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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 20 May 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 17-35 are pending with claims 1-16 being cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 of the applicant’s response, filed 20 May 2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Boyle in view of Quetel.
Boyle fails to teach the newly added limitation “wherein the displacement is a translation along a longitudinal axis of the decontamination member”. However, Quetel teaches a displacement along a longitudinal axis of the decontamination member (moving said irradiation means longitudinally between the rest position and the working position, paragraph [0060]). Therefore, a combination of Boyle and Quetel would render the current invention obvious.
Following the above logic, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 18-21 and 23-28 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Boyle in view of Quetel. Similarly, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 29 has been withdrawn, but a new ground of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Boyle and Quetel in view of Frisk. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 30 and 32-33 are withdrawn, but new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Boyle in view of Quetel. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 31 is withdrawn, but a new ground of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Boyle and Quetel in view of Krueger. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 22 and 34 with respect to Boyle in view of Quetel are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 17-28, 30, 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle (US 20120261590 A1) in view of Quetel (WO 2013164387 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Boyle teaches a device for decontaminating a hollow object defining an internal cavity (abstract), including: a decontamination unit (UV bulb, abstract), the decontamination unit including a holder intended to receive and position the hollow object (features to hold the bottle, abstract), a decontamination member intended to be introduced into the internal cavity (UV bulb disposed within the inside of the bottle, abstract), and mechanism for the relative displacement of the decontamination member relative to the holder able to displace the decontamination member and the holder relatively the one in relation to the other between a rest position intended for positioning the hollow object in the holder and a decontamination position, in which the decontamination member is intended to be inserted into the internal cavity of the hollow object received in the holder (bottle inserted into proper track to receive the UV bulb within the interior of the bottle, paragraph [0070], and support member in the form of an adjustable riser, paragraph [0062]); a control unit able to active the decontamination member in the decontamination position (controller provides control over the activation of the UV bulb, paragraph [0011]); wherein a protective enclosure defined an inner space containing at least a portion of the decontamination member and the holder at least in the decontamination position (first and second part define an interior with UV bulb, paragraph [0010], holder in interior, paragraph [0011]), the enclosure defining an access passage to the inner space and at least one closure wall for obturating the access passage (top section is a moveable member in the form of a cover, paragraph [0029], and in such a way that the energy emitted is fully contained, paragraph [0032]), the closure wall and the access passage being movable, the one relative to the other, between an open configuration of the access passage which the closure wall is able to occupy the rest position of the decontamination member and a closed configuration of the access passage which the closure wall occupies in the decontamination position of the decontamination member (top section is pivotally attached to the bottom section and can pivot between a fully open and fully closed position, paragraph [0030]), but does not teach wherein the displacement is a translation along a longitudinal axis of the decontamination member. However, Quetel teaches wherein the displacement is a translation along a longitudinal axis of the decontamination member (drive means comprise at least one actuator for moving said irradiation means longitudinally between the rest position and the working position, paragraph [0060]).
Boyle and Quetel are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of ultraviolet sanitizing devices for containers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the decontamination device taught by Boyle with the longitudinal translation taught by Quetel because Quetel teaches this movement to the final working position allows the irradiation means to be advantageously capable of irradiating the horizontal face of the neck to eliminate the risk of contamination on the neck of the preform (paragraphs [0201]-[0202]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Boyle and Quetel teaches wherein the relative displacement of the decontamination member relative to the access passage from the rest position to the decontamination position causes relative displacement of the closure wall relative to the holder from the open configuration to the closed configuration and/or wherein the relative displacement of the closure wall relative to the access passage from the open configuration to the closed configuration causes the relative displacement of the decontamination member relative to the holder from the rest position to the decontamination position (housing moves between open position for receiving bottle and a closed position in which the bottle is sealingly contained therein and the apparatus is ready to use, paragraph [0029], and UV bulb is received within the interior of the bottle, paragraph [0042], Boyle).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Boyle and Quetel teaches wherein the relative displacement of the decontamination member relative to the holder and the relative displacement of the closure wall relative to the access passage is coupled the one to the other (housing moves to closed position where bottle is sealing contained and apparatus is ready for use, paragraph [0029], and riser adjustably supports bottle to be around the UV bulb, paragraph [0064], Boyle).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Boyle and Quetel teaches wherein, in the rest position, the closure wall is displaceable relative to the access passage between the open configuration and the closed configuration (top section moves relative to the bottom section, paragraph [0029], Boyle).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Boyle and Quetel teaches wherein the closure wall is held at rest in the closed configuration (first and second section can be locked to each other in a closed position, paragraph [0037], Boyle).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Boyle and Quetel teaches all aspects of the current invention as described above except wherein the control unit is able to control the relative displacement of the decontamination member relative to the holder between the rest position and the decontamination position and/or is able to control the relative displacement of the closure wall relative to the access passage from the open configuration to the closed configuration. However, Quetel further teaches wherein the control unit is able to control the relative displacement of the decontamination member relative to the holder between the rest position and the decontamination position (drive means being controlled to move irradiation means between a rest position and a working position, paragraphs [0037]-[0038]) and/or is able to control the relative displacement of the closure wall relative to the access passage from the open configuration to the closed configuration (moveable mold carrier being controlled to move between open and closed positions, paragraph [0098]).
Boyle and Quetel are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art further modify the decontamination device taught by Boyle and Quetel with the controlled movement of the components taught by Quetel because Quetel teaches such autonomous movement allows for manipulation of the hollow object without operator intervention (paragraph [0236]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Boyle and Quetel teaches including a first sensor for detecting the placement of the hollow object in the holder, and/or a second sensor for detecting the closed configuration of the closure wall, and/or a third sensor for detecting the decontamination position, the control unit being able to active the decontamination member when the first sensor detects that the object is placed in the holder, and/or when the second sensor detects that the closure wall is in the closed configuration, and/or when the third sensor detects that the decontamination member is in the decontamination position (sensors are incorporated into the latch assembly and indicate that the two sections are in the closed position, paragraph [0055], and controller automatically operates the UV bulb when top and bottom section are sealed, paragraph [0056], Boyle).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Boyle and Quetel teaches wherein the closure wall is a panel able to be displaced in translation or rotation relative to the access passage or wherein the enclosure comprises a movable drawer defining the access passage, the drawer being movable relative to the closure wall (top section is pivotally attached to the bottom section as by a hinge, paragraph [0030], Boyla).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Boyle and Quetel teaches wherein the holder includes a region for guiding and/or receiving at least a portion of the hollow object able to fix the position and alignment of the hollow object in the holder, the guiding and/or receiving region being a surface for guiding a neck of the hollow object by gravity or an indentation for receiving the hollow object, the shape of which is complementary to that of the hollow object and which is able to fix the position and the alignment of the hollow object in the holder (Figure 11 neck support member “500” consisting of multiple concentric flexible fingers “510” with flange “515” to engage neck portion and locks neck portion in place around UV bulb “200”, Boyle).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Boyle and Quetel teaches wherein the holder includes a flap for holding the hollow object in the guiding and/or receiving region, displaceable between a position for placing the hollow object in the guiding and/or receiving area and a position for holding the hollow object in the guiding and/or receiving area (riser pivots around an axle and riser is spring biased to extend through the bottom protrusion to hold the container in place after insertion, paragraphs [0063]-[0064], Boyle).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Boyle and Quetel teaches wherein the decontamination member comprises a light source (ultraviolet light sterilization, abstract, Boyle).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Boyle and Quetel teaches wherein the holder is arranged above the decontamination member in the rest position (flexible fingers are arranged around UV lamp, paragraph [0066], Boyle).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Boyle and Quetel teaches a method for decontaminating a hollow object presenting an internal cavity (abstract, Boyle) comprising the following steps: providing a decontamination device according to claim 17 (see rejection for claim 17); implementing a decontamination sequences comprising the following steps (method for sterilizing containers, paragraph [0002], Boyle): the decontamination member being in its rest position and the closure wall being in its open configuration, introducing a hollow object presenting an internal cavity into the holder (container is inserted into the housing and inserted into the proper holder track while top section is open, paragraph [0070], Boyle); transition of the closure wall to the closed configuration and transition of the decontamination member to the decontamination position, the decontamination member being inserted into the internal cavity (UV bulb disposed within interior of the bottle after riser is adjusted, paragraph [0071], and housing moves between open position for receiving bottle and a closed position in which the bottle is sealingly contained therein and the apparatus is ready to use, paragraph [0029], Boyle); activation of the decontamination member by the control unit (controller provides control over the activation of the UV bulb, paragraph [0011], Boyle); and at the end of the decontamination sequence: transition of the closure wall into the open configuration (housing permitted to move to an open position for receiving the bottle, paragraph [0029], Boyle). While Boyle does not explicitly teach transition of the decontamination member into the rest position, the decontamination member exiting the internal cavity, and removing the hollow object from the holder, Boyle teaches that once the bottle is sanitized it may be immediately reused in some way (paragraph [0027], Boyle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove the container from the apparatus one the decontamination sequence is finished to fulfill the intended use of the decontaminated object.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Boyle and Quetel teaches all aspects of the current invention including, wherein after the removal of the hollow object from the holder, the controller unit controls the transition of the closure wall into the closed configuration and/or the transition of the displacement member from the rest position to the decontamination position without activating the decontamination member (Figure 2 device “100” in fully closed position and ready for decontamination, but switch “192” must be actuated for light to turn on, Boyle).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Boyle and Quetel teaches all aspects of the current invention including further including the following steps: providing a new hollow object to be decontaminated (treat multiple sized bottles, paragraph [0009], Boyle); transition of the decontamination member to its rest position, and/or the closure wall to its open position (move the housing to an open position for receiving the bottle, paragraph [0029], Boyle); implementation of a new decontamination sequence comprising the following steps: introducing the new hollow object presenting an internal cavity into the holder (container is inserted into the housing and inserted into the proper holder track while top section is open, paragraph [0070], Boyle); transition of the closure wall into the closed configuration and transition of the decontamination member into its decontamination position, the decontamination member being inserted into the internal cavity of the new hollow object (UV bulb disposed within interior of the bottle after riser is adjusted, paragraph [0071], and housing moves between open position for receiving bottle and a closed position in which the bottle is sealingly contained therein and the apparatus is ready to use, paragraph [0029], Boyle); and activation of the decontamination member by the control unit (controller provides control over the activation of the UV bulb, paragraph [0011], Boyle). While Boyle does not explicitly teach the introduction of a new hollow object and the repeat of the sterilization steps from claim 30 with said new hollow object, Boyle teaches the reuse of a bottle after sterilization several times (paragraph [0078]) and the applicability of the method with different size bottles (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the method with more than one bottle to achieve the desired sterilization.
Regarding claim 34, Boyle teaches a device for decontaminating a hollow object defining an internal cavity (abstract), including: a decontamination unit (UV bulb, abstract), the decontamination unit including a holder intended to receive and position the hollow object (features to hold the bottle, abstract), a decontamination member intended to be introduced into the internal cavity (UV bulb disposed within the inside of the bottle, abstract), and mechanism for the relative displacement of the decontamination member relative to the holder able to displace the decontamination member and the holder relatively the one in relation to the other between a rest position intended for positioning the hollow object in the holder and a decontamination position, in which the decontamination member is intended to be inserted into the internal cavity of the hollow object received in the holder (bottle inserted into proper track to receive the UV bulb within the interior of the bottle, paragraph [0070], and support member in the form of an adjustable riser, paragraph [0062]); a control unit able to active the decontamination member in the decontamination position (controller provides control over the activation of the UV bulb, paragraph [0011]); wherein a protective enclosure defined an inner space containing at least a portion of the decontamination member and the holder at least in the decontamination position (first and second part define an interior with UV bulb, paragraph [0010], holder in interior, paragraph [0011]), the enclosure defining an access passage to the inner space and at least one closure wall for obturating the access passage (top section is a moveable member in the form of a cover, paragraph [0029], and in such a way that the energy emitted is fully contained, paragraph [0032]), the closure wall and the access passage being movable, the one relative to the other, between an open configuration of the access passage which the closure wall is able to occupy the rest position of the decontamination member and a closed configuration of the access passage which the closure wall occupies in the decontamination position of the decontamination member (top section is pivotally attached to the bottom section and can pivot between a fully open and fully closed position, paragraph [0030]), but does not teach wherein the control unit is able to control the relative displacement of the decontamination member relative to the holder between the rest position and the decontamination position and/or is able to control the relative displacement of the closure wall relative to the access passage from the open configuration to the closed configuration, wherein the displacement is a translation along a longitudinal axis of the decontamination member. However, Quetel teaches wherein the control unit is able to control the relative displacement of the decontamination member relative to the holder between the rest position and the decontamination position (drive means being controlled to move irradiation means between a rest position and a working position, paragraphs [0037]-[0038]) and/or is able to control the relative displacement of the closure wall relative to the access passage from the open configuration to the closed configuration (moveable mold carrier being controlled to move between open and closed positions, paragraph [0098]), wherein the displacement is a translation along a longitudinal axis of the decontamination member (drive means comprise at least one actuator for moving said irradiation means longitudinally between the rest position and the working position, paragraph [0060]).
Boyle and Quetel are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combine the decontamination device taught by Boyle with the controlled movement of the components taught by Quetel because Quetel teaches such autonomous movement allows for manipulation of the hollow object without operator intervention (paragraph [0236]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the decontamination device taught by Boyle with the longitudinal translation taught by Quetel because Quetel teaches this movement to the final working position allows the irradiation means to be advantageously capable irradiating the horizontal face of the neck to eliminate the risk of contamination on the neck of the preform (paragraphs [0201]-[0202]).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Boyle and Quetel teaches wherein the mechanism for relative displacement includes an actuator configured to be controlled by the control unit to cause the relative displacement between the holder and the decontamination member (drive means comprise at least one actuator for moving said irradiation means longitudinally between the rest position and the working position, paragraph [0060], and control unit capable of controlling various actuators, paragraph [0269], Quetel).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle and Quetel in view of Frisk (US 5928607 A).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Boyle and Quetel teaches a decontamination device according to claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17), but does not teach a machine for dispensing bulk product into a hollow object defining an internal cavity, the machine comprising at least one product reservoir, at least one dispensing nozzle intended to be placed facing the internal cavity of the hollow object and optionally an assembly for measuring the quantity of the product introduced into the internal cavity of the hollow object. However, Frisk teaches a machine for dispensing bulk product into a hollow object defining an internal cavity (aseptic filling of a container with a flowable material, column 1 lines 37-38) the machine comprising at least one product reservoir (product tank, column 5 lines 15-16) at least one dispensing nozzle intended to be placed facing the internal cavity of the hollow object (fill pipe for delivering desired contents, column 5 lines 23-24) and optionally an assembly for measuring the quantity of the product introduced into the internal cavity of the hollow object.
Boyle, Quetel, and Frisk are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of ultraviolet sanitizing devices for containers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sanitizing device taught by Boyle and Quetel with the filling machine taught by Frisk because Frisk teaches a combination filling and sanitizing device will eliminate the problem of contamination between the two steps (column 1 lines 30-35).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle and Quetel in view of Krueger (US 20100054987 A1).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Boyle and Quetel teaches all aspects of the current invention as described above expect wherein activation of the decontamination member occurs after the transition of the closure wall into the closed configuration and before the decontamination member reaches its decontamination position. However, Krueger teaches wherein activation of the decontamination member occurs after the transition of the closure wall into the closed configuration and before the decontamination member reaches its decontamination position (radiation is emitted during the movement and the rest phases, paragraph [0053]).
Boyle, Quetel, and Krueger are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of ultraviolet sanitizing devices for containers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the decontamination device taught by Boyle and Quetel with the movement of the activated decontamination member taught by Krueger because Krueger teaches such movement allows for an adaptation of the dose distribution throughout the travel path (paragraph [0051]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights