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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/22/2023 was filed before the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for feeding the contained and means for discharging the container in claim at least claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 13 and 17 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shintaku (JP 2008174246 A) – See Machine translation provided in view of Thaletec (DE 102009049296 B4) – See Machine translation provided.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Shintaku teaches a cleaning apparatus for containers (container, 12; Fig. 2), comprising: means for feeding the containers (star wheel, 18) into the cleaning apparatus (Paragraph [0040]); means for discharging the containers (star wheel, 19) from the cleaning apparatus (Paragraph [0040]); a transport apparatus (rotary table, 15) for transporting the containers (12) within the cleaning apparatus (Paragraph [0040]); at least one holder (lifting platforms, 20 with air cylinder, 28) for holding at least one of the containers (12) during a cleaning process (Paragraph [0016]), such that a longitudinal axis of each of the containers (12) extends substantially in a vertical direction (Fig. 6); and at least one cleaning station (Fig. 6) for cleaning the containers (12), wherein each cleaning station (Fig. 6) comprises at least one substantially cylindrically formed annular nozzle (nozzle, 1; Figs. 3 and 6 – 7) configured to completely surround (Fig. 7) one of the containers (12) during a cleaning process (Fig. 7), wherein each cleaning station (Fig. 6) is provided on its inner side with a first row of outlet openings disposed circumferentially in a first vertical position (nozzle, 1 is provided with a ring-shaped slit 6 is formed between the lower end of the inner circumference of the ring-shaped nozzle body 13 and the inner peripheral edge of the lower cover 5 fixed to close the air chamber 3), and wherein each cleaning station (Fig. 6) is configured to discharge a cleaning medium substantially identically downwardly at an angle to a radial direction to form a cyclone of cleaning medium (Paragraph [0037] – a ring-shaped slit 6 is formed between the lower end of the inner circumference of the ring-shaped nozzle body 13 and the inner peripheral edge of the lower cover 5 fixed to close the air chamber 3, so that the air blowing speed is approximately 150 m/s. The gap T of this slit 6 is 0.6 to 0.8 mm and is angled at about 15 degrees relative to the inner wall 4 of the main body, preventing turbulence when the air is ejected and increasing the amount of secondary air 10b entrained).
Shintaku does not explicitly teach each cleaning station is configured to discharge a cleaning medium substantially identically inwardly at a first angle to a horizontal axis of each of the containers.
Thaletec, however, teaches each cleaning station (Fig. 3) is configured to discharge a cleaning medium substantially identically inwardly (via 22a; Fig. 4) and downwardly (via 24; Fig. 4) at a first angle to a horizontal axis of each of the containers (Fig. 4) and at an angle to a radial direction to form a cyclone of cleaning medium (Fig. 4; Paragraphs [0013], [0015] – [0018] and [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning station of Shintaku to further include each cleaning station is configured to discharge a cleaning medium substantially identically inwardly at a first angle to a horizontal axis of each of the containers, as taught by Thaletec, to provide a cleaning station where the turbulence of the introduced medium occurs and thus improves the spray pattern.
Regarding Claim 2, Shintaku, as modified, teaches the cleaning apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above.
Shintaku does not explicitly teach wherein the annular nozzle further comprises a second row of outlet openings at a second vertical position above the first position, each of the outlet openings of the second row also being configured to discharge the cleaning medium substantially identically inwardly and downwardly at a second angle to the horizontal axis and at a second angle to the radial direction so as to form a second cyclone of cleaning medium, the second angle
Thaletec, however, teaches wherein the annular nozzle (18) further comprises a second row (B; Fig. 5a) of outlet openings at a second vertical position (22b) below the first position (Fig. 4), each of the outlet openings of the second row also being configured to discharge the cleaning medium substantially identically inwardly and downwardly at a second angle to the horizontal axis (Fig. 4) and at a second angle to the radial direction so as to form a second cyclone of cleaning medium, the second anglegreater for the second row of outlet openings than for the first row of outlet openings angle (Fig. 4; Paragraphs [0013], [0015] – [0018] and [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning station of Shintaku to further include the annular nozzle further comprises a second row of outlet openings at a second vertical position above the first position, each of the outlet openings of the second row also being configured to discharge the cleaning medium substantially identically inwardly and downwardly at a second angle to the horizontal axis and at a second angle to the radial direction so as to form a second cyclone of cleaning medium, the second angle
Regarding Claim 3, Shintaku, as modified, teaches the cleaning apparatus of claim 2 as discussed above.
Shintaku does not explicitly teach the outlet openings of the first row of outlet openings are each adapted to discharge the cleaning medium at the first angle to a side of the container with respect to the radial direction and the outlet openings of the second row of outlet openings are each adapted to discharge the cleaning medium at the second angle to the same side with respect to the radial direction to form co-rotating.
Thaletec, however, teaches the outlet openings of the first row of outlet openings (24) are each adapted to discharge the cleaning medium at the first angle to a side of the container with respect to the radial direction and the outlet openings of the second row of outlet openings (22a) are each adapted to discharge the cleaning medium at the second angle to the same side with respect to the radial direction to form co-rotating (Fig. 4; Paragraphs [0013], [0015] – [0018] and [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning station of Shintaku to further include the outlet openings of the first row of outlet openings are each adapted to discharge the cleaning medium at the first angle to a side of the container with respect to the radial direction and the outlet openings of the second row of outlet openings are each adapted to discharge the cleaning medium at the second angle to the same side with respect to the radial direction to form co-rotating, as taught by Thaletec, to provide a cleaning station where the turbulence of the introduced medium occurs and thus improves the spray pattern.
Regarding Claim 4, Shintaku, as modified, teaches the cleaning apparatus (Fig. 2)
further comprising: at least one pair of annular nozzles (1) supported in a substantially symmetrical manner on a common holder (Figs. 6 and 7); and a supply channel (9) provided within the common holder for delivering cleaning medium to the at least one pair of annular nozzles (1; Paragraph [0016]).
Regarding Claim 5, Shintaku, as modified, teaches the cleaning apparatus of claim 4 as discussed above.
Shintaku does not explicitly teach each outlet opening of one or more of the first row of outlet openings or a second row of outlet openings is assigned an annular channel running around the at least one pair of annular nozzles for transport of the cleaning medium, via which each such outlet opening is supplied, a transition between the supply channel and each of the annular channels being realized via a connection and bores running obliquely with respect to the direction in which the common holder extends.
Thaletec, however, teaches each outlet opening of one or more of the first row of outlet openings or a second row of outlet openings is assigned an annular channel running around the at least one pair of annular nozzles for transport of the cleaning medium, via which each such outlet opening is supplied (Paragraph [0007], via th annular gap), a transition between the supply channel and each of the annular channels being realized via a connection and bores running obliquely with respect to the direction in which the common holder extends (Paragraphs [0007] and [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning station of Shintaku to further include each outlet opening of one or more of the first row of outlet openings or a second row of outlet openings is assigned an annular channel running around the at least one pair of annular nozzles for transport of the cleaning medium, via which each such outlet opening is supplied, a transition between the supply channel and each of the annular channels being realized via a connection and bores running obliquely with respect to the direction in which the common holder extends, as taught by Thaletec, to provide a cleaning station where the turbulence of the introduced medium occurs and thus improves the spray pattern.
Regarding Claim 6, Shintaku, as modified, teaches the cleaning apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above.
Shintaku does not explicitly teach at least one flat seal for sealing the at least one annular nozzle.
Thaletec, however, teaches at least one flat seal for sealing the at least one annular nozzle (Paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning station of Shintaku to further include at least one flat seal for sealing the at least one annular nozzle, as taught by Thaletec, to prevent the cleaning stations from leaking, thus preventing damage to the equipment.
Regarding Claim 7, Shintaku, as modified, teaches the cleaning apparatus (Fig. 2) further comprising a drying station disposed downstream of the cleaning station with respect to the transport apparatus (Paragraph [0012]).
Regarding Claim 8, Shintaku, as modified, teaches the cleaning apparatus (Fig. 2) wherein one or more of the at least one annular nozzle (1) or the at least one annular drying unit are displaceable in the vertical direction in a manner coordinated with the transport apparatus (Paragraph [0012]).
Regarding Claim 9, Shintaku, as modified, teaches the cleaning apparatus (Fig. 2) wherein the at least one holder (28) is configured as a gripper associated with the transport apparatus (Fig. 8), wherein the at least one holder is configured to hold the at least one container at an upper end of the at least one container (12; Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 10, Shintaku, as modified, teaches the cleaning apparatus (Fig. 2) wherein the at least one holder (28) is configured to grip one or more of vials, ampoules, or carpules (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 11, Shintaku, as modified, teaches the cleaning apparatus (Fig. 2) wherein the at least one holder gripper (20) is configured to grip a container (12) of the containers (12) in a neck portion of the container with a gripping portion (Fig. 6) and wherein the at least one holder comprises a receiving space for receiving a head portion of the container in a gripped state (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Shintaku, as modified, teaches the cleaning apparatus (Fig. 2) wherein the gripping portion is configured to grip the container in a sealed manner such that the receiving space is sealed from an environment with the container in the gripped state (Fig. 2), the cleaning apparatus further comprising means for applying a gaseous medium at an elevated pressure to the receiving space (Paragraph [0002]).
Regarding Claim 13, Shintaku, as modified, teaches the cleaning apparatus (Fig. 2) further comprising at least one height-displaceable support apparatus (lifting device, 23) configured to support a container of the containers below one of the at least one pair of annular nozzles(1) or below at least one annular drying unit configured to completely surround one of the containers during a drying process (Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 17, Shintaku, as modified, teaches the cleaning apparatus (Fig. 2) wherein the cleaning apparatus is further configured to be operable in a repeat cleaning mode in which, in an event of a malfunction of one or more of the cleaning station or the drying station containers that have already been treated in the cleaning station or the drying station are re-treated (Paragraph [0047]).
Regarding Claim 18, Shintaku, as modified, teaches the cleaning apparatus of claim 2 as discussed above.
Shintaku does not explicitly teach wherein the second angle is thirty degrees.
Thaletec, however, teaches the second angle is thirty degrees Paragraph [0017].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning station of Shintaku to further include the second angle is thirty degrees, as taught by Thaletec, to provide a cleaning station where the turbulence of the introduced medium occurs and thus improves the spray pattern.
Regarding Claim 19, Shintaku, as modified, teaches the cleaning apparatus (Fig. 2) wherein the connection comprises a blind hole (3).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shintaku (JP 2008174246 A) – See Machine translation provided in view of Thaletec (DE 102009049296 B4) – See Machine translation provided and Till (U. S. Patent No. 7,121,062 B2).
Regarding Claim 14, Shintaku, as modified, teaches the cleaning apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above.
Shintaku does not teach a blow-off station disposed downstream of the cleaning station with respect to the transport apparatus between the cleaning station and a drying station wherein the blow-off station is configured to blow off the holders associated with the transport apparatus by means of at least one air curtain.
Till, however, teaches a blow-off station (Fig. 5A) disposed downstream of the station (5) with respect to the transport apparatus between the station (5) and a drying station wherein the blow-off station is configured to blow off the holders associated with the transport apparatus by means of at least one air curtain (@417 via conduit, 413).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning station of Shintaku to further include a blow-off station disposed downstream of the cleaning station with respect to the transport apparatus between the cleaning station and a drying station wherein the blow-off station is configured to blow off the holders associated with the transport apparatus by means of at least one air curtain, as taught by Till, to prevent container from being contaminated thus ensuring the quality of the cleaning process.
Regarding Claim 20, Shintaku, as modified, teaches the cleaning apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above.
Shintaku does not teach the drying station comprises at least one annular drying unit configured to completely surround one of the containers during a drying process.
Till, however, teaches the drying station (@417; Fig. 5A) comprises at least one annular drying unit configured to completely surround one of the containers during a drying process (via conduit 413).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning station of Shintaku to further include the drying station comprises at least one annular drying unit configured to completely surround one of the containers during a drying process, as taught by Till, to prevent container from being contaminated thus ensuring the quality of the cleaning process.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shintaku (JP 2008174246 A) – See Machine translation provided in view of Thaletec (DE 102009049296 B4) – See Machine translation provided and Bock (DE102018133121 A1) – See Machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 15, Shintaku, as modified, teaches the cleaning apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above.
Shintaku does not explicitly teach the cleaning apparatus wherein the transport apparatus is further configured to implement an empty space compensation system, the cleaning apparatus further comprising
Bock, however, teaches the transport apparatus is further configured to implement an empty space compensation system, the cleaning apparatus further comprising
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning station of Shintaku to further include at least one flat seal for sealing the at least one annular nozzle, as taught by Bock, to prevent the damage to the containers thus preventing damage to the equipment.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shintaku (JP 2008174246 A) – See Machine translation provided in view of Thaletec (DE 102009049296 B4) – See Machine translation provided and Weber at al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0219275 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Shintaku, as modified, teaches the cleaning apparatus of claim 7 as discussed above.
Shintaku does not explicitly teach wherein the transport apparatus is further configured to be operable in a start-up mode in which all of the holders are moved out of an area of the cleaning station and, of the drying station when the cleaning apparatus is started up.
Weber, however, teaches an analogous cleaning/drying and transporting system wherein the transport apparatus is further configured to be operable in a start-up mode in which all of the holders are moved out of an area of the cleaning station and, of the drying station when the cleaning apparatus is started up (Paragraphs [0007] and [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning station of Shintaku to further include the transport apparatus is further configured to be operable in a start-up mode in which all of the holders are moved out of an area of the cleaning station and, of the drying station when the cleaning apparatus is started up, as taught by Weber, to prevent the damage to the containers thus preventing damage to the equipment.
Conclusion
Art made of record, however, not relied upon for the current rejection is as follows: JP 2004113934 A to Takase teaches a device which washes the tip part of a slit nozzle without staining the surrounding part of the slit nozzle by using a small amount of washing liquid, and to provide a washing method thereof. In the washing device for slit nozzle, the tip of the slit nozzle on which a coating liquid ejection port having a specified width is opened is moved along the longitudinal direction of the slit nozzle and, at the same time, is washed. Further, the washing device is provided with a washing liquid discharging means which is set shorter than the width along the longitudinal direction of the slit nozzle and produces misty washing liquid, an injecting port of washing liquid which injects the produced misty washing liquid against an inclined part of the tip of the slit nozzle, a gas ejecting port positioned on the upper part of the ejecting port of washing liquid and a gas ejecting means which ejects the gas.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723