Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 19/008,430

FILLING PLANT HAVING A CENTRAL CONTROL DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jan 02, 2025
Priority
Jan 04, 2024 — DE 10 2024 100 166.6
Examiner
HIBBERT, MARY C
Art Unit
3731
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Krones AG
OA Round
3 (Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 0m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allowance Rate
206 granted / 309 resolved
-3.3% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
329
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
61.0%
+21.0% vs TC avg
§102
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
§112
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 309 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Notice of AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim 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. Claim(s) 1-4, and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernini WO 2019/048051 in view of Mills et al. US 2004/0215355 (hereinafter Mills). Regarding claim 1, Bernini discloses a filling plant (20) comprising a plurality of machines (filling machine 1; labelling machine, capping machine; page 11 lines 5-16), each of which is configured to perform operating functions on the basis of a respective set of instructions (from machine control unit 12); a central control device (central supervising unit 25 and machine control unit 12), which is configured to control the operating functions of the plurality of machines; and a graphical user interface (27; human machine interface), which is configured to communicate with the central control device (25,12) and to provide a user with graphically supported programming (including a PLC or suitable processing unit) of the central control device (display user interface 27’ and touch screen display; page 11 lines 5-25). Bernini teaches a graphical user interface and touch screen display, but fails to explicitly disclose low-code or no code programming of the central control device. However Mills teaches a central control device for use with an automation controls including a procedure creator 14 is a graphical user interface editor used to link steps and data to produce an executable machine process to simplify modification of the automation programming by allowing for simple minor and major step procedure, par 0043-0045). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have modified the graphical user interface as taught by Bernini with the programming editor as taught by Mills to include and no code or low code programming to simplify automation modification as taught by Mills which provides a more practical and operator friendly approach to programming automated machine sequences (Mills par 0006). Regarding claim 2, Bernini as modified by Mills discloses the filling plant according to claim 1, wherein Bernini further teaches each of the machines (filling unit 10) comprises an individual machine controller (individual respective local control unit 10’), which is configured to control the operating functions of the respective machine on the basis of the respective set of commands (from machine control unit 12); and wherein the central control device (25) is configured to control each of the individual machine controllers (page 5 lines 4-16; page 9 lines 2-12; page 10 line 13-page 11 line 16). Regarding claim 3, Bernini as modified by Mills discloses the filling plant according to claim 1, wherein Bernini further teaches the central control device (25) is configured to control each of the individual machine controllers (12,10’) on the basis of the respective set of commands (page 11; lines 1-16); and the graphical user interface (27,27’) is configured to provide the user with programmable access to the respective set of commands of the plurality of machines (page 11 lines 20-25). Regarding claim 4, Bernini as modified by Mills discloses the filling plant according to claim 1, wherein Bernini further teaches the set of commands of each machine is stored in the respective machine or in a storage medium located external to the respective machine, for example the cloud (control unit 12 is provided with a non-volatile memory 28 storing software instructions and a storage database 29 is coupled to unit 12; the storage database may be located internally or externally; page 12 lines 1-12). Regarding claim 6, Bernini as modified by Mills discloses the filling plant according to claim 1, wherein Bernini further teaches the graphical user interface (27) is configured to graphically provide a selection of individual commands and/or a creation of links between selected individual commands of the respective sets of commands of the plurality of machines and/or the central control device (display device 27’ uses a touch screen display to allow graphical visualization and a communication link to input data and perform selected commands; page 11; lines 17-25). Regarding claim 7, Bernini as modified by Mills discloses the filling plant according to claim 1, wherein Bernini further teaches the graphical user interface is configured to display information about the operating functions of the respective machine (display device 27’ uses a touch screen display to allow graphical visualization and a communication link to input data and perform selected commands; page 11; lines 17-25). Regarding claim 8, Bernini as modified by Mills discloses the filling plant according to claim 1, Bernini further teaches further comprises a chatbot comprising the graphical user interface (feedback is schematically shown and interpreted as a chat bot from various machines and operatively coupled with the user interface 27 from supervising unit 25 and control unit 12; page 11 lines 5-25). Regarding claim 9, Bernini as modified by Mills discloses the filling plant according to claim 1, wherein Bernini further teaches the plurality of machines comprises a production machine for forming containers from plastic or for forming containers from glass or aluminum (page 11 lines 10-16); a filling machine (1) for filling the formed containers (2); and a labeling machine for labeling the formed containers or filled containers (page 11 lines 5-16). Regarding claim 10, Bernini as modified by Mills discloses the filling plant according to claim 9, wherein Bernini further teaches the production machine is a blow molding machine (page 1 lines 15-20; page 11 lines 5-16; include a container blowing machine interpreted as a blow molding machine for forming containers). Regarding claim 11, Bernini as modified by Mills discloses the filling plant according to claim 1, wherein Bernini further teaches the plurality of machines comprises a production machine for forming containers from at least one natural organic material or comprising at least one natural organic material (page 1 lines 7-10; containers may be made from glass, plastics ,aluminum steel and composites) ; a filling machine (1) for filling the formed containers (2); and a decorating machine for decorating the formed or filled containers (labeling machine is interpreted as a decorating machine; page 1 lines 15-26). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4,6-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY C HIBBERT-COPELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-0601. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9am -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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 5712701926. 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. /MARY C HIBBERT-COPELAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 /VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 02, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Dec 05, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jul 23, 2026
Response Filed
Oct 20, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12758214
WIRING HARNESS FOR SMART STAPLER WITH MULTI AXIS ARTICULATION
3y 0m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12735308
CORKSCREW WITH CORK INTEGRITY PROTECTION APPARATUS
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12722257
METHOD OF CONTROLLING A PULSED CURRENT SUPPLIED TO A MOTOR OF AN ELECTRIC POWER TOOL
1y 9m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12698151
Slit Paper Method of Expansion, Shipment and Expansion Devices
2y 9m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12661115
SURGICAL STAPLING APPARATUS
1y 9m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+26.4%)
3y 10m (~2y 0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 309 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month