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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 25 January 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2023-009246 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 26 July 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1-4 are pending.
The Claim amendments are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously applied to claims 3-4
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7 of the applicant’s response, filed 26 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Hayakawa in view of Naka (US 20090110613 A1).
The newly added limitation “the plurality of supply openings being formed in a lateral inner surface of the manifold” is sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection with respect to Hayakawa. However, Naka teaches the plurality of supply openings being formed in a lateral inner surface of the manifold (Figure 2 aseptic air supply nozzles “80” in sidewall of rotary wheel “14”). Therefore, a combination of Hayakawa and Naka would render the current invention obvious.
Following the above logic, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 2-4 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made in view of Hayakawa in view of Naka (US 20090110613 A1).
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa (US 20220127125) in view of Naka (US 20090110613 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hayakawa teaches a container-sterilizer (container sterilizing device, abstract) comprises: a fixed member (Figure 4 Fixed cover “52” and base “43”); a rotational shaft rotatably supported by the fixed member (Figure 4 swiveling shaft “44”); a rotating body configured to rotate coaxially and integrally with the rotational shaft, the rotating body including a plurality of holding members which is configured to hold containers (Figure 4 rotatable wheel “41” with multiple grippers “42”); a manifold which is configured to rotate coaxially and integrally with the rotational shaft and to which a plurality of sterilizing nozzles to inject a sterilizing agent is connected (Figure 4 rotary plate “53” connected to the swiveling shaft “44” via supporting poles “45” and nozzles “51” connected to the rotary plate), the manifold having a plurality of supply openings communicating with the plurality of sterilizing nozzles (Figure 4 openings “53a” in the rotary plate “53” for supplying sterilizing agent to nozzles “51”); and a penetrating member attached to the fixed member and provided in the rotational shaft to pass through the rotational shaft to the manifold (Figure 4 conduit “56” coupled to the inlet “52a” to the top portion “55” of fixed cover “52”), the penetrating member having a shielding member which is provided in the manifold and which is configured to supply the sterilizing agent in the manifold to some supply openings among the plurality of sterilizing nozzles (Figure 4 shield plate “62” in the supply unit “50” interposed between the fixed cover “52” and the rotary plate “53” and the openings “62a” formed along the transport path of the bottle “100”), but does not teach the supply openings being formed in a lateral inner wall of the manifold. However, Naka teaches the supply openings being formed in a lateral inner wall of the manifold (Figure 2 aseptic air supply nozzles “80” in sidewall of rotary wheel “14”).
Hayakawa and Naka are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of container sterilizing devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to combine the container sterilizing device taught by Hayakawa with the opening formed in the lateral inner side wall as taught by Naka because Naka teaches this arrangement allows for the nozzles to be advantageously arranged in correspondence to the vessel supporting members (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hayakawa and Naka teaches wherein the penetrating member comprises a sterilizing agent supply pipe that is configured to supply the sterilizing agent into the manifold (hydrogen peroxide is supplied into the fixed cover through the conduit, paragraph [0057], Hayakawa).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hayakawa and Naka teaches wherein the shielding member is provided adjacent to the supply openings along the lateral inner wall surface of the manifold (Figure 4 shield plate “62” attached to the top portion “52a” of the fixed cover “52” via attachments “53” adjacent to the supply openings “53a”, Hayakawa).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hayakawa and Naka teaches wherein the shielding member is provided adjacent to the supply openings along the lateral inner wall surface of the manifold (Figure 4 shield plate “62” attached to the top portion “52a” of the fixed cover “52” via attachments “53” adjacent to the supply openings “53a”, Hayakawa).
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 KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights