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 .
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-9, drawn to an apparatus.
Group II, claim(s) 10-16, drawn to a method.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13 because their shared technical features are not “special” technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups share the technical features of:
…empty containers adapted to be filled with a pourable product…comprising:
…seats…containers…cyclically…the respective seats along a washing path…from an inlet station to an outlet station…
…seat is fed at the inlet station with a respective container to be washed, and
…washed containers…the outlet station…
…cleaning medium for washing the containers…
…ultrasonic wave generator…the washing path…an ultrasonic treatment sector…propagate ultrasonic waves through said cleaning medium…
…sequentially inspect each…seat…detect the presence of containers therein downstream of the inlet station…generate signals correlated to the absence of containers in the inspected seats…
…control the ultrasonic wave generator based on the…signals…modulating a level of ultrasonic wave generation when the inspected seats are conveyed along said ultrasonic treatment sector or when a preset number of seats operatively downstream of the inspected seats are conveyed along said ultrasonic treatment sector
such shared technical features are not “special” features as they do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of WIPO Publication WO2020119958A1 to BERZAGHI et al., European Publication EP0190090A1 to SIEGFRIEDT et al., and US PGPUB 20210331215 to OHATA et al. (see prior art rejections below).
During a telephone conversation with BLAKE HUDSON on 6/10/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-9. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claims 10-16 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. See MPEP § 2181.I. Such claim limitation(s) are:
“a sensor unit configured to sequentially inspect each of the respective seats to detect the presence of containers therein downstream of the inlet station, and to generate signals correlated to the absence of containers in the inspected seats” in claims 1-9;
“feeding system” in claims 2-3;
“filling machine” in claims 8-9;
“buffer device” in claim 8;
“a further sensor unit . . . configured to detect a storing percentage of containers in the buffer device” in claim 8;
“inspector device” in claim 9;
“a further sensor unit . . . configured to detect a discarding percentage of containers discarded by the inspector device” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“feeding system” is interpreted as requiring the structure(s) of an endless conveyor and a sequencing device (see Spec. at pg. 2 lines 16-19, Fig. 1), and equivalents thereof;
“filling machine” is interpreted as requiring the structure(s) of a filling carousel (see Figs. 2-3), and equivalents thereof;
“buffer device” is interpreted as requiring the structure(s) of a chamber (see Fig. 2), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
In Claim 1 on pg. 5 line 1, the word “advancement” should be changed to “conveyance” because the claim earlier recites “a conveyor…configured to cyclically convey a plurality of containers,” i.e., the verb is “to convey,” not “to advance.”
In Claim 3 lines 3-4, “each formed by a respective plurality of empty containers” should be changed to “each respective row formed by a respective plurality of empty containers” (i.e., add the words “respective row”).
In Claim 4 line 3, “each of the plurality of ultrasonic emitters are” should be changed to “each of the plurality of ultrasonic emitters is” (i.e., make the verb singular).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites:
“wherein during use each seat is fed at the inlet station with a respective container to be washed” at lines 8-9;
“a sensor unit configured to…generate signals correlated to the absence of containers in the inspected seats” on pg. 5 lines 4-7.
The two phrases constitute a logical contradiction. If each seat is fed with a container, then how can any seat have an absence of container? Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites “the tank” at line 14. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because the claim earlier recites “at least one tank.” Second, to the extent that there is a plurality of tanks, it’s unclear which of the plurality is considered “the” tank.
Claim 1 recites “the ultrasonic wave generator” at line 18. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because the claim earlier recites “at least one ultrasonic wave generator.” Second, to the extent that there is a plurality of ultrasonic wave generators, it’s unclear which of the plurality is considered “the” ultrasonic wave generator.
Claim 1 recites “the tank” on pg. 5 line 1, rendering the claim indefinite for the same reasons provided above.
Claim 1 recites “the presence” on pg. 5 line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 1 recites “the absence” on pg. 5 line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 1 recites “the ultrasonic wave generator” on pg. 5 lines 8-9, rendering the claim indefinite for the same reasons provided above.
Claim 2 recites “the ultrasonic wave generator” on pg. 6 line 2, rendering the claim indefinite for the same reasons provided above.
Claim 3 recites “the sensor unit is configured to sequentially inspect each beam to detect, for each beam, a percentage of full seats over empty seats…” at lines 10-11. It’s unclear how “full seats over empty seats” can constitute a percentage; instead, it’s commonly considered a ratio. For example, suppose a beam (i.e., a row) of seats has 10 seats, wherein 7 seats are full and 3 seats are empty, then 7 over 3 is typically considered a ratio and not a percentage. Clarification is requested. Does Applicant intend to say a percentage of full seats over a total number of seats in the beam?
Claim 3 recites “said ultrasonic wave generator” at line 14, rendering the claim indefinite for the same reasons provided above.
Claim 3 recites “the detected percentage” (singular) at line 15. But Claim 3 previously recites “the detected percentages” (plural) at line 12. It’s unclear which of the plurality of detected percentages is “the” detected percentage. Clarification is requested.
Claim 4 recites “the ultrasonic wave generator” at lines 1-2, rendering the claim indefinite for the same reasons provided above.
Claim 4 recites “the ultrasonic wave generator” at pg. 7 lines 3-4, rendering the claim indefinite for the same reasons provided above.
Claim 4 recites “the detected percentage” (singular) on pg. 7 line 5. But Claim 3 previously recites “the detected percentages” (plural) at line 12. It’s unclear which of the plurality of detected percentages is “the” detected percentage. Clarification is requested.
Claim 5 recites “the detected percentage” (singular) at line 3. But Claim 3 previously recites “the detected percentages” (plural) at line 12. It’s unclear which of the plurality of detected percentages is “the” detected percentage. Clarification is requested.
Claim 6 recites “the ultrasonic wave generator” at line 2, rendering the claim indefinite for the same reasons provided above.
Claim 6 recites “the extension” at line 3. First, it’s unclear what’s meant by this term. Second, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term. Clarification is requested.
Claim 6 recites “the detected percentage” (singular) at line 4. But Claim 3 previously recites “the detected percentages” (plural) at line 12. It’s unclear which of the plurality of detected percentages is “the” detected percentage. Clarification is requested.
Claim 7 recites “the treatment station” at pg. 8 line 1. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because Claim 1 earlier recites “at least one treatment station” at line 12. Second, to the extent that there is a plurality of treatment stations, it’s unclear which of the plurality is considered “the” treatment station.
Claim 8 recites “the washed containers” at line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 8 recites “the ultrasonic wave generator” at lines 13-14. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because Claim 1 earlier recites “at least one ultrasonic wave generator” at line 16. Second, to the extent that there is a plurality of ultrasonic wave generators, it’s unclear which of the plurality is considered “the” ultrasonic wave generator.
Claim 9 recites “the washed containers” at pg. 9 line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 9 recites “the ultrasonic wave generator” at pg. 9 lines 10-11. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because Claim 1 recites “at least one ultrasonic wave generator” at line 16. Second, to the extent that there is a plurality of ultrasonic wave generators, it’s unclear which of the plurality is considered “the” ultrasonic wave generator.
Claim limitation “a sensor unit configured to sequentially inspect each of the respective seats to detect the presence of containers therein downstream of the inlet station, and to generate signals correlated to the absence of containers in the inspected seats” (as recited in claims 1-9) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). But the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure to the function. In particular, the specification is silent on: the specific type or class to which the claimed sensor unit belongs; the manner of detection (e.g., detection by contact, light, sound, magnetism, etc.) employed by the claimed sensor unit; the specific structural components of the claimed sensor unit; and/or the manufacturer and model for the claimed sensor unit. Therefore, Claims 1-9 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim limitation “a further sensor unit . . . configured to detect a storing percentage of containers in the buffer device” (as recited in claim 8) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). But the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure to the function. In particular, the specification is silent on: the specific type or class to which the claimed sensor unit belongs; the manner of detection (e.g., detection by contact, light, sound, magnetism, etc.) employed by the claimed sensor unit; the specific structural components of the claimed sensor unit; and/or the manufacturer and model for the claimed sensor unit. Therefore, Claim 8 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim limitation “inspector device” (as recited in claim 9) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). But the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure to the function. In particular, the specification is silent on: (1) how the inspection is performed; (2) the structure(s) used to perform the inspection. Therefore, Claim 9 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim limitation “a further sensor unit . . . configured to detect a discarding percentage of containers discarded by the inspector device” (as recited in claim 9) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). But the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure to the function. In particular, the specification is silent on: the specific type or class to which the claimed sensor unit belongs; the manner of detection (e.g., detection by contact, light, sound, magnetism, etc.) employed by the claimed sensor unit; the specific structural components of the claimed sensor unit; and/or the manufacturer and model for the claimed sensor unit. Therefore, Claim 9 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding the 112(b) rejections of said 112(f) terms, Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BERZAGHI et al. (WIPO Publication WO2020119958A1), in view of SIEGFRIEDT et al. (European Publication EP0190090A1, as translated by Espacenet) and OHATA et al. (US PGPUB 20210331215).
