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 .
Status of Claims
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment, filed on 02/27/2026, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1, 3 and 5-16 are pending for examination.
Claims 2 and 4 canceled.
Claims 1 is currently amended.
Addition of New claim 16 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 depend on cancelled claim 4. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim 5 will be examined as being dependent upon claim 1.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi et al. (US 20110062347 A1) in view of Sparks, Jr. et al. (US 3916200 A), and in further view of Poppi et al. (US 20150380197 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Eguchi discloses a sterilization apparatus (Fig. 1) for the sterilization of a packaging material (1) comprising one or more irradiation beam emitting devices (14; [0001]), each one configured to emit an irradiation beam ([0013]-[0017] and [0033]);
wherein each one of the one more irradiation beam emitting device (14; [0033]-[0034]) comprises:
a main housing (Housing of 14) having an inner space (Inside housing of 14) and an exit window (14A; Fig. 1); and
an irradiation source (15) arranged within the inner space (Inside housing of 14) and configured to generate the irradiation beam and to transmit the irradiation beam through the exit window (14A) and out of the inner space (Fig. 1; [0033]-[0034]);
wherein the exit window (14A) comprises a window including carbon ([0033]; Graphite sheet).
Wherein the window comprises graphite ([0033]; thin film of Graphite sheet)
However, Eguchi is silent with regards to the window comprising artificial graphite.
Sparks, Jr. in a related invention teaches it is old and well known to provide an irradiation window (5) comprising artificial graphite (Abstract; “Such graphite is formed by hot-pressing and annealing pyrolytically deposited graphite and thereafter stripping off layers of sufficient thickness to form the window”….see also Col 2 lines 1-15, and Col 3 lines 1-15; Sparks, Jr. discloses artificial graphite because the graphite material is produced via pyrolytic deposition, hot-pressing, annealing, and engineered basal-plane alignment with a mosaic spread of 1 degree or less, all of which are synthetic, artificial, and human fabricated processes that do not occur in natural graphite).
Therefore, 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 window of Eguchi by incorporating a window comprising artificial graphite as taught by Sparks, Jr. in order to obtain a superior radiation transparency, and superior strength (Col 4 lines 1-23). Substituting a generic graphite sheet of Eguchi with the well-known artificial graphite of Sparks would yield a predictable result of improved thermal behavior, and structural reliability.
Furthermore, Eguchi as modified is silent with regards to the exit window comprises a coating covering the window.
Poppi in a related invention teaches exit window comprises a coating covering the window ([0007], [0012], [0027]-[0030], and claim 12) .
Therefore, 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 apparatus of Eguchi as modified, specifically its window by incorporating the coating covering technique as taught by Poppi in order to improve and aid in heat transfer ([0007]). Additionally, Poppi teaches coatings that improve thermal conductivity, corrosion technique, and operational lifetime of electron exit windows used in electron beam devices. ([0028]-[0034])
Eguchi in view of Sparks, Jr. (Hereinafter referred to as Sparks) further teaches:
Regarding claim 3, the window (5 of Sparks) comprises and/or consists of a pyrolytic graphite foil, and/or - the window comprises and/or consists of an artificial graphite foil (Abstract, Col 2 lines 1-15, Col 3 lines 1-15 and Col 4 lines 1-23 of Sparks).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the coating is configured to prevent oxidation of the window ([0030] of Poppi; the coating is chosen from materials including gold, DLC, and silver which some are known to reduce or prevent oxidation).
Regarding claim 6, comprising two irradiation beam emitting devices (14 of Eguchi); wherein one irradiation beam emitting device (14 of Eguchi) is arranged to sterilize, in use, a first face (left side of Eguchi) of the packaging material (1) and the other irradiation beam emitting device (14 of Eguchi) is arranged so as to sterilize, in use, a second face (right side of Eguchi) opposed to the first face (left side) of the packaging material (1; Fig. 1 and [0014] and [0031]-[0034] of Eguchi).
Regarding claim 7, Eguchi is silent regarding wherein a support structure carrying the window (Although implicit).
Sparks, Jr. in a related invention teaches it is old and well known to provide a support structure (7) carrying the window (5)
Therefore, 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 window of Eguchi by incorporating a support structure as taught by Sparks, Jr. in order to serve as an additional housing/support for the window.
Regarding claim 8, wherein each window (5 of Sparks) has a thickness between 10 μm and 50 μm, (Abstract of Sparks, thickness of between 01. to 1Mil (2.5-25 μm).
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to each window has a thickness between 10 pm and 50 um, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Eguchi is silent regarding main housing comprises a housing seat and each exit window is arranged within the housing seat.
Sparks, Jr. in a related invention teaches it is old and well known to provide a main housing comprises a housing seat (flange, 8) and each exit window is arranged within the housing seat (flange, 8)
Therefore, 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 apparatus of Eguchi by incorporating a housing seat as taught by Sparks, Jr. in order to secure the window to the housing via clamping.
Regarding claim 11, wherein each irradiation transmission source (15) is configured to generate an electron beam ([0033] of Eguchi).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the window (5 of sparks) comprises and/or consists of a pyrolytic carbon foil and/or a highly oriented pyrolytic graphite sheet and/or comprises a graphene foil (Abstract; also Col 1 lines 61-67, Col 2 lines 11-23, and Col 3 lines 1-15, Col 4 lines 20-24 of Sparks).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the window comprises highly oriented pyrolytic graphite (Col 1 lines 61-67, Col 2 lines 11-23, Col 4 lines 20-24 of Sparks).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi et al. (US 20110062347 A1) in view of Sparks, Jr. et al. (US 3916200 A), and Poppi et al. (US 20150380197 A1), and in further view of Waber (US 20140103228 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Eguchi as modified teaches a sterilization apparatus (Fig. 1 of Eguchi) including the housing seat (Flange 8 of Sparks) supporting the exit windows (5 of sparks);
However, Eguchi as modified is silent with regards to wherein the housing seat comprises an annular cooling channel for a cooling fluid; wherein a portion of each exit window covers the respective cooling channel.
Waber in a related invention teaches electronic beam emitter having a window (18). Waber, further teaches it is old and well known to provide to provide external cooling to the exit window [0005] as well as connector area ([0007], [0034]-[0037]).
Therefore, 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 apparatus of Eguchi as modified by incorporating cooling channel as taught by Waber in order for improving the stability and operating life time of the exit window ([0005]). Note; Eguchi in view discloses an annular flange that supports the window (5 of Sparks), therefore, proving external cooling will allow the cooling fluid to pass through the annular flange of spart as well as the exit window.
Claim 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi et al. (US 20110062347 A1) in view of Sparks, Jr. et al. (US 3916200 A), and Poppi et al. (US 20150380197 A1), and in further view of Ricco et al. (US 20210061507 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Eguchi as modified teaches a sterilization apparatus (Fig. 1 of Eguchi) for sterilizing sheet material according to claim 1 including the packaging material is for food packages ([0047]);
However, Eguchi as modified is silent with regards to a packaging machine for forming packages filled with a pourable product from the packaging material.
Ricco in a related invention teaches a packaging machine (1) for forming packages (2) filled with a pourable product from a packaging material having a sterilization apparatus (13; Fig. 1).
Therefore, 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 apparatus of Eguchi as modified by incorporating a packaging machine as taught by Ricco in order to form packages filled with food products from the sterilized sheet material.
Regarding claim 14, Eguchi as modified teaches the packaging machine (1 of Ricco) according to claim 13, further comprising: - a conveying device (21 of Ricco) configured to advance the packaging material (4 of Ricco) along a advancement path (P of Ricco); - an isolation chamber (15 of Ricco) having an inner environment (Fig. 1); - a tube forming and sealing device (16 of Ricco) configured to form a tube (3 of Ricco) from the, in use, advancing packaging material (4 of Ricco) within the inner environment (Fig. 1 of Ricco) and to longitudinally seal the tube (3 of Ricco) within the inner environment (Fig. 1 of Ricco); - a filling device (19 of Ricco) for filling the tube (3 of Ricco) with the pourable product; - a package forming apparatus (20 of Ricco) configured to form, to transversally seal and to transversally cut the, in use, advancing tube (11) for forming the packages ([0042]-[0048] of Ricco); wherein the sterilization apparatus (25 of Ricco) is arranged upstream from the isolation chamber (15 of Ricco) along the web advancement path (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the irradiation beam emitting device (14 of Eguchi) is configured to direct a sterilizing irradiation onto the, in use, advancing packaging material (4 of Ricco and/or 1 of Eguchi).
Claims 1, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricco et al. (US 20210061507 A1) in view of Eguchi et al. (US 20110062347 A1), and Sparks, Jr. et al. (US 3916200 A), and in further view of Poppi et al. (US 20150380197 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ricco discloses a sterilization apparatus (13) for the sterilization of a packaging material (4) comprising one or more irradiation beam emitting devices (27, 28), each one configured to emit an irradiation beam ([0052]-[0058]);
wherein each one of the one more irradiation beam emitting device (27, 28) comprises:
a main housing (29) having an inner space (Inside housing of 29); and
an irradiation source (implicit; [0052]-[0060]) arranged within the inner space (29) and configured to generate the irradiation beam and to transmit the irradiation beam [0052]-[0060]).
However, Ricco is silent with regards to an exit window wherein the exit window comprises a window including carbon and graphite.
Eguchi in a related invention teaches a main housing (Housing of 14) having an inner space (Inside housing of 14) and an exit window (14A); and an irradiation source (15) arranged within the inner space (Inside housing of 14) and configured to generate the irradiation beam and to transmit the irradiation beam through the exit window (14A) and out of the inner space (Fig. 1; [0033]); wherein the exit window (14A) comprises a window including carbon and graphite ([0033]; Graphite sheet).
Therefore, 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 apparatus of Ricco by incorporating a sterilization apparatus as taught by Eguchi in order to have a sterilization process that is well performed using a low-energy electron beam irradiation means.
However, Ricco in view of Eguchi is silent with regards to the window comprising artificial graphite.
Sparks, Jr. in a related invention teaches it is old and well known to provide a an irradiation window (5) comprising artificial graphite (Abstract; “Such graphite is formed by hot-pressing and annealing pyrolytically deposited graphite and thereafter stripping off layers of sufficient thickness to form the window”….see also Col 2 lines 1-15, and Col 3 lines 1-15; Sparks, Jr. discloses artificial graphite because the material is produced via pyrolytic deposition, hot-pressing, annealing, and engineered basal-plane alignment-all of which are synthetic, artificial, and human fabricated processes that do not occur in natural graphite)
Therefore, 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 window of Ricco as modified by incorporating a window comprising artificial graphite as taught by Sparks, Jr. in order to obtain a superior radiation transparency, and superior strength (Col 4 lines 1-23). Substituting a generic graphite sheet of Eguchi with the well-known artificial graphite of Sparks would yield a predictable result of improved thermal behavior, and structural reliability.
Furthermore, Ricco as modified is silent with regards to the exit window comprises a coating covering the window.
Poppi in a related invention teaches exit window comprises a coating covering the window ([0007], [0012], [0027]-[0030], and claim 12) .
Therefore, 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 apparatus of Ricco as modified, specifically its window by incorporating the coating covering as taught by Poppi in order to improve and aid in heat transfer ([0007]). Additionally, Poppi teaches coatings that improve thermal conductivity, corrosion technique, and operational lifetime of electron exit windows used in electron beam devices. ([0028]-[0034])
Regarding claim 13, A packaging machine (Fig. 1 of Ricco) for forming packages (2 of Ricco) filled with a pourable product from a packaging material (4) comprising a sterilization apparatus (Fig. 1 of Ricco) according to claim 1 (See rejection above).
Regarding claim 14, Ricco as modified teaches the packaging machine according to claim 13, further comprising: - a conveying device (21 of Ricco) configured to advance the packaging material (4 of Ricco) along a advancement path (P of Ricco); - an isolation chamber (15 of Ricco) having an inner environment (Fig. 1); - a tube forming and sealing device (16 of Ricco) configured to form a tube (3 of Ricco) from the, in use, advancing packaging material (4 of Ricco) within the inner environment (Fig. 1 of Ricco) and to longitudinally seal the tube (3 of Ricco) within the inner environment (Fig. 1 of Ricco); - a filling device (19 of Ricco) for filling the tube (3 of Ricco) with the pourable product; - a package forming apparatus (20 of Ricco) configured to form, to transversally seal and to transversally cut the, in use, advancing tube (11) for forming the packages ([0042]-[0048] of Ricco); wherein the sterilization apparatus (25 of Ricco) is arranged upstream from the isolation chamber (15 of Ricco) along the web advancement path (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the irradiation beam emitting device (27, 28 of Ricco) is configured to direct a sterilizing irradiation onto the, in use, advancing packaging material (4 of Ricco).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the window comprises highly oriented pyrolytic graphite (Col 1 lines 61-67, Col 2 lines 11-23, Col 4 lines 20-24 of Sparks).
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 USC 103:
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-6 of the Remarks, filed on 02/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(a) Applicant argues that the “Poppi's coating is described as being made of a heat conductive material, for example DLC (diamond-like-carbon), copper, aluminum, graphite, silver, and gold, for increasing the thermal conductivity of Poppi's titanium window foil. As the allegedly comparable window of Eguchi + Sparks, Jr. is made of pyrolytically deposited graphite (artificial graphite), the allegedly comparable artificial graphite exit window would already have the thermal conductivity properties sought by Poppi's heat conductive coating. It would not have therefore been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add complexity to the apparatus, without any additional benefit, by adding the additional coating of Poppi, made of a heat conductive material”.
This is not found persuasive.
Firstly, Poppi does not teach that the coating is provided solely to improve thermal conductivity. Rather, Poppi teaches multiple additional advantages associated with the coating. For example, Poppi discloses that coating 206C may protect the foil from plasma exposure, and its effect and corrosion effects during operation of the electron beam generating device. See Poppi [0030] (“the coating 206C will be protected from the effects of plasma”); see also [0008] discussing corrosion and degradation concerns associated with electron beam environments. Poppi further teaches that the coating may comprise various conductive and protective materials including DLC, copper, aluminum, graphite, silver, and gold. Thus, even assuming that Eguchi/Sparks already provide adequate thermal conductivity through pyrolytically deposited graphite, Poppi still teaches additional operational benefits, including protection from plasma wear, corrosion resistance, and increased operational lifetime of the exit window assembly.
Second, Applicant’s argument improperly focuses on whether the modification is strictly necessary rather than whether the modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. A claimed combination may be obvious even where the prior art device already possesses one or more desirable characteristics. The pertinent analysis is whether the prior art provides reason or motivation to employ the additional feature with a reasonable expectation of success. Here, Poppi expressly teaches applying protective and conductive coatings to electron exit window foils used in electron beam devices operating in irradiation environments. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such coatings could likewise be beneficial when applied to the graphite exit window of Eguchi/Sparks to improve corrosion resistance, plasma resistance, and service life. Lastly, applying a known protective coating to a known electron beam exit window merely represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,.. (2007). Accordingly, the combination of Eguchi, Sparks, and Poppi remains proper.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on (571) 270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS IGBOKWE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights