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
This a first action on the merits for this continuous application filed on 10/21/2024
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Batchelder et al. (US 5,679,228).
Batchelder et al. discloses a system (col.1, lines 10-16) to prevent the formation of incrustations, deposit in a sterile air exchanger in an aseptic packaging system (col.4, lines 10-16) for laminated carton-containing containers, and to remove the residual hydrogen peroxide used in aseptic laminated carton packaging systems (col.4, lines 10-16), comprising:
a supply of sterile air wash water (columns 21-22, Example 7) having the following properties:
a maximum conductivity at 20°C of 2.0 micromhos (columns 21-22, Example 7); and
a maximum silica content of 0.1 ppm (columns 21-22, Example 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.
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.
Claims 2-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchelder et al. (US 5,679,228) in view of Sideris (WO 2014/041379).
Regarding claims 7 and 13; Batchelder et al. discloses a process (col.1, lines 10-16) to prevent the formation of incrustations, deposit in a sterile air exchanger in an aseptic packaging system (col.4, lines 10-16) for laminated carton-containing containers, and to remove the residual hydrogen peroxide used in aseptic laminated carton packaging systems (col.4, lines 10-16), wherein the process is a closed loop system (columns 21-22, Example 7), comprising:
a. providing a fresh sterile air wash water supply (columns 21-22, Example 7) that exhibits the following properties:
a maximum conductivity at 20°C of 2.0 micromhos (columns 21-22, Example 7);
a maximum content of Silica of 0.1 ppm (columns 21-22, Example 7);
b. feeding the sterile air wash water to a scrubber, for washing the sterile air;
C. collecting washing water having a content of hydrogen peroxide in a collection tank, at the outlet from an air-water separator coming from the scrubber of the air washing system;
d. transferring said water to a chiller or heat exchanger, to maintain the water temperature at a suitable value for the operation of the packaging machine;
e. contacting the water coming from the chiller or exchanger with a filter
medium activated carbon, green sand or mixtures thereof in any ratio for
the removal of hydrogen peroxide;
f. obtaining and collecting the fresh sterile air wash water in tank;
a. installing a tank for a sterile air wash water supply that exhibits the following properties:
a conductivity at 20°C of 2.0 micromhos maximum an amount of silica being 0.1 ppm maximum (columns 21-22, Example 7);
b. installing a sterile air wash water supply line to a scrubber, for sterile air wash;
C. installing a collection tank, to collect washing water with the presence of hydrogen peroxide at the outlet of an air-water separator coming from the scrubber, of an air washing system;
d. installing a line to transfer the water from tank to a chiller or heat exchanger;
e. installing a chiller or heat exchanger, at the outlet of the collection tank, to maintain the water temperature at a suitable value for the operation of the packaging machine;
f. installing a filter medium activated carbon, green sand or mixtures thereof, in any proportion, at the outlet of the chiller or heat exchanger, for the elimination of hydrogen peroxide; and
g. installing a sterile air wash water supply tank.
Batchelder et al. appears silent to disclose the use of a scrubber, a collection tank, a heat exchanger, a filter, and a supply tank.
Sideris discloses a solar water distiller (Fig.1) that includes a scrubber (Fig.1:3), a collection tank (Fig.1:1), a heat exchanger (Fig.1:7), a filter (Fig.1:8), and a supply tank (Fig.1:9) in order to convert salted or poor-quality water to purified high clarity water (page 1, numbered lines 3-4). The combined Batchelder et al. process meets the feeding, the collecting, the transferring, the contacting, and the installing steps. 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 to add the components of the solar water distiller of Sideris to Batchelder et al. process in order to convert salted or poor-quality water to purified high clarity water.
Regarding claim 2, Batchelder et al. appears silent to disclose the use of a hydrogen peroxide water discharge line, a collection tank, a heat exchanger, a filter, a storage tank, and a wash water sterile line.
Sideris discloses a solar water distiller (Fig.1) that includes a hydrogen peroxide water discharge line (Fig.1:2), a collection tank (Fig.1:1), a heat exchanger (Fig.1:7), a filter (Fig.1:8), a storage tank (Fig.1:9), and a wash water sterile line (Fig.1:6) in order to convert salted or poor-quality water to purified high clarity water (page 1, numbered lines 3-4). 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 to add the components of the solar water distiller of Sideris to Batchelder et al. process in order to convert salted or poor-quality water to purified high clarity water.
Regarding claim 3, Batchelder et al. discloses that the sterile air wash water (columns 21-22, Example 7) has a pH of 20°C between 5.0 to 7.0, a content of Suspended Solids of 0 ppm maximum.
Regarding claim 4, Batchelder et al. discloses that the sterile air wash water (columns 21-22, Example 7) is selected from demineralized water, deionized water, osmosed water, water obtained by distillation processes (distilled water, double-distilled water, tri-distilled water).
Regarding claim 5, Batchelder et al. discloses that the activated carbon (columns 21-22, Example 7) is selected from activated vegetable or mineral carbon.
Regarding claim 6, Batchelder et al. further discloses an ultraviolet light lamp, downstream the filter for the removal of traces of hydrogen peroxide (columns 21-22, Example 7) by an advanced oxidation process and sterilization of the sterile air wash water.
Regarding claim 8, Batchelder et al. discloses that the water used in the closed loop system (columns 21-22, Example 7) is selected from demineralized water, deionized water, osmosed water, water obtained by distillation processes (distilled water, bi-distilled water, tri-distilled water).
Regarding claim 9, Batchelder et al. discloses that the water (columns 21-22, Example 7) has the following properties: a maximum content of suspended Solids 0 ppm; and a pH 20°C from 5.0 to 7.0.
Regarding claim 10, Batchelder et al. discloses that the sterile water cooler is of the chiller type, plates heat exchanger (columns 21-22, Example 7), tube and shell heat exchanger or air heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 11, Batchelder et al. discloses that the activated carbon (columns 21-22, Example 7) is selected from green or green activated carbon. mineral.
Regarding claim 12, Batchelder et al. further discloses passing the wash water through an ultraviolet light lamp (columns 21-22, Example 7), for the removal of traces of hydrogen peroxide through an advanced oxidation process and sterilization of the sterile air wash water.
Regarding claim 14, Batchelder et al. discloses that the sterile water cooler is of the chiller type, plate heat exchanger (columns 21-22, Example 7), tube and shell heat exchanger or air heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 15, Batchelder et al. discloses that the activated carbon (columns 21-22, Example 7) is selected from vegetable or mineral activated carbon.
Regarding claim 16, Batchelder et al. discloses installing an ultraviolet light lamp (columns 21-22, Example 7), for the removal of traces of hydrogen peroxide through an advanced oxidation process. and sterilization of the sterile air wash water.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 7-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,582,734 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scopes of claims 1-2 and 7 of 18/921,980 have the same scopes as claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,582,734 B2, but are worded differently. The scopes of claims 8-12 of 18/921,980 have the same scopes as claims 5-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,582,734 B2, but are worded differently.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONZER R CHORBAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-1271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-12:00 and 6:00-9:00.
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, Jill J Warden can be reached at (571)272-1267. 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.
/MONZER R CHORBAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights