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 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, 8-9, and 11 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.
Regarding claim 4, Claim 4 recites the limitation "the side" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The enclosure would have multiple sides and so “the side” would not be clear as to which side is being referred to in this claim.
Regarding claim 5, Claim 5 recites the limitation "each compressor (40,50)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is only “a compressor (40)” introduced in claim 2, from which claim 5 depends.
Further regarding claim 5, the phrase “in particular” is read similarly as the terms “for example” or “such as” and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 8-9, the phrase “in particular” is read similarly as the terms “for example” or “such as” and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, Claim 9 recites the limitation "the floor" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The scope of this claim is also not clear as drafted, as it does not seem to be clear with respect to “in particular is not sealed” and what this refers to with respect to “partially at a distance from the floor.” This claim will be interpreted under BRI as outlined below, for purposes of compact prosecution.
Regarding claim 11, Claim 11 recites the limitation "each compressor (40,50)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is only “a compressor (40)” introduced in claim 2, from which claim 11 depends.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation 1200 m^3 or less, and the claim also recites 900 m^3 or less which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 11, Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “delivery rate” in claim 11 is used by the claim to mean “a volume (in meters cubed),” while the accepted meaning in this context would be “a volume (in any unit, including meters cubed) over a given time.” It would seem that there is a requirement of a per second or per minute of time that is potentially implied here, but does not appear to be described in the instant specification. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitano et al. (US 2013/0061557), hereinafter Kitano.
Regarding claim 1, Kitano discloses an extrusion blow molding machine (not limiting; preamble, where the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention) comprising an extruder (30) (par. 0076; Fig. 2) and a blow molding tool (blowing machine 8 or blowing machine main unit 60) (par. 0086, 0118), wherein the blow molding tool (8) is separated from the environment (clean room 2) by an enclosure (clean booth 17) (par. 0069; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Kitano discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that a fan (18) (par. 0070) located on a first end of the enclosure (non-limiting, can be any of the ends of the enclosure) is used to create a positive pressure (par. 0069) within the clean booth (17) (Fig. 1). The term “compressor” would be considered to be met by this fan under BRI, as it raises the pressure of the inside of the clean booth (17) with respect to the clean room (2) which represents the outside environment to the clean booth. This would seem to be the minimum structure required here under BRI.
Regarding claim 4, Kitano discloses the subject matter of claim 2, and further discloses that there is an exhaust window (20) and lid (21) located on a side of the enclosure (non-limiting, can be any of the sides of the enclosure) (par. 0071) as to exhaust the clean booth (17) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Kitano discloses the subject matter of claim 2, and further discloses (Fig. 1) the use of a HEPA filter (19) (par. 0070).
Regarding claim 6, Kitano discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses the use of a conveyor belt for conveying the blow molded articles into a clean room (par.
Regarding claims 7-8, Kitano discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the enclosure (clean booth 17) is arranged within a safety fence (clean room 2 is considered to read upon this element, under BRI) (Fig. 1, par. 0069-0070) with the extruder outside of the clean booth (17) (Fig. 2 shows the extruder outside of clean booth 17).
Regarding claim 9, Kitano discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the enclosure is “at least partially at a distance from the floor, in particular is not sealed” is considered to be met by the exhaust window (20) as in claim 4 above, as is best understood.
Regarding claim 11, Kitano discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and the fan (18) above, when powered off, would have a rate of 0, which is less than both 1200 m^3 and 900 m^3. The fan is capable of performing the given limitation as claimed, without modification thereof.
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.
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) 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitano (US 2013/0061557).
Regarding claim 3, Kitano discloses the subject matter of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose the second compressor at the second end opposite the first end.
However, it has been held that where there is a duplication of parts, without any unexpected results, and each of the parts performs the same function, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have duplicated the compressor as to have allowed for greater air flow into the enclosure.
Regarding claim 10, Kitano discloses the subject matter of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the volume enclosed by the enclosure is 10m^3 or less.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the size of the equipment would have determined the requirements for the size of the clean booth (17) for each of the stations of Kitano above. Furthermore, these dimensions of 10 m^3 are quite large in size, as to represent a scaling up or down from the disclosure of Kitano above. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have specified that the size of volume enclosed by the enclosure is less than 10 m^3 as to have appropriately housed the blow molding equipment, as is required in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742