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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Reference 20 of Paragraphs 0022 - 0027, Paragraph 0029, and Paragraph 0040
Reference 44 of Paragraph 0027, Paragraph 0035, Paragraph 0037, Paragraphs 0040 - 0047, Paragraph 0057 and Paragraph 0084 .
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the package" in line 2 of the claim. However, it is unclear as to what prior recitation this claim is referring to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Musterman (US 10,940,990).
Regarding claim 1, Musterman discloses a diving nozzle for purging a package with purging gas, comprising:
a straight hollow tube (Fig. 1, 102);
a lower hollow end (Fig. 4, 52) extending transversely to the straight hollow tube
wherein the straight hollow tube and the lower hollow end define a flow path for the purging gas (Fig. 4, 102 & 52 connect to define a flow path for the purging gas).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Musterman further discloses;
a shield (Fig. 4, 105) disposed on the straight hollow tube at a position above a transition between the straight hollow tube and the lower end. (See annotated Fig. 1 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
698
469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musterman (US 10,940,990).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Musterman is silent regarding wherein the lower end is arranged at an obtuse angle relative to the straight hollow tube. Instead, Musterman discloses a lower hollow end (Fig.1, 52) positioned at an angle with respect to the longitudinal axis of the straight hollow tube (Fig. 4, 102). The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, 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 device of Musterman by causing the angle of the lower hollow end to be between an obtuse angle. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular angle (see Specification wherein it is required simply that the lower end “is arranged at an angle α, e.g., an obtuse angle”) and it appears that the device of Musterman would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of and obtuse angle.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Musterman is silent regarding wherein an axis of the lower hollow end is arranged at an angle of 110° to 160° relative to a longitudinal axis of the straight hollow tube. Instead, Musterman discloses a lower hollow end (Fig.1, 52) positioned at an angle with respect to the longitudinal axis of the straight hollow tube (Fig. 4, 102). The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, 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 device of Musterman by causing the angle of the lower hollow end to be between 110-160 degrees. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular angle range (see Specification wherein it is required simply that the lower end “is arranged at an angle (e.g., 110-160, in particular 135)”) and it appears that the device of Musterman would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of 110-160 degrees.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations in claim 3, Musterman is silent regarding wherein the angle between the axis of the lower hollow end and the longitudinal axis of the straight hollow tube is about 135°. Instead, Musterman discloses a lower hollow end (Fig.1, 52) positioned at an angle with respect to the longitudinal axis of the straight hollow tube (Fig. 4, 102). The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, 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 device of Musterman by causing the angle of the lower hollow end to be about 135 degrees. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular angle (see Specification wherein it is required simply that the lower end “is arranged at an angle (e.g., 110-160, in particular 135)”) and it appears that the device of Musterman would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of about 135 degrees.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musterman (US 10,940,990) in view of Domizio (US 20090008479).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Musterman is does not expressly disclose wherein an inner transition from the straight hollow tube to the lower hollow end is rounded. However, Domizio teaches wherein an inner transition from the straight hollow tube to the lower hollow end is rounded (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
304
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The advantage of a rounded inner transition is to more efficiently direct the flow of fluids. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Musterman to incorporate the teachings of Domizio and provide a rounded inner transition from the straight hollow tube to the angled lowered end to provide a more efficient flow path for fluids.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musterman (US 10,940,990 B1) in view of Kido et al (US 20090145934).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Musterman does not expressly disclose wherein the lower end extends transversely from the straight hollow tube in a first and a second direction. However, Kido teaches wherein the lower end extends transversely from the straight hollow tube in a first and a second direction (Fig.4, 12). The advantage of utilizing a lower end extending transversely from the straight hollow tube in a first and second direction is to obtain a flow speed in an intended direction in the pouch. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Musterman to incorporate the teachings of Kido and provide a nozzle that is extending transversely from the straight hollow tube in a first and second direction in order to obtain a flow speed in an intended direction in the pouch Kido(11: 5-6).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (US 20140076457) in view of Musterman (US 10,940,990 ).
Regarding claim 8, Murray discloses a fill machine for filling a pouch with a product, comprising;
a purge station (Fig.1, 30);
a diving nozzle (Fig. 2, 46; [0028]) positioned at the purge station;
the diving nozzle including;
a straight hollow tube (Fig. 3, 50) with an inlet (Fig. 3, 58) coupled to a supply of purging gas (Fig. 3, 90; [0039]);
the lower end having an outlet (Fig. 3, 55) disposed at a terminal end thereof;
wherein the straight hollow tube and the lower hollow end define a flow path for purging gas, (Fig. 4, 50 & 54 define a flow path for the purging gas)
and wherein the lower hollow end directs the purging gas towards a side of the pouch (Fig. 4, 54 would direct the flow of gas towards the bottom side of the pouch).
Murray does not expressly disclose a lower hollow end extending transversely to the straight hollow tube. However, Musterman teaches a lower hollow end (Fig. 1, 52) extending transversely to the straight hollow tube (Fig. 1, 102). The advantage of a purge pipe with an angled lower end is to aim the flow of purge gas to a specific location in the package. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Murray to incorporate the teachings of Musterman and provide a purge pipe with a lower angled end to aim the flow of purge gas to a specific location in the package.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations in claim 8, Murray further discloses wherein the supply of purging gas includes one or more of N2, CO2, and O2 ([0040], The purging gas is optionally an inert gas such as N2 or CO2 or O2).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations in claim 8, Murray further discloses wherein the lower hollow end configured to direct a flow of purging gas towards one side (Fig. 4, 18) of the package (Fig. 4, 106 would deflect the flow of purging gas side 18 of the package).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations in claim 8, Murray further discloses wherein the lower end being vertically displaceable into and out of the pouch ([0031], the vertical displacement mechanism vertically displaces the entire diving nozzle).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations in claim 8, Murray further discloses wherein the lower end is configured to direct a flow of purging gas towards a first side (Fig. 4, 18) and a second side (Fig. 4, 18) of the pouch, and the first side is opposite the second side (Fig. 4, 106 deflects the flow of purging gas to Fig. 4, 18, wherein element 18 are sides of the package which are opposite each other).
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (US 20140076457), in view of Musterman (US 10,940,990).
Regarding claim 13, Murray discloses a method for purging a package, comprising:
moving a purge pipe with a lower end into an interior of the package ([0031], the vertical displacement mechanism vertically displaces the entire diving nozzle);
and directing a flow of purge gas to a side of the package via the lower end (Fig. 4, 106 deflects the flow of purging gas to Fig.4 18).
Murray does not expressly disclose a purge pipe with an angled lower end. However, Musterman teaches a purge pipe with an angled lower hollow end (Fig.1, 52). The advantage of a purge pipe with an angled lower end is to aim the flow of purge gas to a specific location in the package. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Murray to incorporate the teachings of Musterman and provide a purge pipe with a lower angled end to aim the flow of purge gas to a specific location in the package.
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations in claim 13, Murray further discloses a method for purging a package, comprising:
directing the flow of purge gas to another side of the package via the lower end (Fig. 4, 106 is configured to direct the flow of purge gas to both sides of the package Fig. 4, 18; wherein element 18 are sides of the package which are opposite each other);
and wherein the another side is opposite the side of the package. (Fig. 4, 106 is configured to direct the flow of purge gas to both sides of the package Fig. 4, 18; wherein element 18 are sides of the package which are opposite each other).
Murray does not expressly disclose an angled lower end. However, Musterman teaches a purge pipe with an angled lower end (Fig. 1, 52). The advantage of a purge pipe with an angled lower hollow end is to aim the flow of purge gas to a specific location in the package. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Murray to incorporate the teachings of Musterman and provide a purge pipe with a lower angled end to aim the flow of purge gas to a specific location in the package.
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the limitations in claim 14, Murray further discloses a method for purging a package, wherein:
the flow of purge gas is directed simultaneously to both the side and the another side of the package (Fig. 4, 106 deflects the flow of purging gas to both sides of the package Fig. 4, 18; wherein element 18 are sides of the package which are opposite each other).
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the limitations in claim 13, Murray further discloses a method for purging a package, wherein:
The purge pipe (Fig.3, 50) includes an inlet (Fig. 3, 58) coupled to a supply of purge gas (Fig. 3, 90).
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the limitations in claim 16, Murray further discloses a method for purging a package, wherein:
The supply of purging gas includes one or more of N2, CO2, and O2 ([0040], The purging gas is optionally an inert gas such as N2 or CO2 or O2).
Regarding claim 18, in addition to the limitations in claim 13, Murray further discloses a method for purging a package, wherein:
directing the flow of purge gas to the side of the package is performed after filling the package with a product to remove residual oxygen from the package after said filling ([0045]).
Regarding claim 19, in addition to the limitations in claim 13, Murray, as modified by Musterman in the rejection of claim 13 above, teaches an angled lower end is arranged at an obtuse angle relative to a longitudinal axis of a straight hollow tube of the purge pipe, except for expressly stating the angle range. However, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, 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 device of Murray in view of Musterman by causing the angle of the lower hollow end to be between 110-160 degrees. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular angle range (see Specification wherein it is required simply that the lower end “is arranged at an angle (e.g., 110-160, in particular 135)”) and it appears that the device of Musterman in view of Murray would work appropriately if made within the claimed range of 110-160 degrees. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Murray to incorporate the teachings of Musterman and provide a purge pipe with a lower angled end arranged at an angle of 110° to 160° relative to a longitudinal axis of a straight hollow tube, to aim the flow of purge gas to a specific location in the package.
Regarding claim 20, in addition to the limitations in claim 13, Murray, as modified by Musterman in the rejection of claim 13 above, discloses a method for purging a package, wherein:
the lower end is configured to discharge purge gas in a swirling-manner within the package.
It is well known in the art that purging gas would take on a swirling-manner within a package after being directed towards and being deflected off a side of a package. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Murray to incorporate the teachings of Musterman and provide a purge pipe with a lower angled end that directs gas to a side of a package. Thus, since the angled lower end of the purge pipe is directing purging gas towards one side of the package, the purging gas would obviously take on a swirling-manner within the package after coming in contact with the side of the package.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYANT K HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-8630. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
/B.K.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3754 /DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754