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
This is a first action on the merits for this regular application filed on 10/23/2023
Specification
The incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper. Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g). The specification does not include a section for cross reference to the foreign application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-13, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krueger (US 9,121,835 B2).
Regarding claims 12 and 21, Krueger discloses an apparatus and a method (col.1, lines 5-8) for treating the inner wall (col.2, lines 15-25) of containers, having a transport device (Fig.2: F) configured to transport the containers along a predetermined transport path, wherein the containers have a mouth opening (Fig.2: B), wherein the apparatus has at least one treatment device (Fig.2:P and L) which
can be introduced into the containers through the mouth opening (col.3, lines 56-67 through col.4, lines 1-50), wherein the apparatus has a monitoring device (Fig.2:M) configured to monitor the treatment of the inner wall,
wherein the monitoring device (col.4, lines 1-50) is configured to monitor the treatment of the inner wall through the mouth opening;
wherein a treatment device is introduced into the containers through the mouth opening (col.4, lines 1-50), and the treatment of the inner wall is monitored by a monitoring device (col.4, lines 1-50),
wherein the monitoring device (col.4, lines 1-50) monitors the treatment of the inner wall through the mouth opening.
Regarding claim 13, Krueger discloses that the monitoring device has a sensor device which is configured for detecting electromagnetic radiation emerging from the interior of the container (col.4, lines 1-50) through the mouth opening.
Regarding claim 16, Krueger discloses that the treatment device has an emissions device which is configured to apply electron radiation or plasma (col.3, lines 56-67 through col.4, lines 1-50) to the inner wall.
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 14-15, 17-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger (US 9,121,835 B2) as applied to claims 13, 12 and further in view of Shepherd (US 6,198,102 B1).
Regarding claims 14, 17 and 22, appears silent to disclose the use of an image detecting device.
Shepherd discloses a container inspection device that uses an image detecting device (Fig.1:26 and 28) of the interior of bottles (col.4, lines 20-56) in order to measure the inside diameter of a container mouth at the hot end of the container manufacturing process (col.1, lines 5-9). 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 to add Shepherd bottle imaging system to Krueger apparatus/method in order to measure the inside diameter of a container mouth at the hot end of the container manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 15, Krueger teaches that the treatment device is introduced into the container (Fig.2: L).
Krueger appears silent to disclose the use of a sensor to detect radiation.
Shepherd discloses a container inspection device that uses an image detecting device (Fig.1:26 and 28) of the interior of bottles (col.4, lines 20-56) in order to measure the inside diameter of a container mouth at the hot end of the container manufacturing process (col.1, lines 5-9). Shepherd further discloses a sensor (Fig.1:28) that senses the radiation reflected from the interior of the bottle to be captured as an image (col.4, lines 43-46). 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 to add Shepherd bottle imaging system to Krueger apparatus/method in order to measure the inside diameter of a container mouth at the hot end of the container manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 18, Krueger appears silent to disclose the use of a light guiding device.
Shepherd discloses a container inspection device that uses an image detecting device (Fig.1:26 and 28) of the interior of bottles (col.4, lines 20-56) in order to measure the inside diameter of a container mouth at the hot end of the container manufacturing process (col.1, lines 5-9). Shepherd further discloses a light guiding device (Fig.1:36, 34, 30 and 32) that senses the radiation reflected from the interior of the bottle to be captured as an image (col.4, lines 43-46). 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 to add Shepherd light guiding device to Krueger apparatus/method in order to measure the inside diameter of a container mouth at the hot end of the container manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 19, Krueger appears silent to disclose that the monitoring device has a protection device configured to protect the sensor device from emissions occurring during the treatment.
Shepherd discloses a container inspection device that uses an image detecting device (Fig.1:26 and 28) of the interior of bottles (col.4, lines 20-56) in order to measure the inside diameter of a container mouth at the hot end of the container manufacturing process (col.1, lines 5-9). Shepherd further discloses a protection device (Fig.1:30) that is capable of protecting the sensor from emissions occurring during treatment. 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 to add Shepherd light guiding device to Krueger apparatus/method in order to measure the inside diameter of a container mouth at the hot end of the container manufacturing process.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger (US 9,121,835 B2) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Holbert (US 5,730,934 B1).
Krueger appears silent to disclose a cooling device configured to cool the treatment device.
Holbert discloses a method for sterilizing packaging with UV light (col.1, lines 5-10) where the apparatus includes a water-cooling system (col.3, lines 42-44) in order to prevent the possibility of damaging the material undergoing sterilization (col.2, lines 21-26). 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 to add Holbert cooling system to Krueger method in order to prevent the possibility of damaging the material undergoing sterilization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONZER R CHORBAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-1271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-12:00 and 6:00-9:00.
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, Jill J Warden can be reached at (571)272-1267. 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.
/MONZER R CHORBAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights