DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 7-10 and 12-20 as well as the addition of claims 21-35.
Applicant’s arguments in view of the specification amendments, see page 14 of the Remarks, filed 26 May 2026, with respect to the specification amendment have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification amendment has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in view of the claim amendments, see page 15 of the Remarks, filed 26 May 2026, with respect to the claim objections of claims 1 and 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of claims 1 and 2 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in view of the claim amendments, see pages 15-18 of the Remarks, filed 26 May 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objections seen on page 14 of the Remarks, the Applicant states that updated drawings are submitted. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. There does not appear to be drawings submitted to overcome the drawing objections of Figures 4(a) to 4(f). The drawing objection will be maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 4(a) to 4(f) contain gray-scale which makes it difficult to read parts of the graph. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the one or more processors of claim 29 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2, 23 and 30 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.
Claim 2 in lines 24-25, claim 23 in line 15 and claim 30 in line 18 contain the limitation “a fourth volumetric filling error value”. The specification submitted 13 February 2025 states on page 3, lines 8-30, that the first detected value of the volumetric filling error is calculated. The fourth volumetric filling error value does not appear in the specification. While it is understood from the specification that the volumetric filling error values are found and updated (Page 11, Lines 16-24), it is not clear where the fourth volumetric filling error is calculated based on the first compensated closing time. It is recommended that the claims are amended with support from the specification. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as it is written.
Claims 2, 23 and 30 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.
Claim 2 in line 27, claim 23 in line 17 and claim 30 in line 21 contain the limitation “a fifth volumetric filling error value”. The specification submitted 13 February 2025 states on page 3, lines 8-30, that the first detected value of the volumetric filling error is calculated. The fifth volumetric filling error value does not appear in the specification. While it is understood from the specification that the volumetric filling error values are found and updated (Page 11, Lines 16-24), it is not clear where the fifth volumetric filling error is calculated based on the first compensated closing time. It is recommended that the claims are amended with support from the specification. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as it is written.
Claim 29 is 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.
Claim 29 in line 2 contain the limitation “one or more processors”. The specification submitted 13 February 2025 states on page 6, lines 7-16, that apparatus contains a control unit and a memory. The one or more processors is not seen in the drawings or in the specification as performing the operation with the non-transitory computer-readable medium. It is not clear if the one or more processors are part of the apparatus or it is the control unit performing the operations. It is recommended that the claims are amended with support from the specification. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as it is written.
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 29-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of the claims 29-35 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 1
Each of claims 29-35 is directed to an apparatus or a machine that is configured to perform operations for collecting information, processing information and sending signals to control the dosing of a fluid product to containers comprising a plurality of filling valves. As such, each of claims 29-35 falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 29-35 recites an apparatus or a machine that is configured to perform operations for collecting information, processing information and sending signals to control the dosing of a fluid product to containers comprising a plurality of filling valves.
Specifically, independent Claim 29 (and its dependent claims) recites an apparatus comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations that comprises:
controlling, by a control unit, an opening of a filling valve (additional element);
dispensing, by the filling valve, a fluid product into a container (additional element);
measuring, based on sensor signals from a flowmeter, values of flowrate of the fluid product dispensed by the filling valve, said measuring occurring at a predefined sampling interval (making an observation in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process);
determining, by the control unit, a first volumetric filling error value, based on:
the measured values of flowrate and a target volume to be dispensed to said container (making a judgement or evaluation in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process), or
linear interpolation of a collection of volumetric filling error values, wherein the volumetric filling error values are functions of measured values of flowrates (making a mathematical calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept and/or an evaluation or judgement in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process);
determining, by the control unit, a compensated volume as a difference between the target volume and the determined first volumetric filling error value (making a judgement or evaluation in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process);
determining, by the control unit, a compensated closing time representative of a time at which a dispensed volume is predicted to reach said compensated volume (making a judgement or evaluation in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process);
controlling, by the control unit and at the determined compensated closing time, a closing of the filling valve (additional element);
determining, by the control unit, after having closed the filling valve, a second volumetric filling error value based on a selected measured value of flowrate of the measured values of flowrate, wherein the selected measured value of flowrate was measured proximally before the compensated closing time (making an observation in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process); and
updating the collection of measured volumetric filling error values based on the second volumetric filling error value and the selected measured value of the measured value of flowrate (making an observation in the human mind, e.g., storing data, which is grouped as a mental process).
As indicated above, independent claim 29 recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Further, dependent claims 30-35 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
As identified above, independent claim 29 and its respective dependent claims 30-35 include the additional elements of controlling, by a control unit, an opening of a filling valve; dispensing, by the filling valve, a fluid product into a container; and controlling, by the control unit and at the determined compensated closing time, a closing of the filling valve . Per Applicant’s specification, the control unit is nothing more than a general purpose computer (e.g., page 6, lines 7-16 of Applicant’s specification). Independent claim 29 and its respective dependent claims 30-35 only recite this control unit (claimed as “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to…”).
The above-identified abstract ideas in independent Claim 29 (and its respective dependent Claims 30-35) are not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). Specifically, the control unit controlling an opening of a filling valve, and controlling a closing of the filling valve at the determined compensated closing time represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g) as merely sending data to the filling valve for control thereof since independent claim 29 and its respective dependent claims 30-35 only recite the control unit (claimed as “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to…”). More specifically, the limitation “dispensing, by the filling valve, a fluid product into a container” represents insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g) as merely sending data to the filling valve for control thereof since independent claim 29 and its respective dependent claims 30-35 only recite the control unit (claimed as “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to…”). The above-identified abstract ideas in independent claim 29 and its respective dependent claims 30-35 are not integrated into a practical application because these claims include no additional elements that improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these claims recite any additional elements that serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, none of these claims recite any additional elements that add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the claimed apparatus or method amounts to simply implementing the above-identified abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claim 29 and its respective dependent claims 30-35 are not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claim 29 (and its respective dependent claims 30-35 is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, each of Claims 29-35 is directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B
None of Claims 29-35 includes additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
As identified above, independent claim 29 and its respective dependent claims 30-35 include the additional elements of controlling, by a control unit, an opening of a filling valve; dispensing, by the filling valve, a fluid product into a container; and controlling, by the control unit and at the determined compensated closing time, a closing of the filling valve .
Applicant’s specification on page 1, lines 27-29 and page 2, lines 1-2 states that the apparatus is widely known. The control unit is nothing more than a general purpose computer (e.g., page 4, lines 7-16 of Applicant’s specification, wherein control unit may be implemented in a form of a computing system). In other words, the control unit (stated in claim 29 as “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to…”). is used to implement the above-identified abstract ideas (e.g. mental processes and mathematical concepts). Page 4, lines 7-16 of the Applicant’s specification further describes the control unit as a form of computing system that can be any data processing device which includes a memory and a processor electronically connected to the memory that stores program instructions to acquire a flowrate at a predefined interval, opening of a filling valve, determining a first volumetric filling error value, determining a compensated volume, determining a compensated closing time, determining a second volumetric filling error value, and updating a collection.
Additionally, as claimed, the control unit merely performs the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, storing and sending data, and (ii) automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the terms “control unit”, “processor” and “memory” are reasonably construed as generic computing devices (i.e., a control unit as described in page 4, lines 7-16) which implements the claimed acquiring, determining, and sending commands identified above. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves (generic recitation of a control unit or no recitation of a control unit) and the specification (does not disclose specific structure of the control units), that the control unit requires no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the above-identified steps of the claimed apparatus and process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the control unit and memory to operate. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph since this hardware (i.e. control unit and memory) performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computing arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware (i.e. control unit and memory) is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computing industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the control unit because it describes the control unit in a manner that indicates that the control unit and memory is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I))).
The above-identified limitations of claims 29-35 amount to implementing the above-identified abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the control unit as described in page 4, lines 7-16 of Applicant’s specification). Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea and method of organizing human activity of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See, MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, claims 29-35 are directed to applying the above-identified abstract idea on a computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish) or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR) according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). In other words, none of claims 29-35 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of claims 29-35 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 29-35 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The Office recommends amending claims 29-35 to a system or method that requires both the control unit and the controllable filling valve, or cancelling these claims since the control unit itself (e.g., memory and processor) is not disclosed to perform the claimed functions of opening the filing valve or dispensing the fluid product or closing the filing valve.
Prior Art
The closest pieces of prior art are: Graffin (US 5515888 A) in view of Clusserath (US 8701719 B2) in further view of Altendorf (DE 102005035264 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Graffin discloses the controlling of flow by a filler member, comprising:
A computer-implemented method for controlling dosing of a fluid product (Column 3, Lines 8-14, the substance is the fluid product) to containers (3, Figure 1, the receptacle is the container) using an apparatus (Column 3, Lines 1-8, the feed member and filler member are the apparatus) comprising control unit (7, Figure 1), a filling valve (2, Figure 1, the filler member is the filling valve) configured to be actuated by the control unit (7, Figure 1), the method comprising performing a cycle having the following steps for each filling valve (Column 4, Lines 36-38, the values for updating the filler member is updated after each filling cycle):
measuring values of flow rate of the fluid product dispensed by the filling valve, measuring occurring at a predefined sampling interval (Column 3, Lines 44-49, the flowrate is detected during the time intervals (predetermined sampling interval)).
Clusserath teaches a method for filling bottles, comprising:
a flowmeter (9, Figure 1) configured to provide signals representative of the measure flow of the fluid product (Column 6, Lines 13-24) through the filling valve (13 and 14, Figure 1);
measuring, by the flowmeter, values of flow rate of the fluid product dispensed (Column 6, Lines 13-24);
determining, by the control unit, a compensated closing time (Column 6, Lines 36-44, the time correction is the compensated closing time that is adjusted based on the closing of the valves) representative of a time at which the dispensed value of volume is predicted to reach said compensated volume (Column 5, Lines 19-26, the desired quantity of liquid is the compensated volume which is reached based on the time correction); and
controlling, by the control unit and at the determined compensated time (Column 6, Lines 4-12, the time correction is applied to the filling valves before the next filling), a closing of the filling valve (13 and 14, Figure 1).
Altendorf teaches the regulated filling of a container, comprising:
performing a cycle (Paragraphs [0030] and [0036]) having the following steps:
controlling, by the control unit (7, Figure 2), an opening (Paragraphs [0036] and [0039]) of the filling valve (4, Figure 2)
dispensing, by the filling valve (4, Figure 2), the fluid product into the container (3, Figure 2).
The prior art references do not make obvious or disclose:
determining, by the control unit, a first volumetric filling error value, based on:
the measured values of flowrate and a target volume to be dispensed to said container, or
linear interpolation of a collection of volumetric filling error values,
wherein the volumetric filling error values are functions of measured values of flowrates;
determining, by the control unit, a compensated volume as a difference between the target volume and the determined first volumetric filling error value;
determining, by the control unit, after having closed the filling valve, a second volumetric filling error value the based on a selected measured value of flowrate of the measured values of flowrate, wherein the selected measured value of flowrate was measured proximally before the compensated closing time; and
updating the collection of measured volumetric filling error values based on the second volumetric filling error value and the selected measured value of the measured value of flowrate.
The limitations in view of all other limitations of claim 1 are not obvious or taught by the prior art references. Additional references are needed to teach the limitations which would lead to hindsight. Claims 2-6 and 11 depend from claim 1.
Regarding Claim 21:
Graffin discloses the controlling of flow by a filler member, comprising:
a tank (1, Figure 1, the feed member is the tank) for the fluid product (Column 3, Lines 1-3);
at least one filling station (Figure 1, the filling station is the feed member and filler member) equipped with a filling device in selective communication with the tank (1, Figure 1) and comprising a controllable filling valve (2, Figure 1, the filler member is the filling valve); and
a control unit (7, Figure 1) configured to:
measure values representative of measured flowrates of the fluid product dispensed by the filling valve, said measuring occurring at a predefined sampling interval (Column 3, Lines 44-49, the flowrate is detected during the time intervals (predetermined sampling interval)).
Clusserath teaches a method for filling bottles, comprising:
a tank (6, Figure 1) for the fluid product;
at least one filling station (3 and 4, Figure 1) equipped with a filling device in selective communication with the tank (6, Figure 1) and comprising a controllable filling valve (13 and 14, Figure 1) and a flowmeter (9, Figure 1); and
a control unit (10, Figure 1) configured to:
measure, based on signals from the flowmeter, values representative of measured flowrates of the fluid product dispensed by the filling valve (Column 6, Lines 13-24);
determine a compensated closing time (Column 6, Lines 36-44, the time correction is the compensated closing time that is adjusted based on the closing of the valves) representative of a time at which a dispensed volume of the fluid product is predicted to reach said compensated volume (Column 5, Lines 19-26, the desired quantity of liquid is the compensated volume which is reached based on the time correction); and
control, at the determined compensated closing time(Column 6, Lines 4-12, the time correction is applied to the filling valves before the next filling), closing of the filling valve (13 and 14, Figure 1).
Altendorf teaches the regulated filling of a container, comprising:
a control unit (7, Figure 2) configured to:
control opening (Paragraphs [0036] and [0039]) of the filling valve (4, Figure 2);
dispense, by the filling valve (4, Figure 2), a fluid product into a container (3, Figure 2).
The prior art references do not make obvious or disclose:
determine a first volumetric filling error value based on at least one of:
the measured values and a target volume to be dispensed to said container, and
linear interpolation of a collection of measured values;
determine a compensated volume as a difference between the target volume and the determined first volumetric filling error value;
determine, based on last measured values of the measured values of flowrate before the compensated closing time, a second volumetric filling error value;
determine, based on the measured values of flowrate after having closed the filling valve, a third volumetric filling error value; and
update the collection of measured values of flowrate.
The limitations in view of all other limitations of claim 21 are not obvious or taught by the prior art references. Additional references are needed to teach the limitations which would lead to hindsight. Claims 22-28 depend from claim 21.
The closest pieces of prior art are: Graffin (US 5515888 A) in view of Clusserath (US 8701719 B2) in further view of Altendorf (DE 102005035264 A1) and Paasche (US 5273082 A).
Regarding Claim 29:
Graffin discloses the controlling of flow by a filler member, comprising:
a control unit (7, Figure 1)
measuring values of flowrate of the fluid product dispensed by the filling valve (2 Figure 1), said measuring occurring at a predefined sampling interval (Column 3, Lines 44-49, the flowrate is detected during the time intervals (predetermined sampling interval)).
Clusserath teaches a method for filling bottles, comprising:
measuring, based on sensor signals from a flowmeter, values of flowrate of the fluid product dispensed by the filling valve(Column 6, Lines 13-24);
determining, by the control unit (10, Figure 1), a compensated closing time (Column 6, Lines 36-44, the time correction is the compensated closing time that is adjusted based on the closing of the valves) representative of a time at which a dispensed volume is predicted to reach said compensated volume (Column 5, Lines 19-26, the desired quantity of liquid is the compensated volume which is reached based on the time correction); and
controlling, by the control unit (10, Figure 1) and at the determined compensated closing time (Column 6, Lines 4-12, the time correction is applied to the filling valves before the next filling), closing of the filling valve (13 and 14, Figure 1).
Altendorf teaches the regulated filling of a container, comprising:
controlling, by a control unit (7, Figure 2), an opening (Paragraphs [0036] and [0039]) of the filling valve (4, Figure 2); and
dispensing, by the filling valve (4, Figure 2), a fluid product into a container (3, Figure 2).
Paassche teaches an apparatus for filling containers, comprising:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Column 5, Lines 18-23, the filling elements are controlled by central control device that contains a programable microprocessor to perform operations).
The prior art references do not make obvious or disclose:
determining, by the control unit, a first volumetric filling error value, based on:
the measured values of flowrate and a target volume to be dispensed to said container, or
linear interpolation of a collection of volumetric filling error values, wherein the volumetric filling error values are functions of measured values of flowrates;
determining, by the control unit, a compensated volume as a difference between the target volume and the determined first volumetric filling error value;
determining, by the control unit, after having closed the filling valve, a second volumetric filling error value based on a selected measured value of flowrate of the measured values of flowrate, wherein the selected measured value of flowrate was measured proximally before the compensated closing time; and
updating the collection of measured volumetric filling error values based on the second volumetric filling error value and the selected measured value of the measured value of flowrate.
The limitations in view of all other limitations of claim 29 are not obvious or taught by the prior art references. Additional references are needed to teach the limitations which would lead to hindsight. Claims 30-35 depend from claim 29.
However, a full determination of the claims being allowable will be completed with further search and consideration once the above rejections and objections are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Settelmeyer (US 8220501 B2) teaches a method for safe filling comprising containers, filling valves, a flow meter, a tank, a control unit, timed intervals, and adjusting the valves.
Boertz (US 5823234 A) teaches a process for filling containers with a pressurized liquid comprising containers, filling valves, a tank, a control unit, and adjusting the valves.
Suzuki (US 6530402 B2) teaches a filling machine comprising containers, filling valves, a flow meter, a tank, a control unit, and adjusting the valves.
Kuschnerus (US 20230303382 A1) teaches a method for operating a filling device comprising a container, a filling valve, a flow meter, a control unit, timed intervals, and adjusting the valves.
Mayer (US 5819816 A) teaches an apparatus for metering liquid into packaging containers comprising containers, filling valves, flow meters, a tank, a control unit, timed intervals, and filling the container based on a desired filling volume.
Ludwig (US 7066217 B2) teaches a method for filling a container with a liquid comprising a container, a filling valve, a tank, a control unit, and adjusting the valve.
Fickert (US 10131527 B2) teaches a method and filling system for filling containers comprising containers, filling valves, flow meters, a control unit, and adjusting the valves.
Malmberg (US 10035691 B2) teaches a method for a filling valve comprising containers, filling valves, a flow meter, a tank, a control unit, timed intervals, and adjusting the valves.
Graffin 2 (US 6334471 B1) teaches a method of filling a receptacle comprising a filling valve, containers, a tank, a control unit, and adjusting the valves.
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 STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES whose telephone number is (571)272-5373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday: 9:30AM to 5:30PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights