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 .
Priority
This application makes reference to or appears to claim subject matter disclosed in Application No. 18/105808, filed 02/04/2023. If applicant desires to claim the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), the instant application must contain, or be amended to contain, a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS) in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.
If the instant application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. If the application is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c). A benefit claim filed after the required time period may be accepted if it is accompanied by a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (see 37 CFR 1.78(c)) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (see 37 CFR 1.78(e)). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and by 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted), (2) the applicable petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2), and (3) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2) are not required. Applicant is still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 by filing an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the reference (or, if the application was filed before September 16, 2012, by filing either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76). See MPEP § 211.02.
In the Preliminary Amendment and Remarks of 8/22/2024, applicant has withdrawn claims 1-3, prior to an examination on the merits. Therefore, only claims 4-5 are examined on the merits. It also appears that Applicant’s Arguments of 8/22/2024, pertain to arguments presented in the parent application, 18/105808, now abandoned. Applicant’s newly amended limitations are taught by the secondary reference of Chilton, for the reasons recited below.
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 4-5 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 4 is indefinite because it fails to positively recite a step of washing containers . Claim 4 is indefinite because “the interior” lacks positive antecedent basis. Claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear whether “a solid surface” (line 14) is the same or different from “the solid surface” recited in line 4. Additionally, it is also unclear whether “a spray gun” is the same or different from a fluid spray, recited in line 11. Specifically, is the fluid spray from the same or a different spray gun as recited in line 15.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levey et al. (5566695) in view of Francis et al. (4981150), Prodzenski (US3583544) and further in view of Chilton (US1244701).
Re claim 4, Levey teaches a method of washing containers comprising securing a tray (Fig. 2, 17) to a solid surface; placing a container 31 above the tray, with an open end of the container above the tray, including inverting the container and setting the container on a grate 29 above the tray and cleaning the interior of the container by spraying fluid into the container via nozzles. It is noted that applicant’s claim is so broad that the solid surface reads on the ground, railing, and/or cleaning bay, as the tray is secured by the cleaning bay 11 which is grounded. The claim is broadly interpreted as picking up and inverting the container, the limitations of which are taught by Levey et al.
Levey et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of foot valve near the tray, such that when activated, the valve releases the fluid spray. Col. 2, lines 65-66 of Levey et al. teach a fluid control means to activate the bay’s fluid supply means. Col. 13, lines 10-15 teaches that actuation of the fluid can be accomplished by other means. Francis et al. teach using a pedal control valve to start and stop fluid flow (abstract). In reference to deactivating the foot valve, Francis et al. teach an on-off foot pedal control valve used to start and stop the water flow into the nozzle (abstract, col. 4, lines 30-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Levey et al., to include a foot pedal, as taught by Francis et al. for purposes of activating fluid flow. Re claim 4, Levey et al. teach the tray supported by container support means, such as support railings 25. Levey et al. in view of Francis et al. fail to teach a single pipe support such that the height of the tray is adjustable above the solid surface. Prodzenski teaches rinsing and inverting containers on a conveyor (Fig. 1). Col. 4, lines 35-65 teaches a platform 63 in which vertical adjustments are made using an adjustable foot mechanism 69 to adjust accommodate containers of various heights to be processed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Levey et al. to include adjusting the tray, as taught by Prodzenski, in order to adjust the height of the containers being processed.
Re claim 4, the newly amended limitations of moving the container from above the tray and placing the closed end of the container on a solid surface and using a spray gun to clean an interior of the container reads broadly on positioning the container to right side up on a solid surface (i.e. ground, table, tray) and cleaning the interior of the container. Chilton teaches cleaning the interior of the container wherein the container a (Figs. 1 and 3) is positioned right side up on a holding member 44 to wash the interior of the container and also positioned in an inverted position to be washed by nozzle 74 (i.e. spray gun, col. 2, lines 25-55). Col. 3, lines 100-110 specifically teaches that the bottles are delivered right side up and are washed, followed by inverting the bottles for rinsing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Levey et al. to include moving the container in an upright position, such that the closed end of the container is on a solid surface (i.e. tray), as taught by Chilton, for purposes of performing the same function of cleaning the interior of the container. Additionally, the examiner argues that the concept of cleaning a container, by inversion or an upright position, is conventionally well known in the art, as further evidenced by Kiefer (US1880257), Siegal (US 2625311), Tarantola (US3595251), Dickson, Jr. et al. (US2004/0168711), Shuman et al. (US2010/0206331).
Re claim 5, absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been well within the level of the skilled artisan to position the foot pedal in close proximity to the nozzle, to allow easy access and activation of the fluid spray.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the cited prior art of Levey in view of Francis et al. and Prodzenski fail to teach the newly amended limitations. Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive as the newly amended limitations are taught by Chilton. Furthermore, the examiner takes the position that cleaning the interior of a container by positioning the container in an upright and/or inverted position, is well known in the art and is not considered novel and/or unobvious in view of the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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 Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
bsc