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 .
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 11-20 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.
Claim 11 recites “said at least one picking and releasing device” which lacks antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests the following amendments: “each picking and releasing device”.
Claim 13 recites “each cooling module” which is indefinite because it is not clear if a plurality of said cooling module are being positively claimed. The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
“claim 12, wherein the apparatus includes a plurality of said cooling module, wherein each cooling module comprises”.
Claim 14 is indefinite because it is dependent upon a cancelled claim. Claim 14 recites “said at least one cooling device” which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 14 recites “preferably” making it unclear if the claim recitations thereafter are being positively claimed. Claim 14 recites “the pitch between one cooling tube and the one adjacent thereto” which is indefinite because it is not clear to what “the one” refers and how it’s adjacent. The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
14. (Currently amended) The apparatus according to claim [[10]] 11, wherein a movement device is provided, adapted to impart a translation motion along said radial direction to said respective cooling device , in a first orientation or in a second orientation opposite to the first orientation, another cooling tube adjacent thereto of said respective cooling device.
Claim 15 is indefinite because it is dependent upon a cancelled claim. Claim 15 recites “said at least one picking and releasing device” which lacks antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests the following amendments: “apparatus according to claim [[10]] 11, wherein each picking and releasing device is adapted”.
Claim 16 is indefinite because it is dependent upon a cancelled claim. The Examiner suggests amending claim 16 to be dependent upon claim 11.
Claim 18 is indefinite because it is dependent upon a cancelled claim. Claim 18 recites “a transfer wheel” which lacks antecedent basis clarity because it is not clear if it refers to the previously recited one (in claim 11) or to a new one. The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
18. (Currently amended) A plant for manufacturing preforms or containers made of thermoplastic material, comprising a rotary cooling apparatus according to claim [[10]] 11, wherein said rotary cooling apparatus is arranged downstream of a rotary injection molding machine, and wherein [[a]] said transfer wheel is provided between said rotary injection molding machine and said rotary cooling apparatus.
Claim 19 is indefinite because it is dependent upon a cancelled claim. Claim 19 recites “a transfer wheel” which lacks antecedent basis clarity because it is not clear if it refers to the previously recited one (in claim 11) or to a new one. Claim 19 recites “a picking and releasing device”, “said picking and releasing device”, “the picking and releasing device” and “said picking and releasing device” which lack antecedent basis clarity. Claim 19 recites “preferably” making it unclear if the claim recitations thereafter are being positively claimed. The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
19. (Currently amended) An operating method of a rotary cooling apparatus according to claim [[1]] 11, wherein [[a]] said transfer wheel is provided upstream of the rotary cooling apparatus, the method at full speed comprising, for each cooling device, the following steps during the rotation of the carousel:
a) providing preforms, or containers, to be cooled, introduced in respective cooling tubes, except
for in a first tube provided in a receiving position of a first preform;
b) picking the first preform from the transfer wheel by means of a respective picking and releasing device, and releasing the first preform into said first tube;
c) translating the cooling device along the radial direction, in a first orientation or in a second
orientation opposite to the first orientation, so that a second tube,
tube, reaches said receiving position;
d) picking a second preform from said second tube by means of said respective picking and releasing device and releasing it downstream of the rotary cooling apparatus;
e) picking a new second preform from the transfer wheel by means of said respective picking and releasing device, and releasing the new second preform into said second tube;
f) repeating steps c) to e) for a third tube and up to an nth tube of said plurality of cooling tubes
adapted to cool from a third preform to an nth preform, respectively;
g) translating the cooling device along the radial direction, in said second orientation or first
orientation, so that the first tube returns to said receiving position;
h) picking the first preform from said first tube by means of said respective picking and releasing device and releasing it downstream of the rotary cooling apparatus;
i) repeating steps b) to h).
Claims not listed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim. For examination purposes, the scope of the claims are understood in light of the amendments suggested by the Examiner above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 11-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,496,759. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 11-12 are fully encompassed by claims 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,496,759.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 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: the prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest the rotary cooling apparatus, as recited by claims 11-20, particularly including a plurality of cooling devices radially arranged along the periphery of the carousel, each cooling device being adapted to substantially horizontally translate along a radial direction with respect to said rotation axis X, and provided with a plurality of cooling tubes arranged in sequence along said radial direction and adapted to each receive a respective preform to be cooled; a plurality of picking and releasing devices, each picking and releasing device cooperating with a respective cooling device and being adapted to pick a preform from a transfer wheel, release said preform alternately in one of said cooling tubes and pick said preform again to release it downstream of said rotary cooling apparatus, each picking and releasing device being adapted to translate upwards or downwards transversely to said radial direction by cooperating with said at least one fixed guide element during a rotation of the carousel. Wu et al. (US 2017/0190094) (figs. 2-6) disclose a rotary cooling apparatus including a plurality of cooling devices radially arranged along the periphery of the carousel 10, and provided with a plurality of cooling tubes 2 arranged in sequence along said radial direction and adapted to each receive a respective preform 3 to be cooled; a plurality of picking and releasing devices 20, each picking and releasing device 20 cooperating with a respective cooling device and being adapted to pick a preform from a transfer wheel, release said preform in one of said cooling tubes 2 and pick said preform again to release it downstream of said rotary cooling apparatus, each picking and releasing device being adapted to translate upwards or downwards transversely to said radial direction by cooperating with at least one fixed guide element during a rotation of the carousel. However, Wu et al. (US 2017/0190094) does not disclose each cooling device being adapted to substantially horizontally translate along a radial direction with respect to a rotation axis X,
each picking and releasing device cooperating with a respective cooling device and being adapted to release said preform alternately in one of said cooling tubes and pick said preform again to release it downstream of said rotary cooling apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S LEYSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 5712705343. 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.
/J.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744