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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the amended abstract is currently at 193 words in length and contains a similar format to claim 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 2, Line 28, “ y-axis is the detected flowrate” should be amended to – x-axis is the detected flowrate--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 11, “ y-axis is the detected flowrate (F)” should be amended to – x-axis is the detected flowrate (F)--.
Line 18, “ (CCT);” should be amended to –(CCT); and --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 17, “ (CCT);” should be amended to –(CCT); and --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-7 and 11-17 is directed to a method or process. Each of claims 8, 9, 18 and 19 is directed to an apparatus or a machine that is configured to carry out the method of claims. As such, each of Claims 1-9 and 11-19 falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention. Each of Claims 10 and 20 is directed to non-statutory subject matter because these claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter for reciting software per se.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-9 and 11-19 recites an apparatus or method for controlling the dosing of a fluid product to containers using an apparatus comprising a plurality of filling valves.
Specifically, independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) recites a method of controlling the dosing of a fluid product to containers using an apparatus comprising a plurality of filling valves that comprises:
- sending an opening command to the filling valve so that the filling valve performs a filling of the corresponding container with the fluid product (additional element);
- detecting values of volume of the fluid product dispensed by the filling valve and values of flowrate, said detecting occurring at a predefined sampling interval (making an observation in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process);
- calculating a compensated volume as the difference between a target volume to be dispensed to said container and a volumetric filling error detected at the immediately previous filling step or obtained by linear interpolation of points on a plane where y-axis is the volumetric filling error and y-axis is the detected flowrate (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 a compensated closing time as the time at which sending a closing command to the filling valve, the compensated closing time being the time at which the detected value of volume that has been dispensed reaches said compensated volume (making a judgement or evaluation in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process);
- sending the closing command to the filling valve at the compensated closing time (additional element);
- after having closed the filling valve, receiving a detected value of volumetric filling error, the last value of flowrate detected before the compensated closing time and the detected value of volumetric filling error being coordinates of a further point on said plane (making an observation in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process).
As indicated above, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Further, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 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 1 and its respective dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 include the additional elements of collecting information and sending signals (claims 2-7 and 11-17), and an apparatus comprising a tank, plurality of filling stations, flow meters, and control units (claims 8-9 and 18-19). 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).
The above-identified abstract ideas in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent Claims 2-9 and 11-19) 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). The above-identified abstract ideas in independent claim 1 and its respective dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 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 1 and its respective dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 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 1 (and its respective dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, each of Claims 1-9 and 11-19 is directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-9 and 11-19 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 1 and its respective dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 include the additional elements of collecting information and sending signals (claims 2-7 and 11-17), and an apparatus comprising a tank, plurality of filling stations, flow meters, and control units (claims 8-9 and 18-19).
Applicant’s specification on page 1, lines 27-29 and page 2, lines 1-2 states that the apparatus is widely known. The apparatus including a tank, plurality of filling stations, flow meters, and control units is an additional element that does not add significantly more as it is used to dispense products into containers. Further, 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 (not specifically stated in claim 1, but explicitly stated in claims 8, 9, 18 and 19) is used to implement the above-identified abstract idea (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 current state measurement, determine whether a second control command is needed, generate a second control command according to a determination result, and generate a first control command.
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” and “memory” are reasonably construed as a generic computing device (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 1-9 and 11-19 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 1-20 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 1-9 and 11-19 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 1-9 and 11-19 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 method for controlling the 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 a plurality of filling valves (2, Figure 1, the filler member is the plurality of filling valves), 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):
- detecting values of volume of the fluid product dispensed by the filling valve and values of flowrate, said detecting occurring at a predefined sampling interval (Column 3, Lines 44-49, the volume (weight) and flowrate are detected during the time intervals (predetermined sampling interval)).
Clusserath teaches a method for filling bottles, comprising:
- volume controlled filling based on weight and the flowmeter measuring the flow rate (Column 6, Lines 13-24);
- determining 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) as the time at which sending a closing command to the filling valve (13 and 14, Figure 1, the liquid control valves are the filling valves), the compensated closing time being the time at which the detected value of volume that has been dispensed reaches 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
- sending the closing command to the filling valve (13 and 14, Figure 1) at the compensated closing time (Column 6, Lines 4-12, the time correction is applied to the filling valves before the next filling).
Altendorf teaches the regulated filling of a container, comprising:
performing a cycle (Paragraphs [0030] and [0036]) having the following steps for each filling valve (4, Figure 2):
- sending an opening command (Paragraphs [0036] and [0039]) to the filling valve (4, Figure 2) so that the filling valve (4, Figure 2) performs a filling of the corresponding container (3, Figure 2) with the fluid product.
The prior art references do not make obvious or disclose:
- calculating a compensated volume as the difference between a target volume to be dispensed to said container and a volumetric filling error detected at the immediately previous filling step or obtained by linear interpolation of points on a plane where y-axis is the volumetric filling error and x-axis is the detected flowrate; and
- after having closed the filling valve, receiving a detected value of volumetric filling error, the last value of flowrate detected before the compensated closing time and the detected value of volumetric filling error being coordinates of a further point on said plane.
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 2-20 depend from claim 1.
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.
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