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 .
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 recite the broad recitation adjusting, oxygen content, control device, and/or regulating, and the claim also recite beverage cans, air humidity, increasing/decreasing, first oxygen, and/or control device, which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The recitations “particularly” or “in particular” serve to introduce a narrower claim feature resulting from a broad earlier recitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 1-16 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. Claims 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are construed to be indefinite because a broad recitation followed by a narrower recitation are indefinite as explained above. Since claims 12 and 15-16 are dependent upon an indefinite claim, those claims are construed to be indefinite by dependency. Claim 11 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the drying of containers” lacks a positive antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Petropoulos et al. (US 5,037,676). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed to be disclosed by Petropoulos as teaching:
a drying device 400 suitable for drying containers containing cleaning fluid (column 3 lines 28-38), including a method thereof comprising:
a drying chamber 410 for supplying a drying fluid to the containers in order to remove the cleaning fluid or applying a drying fluid to containers with a drying chamber, and
an oxygen sensor arrangement 348 configured to determine a final oxygen content of the drying fluid leaving the drying chamber or determining a final oxygen constant of the drying fluid exiting the drying chamber. Petropoulos also discloses the claims 2 and 14 temperature control feature (column 8 lines 1-6), the claims 5-8 heating and oxygen feature (column 7 lines 35-54) the claim 10 feature of inlet, outlet, and preferred control device (figures 1, 6), and claims 13 , 15, and 16 fluid or temperature control dependent on oxygen (column 7 lines 34-54).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xerox (EP 0 435 567). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed to be disclosed by Xerox as teaching:
a control device suitable for controlling the drying of containers containing cleaning fluid (figure 6; column 9, lines 8-46), which is configured to adjust a fluid flow ((346) figure 6; column 9, lines 8-46) and/or a temperature of the drying fluid entering a drying chamber of a drying device dependent on at least one output signal of an oxygen sensor arrangement ((348) figure 6; column 9, lines 8-46). Xerox also discloses the claim 13 control device feature (also column 9 lined 8-6 as “oxygen sensors 348 can be located in the chamber 310 and/or outlet line 342").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petropoulos in view of KBA (EP 2 984 429). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed to be disclosed by Petropoulos, as rejected above, except for claimed moisture feature. KBA, another drying device, discloses that feature in figures 1-2 and paragraph 15, as reported in the foreign patentability report. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Petropoulos with the teachings of KBA for the purpose of providing a precise drying control based on fluid moisture level or humidity.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xerox in view of KBA. The claims are reasonably and broadly construed to be disclosed by Xerox, as rejected above, except for claimed moisture feature. KBA, another drying device, discloses that feature in figures 1-2 and paragraph 15, as reported in the foreign patentability report. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Xerox with the teachings of KBA for the purpose of providing a precise drying control based on fluid moisture level or humidity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 and 13-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed July 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Xerox (Hammond) anticipation
Applicants argue that the disclosed oxygen sensor serves an entirely different function from the intended use as claimed. However as claimed “a drying chamber of a drying device dependent on at least one output signal of an oxygen sensor arrangement” indirectly supports the drying chamber device since as later disclosed beginning in column 9 line 8, since low oxygen to prevent combustion and allow nitrogen to purge gas, will inherently result in drying. Furthermore, as disclosed Xerox teaches that the oxygen sensor controls flow, which inherently changes the temperature as claimed.
Xerox in view of KBA obviousness
Since applicants have not addressed that rejection, the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new 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 STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-4875. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 am to 5:00 (mid day flex) first F 6:00 am t0 11:00 am.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights