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 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: fluid flow device and mounting device in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 9, 13- 14 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the conveyor belt" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the mounting belt" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the mounting belt" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the conveyor belt" in lines 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the cavities" in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshimura et al. (US 5,271,164).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshimura et al. discloses a drying apparatus for drying containers 2 including cleaning fluid, the apparatus comprising: a fluid flow device 17 arranged and designed to apply a drying fluid directed in a direction of fluid flow to the containers 2 (Figs. 1 and 3); and a mounting device 7, 8 arranged and designed to retain the containers 2 in a mounted direction, whereby the mounted direction is aligned in the direction opposite to the direction of fluid flow (Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshimura et al. discloses wherein the direction of fluid flow is configured to be aligned in the same direction as the mounting direction (Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshimura et al. discloses wherein in the intended operation, the direction of fluid flow is oriented vertically upwards and the mounting direction is oriented vertically downwards (Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshimura et al. discloses the apparatus further comprising: a conveyor section 7 extending from a conveyor start point (Fig. 1, near 1) to a conveyor end point (Fig. 1, near 10); and a conveyor unit 3 arranged and designed to move the containers 2 at least in sections along the conveyor section 7, whereby the mounting device 7,8 is further arranged and designed to retain the containers 2 at least in sections along the conveyor section (Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshimura et al. discloses wherein the mounting device 7, 8 is further arranged and designed to move the containers 2 at least in sections along the conveyor section 7 (Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshimura et al. discloses wherein the mounting device 7, 8 is further arranged and designed such that a mounting force is adjustable on the containers 2 in the mounting direction (Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshimura et al. discloses wherein the conveyor unit (Fig. 1, at 1) comprises a conveyor belt (Fig. 1, at 1, not numbered), and the mounting device 7,8 comprises a mounting belt 7 aligned parallel to the conveyor belt (Fig. 1, conveyor belt in station 1), and the conveyor belt and the mounting belt are arranged movably parallel to each other (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshimura et al. discloses wherein at least one of the conveyor belt and the mounting belt is fluid-permeable (col. 4, lines 1-3, perforate conveyor belt 7).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshimura et al. discloses wherein the conveyor unit has a free section, at least in sections along the conveyor section, in which the conveyor unit is interrupted (Fig. 1), and the mounting device 7, 8 is arranged and designed to affect a vacuum (by suction head 8) on the containers 2, so that the containers 2 can be moved by the mounting device 7, 8 in the free section.
Regarding claim 11, Yoshimura et al. discloses a vacuum unit 8 for effecting the vacuum on the containers 2,whereby the vacuum unit 8 is arranged and designed to affect the vacuum between a mounting upper run and a mounting lower run of the mounting belt 7 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshimura et al. discloses a drying chamber 18 in which the drying fluid can be applied to the containers 2, whereby the free section extends from an inlet end to an outlet end of the drying chamber 18 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Yoshimura et al. discloses wherein the nozzle unit 23 is arranged and designed to pressurize the cavities of the containers 2 with the drying fluid in such a way that an inlet fluid flow enters the cavities, and an outlet fluid flow of the drying fluid exits the cavities.
Regarding claim 15, Yoshimura et al. discloses wherein at least one fluid outlet (Fig. 3 outlet of nozzle 17) is designed in such a way that the fluid flow is jet-shaped (see fluid arrows from 17 n Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshimura et al. discloses a method of drying containers 2 including cleaning fluid, the method comprising: applying a drying fluid (Fig. 3, from nozzles 17, 23) oriented in a direction of fluid flow to the containers 2; and retaining the containers 2 in a mounted direction, whereby the mounted direction is aligned in the direction opposite to the direction of fluid flow (Figs. 3, 5, 7).
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimura et al. (US 5,271,164) in view of Li (CN 109959250 A).
The drying apparatus of Yoshimura et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 7 except for wherein the containers can be clamped at least in sections between the conveyor unit and the mounting device. With regard to claim 7, Yoshimura et al. further discloses the containers 2 can be mounted in sections between the conveyor unit (Fig. 1 at 1) and the mounting device 7. However, Yoshimura et al. does not explicit the containers can be clamped. Li teaches a concept of clamping the containers on the conveyor belt 12 (paragraph [0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying apparatus of Yoshimura et al. to clamp the containers as taught by Li in order to secure the containers from moving while conveying.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimura et al. (US 5,271,164) in view of Gerrits et al. (WO 2018208160 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshimura et al. discloses at least one nozzle unit 23 for applying the drying fluid to the containers 2 (Fig. 1). However, Yoshimura et al. does not disclose wherein the conveyor belt has a conveyor upper run and a conveyor lower run, and at least one fluid flow outlet of the nozzle unit is arranged between the conveyor upper run and the conveyor lower run. Gerrits et al. discloses a drying apparatus for drying containers 9, a conveyor belt 41 has a conveyor upper run and a conveyor lower run (Fig. 2), and at least one fluid flow outlet of a nozzle unit 8 arranged between the conveyor upper run and the conveyor lower run ( Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying apparatus of Yoshimura et al. to arrange the at least one fluid flow outlet of the nozzle unit between he conveyor upper run and the conveyor lower run as taught by Gerrits et al. in order to improve the drying efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA J YUEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 G HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/Jessica Yuen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3762
JY
Prosecution Insights