Regarding Claim 1, BERZAGHI teaches a washing machine (see abstract, Figs. 1-6).
The preamble is non-limiting, because the functional language of “for washing empty containers adapted to be filled with a pourable product” only recites the purpose of intended use of the claimed invention, and the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2111.02(II). Also, the “containers” are merely articles worked upon by the claimed apparatus. See MPEP § 2115 (“inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”).
Nonetheless, BERZAGHI’s machine is structurally fully capable of performing the recited washing function. For example, BERZAGHI’s machine can wash empty containers 2, which are intended to be filled with a pourable product (see pg. 5 lines 1-10).
BERZAGHI’s washing machine comprises a conveyor (chain conveyor 4, see Figs. 1, 3, 5, pg. 5 lines 18-20) comprising respective seats (pockets 17, see Figs. 1-5, pg. 5 line 27 to pg. 6 line 5) for receiving respective containers (containers 2, see id.) and configured to cyclically convey a plurality of containers (containers 2) in the respective seats (pockets 17) along a washing path (path “P”, see Figs. 1, 3, 5, pg. 5 lines 18-26) extending from an inlet station (inlet station “I”, see Figs. 1, 3, 5, pg. 7 lines 6-9) to an outlet station (outlet station “O”, see Figs. 1, 3, 5, pg. 7 lines 6-9).
The functional languages of “wherein during use each seat is fed at the inlet station with a respective container to be washed, and wherein during use the conveyor outlets washed containers to the outlet station” are interpreted as intended use, because they are directed to how the claimed apparatus is used without imposing any structural requirement on the apparatus. A claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II. ("Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does"). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See id.
Nonetheless, BERZAGHI’s washing machine is structurally fully capable of performing the recited functions. BERZAGHI teaches that, during use, each seat (pocket 17) is fed at the inlet station (inlet station “I”) with a respective container to be washed (see Figs. 1, 3, 5, pg. 6 lines 11-20), and the conveyor (chain conveyor 4) outlets washed containers to the outlet station (outlet station “O”, see Figs. 1, 3, 5, pg. 7 lines 3-5).
BERZAGHI’s washing machine comprises a treatment station (cleaning zone C1, see Figs. 1, 3, 5, pg. 7 lines 14-20) comprising:
a tank (tank for bath 12, see Figs. 1, 3, 5) configured to hold a cleaning medium (see Figs. 1, 3, 5, pg. 8 lines 13-21) for washing the containers (containers 2, see id.), the washing path (path “P”) extending through the tank (see Figs. 1, 3, 5);
an ultrasonic wave generator (ultrasonic wave generator UG’, see Figs. 3-5, pg. 15 lines 11-14) arranged adjacent to the washing path (next to path “P”, see Figs. 3-5) that defines an ultrasonic treatment sector (stretch Q2, which is part of part “P”, see Figs. 3-5, pg. 7 lines 6-9, pg. 15 lines 15-17) thereof, wherein the ultrasonic wave generator (ultrasonic wave generator UG’) is configured to propagate ultrasonic waves through said cleaning medium (see Figs. 3-5, pg. 15 lines 4-10, pg. 16 lines 5-8) such that said containers receive an ultrasonic cleaning treatment (see id.) during their advancement through said tank (tank for bath 12, see id.) and along said ultrasonic treatment sector (stretch Q2, see id.).
BERZAGHI’s washing machine comprises a control unit (control unit ECU, see Figs. 3, 5) configured to control the ultrasonic wave generator (ultrasonic wave generator UG’) for modulating a level of ultrasonic wave generation (see pg. 13 lines 9-18, pg. 16 lines 9-14, pg. 22 lines 21-25) when the seats are conveyed along said ultrasonic treatment sector (see Figs. 3-5, pg. 15 lines 4-10, pg. 16 lines 5-8).
BERZAGHI does not explicitly teach:
“a sensor unit configured to sequentially inspect each of the respective seats to detect the presence of containers therein downstream of the inlet station, and to generate signals correlated to the absence of containers in the inspected seats”;
the control unit (ECU) is configured to “receive said signals” and to control the ultrasonic wave generator (ultrasonic wave generator UG’) “based on the received signals” for modulating a level of ultrasonic wave generation when the “inspected seats” are conveyed along said ultrasonic treatment sector or “when a preset number of seats operatively downstream of the inspected seats are conveyed along said ultrasonic treatment sector.”
SIEGFRIEDT teaches a sensor unit (e.g., camera 13, see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0032-33; camera 18, see Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0035-36; camera 21, see Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0038-39; camera 118, see Figs. 5-6, ¶¶ 0043-44) for detecting the presence or absence of containers (bottles 7) on a conveyor, wherein the sensor unit may generate signals correlated to the presence or absence of containers (see ¶¶ 0032-33, 0039, 0043, sending data to a computer; see ¶ 0035, recording occupied spaces and empty spaces for pattern recognition).
OHATA teaches an ultrasonic wave generator (ultrasonic generation device 14) for cleaning an article (object 50) as the article is being conveyed on a conveyor (see abstract, Fig. 6, ¶ 0068); and a sensor unit (e.g., sensors 67, 68) for detecting the presence or absence of the article being conveyed on the conveyor (see Fig. 6, ¶¶ 0119-21), wherein the sensor unit is located in proximity to the ultrasonic wave generator (see Fig. 6). OHATA also teaches a control unit (computer 60, see Fig. 6, ¶ 0119) connected to said sensor unit and said ultrasonic wave generator (see Fig. 6).
OHATA teaches that: the control unit (computer 60) is configured to receive signals from the sensor unit (see Fig. 6, computer 60 is connected to sensors 67, 68) regarding the presence or absence of an article on a conveyor (see Figs. 6, 7A, 7B, ¶¶ 0034, 0120-21, claim 13); and based on said received signals, the control unit (computer 60) is configured to modulate a level of ultrasonic wave generation when the inspected article is conveyed along the ultrasonic wave generator (see Figs. 7A, 7B, ¶¶ 0120-21). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that, by using sensor signals to control the ultrasonic wave generator, it’s possible to activate the ultrasonic wave generator selectively (e.g., only when the article is present), thereby conserving resources and reducing wear.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify BERZAGHI’s washing machine to: (1) incorporate a sensor unit (e.g., one or more cameras) in proximity to BERZAGHI’s ultrasonic wave generator UG’, wherein the sensor unit is configured to detect the presence or absence of containers 2 on BERZAGHI’s chain conveyor 4, wherein the sensor unit is connected to BERZAGHI’s control unit ECU; and (2) configure BERZAGHI’s control unit ECU to modulate a level of ultrasonic wave generation based on signals the control unit receives from such sensor unit, with reasonable expectation of automating the ultrasonic wave generator.
First, by using sensor signals to control the ultrasonic wave generator, it’s possible to activate the ultrasonic wave generator selectively (e.g., only when the article is present), thereby conserving resources and reducing wear. Given these benefits, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate a sensor unit (e.g., one or more cameras) for detecting the presence or absence of containers 2 on BERZAGHI’s chain conveyor 4 and configure BERZAGHI’s control unit ECU to modulate a level of ultrasonic wave generation based on signals the control unit receives from such sensor unit.
Second, it’s already known in the art to convey articles on a conveyor (see BERZAGHI; see SIEGFRIEDT; see OHATA); clean such articles with ultrasonic waves as the articles are being conveyed on the conveyor (see BERZAGHI; see OHATA); use a sensor unit to detect the presence or absence of articles on the conveyor (see SIEGFRIEDT; see OHATA); use a control unit to control the ultrasonic wave generator (see BERZAGHI; see OHATA); control the ultrasonic waves based on signals from the sensor unit (see OHATA). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of BERZAGHI, SIEGFRIEDT, and OHATA:
The washing machine would comprise a sensor unit (e.g., one or more cameras) installed in proximity to the ultrasonic wave generator (BERZAGHI’s generator UG’), the sensor unit is for detecting the presence or absence of containers 2 on BERZAGHI’s conveyor 4, which comprises seats 17. In other words, the sensor unit is structurally fully capable of performing the recited functions of “sequentially inspect each of the respective seats to detect the presence of containers therein downstream of the inlet station, and to generate signals correlated to the absence of containers in the inspected seats.”
The control unit (BERZAGHI’s ECU) would be configured to receive signals from the sensor unit (as the control unit is connected to the sensor unit), and configured to control the ultrasonic wave generator (BERZAGHI’s generator UG’) based on the received signals for modulating a level of ultrasonic wave generation when the inspected seats—i.e., seats 17 that are inspected by the sensor unit—are conveyed along said ultrasonic treatment sector (BERZAGHI’s stretch Q2).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of BERZAGHI, SIEGFRIEDT, and OHATA teaches the washing machine of Claim 1.
The combination teaches: a feeding system (BERZAGHI’s feeding system 8, see BERZAGHI at Figs. 1, 3, 5, pg. 6 lines 6-24) configured to feed respective rows of containers to the conveyor at said inlet station (BERZAGHI’s station “I”), wherein each respective row is formed by a respective plurality of empty containers (see id. at Figs. 1, 3, 5, pg. 6 lines 6-24).
The combination teaches: the conveyor (BERZAGHI’s conveyor 4) comprises a plurality of consecutive beams (BERZAGHI’s beams 16, see Figs. 1-5) each having a plurality of said seats (BERZAGHI’s pockets 17, see Figs. 1-5, pg. 6 lines 6-24), each beam being configured to receive, at the inlet station (BERZAGHI’s station “I”), one respective row of containers (see BERZAGHI at Figs. 1-5, pg. 6 lines 6-24).
The sensor unit (e.g., one or more cameras) is structurally fully capable of performing the recited functions of “sequentially inspect each beam to detect the presence of containers thereon and to generate first signals correlated to the inspected beams being fully empty.”
The combination teaches or suggests that the control unit (BERZAGHI’s ECU) is configured to receive said first signals (as explained above, the control unit is connected to the sensor unit) and to control a deactivation of the ultrasonic wave generator (BERZAGHI’s generator UG’) based on said first signals (as explained above; see also OHATA at ¶ 0121) and when the detected fully empty beams are conveyed along said ultrasonic treatment sector (as explained above; see also OHATA at ¶ 0121, when the target article has passed through the ultrasonic wave generator, the generator is deactivated).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of BERZAGHI, SIEGFRIEDT, and OHATA teaches the washing machine of Claim 1.
The combination teaches: a prewash station (prewash zone P1 of BERZAGHI) including a tank (bath 11 of BERZAGHI) configured to hold a cleaning medium for prewashing the containers (see BERZAGHI at Figs. 1, 3, 5, pg. 7 line 26 to pg. 8 line 3), wherein the prewash station is arranged upstream of the treatment station with respect to the washing path (see BERZAGHI at Figs. 1, 3, 5, pg. 7 lines 14-20).
As explained above, the combination teaches that the sensor unit is located in proximity to the ultrasonic wave generator (see OHATA at Fig. 6), which means the sensor unit (e.g., one or more cameras) is arranged downstream of the inlet station with respect to the washing path (see BERZAGHI at Figs. 1, 3, 5, proximity to ultrasonic wave generator UG’ means downstream of inlet station “I”).
The combination does not explicitly teach that the sensor unit is arranged “upstream of the prewash station” with respect to the washing path. But such arrangement is still considered obvious for several reasons. First, BERZAGHI already teaches that the ultrasonic wave generator may be located in the prewash station (see Figs. 1-2, pg. 11 lines 21-26), which means it would’ve been obvious to incorporate a sensor unit in proximity to the prewash station, i.e., at a location downstream of the inlet station and upstream of the prewash station. Second, rearrangement of parts is generally considered obvious (see MPEP § 2144.04.VI.C.) and the sensor unit as rearranged would still perform the same detecting function, thereby yielding predictable results.
Examiner’s Comments
Although this Office Action does not contain any prior-art rejections for Claims 3-6 and 8-9, those claims still have major 35 USC § 112(b) issues that must be resolved before advancing prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/RICHARD Z. ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights