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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 21, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, filed January 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wakao (US 2009/0095322) in view of Grot (US 5,092,356).
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakao (US 2009/0095322), and in further view of Grot (US 5,092,356).
Regarding claim 1, Wakao figure 6 teaches an apparatus for rinsing an interior of a container, comprising:
a container receiving member (31 support mechanism) configured to receive and hold the container (1) at a predetermined inclination angle and in a predetermined position in which the container is positioned with a container opening (3 mouthpiece) that is downwardly directed, wherein the predetermined inclination angle is between (1) a longitudinal axis of the container and/or a center axis of the container and (2) a directional vector of gravitational acceleration; and
a rinsing nozzle (32 cleaning nozzle) configured to introduce a jet of rinsing fluid through the container opening into the container.[0219-0226]
Wakao is silent to the rinsing nozzle is arranged and further configured to introduce the jet of rinsing fluid into the container opening at an introduction angle with respect to the longitudinal axis of the container and/or the center axis of the container.
Grot is directed towards a nozzle system to spray the insides of bottles where figure 6 teaches a nozzle shaft 12 where the spray jet is oblique.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide a nozzle configuration as taught in Grot so that the spray jet impinges the bottle sidewall.[col 4 lines 50-65]
Regarding claim 2, Wakao figure 6 in view of Grot figures 6 and 8 suggest the rinsing nozzle is further arranged such that a center axis of the jet of rinsing fluid has an offset with respect to the longitudinal axis of the container and/or the center axis of the container opening, and the offset is a range greater than zero and less than an inner radius of the container opening.
Regarding claim 3, Grot figure 6 suggests the rinsing nozzle is further arranged such that the jet of rinsing fluid strikes an inner surface of the container in a neck region and/or in a shoulder region of the container.
Regarding claim 4, Grot teaches bore 16 is formed with a bend in such a way as to issue at both apertures obliquely to the plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation A, that is, it subtends at both apertures an angle a with this axis A. Preferably this angle a shall be approximately 70° to 85°. FIG. 7 shows the jet impact points on the bottle wall for the jets a through e in the form of small circles. By means of the arrows associated with these impact points, the Figure shows how and in which direction the reflections of the jets striking the bottle wall travel from the impact points a through e along the wall. The jet beginning at the impact point c and touching the wall therefore moves upward parallel to the bottle axis and then centrally over its bottom, as denoted by another arrow c shown on the bottom. The jet starting at the impact point a and touching the wall moves obliquely upward to the right and then over the bottom in the direction the arrow shown there. The directions of motions of the remaining jets touching the wall are also shown for the remaining impact points. It follows that, except for the jet starting from c which goes vertically upward, all jets run rather obliquely, that is helically along the bottle wall thereby suggesting the rinsing nozzle is further arranged such that the jet of rinsing fluid, at an impact location on an inner surface of the container, encloses an angle of from 85° to 90° with a surface normal of the inner surface at the impact location, and the jet of rinsing fluid is oriented at the impact location tangentially with respect to the inner surface to be an obvious optimization through routine experimentation. [col 5 lines 1-20](MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 5, Wakao figure 6 teaches a tilt angle of the container 1 in the axial direction may be smaller than 90 degrees (i.e., a supported state with a horizontal posture) in the vertical direction, preferably 30 to 60 degrees. For example, from a viewpoint of suppressing a height of the supported container 1, it is preferable that the angle is 35 degrees thereby reading on the predetermined inclination angle is in a range from 10° to 80°. [0220]
Regarding claim 6, Grot figures 6 and 8 teach the rinsing nozzle is further arranged in a direction of the longitudinal axis of the container and/or the center axis of the container opening with a spacing with respect to the container opening. As to the limitation of the spacing is (1) greater than a quotient of an inner radius of the container opening and a tangent of the predetermined inclination angle, (2) greater than or equal to a product of a predetermined factor and the quotient of the inner radius of the container opening and the tangent of the predetermined inclination angle, or (3) at least 10 mm, Grot teaches by varying the angles a of the bores, the spray condition can be changed in the bottles. Depending on bottle shape (slender and long or wide and short), the spray state can be matched to the particular requirements by adjusting a alpha thereby suggesting the aforementioned limitations to be an obvious modification.[col 5 lines 30-40]
Regarding claim 7, Grot teaches by varying the angles a of the bores, the spray condition can be changed in the bottles. Depending on bottle shape (slender and long or wide and short), the spray state can be matched to the particular requirements by adjusting a alpha thereby suggesting wherein the spacing is greater than or equal to a product of a predetermined factor and the quotient of the inner radius of the container opening and the tangent of the predetermined inclination angle, and the predetermined factor is between 1.1 and 8 to be an obvious modification. [col 5 lines 30-40]
Regarding claim 8, Grot teaches Grot teaches by varying the angles a of the bores, the spray condition can be changed in the bottles. Depending on bottle shape (slender and long or wide and short), the spray state can be matched to the particular requirements by adjusting a alpha thereby suggesting wherein the rinsing nozzle is further arranged with respect to the directional vector of gravitational acceleration to be laterally offset with respect to the container opening, and a horizontal spacing perpendicular to the directional vector of gravitational acceleration between the container opening and the rinsing nozzle is at least 5 mm to be an obvious optimization through routine experimentation. [col 5 lines 30-40](MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 9, Grot teaches spray pipe means having a delivery spout for supplying cleaning fluid under pressure thereby suggesting a rinsing pressure of the jet of rinsing fluid is from 2 bar to 10 bar to be an obvious optimization through routine experimentation.[claim 1](MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 10, Wakao teaches control unit 40 successively switches the nozzles 32, 34 and 36 having the jetting functions to jet the fluids in the container 1 in order to continuously perform a series of treatments (cleaning, draining and drying) thereby suggesting wherein the rinsing nozzle is further configured to intermittently rinse the container to be an obvious modification.[0194]
Regarding claim 21, Wakao teaches it is preferable that the tilt state of the container is a state in which the mouth part opens obliquely downwards thereby suggesting wherein the container receiving member is inclined at the predetermined inclination angle with respect to the directional vector of gravitational acceleration to be an obvious modification.[0045]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTI J TATE-SIMS whose telephone number is (571)272-1722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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 Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
CRISTI J. TATE-SIMS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/CRISTI J TATE-SIMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights