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 .
The specification, abstract, drawings and claims of September 23, 2024 are under examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on November 13, 2024. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in Paragraph 160, reference character “20” is used to refer to an apparatus and processing machine.
Paragraph 210 appears to end with an incomplete sentence.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: please correct “characteristic for a for influencing”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
See “transport device which transports the containers” in claim 1, with “device” being the generic placeholder and “transports the containers” being the modifying functional language. The specification discloses a starwheel.
See “at least one processing device which is configured for processing a container” in claim 1, with “device” being the generic placeholder and “configured for processing a container” being the modifying functional language. The specification discloses a forming station and other stations.
See “detection device which is configured to detect at least one measurement value” in claim 1, with “device” being the generic placeholder and “configured to detect at least one measurement value” being the modifying functional language.
See “evaluation device which is configured to evaluate the detected measurement value taking into account at least one further operating value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus” in claim 1, with “device” being the generic placeholder and “configured to evaluate the detected measurement value taking into account at least one further operating value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus” being the modifying functional language.
See “assignment device which is configured to assign to the measurement value an operating value” in claim 2, with “device” being the generic placeholder and “which is configured to assign to the measurement value an operating value” being the modifying functional language.
See “storage device which is configured for storing a plurality of measurement values” in claim 3, with “device” being the generic placeholder and “configured for storing a plurality of measurement values” being the modifying functional language.
See “selection device which is configured to evaluate a target value from a plurality of target values” in claim 6, with “device” being the generic placeholder and “configured to evaluate a target value from a plurality of target values” being the modifying functional language.
See “evaluation module which is configured to assign measurement values to the individual rollers on the guide cam” in claim 8, with “module” being the generic placeholder and “configured to assign measurement values to the individual rollers on the guide cam” being the modifying functional language.
See “evaluation device which is configured to evaluate this recorded measurement value taking into account at least one further operating value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus” in claim 13, with “device” being the generic placeholder and “configured to evaluate this recorded measurement value taking into account at least one further operating value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus” being the modifying functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, the recitation “evaluation device which is configured to evaluate the detected measurement value taking into account at least one further operating value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus” has been interpreted under 335 USC 112(f). The specification appears to disclose a server along with a model or neural network. However, the specification does not appear to sufficiently disclose an algorithm for evaluating “the detected measurement value taking into account at least one further operating value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus” with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill would understand how the function intended to be performed. The specification fails to disclose what entails “taking into account at least one further operating value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus” or how the operating value affects the evaluation of the measurement value.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, the recitation “assignment device which is configured to assign to the measurement value an operating value” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). However, the specification does not appear to disclose a structure to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim language fails to find support in the specification.
Regarding Claim(s) 3, the recitation “storage device which is configured for storing a plurality of measurement values” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). However, the specification does not appear to disclose a structure to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim language fails to find support in the specification.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, the recitation “selection device which is configured to evaluate a target value from a plurality of target values” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). However, the specification does not appear to disclose a structure to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim language fails to find support in the specification.
Regarding Claim(s) 13, the recitation “evaluation device which is configured to evaluate this recorded measurement value taking into account at least one further operating value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus” has been interpreted under 335 USC 112(f). The specification appears to disclose a server along with a model or neural network. However, the specification does not appear to sufficiently disclose an algorithm for evaluating “the detected measurement value taking into account at least one further operating value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus” with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill would understand how the function intended to be performed. The specification fails to disclose what entails “taking into account at least one further operating value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus” or how the operating value affects the evaluation of the measurement value.
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 1-15 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 Claim(s) 1, Claim limitation “evaluation device which is configured to evaluate the detected measurement value taking into account at least one further operating value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As mentioned above, the specification fails to sufficiently disclose the algorithm required to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Claim limitation “assignment device which is configured to assign to the measurement value an operating value” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not appear to disclose the corresponding structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Claim limitation “storage device which is configured for storing a plurality of measurement values” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not appear to disclose the corresponding structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Claim limitation “selection device which is configured to evaluate a target value from a plurality of target values” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, the language “can be” renders the claim indefinite because the claim is unclear if the language is required by the invention. Further, the claim is unclear as to what structure is being set forth.
Claim 13 does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966).
Claims 2-12, 14 and 15 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Document (DE102017120295A1, copy and translation provided by applicant, hereafter ‘295) in view of Robinson et al. (USPN 5895857).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, ‘295 teaches an apparatus for processing containers, having a transport device (treatment machine 10 having a carousel, see Para. 33) which transports the containers to be processed along a predefined transport path and having at least one processing device (“filling machine”, see Para. 35) which is configured for processing a container in a predefined manner, wherein the apparatus has a movement device, and this movement device has at least one first guide cam (curve 14) and at least one guide roller (roller 161) which is configured to roll relative to the guide cam and wherein the apparatus further comprises a detection device (15 having sensor 151) which is configured to detect at least one measurement value which is characteristic of a running property of the guide roller relative to the guide cam. The detection device detects vibrations from roller (see Para. 46) and uses the results to evaluate the state of the roller (the wear condition of the roller, see Para. 59, 60). ‘295 fails to teach the apparatus has an evaluation device which is configured to evaluate this detected measurement value taking into account at least one further operating value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus. Robinson et al. teaches an evaluation device (signal processing unit 22) which is configured to evaluate a detected measurement value (vibration signal from vibration sensor 28) and also receives a further operating value (signal representing a shaft speed from tachometer 30) characteristic of the operation of an apparatus (gearbox 24). The signal from the tachometer is used for synchronous averaging of the vibration signal [Col. 6:61-Col. 7:15]. The synchronous averaging removes normal vibration components and the remaining vibration signal is used to detect faults in a gear (36). This is considered to be evaluating the detected measurement value taking into account at least one further operating value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus. The art of ‘295 is directed to analyzing faults in a roller (the wear of the roller) while Robinson et al. is directed to analyzing faults in a gear. Both use vibration signals to determine the state of the roller or gear. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an evaluation device which is configured to evaluate this detected measurement value taking into account at least one further operating value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus. Taking into account the further operating value would allow the vibration signal to be processed to reveal information that can be used to determine whether or not the roller needs replaced.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, ‘295 teaches an assignment device which is configured to assign to the measurement value an operating value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus (implied by Para. 71, “measured amplitudes of the acceleration a are assigned to a specific machine angle”).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, ‘295 teaches the apparatus has a storage device (memory module 153) which is configured for storing a plurality of measurement values.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, ‘295 teaches the apparatus has a plurality of processing devices (treatment machines 10, 20, 30, 40) which are configured to process containers in a predefined manner, wherein each of these processing devices is assigned at least one cam roller (161).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, ‘295 teaches the apparatus has a comparison device which is configured to compare measured measurement values with at least one target value (see Para. 59-60, target value 1532, “comparing it with the target value”).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, ‘295 teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the apparatus has at least one further sensor device which is configured to record at least one value characteristic for a for influencing factors. Robinson et al. teaches a further sensor device (tachometer 30) configured to record at least one value characteristic (shaft speed) for influencing factors (used to synchronously average the vibration data). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least one further sensor device which is configured to record at least one value characteristic for a for influencing factors in order to process the measurement value.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, ‘295 teaches an evaluation module (152) which is configured to assign measurement values to the individual rollers on the guide cam.
Regarding Claim(s). 10, ‘295 teaches (Para. 20, 76) the apparatus is selected from a group of apparatuses which includes forming devices (“stretch blow molding machine”) configured for forming plastics material preforms into plastics material containers, filling devices (“filling machine”) configured for filling containers, sterilizing devices (“cleaning machine”) configured for sterilizing containers, heating devices (“heating device”) configured for heating plastics material preforms, printing devices configured for printing containers, labeling devices configured for labeling containers, closing devices (“capper”) configured for closing containers with container closures, packing devices (“packaging machine”) configured for packing containers, and cleaning devices (“cleaning machine”) configured for cleaning containers.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, ‘295 teaches the detection device has at least one sensor device (151) which is configured to detect at least one measurement value (“acceleration”) which is characteristic of at least one movement variable of the guide roller or the processing device or the holding device.
Regarding Claim(s) 12, ‘295 in view of Robinson et al. teaches a container processing system having at least one apparatus according to claim 1, and ‘295 further teaches the container processing system has a further apparatus (treatment machine 20) configured for processing containers and a detection device (25) is provided which is configured to detect at least one further measurement value characteristic of this further apparatus.
Regarding Claim(s) 13, ‘295 teaches a method for processing containers, wherein a transport device (treatment machine 10 having a carousel, see Para. 33) transports the containers to be processed along a predefined transport path and at least one processing device (“filling machine”, see Para. 35) processes at least one container in a predefined manner, wherein the apparatus has a movement device, and this movement device has at least one first guide cam (curve 14), as well as at least one guide roller (161) which is configured to roll relative to the guide cam and wherein the apparatus further has a detection device (15) configured detect at least one measurement value which is characteristic of a running property of the guide roller relative to the guide cam. The detection device detects vibrations from roller (see Para. 46) and uses the results to evaluate the state of the roller (the wear condition of the roller, see Para. 59, 60). ‘295 fails to teach the apparatus has an evaluation device which is configured to evaluate this recorded measurement value taking into account at least one further operating value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus. Robinson et al. teaches an evaluation device (signal processing unit 22) which is configured to evaluate a detected measurement value (vibration signal from vibration sensor 28) and also receives a further operating value (signal representing a shaft speed from tachometer 30) characteristic of the operation of an apparatus (gearbox 24). The signal from the tachometer is used for synchronous averaging of the vibration signal [Col. 6:61-Col. 7:15]. The synchronous averaging removes normal vibration components and the remaining vibration signal is used to detect faults in a gear (36). This is considered to be evaluating the detected measurement value taking into account at least one further operating value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus. The art of ‘295 is directed to analyzing faults in a roller (the wear of the roller) while Robinson et al. is directed to analyzing faults in a gear. Both use vibration signals to determine the state of the roller or gear. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an evaluation device which is configured to evaluate this recorded measurement value taking into account at least one further operating value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus. Taking into account the further operating value would allow the vibration signal to be processed to reveal information that can be used to determine whether or not the roller needs replaced. Claim 13 is directed to a method, but does not recite any method steps. Therefore, the claim has been treated as best understood.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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 MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights