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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-23 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 24 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/17/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/12/2024, 2/29/2024, 6/20/2024, 7/29/2025, and 11/17/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-23 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 recites the limitation "the UV light source and washing nozzle" in the second to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should read as “the at least one UV light source and the at least one washing nozzle”.
Due to their dependency from claim 1, claims 2-23 are also rejected under 112 paragraph b.
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 1-17 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sperry (PG Pub U.S 2021/0308301) and further in view of Longo et al. (PG Pub U.S 2022/0079413).
Regarding claim 1, Sperry teaches a reusable food or beverage container sanitizingonto a reusable food or beverage container positioned inside the chamber (para 0030) in such a way as to result in sanitizing of exterior surfaces of the reusable food or beverage container (para 0030).
Sperry fails to teach a washing system having at least one washing nozzle configured to spray cleaning fluid to wash interior surfaces of the reusable food or beverage container; wherein when the access door is in the closed state a sanitization and washing cycle is initiated using the UV light source and washing nozzle and when the sanitization and washing cycle is complete, the access door is moved to an open state. However, Longo teaches a food and beverage container washing system (abstract, fig 7) wherein it is known to include at least one washing nozzle (22) configured to spray cleaning fluid to wash interior surfaces of the reusable food or beverage container (para 0109); wherein when the access door is in the closed state a washing cycle is initiated and washing nozzle (para 0120-0121) and when the washing cycle is complete, the access door is moved to an open state (para 0121) in order to achieve the predictable result of enhancing removal of foreign matter and waste from the food and beverage container. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective of the claimed invention to modify Sperry such that it includes at least one washing nozzle configured to spray cleaning fluid to wash interior surfaces of the reusable food or beverage container in order to achieve the predictable result of enhancing removal of foreign matter and waste from the food and beverage container thus teaching wherein when the access door is in the closed state a sanitization and washing cycle is initiated using the UV light source and washing nozzle and when the sanitization and washing cycle is complete, the access door is moved to an open state.
Regarding claim 2, the present combination of Sperry and Longo teaches a retrieval door (104) disposed on a different side of the chamber than the access door (fig 2C of Sperry), the retrieval door providing access to the chamber when the retrieval door is in an open state and blocking access to the chamber when the retrieval door is in a closed state (para 0034 of Sperry).
Regarding claim 3, the present combination of Sperry and Longo teaches wherein the access door is configured to receive an unsanitized and unwashed reusable food or beverage container (108, fig 2 of Sparry) (via door 103) and the retrieval door is configured to allow retrieval of a sanitized and washed reusable food or beverage container after the sanitization and washing cycle (via door 104) (para 0034 of Sperry).
Regarding claim 4, the present combination of Sperry and Longo teaches a conveyor (112, fig 2 and para 0036 of Sperry) configured to receive an unsanitized and unwashed reusable food or beverage container (108), move the unsanitized and unwashed reusable food or beverage container into the chamber through the access door (para 0034 and 0036 of Sperry), and move a sanitized and washed reusable food or beverage container out of the chamber through the retrieval door (para 0034 and 0036 of Sperry).
Regarding claim 5, the present combination of Sperry and Longo teaches a container centering device disposed (114) within the chamber (para 0037 and fig 3 of Sperry).
Regarding claim 6, the present combination of Sperry and Longo teaches wherein the at least one UV light source comprises an array of UV lights (106) disposed on an interior surface of one or more sides of the chamber (para 0034-0036 of Sperry).
Regarding claim 7, the present combination of Sperry and Longo fails to teach wherein the predetermined intensity level and time duration result in a UV dose of at least 4 mJ/cm2.
However, Sperry teaches that the predetermined intensity level and time duration is a result effective variable (para 0030 and 0038). The predetermined intensity level and time duration affects the level of sanitization (claims 11 and 19 of Sperry). Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate predetermined intensity level and time duration for the predictable result of effectively sanitizing the reusable food or beverage container. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the predetermined intensity level and time duration such the predetermined intensity level and time duration result in a UV dose is of at least 4 mJ/cm2 in order to effectively sanitize the reusable food or beverage container. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 8, the present combination of Sperry and Longo fails to teach wherein the predetermined intensity level and time duration result in a UV dose of at least 8 mJ/cm2.
However, Sperry teaches that the predetermined intensity level and time duration is a result effective variable (para 0030 and 0038). The predetermined intensity level and time duration affects the level of sanitization (claims 11 and 19 of Sperry). Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate predetermined intensity level and time duration for the predictable result of effectively sanitizing the reusable food or beverage container. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the predetermined intensity level and time duration such the predetermined intensity level and time duration result in a UV dose is of at least 8 mJ/cm2 in order to effectively sanitize the reusable food or beverage container. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 9, the present combination of Sperry and Longo fails to teach wherein the predetermined intensity level and time duration result in a UV dose of at most 24 mJ/cm2.
However, Sperry teaches that the predetermined intensity level and time duration is a result effective variable (para 0030 and 0038). The predetermined intensity level and time duration affects the level of sanitization (claims 11 and 19 of Sperry). Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate predetermined intensity level and time duration for the predictable result of effectively sanitizing the reusable food or beverage container. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the predetermined intensity level and time duration such the predetermined intensity level and time duration result in a UV dose is of at most 24 mJ/cm2 in order to effectively sanitize the reusable food or beverage container. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 10, the present combination of Sperry and Longo fails to teach wherein the predetermined intensity level and time duration result in a UV dose of between 4-8 mJ/cm2.
However, Sperry teaches that the predetermined intensity level and time duration is a result effective variable (para 0030 and 0038). The predetermined intensity level and time duration affects the level of sanitization (claims 11 and 19 of Sperry). Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate predetermined intensity level and time duration for the predictable result of effectively sanitizing the reusable food or beverage container. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the predetermined intensity level and time duration such the predetermined intensity level and time duration result in a UV dose is of between 4-8 mJ/cm2 in order to effectively sanitize the reusable food or beverage container. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 11, the present combination of Sperry and Longo fails to teach wherein the predetermined intensity level and time duration result in a UV dose of between 4-24 mJ/cm2. However, Sperry teaches that the predetermined intensity level and time duration is a result effective variable (para 0030 and 0038). The predetermined intensity level and time duration affects the level of sanitization (claims 11 and 19 of Sperry). Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate predetermined intensity level and time duration for the predictable result of effectively sanitizing the reusable food or beverage container. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the predetermined intensity level and time duration such the predetermined intensity level and time duration result in a UV dose is of between 4-24 mJ/cm2 in order to effectively sanitize the reusable food or beverage container. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 12, the present combination of Sperry and Longo teaches wherein the at least one UV light source is disposed on a container profiler (118) (para 0041 and fig 6 of Sperry) that is configured to conform to a shape of the reusable food or beverage container (fig 5B and 6 and para 0041 of Sperry) to place the at least one UV light source in proximity to an exterior surface of the reusable food or beverage container (para 0038 of Sperry) allowing for effective sanitation at a lower intensity level or time duration relative to having the at least one UV light source distal to the exterior surface of the reusable food or beverage container (para 0038 of Sperry).
Regarding claim 13, the present combination of Sperry and Longo teaches wherein the profiler comprises one or more members (124) having at least one UV light source mounted thereon (fig 6 and para 0041 of Sperry), the members configured to move toward an exterior surface of the reusable food or beverage container to place the UV light in proximity to the exterior surface of the reusable food or beverage container (para 0041 of Sperry).
Regarding claim 14, the present combination of Sperry and Longo teaches wherein the container profiler comprises one or more sensors (125) for detecting a shape of the reusable food or beverage container (para 0041 of Sperry).
Regarding claim 15, the present combination of Sperry and Longo teaches wherein the container profiler is configured to rotate around the reusable food or beverage container to distribute application of UV light (para 0041 of Sperry).
Regarding claim 16, the present combination of Sperry and Longo teaches wherein the at least one washing nozzle is disposed and configured to wash the interior surfaces of the reusable food or beverage container (para 0109 of Longo).
Regarding claim 17, the present combination of Sperry and Longo fails to teach a draining base configured to rotate for rotating the reusable food or beverage container within the chamber to dry the interior surfaces of the reusable food or beverage container after the washing cycle. However, Longo also teaches a draining base (4) (fig 2) configured to rotate for rotating the reusable food or beverage container (para 0068) within the chamber to dry the interior surfaces of the reusable food or beverage container after the washing cycle (para 0068 and 0121) in order to reuse the container. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the present combination of Sperry and Longo to include a draining base configured to rotate for rotating the reusable food or beverage container within the chamber to dry the interior surfaces of the reusable food or beverage container after the washing cycle in order to reuse the container.
Regarding claim 20, the present combination of Sperry and Longo teaches wherein the housing rotates around the chamber (claim 21 of Sperry) and wherein the access door connected to the housing receives unsanitized and unwashed reusable food or beverage container in a first position located on a first side of the chamber (claim 21 of Sperry) and rotates to a second position located on second side of the chamber to provide access to a sanitized and washed reusable food or beverage container (claim 21 of Sperry).
Regarding claim 21, the present combination of Sperry and Longo teaches wherein nesting sliding members (128/144) (figs 6 and 8 of Sperry) of the housing rotate around the chamber (para 0042, 0047, and 0049 of Sperry) and wherein the sliding members provide an access door (para 0042, 0047, and 0049 of Sperry) that receives unsanitized and unwashed reusable food or beverage container in a first position located on a first side of the chamber (para 0042, 0047, and 0049 of Sperry) and rotate to a second position located on second side of the chamber to provide access to a sanitized and washed reusable food or beverage container (para 0042, 0047, and 0049 of Sperry).
Regarding claim 22, the present combination of Sperry and Longo fails to specifically teach wherein the at least one UV light source is disposed on an inner surface of an innermost nesting sliding member. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the at least one UV light source on an inner surface of an innermost nesting sliding member, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention for the at least one UV light source is disposed on an inner surface of an innermost nesting sliding member in order to achieve the predictable result of sanitizing the reusable food or beverage container.
Regarding claim 23, the present combination of Sperry and Longo teaches a second chamber inside the housing that is sized, dimensioned, and configured to envelope the reusable food or beverage container; a second access door providing access to the second chamber when the second access door is in an open state, and blocking access to the second chamber when the second access door is in a closed state; at least one UV light source disposed within the second chamber and configured to direct UV light at a predetermined intensity level and time duration onto the reusable food or beverage container positioned inside the second chamber in such a way as to result in sanitizing of surfaces of the reusable food or beverage container (claim 22 and para 0047 and 0049 of Sperry).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a second chamber having the limitations of claim 1, since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Thus, the present combination of Sperry and Longo also teaches at least one washing nozzle disposed within the second chamber and adapted to spray cleaning fluid to wash the interior surfaces of the reusable food or beverage container; wherein when the second access door is in the closed state the sanitization and washing cycle is initiated using the UV light source and washing nozzle and when the sanitization and washing cycle is complete, the second access door is moved to the open state in order to accommodate more containers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sperry (PG Pub U.S 2021/0308301), Longo et al. (PG Pub U.S 2022/0079413) and further in view of Disch (PG Pub U.S 2021/0298558).
Regarding claim 19, the present combination of Sperry and Longo fails to teach one or more dryers adapted to dry the interior surfaces of the reusable food or beverage container at an end of the washing cycle. However, Disch teaches a container washing system wherein it is known to have one or more dryers adapted to dry the interior surfaces of the reusable food or beverage container at an end of the washing cycle (para 0078-0079 and claims 9 and 10) in order to reuse the containers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the present combination of Sperry and Longo to include one or more dryers adapted to dry the interior surfaces of the reusable food or beverage container at an end of the washing cycle as taught by Disch in order to reuse the containers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement for reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Sperry (PG Pub U.S 2021/0308301) and Longo et al. (PG Pub U.S 2022/0079413)
The combination of Sperry and Longo teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Sperry and Longo fail to teach a flipping device configured to receive a reusable food or beverage container in a substantially upright position and turn the container over to allow the container to drain during or after the washing cycle as recited in claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRADHUMAN PARIHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached on 571-272-1344. 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.
/P.P/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714