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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are amended. Claims 1-10 are pending and have been fully considered.
The previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments filed 10 March, 2026, have been fully considered. With respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the applicant alleges that:
The proposed combination of Hayakawa et al. (EP 2394950 A1) and Hijikata et al. (US 2016/0250367 A1) is improper because Hijikata is directed to the sterilization of bottles, whereas the independent instant claim is directed toward the sterilization of the preforms of bottles (response filed 10 March, 2026, at pages 4-5);
The claimed arrangement generates unexpected results which are supported by the instant specification, results relating to the effect that the plasma treatment step has on hydrogen peroxide residues when the plasma treatment is performed before or after the molding of the preforms into bottles (response at page 5-6); and
A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the references because Hijikata is directed to treating bottles after they been formed and sterilized with hydrogen peroxide, not to treating preforms before blow molding (response at page 6).
In response, the examiner finds that the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Initially, it is acknowledged that independent claim 1 is essentially directed toward a system for treating bottle preforms with a sequence of treatment units comprising, in order: (1) a hydrogen peroxide unit, (2) a heating unit, (3) a plasma unit, and (4) a molding unit.
The previously set forth rejection of claim 1 was based on the combination of Hayakawa, applied as a primary reference, and Hijikata, applied as a secondary reference. The previously set forth rejection of claim 1 found that the cited embodiment of the primary reference—Hayakawa—is clearly directed toward sterilizing a thermoplastic preform before the preform is blow molded into a bottle (see Non-Final Rejection mailed 10 September, 2025, at page 10, lines 10-15), with Hayakawa teaching a sequence of hydrogen peroxide treatment, heating, and blow molding (Non-final rejection at pages 8-9). A further key finding of the previously set forth rejection is that Hayakawa indicates that hydrogen peroxide can cause corrosion or degradation of blow molding equipment, which would motivate a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the apparatus of Hayakawa to minimize the amount of hydrogen peroxide reaming in or on a preform material prior to blow molding (Non-Final Rejection at page 11, lines 16-19). The previously set forth rejection also stated that Hijikata teaches that a sequence of hydrogen peroxide treatment, heating, and plasma treatment is known to be useful for sterilizing thermoplastic materials, with the plasma treatment serving to eliminate residual hydrogen peroxide (Non-Final Rejection at page 10, line 16, through page 11, line 2). Combining these teachings, the rejection concluded that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include a plasma treatment step between the heating step and blow molding step of Hayakawa for the benefit of eliminating hydrogen peroxide to prevent damage to the molding equipment (page 11, lines 3-19).
Generally, the applicant’s arguments (A.) attack the Hijikata reference individually, but—as summarized above—the rejection of the independent claim is based on a combination of Hayakawa and Hijikata. The applicant’s arguments fail to address the cited portions of Hayakawa which suggest toward ensuring the elimination of applied hydrogen peroxide from a bottle preform before blow molding so that the hydrogen peroxide does not damage the blow molding equipment. The applicant’s arguments instead ignore this aspect of the rejection and allege that the examiner’s proposed modification would place the plasma unit after the molding unit (response at page 5, lines 8-10), whereas the actual proposed modification states that the plasma generation unit is upstream of the molding unit (Non-final rejection at page 11, lines 16-19). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, to the extent that the applicant’s arguments (A. and C.) imply that Hijikata is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Hijikata is analogous both because it is within the realm of sterilizing thermoplastic material with hydrogen peroxide, and because it is pertinent to the problem of eliminating residual hydrogen peroxide after a sterilization treatment.
Additionally, the examiner does not agree with the applicant’s assertion (C.) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not apply the teachings of Hijikata to the apparatus of Hayakawa. It is acknowledged that the plasma device of Hijikata is arranged to treat a bottle after a it has been molded into form, whereas the claimed plasma treatment unit is arranged to treat a preform material before it is molded into a bottle. However, this difference would not preclude a person of ordinary skill in the art from recognizing from the teachings of Hijikata that a plasma treatment following hydrogen peroxide and heat treatments is useful for eliminating residual hydrogen peroxide within a thermoplastic body. Furthermore, as emphasized above, Hayakawa recognizes the importance of eliminating residual hydrogen peroxide to prevent damage to blow molding equipment. Accordingly, it is well within the scope of as person having ordinary skill in the art—which is a person of ordinary creativity, see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) as cited in MPEP 2141.03—to combine the teachings of Hayakawa and Hijikata as proposed in the rejection of claim 1 to arrive at the claimed invention.
Also, in response to applicant's argument (B.) that the claimed arrangement generates unexpected results, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As indicated above, the combined teachings of Hayakawa and Hijikata are sufficient to render obvious the arrangement of claim 1, irrespective of any additional advantages associated with the claimed arrangement.
Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintain below. The language of certain rejections has been slightly adjusted to account for amendments and emphasize certain elements of the rejections without altering the substance of the rejections.
Claim Interpretation
The statements set forth in the previous office action with respect to the interpretation of certain claim limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are repeated below.
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 limitations use 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. Such claim limitations are:
“one unit for treating the interior at least of the preforms by application of hydrogen peroxide” (claim 1, first clause after preamble);
“one unit for heating the preforms” (claim 1, second clause after preamble);
“one unit for molding containers formed by blow molding or by stretch blow molding from hot preforms” (claim 1, third clause after preamble); and
“one unit for plasma treatment of the decontaminated preforms” (claim 1, final clause at lines 1-2).
In each of the above instances, it is clear that the stated limitations (A) use the generic placeholder “unit”; and (B) modify the generic placeholder with functional language (e.g., “for plasma treatment”, “for heating the preforms”, etc.). Furthermore, although claim 1 does indicate that the units are arranged in a particular order, claim 1 does not (C) define the actual structure of the units to clearly establish how the claimed functions are performed. Accordingly, the limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f),they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Therefore:
the “one unit for treating the interior…by hydrogen peroxide” essentially refers to device comprising an injection nozzle configured to spray hydrogen peroxide (see specification at [0064]), and equivalents thereof;
similarly, the “one unit for plasma treatment…” essentially refers to a device comprising a plasma injection nozzle (see specification at [0085]-[0092]), and equivalents thereof
the “one unit for molding containers…” is essentially is a device comprising a blower capable of blowing or stretch molding a preform (see specification at [0125]), or equivalents thereof; and
the “one unit for heating the preforms” essentially refers to an oven having heaters ([0123]), or equivalents thereof, wherein the heaters may include infrared heaters, laser-type heaters, microwave heaters, hot air heaters, or equivalents thereof ([0078]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa et al. (EP 3 949 50 A1, cited in IDS filed 02 June, 2023; a copy of the document is available in the application file for parent application 16/304,238) in view of Hijikata et al. (US 2016/0250367 A1, corresponding to US Patent 9,861,717 B2, cited in the IDS filed 02 June, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Hayakawa discloses the following beverage filling system:
A beverage filling system, in which there is provided a conveying path for continuously transferring a preform and a container during processes in which a preform is formed to a container, a beverage fills the container, the container is sealed by a lid, wherein a nozzle for blowing water steam to the preform or a nozzle for blowing hydrogen peroxide mist or gas to the preform; a heater that heats the preform blown with the water steam or hydrogen peroxide mist or gas to thereby preliminarily sterilize the preform at a temperature suitable for a blow-molding process; a molding die for blow-molding the heated preform to the container; a main sterilizing unit for mainly sterilizing the blow-molded container; a filler for filling the mainly sterilized container with beverage; and a capper for sealing the container filled up with the beverage, are arranged along the conveying path. (claim 6, emphasis added)
Also, Fig. 5 depicts an embodiment of the system corresponding to claim 6 including a hydrogen peroxide unit (24) (in a third embodiment, the nozzle 24 sprays hydrogen peroxide mist or gas against the preform 1 instead of water/steam—[0120]; although a filling system for the third embodiment is like that shown in Fig. 5, the hydrogen peroxide mist or gas L is used in place of the water steam—[0126]), positioned upstream (preform 1 having condensed film of hydrogen peroxide is conveyed to a section so as to be subjected to a heating process—[0122]) of a heater (19a-b) (preform 1 is moved through heating section 19a by conveyor 19 while heater 19b heats the preform 1—[0127]; analogous heater discussed at [0072]), which is positioned upstream of a molding unit (blow molding machine 12 molds preform 1 into bottle 2 after the hydrogen peroxide is applied to the bottle and heated, the molding accomplished with sets of dies 4 and blow nozzles—see [0130] and [0076]).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, it is clear that Hayakawa teaches an installation for implementing a process for manufacturing containers from preforms made of thermoplastic material (beverage filling system…in which a preform is formed to a container—claim 6; preform1/bottle 2 is made of PET or other resin—see [0034], [0039]), said installation having at least:
one unit (nozzle 24) for treating an interior at least of the preforms by application of hydrogen peroxide (nozzle 24 directs hydrogen peroxide mist or gas to spray against preform 1 such that a condensed hydrogen peroxide film adheres to the surfaces of the preform—see [0120-]-[0122]; see Fig. 8, nozzle 24 directs hydrogen peroxide L toward opening 2a of preform 1 such that inner surfaces would be coated—consider [0030] and [0120]);
one unit for heating the preforms (conveyor 19 with heater 19b—[0127]; heater 19b arranged as tunnel—[0043]);
one unit for molding containers formed by blow molding or by stretch blow molding from hot preforms (the preform 1 suitably heated for the subsequently blow-molding process and preliminarily sterilized is then subjected to the blow-molding process shown in Fig. 2C—[0124]; blow molding machine 12 equipped with plural sets of dies 4 and blow nozzles 5 for perceiving the preform 1heated by the heating section and molding the preform 1 to the bottle 2—[0076]).
Hayakawa does not teach that the installation has at least one unit for plasma treatment of the decontaminated preforms which is positioned upstream from the molding unit, between the heating unit and the molding unit, so that the plasma treatment of the preforms is carried out after the preforms have been previously decontaminated by hydrogen peroxide in the corresponding treatment unit to reduce the concentration of hydrogen peroxide residue on the interior of the preforms.
In other words, Hayakawa does not teach a plasma treatment unit between the heating unit and the molding unit.
However, it is initially noted that the cited embodiment of Hayakawa (claim 6, corresponding to embodiment 3 discussed at [0120]-[0132]) is intended to perform a preliminary sterilization of the preform before it is made into a bottle (almost all of the bacteria adhering to the surface of the preform 1 can be sterilized—[0129]—such that at the time of the blow-molding process by the blow molding machine 12, the bottle is free from whitening phenomenon, spot generation, deformation and the like—[0130]).
Furthermore, in the analogous art of bottle sterilization systems (title), Hijikata teaches a system for sterilizing bottles which includes means (5) for introducing hydrogen peroxide into a bottle, means (6) for introducing hot air into the bottle, and means (P) for injecting plasma into the bottle (abstract, [0040]). Hijikata indicates that the hydrogen peroxide unit (5) should be positioned upstream of the hot air unit (6), but that the plasma introducing means (P) may be positioned either before or after the hot air unit (6) ([0041], [0044]). The plasma serves to decompose and eliminate hydrogen peroxide remaining in the bottle ([0041]), and the system demonstrated good hydrogen peroxide decomposition when the plasma generation means (P) were positioned in any of three locations, including a location (time point 2 between the hot air supply step and the warm water cleaning step—[0077]) downstream of the heating unit ([0077]-[0078]). The plasma introducing means includes at least a nozzle (13) for injecting plasma from a plasma generation apparatus fed by a gas mixer (110) (Fig. 2, [0045]).
Additionally, Hijikata recognized the need to remove or limit the amount of hydrogen peroxide remaining in a plastic bottle after a sterilization treatment (see [0004] discussing how hydrogen peroxide readily absorbs to PET bottles and thus tends to remain in PET bottles after sterilization, and [0005]-[0006] discussing how this remaining hydrogen peroxide should be eliminated), and Hayakawa clearly suggests limiting the amount of hydrogen peroxide the blow molding unit is exposed to in order to prevent damage to the blow molding equipment and prevent defects to the bottles formed thereby ([0007] indicates that hydrogen peroxide sterilizing agents can corrode components of a molding machine; [0026] indicates that hydrogen peroxide can corrosion or degradation of the molding die; [0092] cautions3 against exposing blow molding machine to corrosion by sterilizing agent; [0121] indicates that non-eliminated hydrogen peroxide can result in whitening, spot generation, wrinkle formation, or other defects during blow-molding; [0027] suggests that excess hydrogen peroxide can make the bottle unsuitable for housing certain liquids).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hayakawa to include the plasma generation unit of Hijikata downstream of the heater for the benefit of eliminating hydrogen peroxide (see Hijikata at [0041], [0077]-[0078]) after the preliminary sterilization step to prevent undesirable interaction between the hydrogen peroxide and the container, a liquid introduced therein, or downstream processing equipment (see Hijikata at [0004]-[0006], and Hayakawa at [0026]-[0027] and [0121]). Furthermore, it would be obvious to position the plasma generation unit along the conveying path of Hayakawa upstream of the molding unit to prevent the hydrogen peroxide from interfering with the molding process (Hayakawa at [0026] indicates that hydrogen peroxide can cause corrosion of degradation of blow molding equipment; also see [0007], [0027], [0092], and [0121] discussed above).
Regarding claim 2, Hayakawa in view of Hijikata teaches the installation according to Claim 1. As modified with respect to claim 1, Hayakawa incorporates the plasma treatment unit (P) of Hijikata upstream of the blow molding unit, the plasma treatment unit of Hijikata comprising at least one nozzle (13) which is positioned in such a way that the plasma alone penetrates the interior of a hollow body, said nozzle delivering the plasma (see Hijikata at Fig. 2: nozzle 13 is configured to be inserted into the opening of the PET bottle B and introduce plasma in that state—[0045]; the nozzle 13 can be affixed at a predetermined location, and multiple fixed nozzles may be arranged in a line along the conveyance path R for the bottles B—[0047]; no other material is injected alongside the plasma, such that it “alone” enters the interior of the preform). As substantially discussed with respect to claim 1 and the response to arguments above, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adapt the plasma nozzle of the Hijikata for use with bottle preforms for the benefit of eliminating residual hydrogen peroxide to prevent corrosion of the blow molding machine.
Regarding claim 5, Hayakawa in view of Hijikata teaches the installation according to claim 2. As modified with respect to claim 1 and 2, Hayakawa incorporates the plasma treatment unit of Hijikata upstream of the blow molding unit, the plasma treatment unit of Hijikata comprising a nozzle (13) for injecting the plasma which may be introduced into the interior of the preform (nozzle 13 for injecting plasma is configured to be inserted into the opening of the PET bottle—[0045]; a person of ordinary skill in the art can readily adapt the teaching of Hijikata with respect to a PET bottle to the PET preform of Hayakawa, as discussed above).
Regarding claim 6, Hayakawa in view of Hijikata teaches the installation according to claim 2. As modified with respect to claims 1 and 2, Hayakawa incorporates the plasma treatment unit of Hijikata upstream of the blow molding unit, which essentially yields a system comprising at least one plasma injection nozzles (Hijikata at [0044] and [0047] suggests positioning plasma injection nozzles 13 along a line of a conveyance path) positioned along the conveyance path of Hayakawa between the heating unit (19) and molding unit (12, especially at dies 4) (see Hayakawa at Fig. 5, [0069], and [0077], wherein at least wheel 20 connects the heating unit conveyor 19 to the dies 4 on wheel 21). Within such a system, the preforms are conveyed past the plasma injection nozzles, such that for at least part of the time during system operations the nozzle for injecting the plasma is offset radially in relation to an axis of the preform so that a main axis of the nozzle is not coaxial with the axis of the preform (i.e., there are various points in system operation when a preform would not be aligned with the plasma injection nozzle, such as when the preform is in the heating unit, when the preform is being transferred from the heating unit, when the preform is in the molding unit, or when the preform is being transferred to the molding unit).
Regarding claim 7, Hayakawa in view of Hijikata teaches the installation according to claim 1. As modified with respect to claim 1, the system of Hayakawa incorporates the plasma treatment unit of Hijikata upstream of the blow molding unit, wherein embodiments of the plasma treatment unit of Hijikata comprise a series of nozzles positioned beside one another on a path to treat several preforms in line (Hijikata: the nozzle 13 for injecting plasma can be multiple fixed nozzles arranged along a line of the conveyance path for the PET bottles—[0047]; such an arrangement is at least capable of treating several preforms in a line, and a person of ordinary skill could readily adapted the teachings of Hijikata with respect to a PET bottle to the PET preform of Hayakawa).
Regarding claim 8, Hayakawa in view of Hijikata teaches the installation according to claim 7. Hayakawa teaches a plurality of conveyance devices which moves the preform through and between the units (preform conveyor 14 with wheels 15, 16, 17, a wheel 18, conveyor 19—[0069]; train of wheels 20, 21, 22, 17, and 23—[0077]; see Fig. 5). Hijikata further suggests positioning the plasma injection nozzles along a conveyance path (multiple fixed nozzles may be arranged along the conveyance path –[0047]). Thus, when combining Hayakawa and Hijikata as discussed with respect to claim 7 above, it would be obvious to position the plasma injection nozzles such that a conveying device moves the preforms relative to the series of nozzles for the evident benefit of allowing the process to be performed automatically and continuously.
Regarding claim 9, Hayakawa in view of Hijikata teaches the installation according to claim 8. As modified with respect to claim 8, the nozzles of the plasma treatment device of Hijikata are arranged over a conveyance device after the heating unit (19) and before the molding unit (12, especially die 4 thereof) of Hayakawa. Within Hayakawa, such a position corresponds to the transfer wheel (20), wherein said transfer wheel fairly defines a conveying device that is a plate that is mounted to move in rotation (a transfer inherently includes a spinning plate as part of its structure).
Regarding claim 10, Hayakawa in view of Hijikata teaches the installation according to claim 1. As modified with respect to claim 1 above, the system of Hayakawa incorporates the plasma treatment unit of Hijikata upstream of the blow molding unit. The plasma treatment unit of Hijikata includes a device producing the plasma (plasma generation apparatus 12) and supplying said plasma to one or more nozzles (see Fig. 2, [0045]-[0047]; it is clear plasma generation apparatus 12 produces plasma that is supplied to nozzle[s] 13).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa et al. (EP 3 949 50 A1) in view of Hijikata et al. (US 2016/0250367 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Herold (US 2014/0015171 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hayakawa in view of Hijikata teaches the installation according to claim 2. As modified with respect to claim 2, Hayakawa incorporates the plasma injection nozzle of Hijikata (13) upstream of the blow molding unit. Hijikata suggests positioning the plasma injection nozzles such that a free end of the nozzle for injecting the plasma is located at a distance from the preform (the nozzle 3 for injecting plasma can be a fixed nozzle that is fixed at a predetermined location—[0047]; nozzle 13 injects plasma into opening of bottle—[0045]—such that it must be positioned close to the bottle, as seen in Fig. 2; note a person of ordinary skill in the art can readily adapt the teachings of Hijikata with respect to treatment of a bottle with a plasma injection nozzle to the treatment of the preform of Hayakawa). Nonetheless, Hayakawa and Hijikata do not explicitly suggest that the distance from the nozzle to the preform is less than a centimeter.
However, in the analogous art of sterilizing preforms (parisons) made of thermoplastic material for producing blow-molded containers (abstract), Herold suggest positioning a nozzle (45) from which plasma exits within 1.0 to 20 mm from the wall of a preform (parison 1) ([0055], [0057]) to achieve a desired flow rate of plasma over the inner surfaces of the preform ([0057]). The distance range of Herold (1.0 to 20 mm, which is 0.1 cm to 2cm) overlaps with the claimed range of less than a centimeter.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Hayakawa such that a free end of the plasma nozzle is located less than a centimeter form the preform—as seen in Herold—for the benefit of achieving a desired flow pattern of the plasma over the surfaces of the preform (see Herold at [0077]). Also see MPEP 2144.05(I.) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges, and MPEP 2144.05(II.)(A.) regarding the obviousness of routine optimization.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hayakawa, Hijikata, and Herold teaches the installation according to claim 3. As discussed with respect to claim 3 above, Hayakawa and Hijikata do not particularly suggest that the free end of the nozzle for injecting the plasma is located at a distance from the preform which is between 0.02 cm and 0.8 cm, but Herold essentially suggests a distance of 0.1 cm to 2 cm ([0077]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Hayakawa such that the distance between a free end of the plasma nozzle and the preform is within the overlapping portion of the claimed (0.02-0.8 cm) and prior art (0.1-2 cm) range, for the benefit of achieving a desired flow pattern of the plasma over the surfaces of the preform (see Herold at [0077]). See MPEP 2144.05(I.) and MPEP 2144.05(II.)(A.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the adjusted ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY C PILSBURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8054. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/BRADY C PILSBURY/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights