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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 8/3/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2 and 5-19 remain pending.
Claims 3 and 4 were previously cancelled. Claim 20 is now also cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 7, 16, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1, line 2, “a container treatment device” would be better recited as “a first container treatment device”.
-Subsequent recitations of “the container treatment device” in Claims 1, 6, 7, 16, 18 should be recited as “the first container treatment device” accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 and 5-19 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.
After further review, regarding Claim 1, the limitation “wherein said 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” renders the claim indefinite. This is because it is unclear as to how the processing device can “switch on” the “protective region” as the “protective region” is not previously claimed with any structural detail that would “turn on”. Therefore, it this renders the scope of the “protective region” unclear and therefore rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 2 and 5-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite as the claims depend from Claim 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 11-19 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 (any of the labelling devices 4A-4C at docking stations 3A-3C) with a treatment region (regions along carousel 2 in which the labelling devices apply labels via transfer cylinders 8) for treating containers (via labelling devices 4A-4C; Para. 0027);
a sensor device (9, 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 (4A-4C; see Para. 0029-0034, 0040; note “Annotated View of Figure” below);
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 (4A-4C) and the container treatment system (1) depending on a signal output of the sensor device (9, 9’; Paras. 0035-0036); and
at least one further container treatment device (i.e. container inlets and outlets on frame 17-19 or another labelling device of 4A-4C) that is arranged next to the container treatment device (labelling devices 4A-4C), wherein the sensor device (9, 9’) is configured such that the protective region (7AL-7CR) is predefined such that the at least one further container treatment device (17-19 or another labelling device of 4A-4C) delimits the protective region (note 7AL and 7CR are disposed adjacent to the frame 17-19 and other areas 7AL-7CR abut/are adjacent to the labelling devices 4A-4C as outlined in Paras. 0029-0030 which explain the areas/regions being formed on both sides of the labelling devices; further the laser radiation output from the sensors per Para. 0031, such lasers can be at least readily implied as ending at an intersection with either the labelling devices or the container input/outputs and thereby the entries to the protective regions are delimited to some extent thereby).
PNG
media_image1.png
585
762
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).
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.
Alternatively, Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 11-19 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 Zech (US PGPUB 2010/0213026), and in further view of Krueger (US Patent 6,922,944).
Alternatively regarding Claim 1, Weiss discloses several features of the container treatment system as claimed (refer to the rejection of Claim 1 above).
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 is brought to Zech which teaches a container treatment system 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),
wherein 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 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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated a protective enclosure comprising an openable portion as taught by Zech associated with the sensor device of Weiss such that the processing device is configured to switch on the sensor device when or before the openable portion is opened as taught by Zech. By incorporating such an enclosure, the system is additionally protected from external influences such as moisture, dust and further sterility of the system can be ensured if desired as taught by Zech (Para. 0010) while further safety of the operator can be further ensured as taught by Zech (Para. 0013).
Further, although the door/openable portion incorporated by 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 the enclosure incorporated in Weiss, 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, see previous 103 rejection.
Regarding Claim 5, Weiss, as modified, discloses one of:
the openable portion ((“protective door, protective flap, protective window” per Para. 0013 of entrances 18 of Zech) includes a door (Para. 0013 of Zech);
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 Zech, the openable door 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 Zech 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 of Zech).
Regarding Claims 8 and 11-16 see previous 103 rejection.
Regarding Claim 17, Weiss, as modified, discloses the openable portion (of Zech) 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 (2 of Zech) and an openable portion (of 18 of Zech) of the protective enclosure (2 of Zech) is closed (note the door would be readily closed during normal operation; Col 8, lines 1-4).
Regarding Claim 19, see previous 103 rejection.
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 Zech (US PGPUB 2010/0213026) and Krueger (US Patent 6,922,944), and in further view of Anderson (US Patent 5,198,661).
Refer to the previous 103 rejection of Claims 9 and 10 as the same modification applies to Weiss in view of Anderson.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes that the following proposed amendment to Claim 1 would appear to at least overcome the prior art and 112 rejections outlined above.
1. (Proposed) A container treatment system comprising:
a first container treatment device with a treatment region for treating containers and a first protective enclosure which at least partially encloses the treatment region, said protective first enclosure having an openable portion for making the treatment region accessible from outside the first protective enclosure;
a sensor device which is configured to predefine a protective region and detect an intrusion into [[a]] the predefined protective region in an environment of the first container treatment device;
a processing device that is configured to adapt an operation of at least one of the first container treatment device and the container treatment system depending on a signal output of the sensor device;
wherein said processing device is configured to switch on at least one of the sensor device and the protective region when the openable portion is automatically opened;
at least one further container treatment device that is arranged next to the first container treatment device;
wherein the at least one further container treatment device comprises at least one further protective enclosure;
wherein the sensor device is located outside of the first protective enclosure and the at least one further protective enclosure; and
wherein the sensor device is configured such that the protective region is predefined such that the at least one further container treatment device delimits the protective region.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on Page 8 pertaining to “1. Weiss does not disclose any “further container treatment device.””:
Examiner respectfully notes the modified interpretation of Weiss outlined above as each labelling unit 4A-4C as well as the container inlets and outlets can be individually viewed as a container treatment device.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on Page 8 pertaining to “2. The Examiner's own characterization is internally inconsistent.”:
Examiner respectfully asserts that a region can “surround” and be internally delimited, but regardless, refer to the rejection above which further explains the relationship of the interpreted areas relative to the structures/devices.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on Page 8-9 pertaining to “3. "Delimits" is supported only by an impermissible inherency finding.”:
Examiner respectfully asserts that Para. 0029 outlines that the “access areas 7AL to 7CR are, for example, formed on both sides of the labeling units 4A to 4C” and therefore can be reasonably viewed as delimited thereby. The dashed lines are merely for reference to a plane of separation. As outlined in Para. 0031 the scanners are placed above the areas and therefore the areas being monitored extend above and/or below the labelling units and hence, the purpose of the dashed lines. The scanners/sensors are not monitoring the devices themselves and therefore the devices themselves are not part of the access area/protective region and therefore delimit such. In other words, the sensor/scanner is monitoring the areas/regions around the devices, and therefore the devices must delimit (even if internally delimit), the regions being monitored. Note the “Annotated View of Figure” provides an example of such regions in the plane of the labeling devices.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on Page 9 pertaining to “4. The rejection articulates no rational underpinning for the modification.”:
Examiner respectfully notes the comments above and the modified interpretation of Weiss outlined above.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on Page 9 pertaining to “5. The proposed modification changes Weiss's principle of operation.”:
Examiner respectfully notes that the manner in which the protective enclosure is claimed leaves open to such modification outlined above. Utilizing a protective enclosure about the entire system of Weiss would not readily change the principle operation of Weiss. Examiner also points attention to the proposed amendment in the “Examiner’s Note” which further details the protective enclosure of the instant application which would render such a modification outlined in the 103 rejection above moot.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on Page 9 pertaining to “6. The claimed arrangement provides a functional benefit the art does not contemplate.”:
Examiner respectfully notes the modified interpretation of Weiss outlined above as each labelling unit 4A-4C as well as the container inlets and outlets can be individually viewed as a container treatment device and are viewed as delimiters as outlined in previous comments.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on Page 9 pertaining to “7. The combination is an impermissible hindsight reconstruction.”:
Examiner respectfully notes it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this instance, Weiss is a multi-machine/device system comprising protective regions as outlined above. However, there is no outlined general physical barrier for further protection of such system. Mougin teaches such a general large physical barrier utilizing further safety operations including a sensor activated based on the opening of the door of such barrier. This would readily increase the safety of a system such as Weiss which utilizes such a sensor for arming not only an entrance of a region but the region itself as outlined above. Further, the mere automatic opening thereof is not a patentable feature given the motivations previously outlined.
Further note, it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPG 871 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP 2145 (IV).
In response to Applicants arguments pertaining to Zech, in view of Krueger, such rejection has been withdrawn and therefore the arguments are rendered moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see “Notice of References Cited”.
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 9/2/2026
Prosecution Insights