DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to invent provisions. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/23/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giuliani et al. (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 2012/0039692 A1; “Giuliani”).
Giuliani discloses:
Regarding claim 1:
A protective device (7 and supporting structure thereof, see e.g. in FIG. 3; ¶ 32) for a machine (1), comprising:
at least one protective element (11) movable in the vertical direction (¶ 33, “The protection system 7 further comprises at least one individual guide means 12 (FIG. 3) configured to define a movement path of the individual protection panel 11 between a closure position and an opening position thereof and at least one auxiliary positioning means 13 configured to apply an auxiliary force to the individual protection panel, wherein the auxiliary force acts in the direction of the movement path against the force of gravity of the individual protection panel 11” i.e. movable in vertical direction); and
a pneumatic unit (24) connected to the protective element, the pneumatic unit including a pressurizable pneumatic element (¶ 44, “pneumatic cylinder-piston assembly 24”), which is configured to substantially compensate for the weight force of the protective element during a movement along the vertical direction (¶¶ 44-45, “the auxiliary positioning means comprises a pneumatic cylinder-piston assembly 24 and a manually adjustable pressure setting device 25 arranged in a pneumatic feeding duct upstream a first pressure chamber of the pneumatic cylinder-piston assembly 24, thereby enabling manual adjustment of the intensity of the auxiliary force in order to adapt it to the weight of the protection panel 11 and/or to a desired manual force necessary to move the panel 11 from the opening to the closure position and vice versa. The machine operator or the machine installer can manually adjust the pressure setting device 25 to exactly counter-balance the weight of the panel 11, so that manual displacement of the panel 11 requires substantially zero force”),
a compressed air supply (¶ 48; FIG. 5A depicts airflow, indicated by arrows, of pressurized air i.e. compressed air), and
a relief valve (right-hand valve 32 in FIG. 5B acts a relief valve).
Giuliani discloses a manual control (25) to control the compressed air supply and the relief valve (¶¶ 47-48) so that by controlling these two components, the weight force of the protective element is compensated as much as possible at all times by the pressure prevailing in the pneumatic element (¶¶ 44-45, “the auxiliary positioning means comprises a pneumatic cylinder-piston assembly 24 and a manually adjustable pressure setting device 25 arranged in a pneumatic feeding duct upstream a first pressure chamber of the pneumatic cylinder-piston assembly 24, thereby enabling manual adjustment of the intensity of the auxiliary force in order to adapt it to the weight of the protection panel 11 and/or to a desired manual force necessary to move the panel 11 from the opening to the closure position and vice versa. The machine operator or the machine installer can manually adjust the pressure setting device 25 to exactly counter-balance the weight of the panel 11, so that manual displacement of the panel 11 requires substantially zero force”; note that this control can be done in a dynamic manner manually i.e. real time adjustment by the operator at least per ¶ 45, “The machine operator or the machine installer can manually adjust the pressure setting device to exactly counter-balance the weight of the panel. . . . “). However, it does not expressly disclose a control unit, rather than a manual control, to control the compressed air supply and the relief valve i.e. automating the manual adjustment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonably expectation of success, Giuliani such that a control unit, rather than a manual control, to control the compressed air supply and the relief valve i.e. automating the manual adjustment because it has been held that broadly providing an automatic means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.). See MPEP § 2144.04(III). Here, claim 1 broadly provides for a control unit i.e. an automatic means to replace Giuliani’s manual control 25 which would accomplish the same result. As such, the aforementioned limitation does not amount to a patentable difference.
Giuliani as modified above further teaches the following:
Regarding claim 2:
The protective device according to claim 1, wherein the compressed air supply is designed to apply a gas pressure to the pneumatic element (FIG. 5A depicts airflow, indicated by arrows, of pressurized air i.e. compressed air) which compensates as much as possible for the weight force of the protective element during an upward movement of the protective element (¶ 49, “counter-balance the weight of the panel 11”).
Regarding claim 3:
The protective device according to claim 2, wherein the compressed air supply comprises an inlet valve (right-hand valve 32 depicted in FIG. 5A), via which, during an upward movement of the protective element, the pressure prevailing in the pneumatic element is increased such that the weight force of the protective element is compensated as much as possible (depicted in FIG. 5A; ¶ 49, “counter-balance the weight of the panel 11”).
Regarding claim 4:
The protective device according to claim 1, wherein the relief valve (right-hand valve 32 in FIG. 5B acts a relief valve) allows excess pressure present in the pneumatic element to be released when the protective element is lowered (FIG. 5B depicts ducts 34 having air flow/pressure directed to the valves 32, see arrows at 34, which can then be exhausted via air exhausts 33 for pressure relief), so that the weight force of the protective element is compensated as much as possible when the protective element is lowered (¶ 48, recites “FIG. 5 illustrates a possible pneumatic control scheme of the protection system, wherein the additional numerical reference sign 32 denotes a general solenoid valve of the pneumatic circuit and reference signs 33 denote air exhausts” [emphasis]. FIG. 5B reasonably depicts/discloses the “solenoid valve 32” being capable of functioning as a relief valve. That is, FIG. 5B depicts a situation in which the air flow/pressure in duct 35 may be increasing [see direction of arrows] and the air flow/pressure in duct 34 may be decreasing which would result in the lowering of the piston 34 i.e. the lowering of the protective panel. To decrease i.e. “relieve” the air pressure in duct 34, the valve 32 allows for air to be exhausted through exhausts 33 [lines indicating duct 34 are attached to exhausts 33, arrows pointing thereto] and thereby acts as a “relief” valve).
Regarding claim 5:
The protective device according to claim 4, wherein the relief valve is or comprises a pressure control valve (¶ 48, “reference sign 32 denotes a general solenoid valve of the pneumatic circuit”).
Regarding claim 6:
The protective device according to claim 1, wherein the pneumatic unit comprises a check valve (28) in a supply line of the pneumatic element (depicted in FIG. 5A-5B), wherein the check valve is configured to keep a pressure in the pneumatic element constant in the event of a pressure drop in the supply line (¶ 47)
Regarding claim 7:
The protective device according to claim 1, wherein the pneumatic element is connected to the protective element at a connection point (¶ 46; FIG. 2-3 reasonably depicts/discloses the pneumatic element, located at reference numbers 10 and 20, connected to the protective element 11; see MPEP § 2125), and wherein the connection point is arranged in a region along a horizontal extension L of the protective element, wherein the region is arranged between 0.25 L and 0.75 L or between 0.4 L and 0.6 L (¶ 46; FIG. 2-3 reasonably depicts/discloses the pneumatic element, located at reference numbers 10 and 20 connected to the protective element 11 circumferentially midpoint of the protective element 11 i.e. approximately at 0.5 L where L is the circumferential length of the protective element 11; see MPEP § 2125),).
Regarding claim 8:
The protective device according to claim 1, wherein the protective element comprises a locking element (left-hand valve 32 as depicted in FIG. 5B, with which the protective element can be locked in a protective position (when left-hand valve 32 is closed, protective element 11 cannot be moved upward i.e. is locked; ¶ 51).
Regarding claim 9:
The protective device according to claim 1, wherein the protective device comprises a stationary element (8, 9), and wherein the protective element is arranged to be movable relative to the stationary element (protective element 11 can be raised up relative to stationary element 8, 9; ¶ 32-33).
Regarding claim 10:
The protective device according to claim 1, wherein the protective device comprises at least two protective elements (depicted in FIG. 2-3), and wherein an independent pneumatic unit is connected to each protective element (FIG. 5A-5B depicts separate pneumatic units 24 for each protective element 11).
Regarding claim 11:
The protective device according to claim 1, wherein the machine is a container treatment machine (¶ 1, “The present invention relates to container treatment machines,”).
Regarding claim 12:
A container treatment machine for treating containers, the container treatment machine comprising at least one moving component (3, 6; ¶ 29) and a protective device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein the protective device is arranged such that in a protective position of the protective element, the moving element is arranged within a region at least partially delimited by the protective device (¶ 32).
Regarding claim 13:
The container treatment machine according to claim 12, wherein the container treatment machine comprises a treatment unit (5) which comprises the at least one moving component (3, 6), and wherein, in the protective position of the protective element, the treatment unit extends at least partially through the protective device (depicted in FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 14:
The container treatment machine according to claim 12, wherein the moving component comprises a carousel, a star wheel, transfer cylinder or a pallet shaft (¶ 29, “The container treatment machine 1 may include a support structure 2, a container moving device 3, e.g. a carousel provided with a plurality of container holding plates, connected to the support structure 2 and configured to carry containers to be treated in an operating space 4 along a container treatment path 5. One or more container treatment aggregates 6 adapted to manipulate the containers, e.g. preform heating stations, labeling stations, filling stations, rinsing stations, container closure stations or auxiliary stations or modules”).
Regarding claim 15:
The container treatment machine according to claim 12, wherein the protective device is firmly connected to a frame of the container treatment machine (8, 9; depicted in FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 16:
The container treatment machine according to claim 12, wherein the containers comprise bottles (¶ 29, “bottle manufacturing machine, labeling machine, filling machine, rinsing machine or closure machine”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered and have required new grounds of rejection as described supra. Applicant’s remaining arguments have been fully considered but are not deemed as persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL D YABUT whose telephone number is (571)270-5526. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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 John Olszewski can be reached on (571) 272-2706. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights