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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is 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.
The term “near” in claim 8 (“near the exit”) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear from the context of the claim and corresponding specification what distance would be considered within the scope of “near.”
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (CN 112156049) in view of Till et al (US 2007/0204562).
Zhu is cited from the English machine translation, provided herewith.
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 8, Zhu discloses a hydrosol preparation system comprising (see Abstract):
a distillation unit used to perform distillation on a raw material, thereby producing crude hydrosol (see p. 4, “distillation device”, S1-S4);
a sterilization unit connected to the distillation unit, and used to perform sterilization on the crude hydrosol, thereby producing a final hydrosol (see pp. 4-5, S5-S7); and
a filling unit used to fill the final hydrosol into a container (see p. 5, S8).
Zhu discloses the filling being within the factory and under a sterile environment (see p. 5, S8), but fails to disclose the specifics of the filling mechanism, i.e., the conveyance unit as claimed.
Till is directed to an aseptic bottle filling arrangement for filling bottles with a liquid. The arrangement comprises a conveyor which conveys a bottle 2 (container) through stations including a filling unit 5 to fill the bottles with a liquid. The bottles move in a sterile, germ free space that is sealed off from the outside environment and is formed by a corresponding housing (see [0044]-[0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to implement the conveyor arrangement of Till in the hydrosol preparation system of Zhu, wherein such arrangement allows for filling of product material into bottles in a sterile environment.
With respect to the relative positions of the claimed units, such arrangement would be arrived at by routine experimentation by a person of ordinary skill in the art, based on determining the most effective and efficient manner of performing the system operations. Accordingly, the claimed relative positions of the units are not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claim over the cited prior art. 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, the filling unit performs aseptic filling. Recitation of use of nitrogen gas is directed to a material acted upon by and intended use of the claimed system and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. MPEP 2114 & 2115.
Regarding claim 3, Zhu in view of Till does not disclose the material of the bottle. However, the selection of a material known to be suitable for containing a hydrosol material is prima facie obvious (see US 2005/0082157: [0038], providing evidence of storage in aluminum bottles being known in the art).
Regarding claim 4, Zhu discloses wherein the distillation unit comprises a distillation pot made of copper (see p. 3, “The invention adopts”).
Regarding claim 5, Zhu discloses wherein the sterilization unit comprises a microfiltration membrane (see p. 4, S5).
Regarding claim 6, a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine the optimum pore size of the filtration membrane which achieves the desired purity of the hydrosol product. Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, the claimed pore size is not considered to provide a patentably distinguishing feature over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772