a camera or optical mechanism acquires images of a pressurized container and determines the volume of the container, and if the container meets a required standard when checking if its filled based upon the condition of the container from the images, which determines if the filling mechanism is operating as intended).
With respect to claim 2, Zolfl shows a monitoring unit (2a or 2b) in a configuration that is capable of automatically detecting a problem of too low pressure in a respective one of the pressurization devices or a too high defectiveness of the container if at least one container is collapsed on the support (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 3, Zolfl shows a monitoring unit (2a or 2b) in a configuration that is capable of automatically discriminate between said problem of too low pressure and said too high defectiveness based on the number of collapsed containers (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 4, Zoni discloses each of the respective pressurization devices of the transporting units share a same pressurization circuit (paragraph 0047-49).
With respect to claim 5, Zolfl shows a monitoring unit (2a or 2b) in a configuration that is capable of automatically detecting a problem of too high pressure in the pressurization devices if at least one container is too swollen (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 6, Zolfl shows a monitoring unit (2a or 2b) in a configuration that is capable of automatically detecting a problem in the actuation devices if at least one container is too long from the bottom to the top (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 7, Zoni discloses each actuation device comprises a respective fluid spring and the actuation devices of the transporting units share a same fluid circuit (paragraph 0091, 102).
With respect to claim 8, Zolfl shows a monitoring unit (2a or 2b) in a configuration that is capable of automatically inform a user selectively about the detected defectiveness, and/or the detected problem (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 9, Zolfl discloses the monitoring unit comprises a camera (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 10, Zolfl shows a monitoring unit (2a or 2b) in a configuration that is capable of automatically acquire at least two subsequent images of each container being conveyed; to automatically detect a possible decentralization of the container with respect to the lower support, the monitoring unit being configured preferably to automatically inform a user about the detected decentralization (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 11, Zoni discloses each lower support (15) comprises a respective plate having an axis (Z) (axis A,E) and each container presents a longitudinal axis (Y) extending from the bottom to the top, said decentralization corresponding to an offset between the axis (Y) of the container and the axis (Z) of the plate (Figure 3).
With respect to claim 14, Zoni discloses the conveyor is a carousel which is configured to rotate on itself to convey the transporting units, wherein each lower support (15) is rotatable on itself with respect to the carousel while being conveyed by the carousel, so that each container is decorated while being conveyed and while rotating on itself (Figures 1-4), and Zolfl discloses wherein the monitoring unit (2a) is radially offset with respect to the container, which in combination of Zoni would result in the monitoring unit being radially offset with respect to the transporting units relative to a rotation axis (X) of the carousel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2685. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/DANIEL MCNALLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
DPM
August 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights