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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). It appears that claim 17 was intended to recite dependence on --claim 15-- instead of “claim 1.”
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayakawa et al. (US 2019/0176385; hereinafter “Hayakawa”).
In regard to claims 1 and 15, Hayakawa discloses a method of decontaminating an inside face of a neck (mouth portion 2a) of a preform (1) of thermoplastic material passing along a production path in an installation for manufacturing containers, each preform being held by an individual holding member (gripper 13), said decontamination method comprising in succession at least: a treatment step (see Figure 2A) consisting in exposing at least the inner face of the neck to a sterilizing jet (from sterilizer gas blasting nozzle 6) comprising a sterilizing agent (sterilizer gas G) in a first treatment zone (along sterilizer gas blasting wheel 15) of the production path; and a sterilizing agent activation step (see Figure 2C) consisting of directly exposing the inner face of the neck (“[t]he main purpose of the light irradiation is to sterilize a mouth portion 2a;” [0060]) thus coated with sterilizing agent to ultraviolet radiation (to reduce the amount of hydrogen peroxide remaining via a light irradiation step; [0039]), in a second activation zone (light irradiation wheel 16) of the production path located downstream of the treatment zone (“the light irradiation apparatus 30 may be disposed […] downstream of the nozzle 6”; [0062]). See [0057]-[0062] and Figures 1, 2A and 2C.
In regard to claims 2-3 and 16-17, as Hayakawa discloses that the preforms are located on wheels 15 and 16 during the activation and treatment steps, the preforms are viewed to move constantly along the production path during the respective steps. See Figure 1 and [0057]-[0058].
In regard to claim 7, Hayakawa discloses an installation (see Figure 1) for manufacturing containers from preforms (1) made of thermoplastic material for implementing the method according to Claim 1, the installation comprising at least one device for conveying preforms in a row along a production path (see Figure 1), the conveying means comprising members (grippers 13) for individually holding preforms during their displacement, the installation comprising: a zone (along wheel 15) for treating the preforms, through which the production path passes and which comprises at least one nozzle (sterilizer gas blasting nozzle 6) for projecting a sterilizing jet comprising a sterilizing agent (sterilizer gas G) intended to be directed directly towards the inner face of the neck (mouth 2a) of the preforms passing through the treatment zone; and a sterilizing agent activation zone (along wheel 16) comprising at least one source of ultraviolet radiation (light irradiation apparatus 30) intended to be directed directly towards the inner face of the neck (“[t]he main purpose of the light irradiation is to sterilize a mouth portion 2a;” [0060]) of the preforms passing through the activation zone, the activation zone being located downstream of the treatment zone (“the light irradiation apparatus 30 may be disposed […] downstream of the nozzle 6”; [0062]). See [0057]-[0062] and Figures 1, 2A and 2C.
In regard to claim 10, Hayakawa discloses a unit for thermal conditioning of the preforms (heating furnace 25), the activation zone being arranged upstream of the thermal conditioning unit. See Figure 1 and 2D and paragraph [0066].
In regard to claim 11, Hayakawa discloses a unit for thermal conditioning of the preforms (air nozzle 37 which can blast heated air P), the activation zone being arranged downstream of the thermal conditioning unit. See Figure 1 and 2B and paragraphs [0058] and [0087]-[0090].
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.
Claims 4-5, 8, 12, 14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa as applied to claims 1, 7 and 15 above and further in view of Hayakawa et al. (US 2014/0144105; hereinafter “Hayakawa ‘105”).
In regard to claims 4-5 and 18-19, Hayakawa is silent in regard to wherein the sterilizing jet is directed exclusively towards the inside of the preform and to wherein the sterilizing jet is projected by a nozzle which moves together with the preform.
Hayakawa ‘105 discloses a drink filling apparatus wherein nozzles 46 are arranged with grippers on wheel 49 for dispensing sterilizing hot water to formed bottles 2. See Figure 15 and [0177].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the moving nozzle arrangement of Hayakawa ‘105 for the nozzle 6 on the wheel 15 of Hayakawa for the purpose of accurately directing a sterilizing substance to the interior of the preform so as to eliminate waste and/or to more accurately control the dispensing of the sterilizing gas. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
In regard to claims 8 and 12, Hayakawa discloses a first conveying device comprising associated holding members (grippers 13) in the form of a wheel (sterilizer gas blasting wheel 15) with the holding members arranged on the periphery thereof, as recited in claim 12, in the activation zone moving along a closed circuit. See Figures 1 and 2A and paragraphs [0057].
Hayakawa is silent in regard to wherein each holding member being associated with a nozzle for projecting said sterilizing jet moving jointly with the holding member along the closed circuit.
Hayakawa ‘105 discloses a drink filling apparatus wherein nozzles 46 are arranged with grippers on wheel 49 for dispensing sterilizing hot water to formed bottles 2. See Figure 15 and [0177].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the moving nozzle arrangement of Hayakawa ‘105 for the nozzle 6 on the wheel 15 of Hayakawa for the purpose of accurately directing a sterilizing substance to the interior of the preform so as to eliminate waste and/or to more accurately control the dispensing of the sterilizing gas. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
In regard to claim 14, Hayakawa discloses wherein the holding members are formed by grippers 13 which are viewed to be functionally and/or structurally equivalent to the recited notches. See Figures 1 and 2A.
Claims 6, 9, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa as applied to claims 1, 7 and 15 above and further in view of Hayakawa et al. (US 2020/0165115; hereinafter “Hayakawa ‘115”).
In regard to claims 6 and 20, Hayakawa discloses wherein the lamp 30a may travel in parallel with the preform or may be inserted into the preform. See [0060].
Hayakawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one source of ultraviolet radiation is arranged in a fixed manner relative to the production path.
Hayakawa ‘115 discloses wherein a preform 1 can be irradiated with ultraviolet light from irradiation lamps 43 to direct ultraviolet light to at least the interior of the neck (mouth portion 1a). Hayakawa ‘115 does not disclose that the lamps move with the preform, while also teaching that only a single row of lamps may suffice to irradiation the side surface of the preform if the preform is rotated while moving on the production path. Thus, it is clear from the disclosure of Hayakawa ‘115 that the lamps can be arranged in a fixed manner relative to the production path. See Figure 7 and [0090]-[0097].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the fixed lamp arrangement of Hayakawa ‘115 with the method of Hayakawa without creating any new or unexpected results as the lamps would irradiate the preforms with ultraviolet light.
In regard to claims 9 and 13, Hayakawa discloses a second conveying device comprising associated holding members (grippers 13) in the form of a wheel (light irradiation wheel 16) with the holding members arranged on the periphery thereof, as recited in claim 13, in the activation zone moving along a closed circuit, the at least one source of ultraviolet radiation (light irradiation apparatus 30) being arranged in the activation zone so that the holding members run past the said sources. See Figures 1 and 2C and paragraphs [0058]-[0059].
Hayakawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one source of ultraviolet radiation is arranged in a fixed manner in the activation zone.
Hayakawa ‘115 discloses wherein a preform 1 can be irradiated with ultraviolet light from irradiation lamps 43 to direct ultraviolet light to at least the interior of the neck (mouth portion 1a). Hayakawa ‘115 does not disclose that the lamps move with the preform, while also teaching that only a single row of lamps may suffice to irradiation the side surface of the preform if the preform is rotated while moving on the production path. Thus, it is clear from the disclosure of Hayakawa ‘115 that the lamps can be arranged in a fixed manner relative to the production path. See Figure 7 and [0090]-[0097].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the fixed lamp arrangement of Hayakawa ‘115 with the method of Hayakawa without creating any new or unexpected results as the lamps would irradiate the preforms with ultraviolet light.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa in view of Hayakawa et al. as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Bernard et al. (FR 2766121 with reliance upon the machine translation; hereinafter “Benard”).
In regard to claim 14, in case it is viewed that the grippers 13 of Hayakawa are not analogous or functionally equivalent to the recited notches, Bernard discloses wherein preforms 3 can be transported by notches 60 in a wheel 6 conveying device. See Figure 5 and the first two paragraphs of page 7 in the machine translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the notches in the wheel of Bernard for the grippers of the above combined apparatus without creating any new or unexpected results as the structures are functionally equivalent
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights