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 .
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As to claims 1,10, the “sealing device” is non-enabling, as will be shown below in relation to Figure 3. Consider the following:
The outer channel 52b is not a channel in Figure 3. Is it merely the lead line?
PNG
media_image1.png
210
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nothing identifies water in Figure 3. In effect, how is 52a clean room and 52b not clean room? How is water in the channel 52 such that the division between room 52a and 52b exists? The blade 52 does not divide.
Blade 54 does not seem to divide channel 52 into sub-channels 52a,52b, as there is other structure that seem to serve as a wall that separates the sub-channels.
PNG
media_image2.png
210
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
What truly defines the circumferential channel 52 in Figure 3?
PNG
media_image3.png
158
692
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
294
556
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
274
556
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The sealing device is not described in a manner how such is to be constructed, or even what structure provides for such. As such, there is no enabling example, no reference describes the seal, no obvious manner of experimentation.
Claims 1-10 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.
As to claim 1, measuring level “at least indirectly” is confusing, as it’s not clear if such includes measuring level directly. The phrase “at least indirectly” does not suggest measuring directly in the context of this application. Understand, there is - - measuring a filling level - - and - - measuring a filling level at least indirectly - - ; but the phrase “at least indirectly” gently infers something (i.e. directly) that there is no clear support for.
As to claim 3, “the overflow container” was never introduced. Should claim 3 have depended upon claim 2 which does introduce “an overflow container” (claim 2)?
As to claim 5, the term “designed” suggest a human element, and thus its meaning is uncertain in this apparatus claim. Does the reservoir include a circumferential channel?
As to claim 6, “preferably” is indefinite. Is the wall rotatable, or isn’t it?
As to claim 6, the term “designed” suggest a human element, and thus its meaning is uncertain in this apparatus claim. Is the wall merely configured to be rotatable?
As to claim 10, the preamble tags this as a method claim, but it’s not claim what the actual steps are. Note that lines 1-last provide for 2 wherein clauses, and do not add anything additional to a method claim that has not step. The phrase “to be treated” (line 2) suggests a future, and thus is not a step. The phrase “containers are treated” (line 5) seem to define a state, and not a step. What are the steps (i.e. actions) that define “A method for treating containers” (line 1)?
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shonfield CN 102642799 teaches (Figure 1b) a container 10 in a clean room 12. The seal unit 20 (with reservoir) is supplied with liquid, and is controlled by ball float. However, there are no stations, and the sensor is not in a supply line which is in flow connection with the reservoir.
Till et al JP 2007217063 teach a water sensor 38 connected to the source 34 of water which passes to the seal inlet 32. The Reference’s seal is in a rotating conveyor 11 system that treats bottles 2. However, the sensor is not a level sensor.
Schoenberger et al 9,045,288 (listed 1449) teaches (Figure 7) positioning a water level sensor 89 within a channel 89 of a seal 86 which employs a blade 83, such used with a container system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached from 8am to 4pm on Monday to Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855