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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/29/26 has been entered.
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 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4-7 all recite the limitation “further comprising a control unit” and it is not clear if this control unit is a separate control unit or the same one as the control unit recited in claim 1 from which claims 4-7 all indirectly depend from. The number and functionality of the control units cannot be determined and therefore the scope of the claims is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buczynski (US 2008/0279719) in view of Neubauer (US 9,149,972in view of Rickloff (US 5,445,792).
Regarding claim 10, Buczynski discloses –
A device for sterilizing gas filtration means, the device comprising:
a first circuit that comprises an air heater configured to deliver hot air at a specified target temperature (at least the circuit including heater 120, dryer 90, HEPA filter 152 and isolator 12; the heater 120 heats air, par. 28; the device is well capable of performing this function and is expected to do so);
a reservoir comprising a quantity of hydrogen peroxide in the liquid state, the quantity thereof being a specified amount that is sufficient to sterilize the filtration means for a sterilization cycle (hydrogen peroxide supply 160 holds an amount that is sufficient to sterilize the filtration means);
a second circuit that comprises at least regulating means to control the selective injection of hydrogen peroxide (the circuit including vaporizer 130, filter 176, hydrogen peroxide supply 160, and isolator 12; Paragraph [0026] discloses the pump 170 is metered to control the injection of peroxide, the pump reading on the limitation specifically); and
at least one evaporator for preparing a gaseous mixture that consists of hot air and hydrogen peroxide vapor (vaporizer 130), wherein
a control unit (controller 202) wherein the hot air is circulated to evaporate the deposited hydrogen peroxide and thermally activate the vapor (the hot air and circulation thereof disclosed by Buczynski is well capable of performing this function and is reasonably expected to do so, MPEP 2114, II); and
wherein the device further comprises a discharge pipe downstream of the workpiece, the discharge pipe including a treatment means configured to neutralize residual hydrogen peroxide vapor (destroyer 60, connected to discharge pipe 42; par. 31).
Buczynski appears to be silent with regards to the device sterilizing gas filtration means of a blow-molding circuit, and the injections being separated by a defined time interval.
Neubauer (US 9,149,972) discloses a blow molding circuit including filter means (Title, Column 3 lines 24 - 36) including a sterilizing means (the abstract discloses the application of a flowable sterilization agent, claim 12 discloses the agent being hydrogen peroxide). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Neubauer such that the sterilization means disclosed by Buczynski are attached to the blow molding circuit for the purpose of sterilizing the blow molding circuit and its gas filtration means to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to apply a known-effective hydrogen peroxide sterilization device to a workpiece including the gas filtration means of a blow molding circuit as is known to be desirable in the art to arrive at an improved blow molding circuit with improved sterility. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including blow molding circuits including filter means and hydrogen peroxide sterilization means, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding the limitation that the injections are separated by a defined time interval: Rickloff (US 5,445,792) discloses a hydrogen peroxide vapor sterilization method (abstract) wherein injections of the peroxide are separated by defined time intervals (see fig. 3, flow through portion G-H with sequential injections; Col. 13 lines 35-44) to control a particular concentration and pressure for better efficiency (col. 13 lines 45-50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Buczynski such that the injections are separated by a defined time interval to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully maintain a desired operating pressure, concentration, and humidity to arrive at an improved peroxide sterilization device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 9 are allowed.
Claims 4-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant’s arguments directed towards the discharge pipe downstream of the filtration means and the control unit controlling a timing and duration of each injection and evaporation phase on pages 7-9 of the remarks filed are persuasive. Therefore claims 1 and 9 are allowable over the prior art. The remaining claims are allowable for depending on one of the claims above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards claim 10 are not persuasive, as they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Claim 10 does not positively recite or require a blow molding circuit or filtration means, as well as other features present in independent claims 1 and 9.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards the remaining claims are persuasive and the claims are indicated as allowable over the prior art above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights