Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/675,600

APPARATUS AND A PROCESS FOR STERILIZING AND RINSING CONTAINERS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 28, 2024
Examiner
LEE, DOUGLAS
Art Unit
1714
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Gea Procomac S P A
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
44%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
59%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 44% of resolved cases
44%
Career Allow Rate
286 granted / 649 resolved
-20.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
683
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
56.1%
+16.1% vs TC avg
§102
11.3%
-28.7% vs TC avg
§112
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 649 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on February 6, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 February 6, 2026. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 uses the acronym “UHT” without ever indicating what the acronym stands for. The initial recitation of “UHT” should be recited as “Ultra High Temperature (UHT).” Appropriate correction is required. 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. 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. Claim(s) 1, 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2003-137228A to Yamaguchi et al. (see machine translation). As to claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses an apparatus for sterilizing and rinsing containers, comprising: a sterilizing unit configured to treat the contains by means of a sterilizing solution in a first tank (see Yamaguchi Fig. 3, ref.#4 and/or 6, paragraph [0009]); a rinsing unit arranged downstream the sterilizing unit and configured to rinse the containers advancing along a path with sterile water (see Yamaguchi Fig. 3, ref.#7 and 8; paragraph [0011]); a UHT device configured to provide sterile water to the rinsing unit (see Yamaguchi paragraph [0011] disclosing UHT sterile water); dispensing means in selective fluid communication with the UHT device so as to dispense a first amount of sterile water towards the containers in a first rinsing tract of the path and a second amount of sterile water towards the containers in a second rinsing tract of the path that is downstream of the first rinsing tract (see Yamaguchi Fig. 3 disclosing pre-rinser 7 considered the first amount in a first rinsing tract of the path and rinser 8 considered the second amount in a second rinsing tract of the path that is downstream of the first rinsing tract; see paragraph [0011] disclosing the nozzles to spray the sterile water); and a recovery collector arranged at the second rinsing tract of the path for collecting at least part of exhaust sterile water dropping from the containers advancing along the second rinsing tract, said recover collector being in selective fluid communication with the UHT device (see Yamaguchi paragraph [0017] disclosing that a portion of the water recovered from the rinser 8 (the second rinsing tract) can be fed to the UHT heater and used as part of the washing water for the pre-rinser 7). While Yamaguchi does not explicitly disclose selective fluid communication between the recovery collector and the UHT device, use of valves to control the flow is well known in the art and does not provide patentable significance. As to claim 5, Yamaguchi discloses that the sterilizing unit and the rinsing unit can comprise a corresponding rotating carousel (see Yamaguchi Fig. 3 disclosing corresponding rotating carousels 4-8). As to claim 8. Yamaguchi discloses that both the pre-rinser and the rinsing device supplies sterile water to the containers for 2 to 3 seconds (see Yamaguchi paragraph [0016]) and thus it is reasonably expected that the dispensing means is configured to dispense the sterile water by a single dispensing pulse which supplies both the first amount of sterile water and the second amount of sterile water. Claim(s) 2-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2003-137228A to Yamaguchi et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0092196 to Nagatani et al. Yamaguchi is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1. As to claim 2, Yamaguchi does not explicitly disclose a further recovery collector arranged at the first rinsing tract of the path for collecting at least part of the exhaust sterile water dropping from the containers advancing along the first rinsing tract, said further recovery collector being in selective fluid communication with the first tank. Nagatani discloses a similar apparatus for sterilizing and rinsing containers wherein recovery collectors are arranged along the track for collecting at least part of the exhaust sterile water dropping from the containers and reusing the exhaust sterile water upstream in the track (see Nagatani Fig. 1, ref.#6A, 6B or 6C; paragraph [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Yamaguchi to include a further recovery collector arranged at the first rinsing tract of the path for collecting at least part of the exhaust sterile water dropping from the containers advancing along the first rinsing tract, said further recovery collector being in selective fluid communication with the first tank as suggested by Nagatani in order to reduce costs (see Nagatani paragraphs [0015]-[0016]). While Yamaguchi/Nagatani does not explicitly disclose selective fluid communication between the further recovery collector and the first tank, use of valves to control the flow is well known in the art and does not provide patentable significance. As to claims 3 and 4, the combination of Yamaguchi and Nagatani discloses that the recovery collector and the further recovery collector can be separate and have distinct piping systems configured to establish fluid communication respectively between the first recovery track and the second recovery track (see Nagatani Fig. 1 disclosing multiple recovery collectors 6A, 6B and 6C as well as separate and distinct piping systems (see piping system between recovery tanks 6A, 6B and 6C to the pumps 7A, 7B, and 7C and to the next upstream stage)). As to claim 6, the combination of Yamaguchi and Nagatani discloses that the sterilizing unit and the rinsing unit can comprise a corresponding linear conveyor or belt (see Nagatani Fig. 2). Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2003-137228A to Yamaguchi et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0185584 to Hayakawa et al. Yamaguchi is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1. As to claim 7, Yamaguchi does not explicitly disclose a second tank arranged downstream of the UHT device so as to receive the sterile water from it, said second tank being configured to supply the sterile water to the dispensing means. Hayakawa discloses that it is known in the art to have a tank after a UHT device (see, e.g., Hayakawa Fig. 5 disclosing UHT 18 and tank 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a tank downstream of the UHT device as is known in the art and the results would have been predictable (storing of sterilized liquid). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm. 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 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. /DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 28, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599941
CLEAN HEAD, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USE IN CLEANING A FLUID CONDUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603263
APPARATUSES AND TECHNIQUES FOR CLEANING A MULTI-STATION SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESSING CHAMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12569109
DISHWASHER FOR TREATING WASHWARE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565004
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12557578
SUBSTRATE PROCESSING METHOD AND SUBLIMATION DRYING PROCESSING AGENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
44%
Grant Probability
59%
With Interview (+14.8%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 649 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month