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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. 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, claim s 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 recite the broad recitation containers, moisture level, adjusting, oxygen content, 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 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. Claim 1 and 11 are construed to be indefinite because a broad recitation followed by a narrower recitation are indefinite as explained above. Since claims 2-20 and 12-13 are dependent upon an indefinite claim, those claims are construed to be indefinite by dependency. Claim 3 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the control device” lacks a positive antecedent basis. Claim s 4 and 5 are further construed to be indefinite because the recitations “the threshold value” (plural occurrences), “the temperature,” and/or “the fluid flow rate ” lack a positive antecedent basis. Claims 7 and 9 are further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the initial oxygen content” lacks a positive antecedent basis. Claim 8 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitations “the initial oxygen content” (plural occurrences), and “the second oxygen sensor” lack a positive antecedent basis. Claim 10 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitations “the control device” and “the volume” (plural occurrences), lack a positive antecedent basis. Claim 11 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitations “the drying” and “the drying fluid” lack a positive antecedent basis. Claim 12 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitations “the drying fluid” (plural occurrences), “the final oxygen content,” “the threshold value,” “the fluid moisture” (plural occurrences) “the drying fluid” (plural occurrences), “the threshold value,” and “the fluid flow rate” lack a positive antecedent basis. Claim 16 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the fluid moisture level” and “the fluid moisture” lack a positive antecedent basis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim s 1 -2, 5-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Neville et al. ( US 2009/0094501 ) . The claims are reasonably and broadly construed to be disclosed by Neville as teaching: a drying device (figures 1-4; paragraphs [00 13 ] - [00 24 ] ) suitable for drying containers containing cleaning fluid, comprising : a drying chamber ((14) figures 1-4; paragraphs [00 13 ] - [00 24 ] ) for supplying a drying fluid to the containers in order to remove the cleaning fluid, and an oxygen sensor arrangement ((90) figures 1-4; paragraphs [00 13 ] - [00 24 ] ) configured to determine a final oxygen content of the drying fluid leaving the drying chamber. Neville also discloses the claim 2 temperature control feature in paragraphs [0020]-[0023], the claims 5-8 heating and oxygen feature in paragraph [0004] and paragraphs [0020]-[0023] respectively , and the claim 10 feature control adjusting feature at paragraph [0014]. Also c laim 1 is also 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 all of the features at (figure 6; column 9, lines 8-46). Claim s 11 and 13 are 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 dependen t 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 “o xygen sensors 348 can be located in the chamber 310 and/or outlet line 342") . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 3-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neville in view of KBA (EP 2 984 429) . The claims are reasonably and broadly construed to be disclosed by Neville, 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 Neville with the teachings of KBA for the purpose of providing a precise drying control based on fluid moisture level or humidity. Claim 12 i s 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. Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KBA in view of Neville . The claims are reasonably and broadly construed to be disclosed by KBA in figures 1-3 and paragraphs 13-14 including a moisture level feature at paragraph 15 and shown in figures 1-2, except for claimed oxygen content feature . Neville , another drying device, discloses that feature as rejected above . It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Neville with the teachings of KBA for the purpose of providing a precise drying control based on fluid moisture level or humidity. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art references cited with this action, may teach one or more claim features, but do not rise to a level of anticipation, obviousness, and/or double patenting such that a rejection would be proper and reasonable under current Office practice and procedure. References A, N, O, P, cited with this action, are patent publications from the same inventive entity as the current application. References B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, cited with this action teach drying devices and methods thereof. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4875 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Craig Schneider can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. Tuesday, March 31, 2026 /STEPHEN M GRAVINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753