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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s amendment filed 2/11/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2 and 5-20 remain pending.
Claims 3 and 4 are cancelled.
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 17-18 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 Claims 17 and 18, each claim recites “an openable portion of the protective enclosure” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to whether or not this is referring to the same openable portion as in Claim 1 or a further portion.
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, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (DE102016221645 A1-see attached PDF for English translation and paragraph numbering referenced below), in view of Mougin (US Patent 9,737,992), and in further view of Loza (US Patent 11,738,956).
Regarding Claim 1, Weiss discloses a container treatment system (1; Figure) comprising:
a container treatment device (carousel 2, labelling devices 4A-4C at docking stations 3A-3C) with a treatment region (region along carousel 2) for treating containers (via labelling devices 4A-4C; Para. 0027);
a sensor device (9 including laser scanners 9AL-9CR) which is configured to detect an intrusion into a predefined protective region (defined in access areas 7AL, 7AR, 7BL, 7BR, 7CL, 7CR) in an environment (surrounding 2) of the container treatment device (2, 4A-4C; see Para. 0030-0034, 0040; note “Annotated View of Figure” below); and
a processing device (control unit 12; note operating unit 5 is also a processing device in communication with the control unit 12 per Para. 0035) that is configured to adapt an operation (i.e. block/prevent upward/downward strokes 14/13) of at least one of the container treatment device (2, 4A-4C) and the container treatment system (1) depending on a signal output of the sensor device (9; Paras. 0035-0036).
PNG
media_image1.png
643
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated View of Figure
However, Weiss fails to explicitly disclose a protective enclosure which at least partially encloses the treatment region, wherein the enclosure comprises an openable portion for making the treatment region accessible from outside the protective enclosure and wherein the processing device is configured to switch on at least one of the sensor device and the protective region when or before the openable portion is automatically opened.
Attention can be brought to the teachings of Mougin which includes a product handling system including a protective enclosure (1; Figure 1) which at least partially encloses a handling region (within 1 including intervention stations 6) in which automated machinery (robot 2) handles products (11) and wherein the enclosure (1) comprises an openable portion (door 4, opening 5) for making the handling region (within 1) accessible from outside the protective enclosure (1; Col 5, lines 38-39) and wherein a processing device (“means 21 for control”; Figure 2) is configured to switch on at least one sensor device (scanner 7; note Col 7, lines 19-25 describe the connection between the sensor/scanner and control means) of a protective region (6 including 8, 9, 10) when or before the openable portion (4, 5) is opened (Col 6, lines 49-52) and adjust operation based on detection of the sensor device (7; see Col 6, line 63 through Col 7, line 14 and Col 7, lines 41-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Weiss to include a protective enclosure comprising an openable portion such that the processing device is configured to switch on the sensor device when or before the openable portion is opened as taught by Mougin. By modifying Weiss in this manner, the operator’s safety can be readily ensured as taught by Mougin (Col 10, lines 40-48). Further, by selectively activating the sensor device based on when the door is opened as taught by Mougin, the sensor device does not need to continually run until the possibility of user intrusion has arisen and therefore power can be further saved due to such selective activation.
Further, although the door/openable portion (4, 5) of Mougin is not disclosed as automatically actuated, attention can be brought to the teachings of Loza which includes a system (200; Figures 1-2) which includes enclosures (of workstations 140a-140d) which includes doors (142a-d) which are automatically actuated by a control system (130) to be selectively opened and closed (Col 10, lines 17-27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized an automatic door as taught by Loza, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. See MPEP 2144.04 (III). It is noted that using powered/automated doors decreases the amount of manual force required to move the door.
Regarding Claim 2, Weiss, as modified, discloses:
the sensor device (9) is at least one of optical and selectively switchable (laser scanners 9AL to 9CR; Para. 0030, switchable per Para. 0034);
the predefined protective region (access areas 7AL, 7AR, 7BL, 7BR, 7CL, 7CR) is selectively switchable (via 9AL to 9CR per Para. 0034);
the sensor device (9) has a laser scanner (Para. 0030); and
the sensor device (9) is configured to generate any of at least one of a light and laser curtain, at least one of a light and laser barrier; and at least one of a light grid and laser grid for detecting the intrusion (lasers of 9AL-9CR forming “monitoring radiation” 10L, 10R; Para. 0031, 0033) .
Regarding Claim 5, Weiss, as modified, discloses one of:
the openable portion (4 of Mougin) includes a door (4 of Mougin);
the sensor device (9 or Weiss) is configured such that the protective region is predefined such that it adjoins the openable portion (as incorporated by Mougin, the openable door 4 thereof would readily be situated on the outer circumference of 2 of Weiss and therefore adjoining the protective regions).
Regarding Claim 6, Weiss, as modified, discloses an automatic changer (docking stations 3A-3C for changing labelling units 4A-4C) that is designed for automatically one of changing, servicing, and refitting parts (i.e. labelling units 4A-4C) in the treatment region (of 2) of the container treatment device (1), wherein the automatic changer is arranged outside of the protective enclosure (incorporated by Mougin on 2 of Weiss) and is designed to one of exchange, maintain, and refit the parts in the treatment region of the container treatment device (of Weiss) through the openable portion (door 4 as shown in Figure 1 of Mougin).
Regarding Claim 8, Weiss, as modified, discloses an additional user interface (5) which is arranged within the predefined protective region (7AR) and via which at least one of the sensor device (9AR) and the protective region (7AR) cannot be switched on (see Para. 0038-0039).
Regarding Claim 11, Weiss, as modified, discloses the sensor device (9) has any of at least one camera and at least one signal scanner (Para. 0032-0033).
Regarding Claim 12, Weiss, as modified, discloses the sensor device (9) is configured to generate any of at least one signal curtain, at least one signal barrier, and at least one signal grid for detecting the intrusion (formed by radiation 10R, 10L; Para. 0031, 0033).
Regarding Claim 13, Weiss, as modified, discloses the sensor device (9) is configured to generate one of a plurality of signal curtains/a plurality of signal barriers (formed by 10R, 10L) arranged at an angle to one another and adjoin one another (at 9; Para. 0030-0031, 0033).
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, Weiss, as modified, discloses the sensor device (9) comprises an emitter (of 9) being configured to output a signal curtain (see 10R, 10L; Para. 0031) and the emitter (of 9) includes a laser emitter (Para. 0030-0031) and it can be reasonably assumed that the sensor device must have a receiver configured to detect when a signal beam of the signal curtain (10R, 10L) is reflected back from an object (note alternative 103 rejection is provided below).
Regarding Claim 16, Weiss, as modified, discloses the processing device (12, 5) is configured to adapt the operation depending on the signal output such that one of an automatic refitting, part exchange, and maintenance operation of the container treatment device (2) is stopped when the signal output of the sensor device (9) indicates intrusion into the predefined protective region (7AL-7CR; Para. 0035-0036).
Regarding Claim 17, Weiss, as modified, discloses an openable portion (4 of Mougin) of the protective enclosure is opened in one of the automatic refitting, the parts exchange, and the maintenance operation (note in order to perform the refitting, maintenance or parts exchange of Weiss, the door incorporated would have to be opened).
Regarding Claim 18, Weiss, as modified, discloses the processing device (12, 5) is configured such that at least one of the sensor device (9), the protective region (i.e. 7AR) and a processing of the signal output of the sensor device (9) is deactivated when the container treatment device (2) is operated in an operating mode (see Para. 0038, 0039, 0044-0045 of Weiss which mentions deactivating 7AR and sensors thereof during operation) in which at least one of the protective enclosure (1 of Mougin) and an openable portion (4 of Mougin) of the protective enclosure (1 of Mougin) is closed (note the door would be readily closed during normal operation; Col 8, lines 1-4).
Regarding Claim 19, Weiss, as modified, discloses the sensor device (9) is configured not to detect at least one of an intrusion and presence in a predefined secure access corridor (i.e. 7AR in Figure) in the predefined protective region (7AL-7CR) as an intrusion into the predefined protective region (see Para. 0038, 0039, 0044-0045).
Regarding Claim 20, Weiss, as modified, discloses at least one further container treatment device (i.e. container inlets and outlets on frame 17-19) that is arranged next to the container treatment device (2), wherein the sensor device (9) is configured such that the protective region (7AL-7CR) is predefined such that the at least one further container treatment device (17-19) delimits the protective region (note 7AL and 7CR surround the frame 17-19 but given the laser radiation output from the sensors, such lasers can be readily implied at ending at an intersection with such structures).
Claims 7, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (DE102016221645 A1-see attached PDF for English translation and paragraph numbering referenced below), in view of Mougin (US Patent 9,737,992) and Loza (US Patent 11,738,956), and in further view of Milbrath (US Patent 6,166,371).
Regarding Claim 7, Weiss, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention including the processing device (12, 5) being configured to monitor the protective regions (7AL-7CR) when the automatic changer (docking stations 3A-3C for changing labelling units 4A-4C) is activated for automatically exchanging, servicing, and refitting the parts in the treatment region (of 2) of the container treatment device (2; see Para. 0040 which discloses monitoring during lowering of labelling units), however, Weiss, as modified, does not readily disclose the processing device (12, 5) is configured to switch on at least one of the sensor device and the protective region when or before the automatic changer is activated (claim 7) or when and before the openable portion (incorporated by Mougin) is opened (claim 4).
Attention is brought to the teachings of Milbrath which teaches industrial machinery systems (i.e. see Figure 7) including a light curtain system (1; Figure 1) usable in cooperation with robotic machinery (8), wherein light curtains (2 shown as curtains 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in Figure 7) of the light curtain system (1) are controlled by a processing device/controller (4) which also controls the robotic machinery (8) and wherein the processing device/controller (4) is configured to switch on the light curtains (2) when and before the machinery (8) operates (see Col 4, lines 31-36 which disclose selective activation of the curtains based on feedback and controlling operation of the robotic machinery based on such feedback).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the processing device (12, 5) of Weiss to be configured to control switching of the sensor device (9) as taught by the controller and sensors of Milbrath. By modifying Weiss in this manner, the light curtains can be selectively activated or deactivated to allow for entry of objects or non-entry of objects depending on the stage of operation as taught by Milbrath (see Col 7, line 66 through Col 8, line 15). Further by modifying the processing device/controller that controls the automatic changer to also be capable of controlling the activation/deactivation of the sensor devices allows for more centralized control of the entire system.
Alternatively, regarding Claims 14 and 15, Weiss, as modified, discloses the sensor device (9) comprises an emitter (of 9) being configured to output a signal curtain (see 10R, 10L; Para. 0031) and the emitter (of 9) includes a laser emitter (Para. 0030-0031) and while it can be reasonably assumed that the sensor device must have a receiver configured to detect when a signal beam of the signal curtain is reflected back from an object, this is not explicitly disclosed.
Milbrath further teaches the use of a sensor device (2; Figures 1-2) comprising an emitter (22; Figures 3-4) for emitting a signal curtain (light curtain) and a receiver (20) for detecting a signal beam (17) of the curtain that is reflected back from an object (Col 4, line 55 through Col 5, line 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the sensor device of Weiss to include a receiver as taught by Milbrath in order to properly detect interruption of the emitted laser curtain/beams and therefore ensure detection of interruption.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (DE102016221645 A1-see attached PDF for English translation and paragraph numbering referenced below), in view of Mougin (US Patent 9,737,992) and Loza (US Patent 11,738,956), and in further view of Anderson (US Patent 5,198,661)
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Weiss, as modified, discloses a user interface (5) is a system user interface which is arranged outside the predefined protective region (7AL-7CR wherein 7AR is excluded and therefore outside the protective region per Para. 0038-0039) but does not readily disclose that the sensor device (9) and/or the protective region (7AL-7CR) can be switched on by such an interface.
Note the teachings of Anderson which includes another sensor device (formed by light curtain system 118; Figure 7) forming a protective region (162) and a user interface (144) that is arranged outside the protective region (162) that is configured to switch on the sensor devices (118; see Col 5, line 67 through Col 6, line 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Weiss by including a user interface arranged outside the protective region for switching on the sensor device as taught by Anderson. By modifying Weiss in this manner, the sensor device can be readily activated or deactivated without intruding on the protective region and therefore the sensor device can be readily controlled without interrupting operations.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zech (US PGPUB 2010/0213026), in view of Krueger (US Patent 6,922,944).
Regarding Claim 1, Zech discloses a container treatment system (Figure as shown) comprising:
a container treatment device (machine 3) with a treatment region (formed inside of 1) for treating containers (bottles) and a protective enclosure (formed by “protection 2”; Para. 0020) which at least partially encloses the treatment region (1; Para. 0020), the protective enclosure (2) having an openable portion (“protective door, protective flap, protective window” per Para. 0013 of entrances 18) for making the treatment region (of 1) accessible from outside the protective enclosure (2);
a sensor device (“sensor element or switching element associated with the shut-off device” per Para. 0013 located at entrances 18 per Para. 0024) which is configured to detect an intrusion into a predefined protective region (protective region 1) in an environment of the container treatment device (3; Para. 0020, 0024); and
a processing device (“shut-off device”) that is configured to adapt an operation (i.e. shut-off) of at least one of the container treatment device (3) and the container treatment system depending on a signal output of the sensor device (“sensor element or switching element”; Para. 0024).
Further although Zech does not explicitly disclose the processing device (“shut-off device” and/or controller associated therewith) is configured to switch on at least one of the sensor device (“sensor element or switching element associated with the shut-off device” per Para. 0013) and the protective region when or before the openable portion (door, flap window) is opened, it can be readily implied that the sensor device (“sensor element or switching element associated with the shut-off device” per Para. 0013) has been readily switched (powered) on at least prior to opening the openable portion in order to readily detect the opening thereof (as outlined in Paras. 0013, 0024).
Further, although the door/openable portion of Zech is not disclosed as automatically actuated, attention can be brought to the teachings of Krueger which includes an automatic safety door (100; Figure 1, 3) for access to machinery wherein the door includes a sliding door (102) which can be automatically opened and a window which can be automatically opened for access to the machinery (i.e. see 122; Figure 9; Col 4, lines 3-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized an automatic door as taught by Krueger in Zech, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. See MPEP 2144.04 (III). It is noted that using powered/automated doors decreases the amount of manual force required to move the door.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments pertain to limitations that are rendered unpatentable by newly applied references in the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see “Notice of References Cited”.
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 JOSHUA G KOTIS whose telephone number is (571)270-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6am-430pm.
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.
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 4/29/2026
Prosecution Insights