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
Claims 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 10, line 2 “mat-rial” should be changed to --material-- for proper idiomatic language. Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon an objected claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 is replete with antecedent basis clarity issues. Claim 1 recites “in particular” which is indefinite because it is not clear if the claim recitations thereafter are being positively claimed. The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
Claim 1 (currently amended): An apparatus for forming plastics material preforms into plastics material containers with has a transport device configured to transport the plastics material preforms to be formed along a predefined transport path, wherein the transport device has a rotatable transport carrier on which a plurality of forming stations is arranged, wherein said forming stations each have
blow molding devices within which the plastics material preforms can be formed by
application of a flowable medium into the plastics material containers, and the forming
stations each have application devices configured to apply the flowable medium to the plastics material preforms, and wherein the apparatus has a clean room within which the plastics material preforms are expanded into the plastics material containers,
wherein
the apparatus has an ejection device configured for ejecting the plastics material preforms or the plastics material containers from the transport path and
Claim 2 recites “preferably” which is indefinite because it is not clear if the claim recitations thereafter are being positively claimed. The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
Claim 2 (currently amended): The apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein
the apparatus has a sealing device configured to seal the clean room from an unsterile environment, and this scaling device
Claim 3 is replete with antecedent basis clarity issues. The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
Claim 3 (currently amended): The apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein
the ejection device is configured for ejecting the plastics material preforms or the plastics material containers from the clean room.
Claim 4 is replete with antecedent basis clarity issues. Claim 4 recites “preferably” which is indefinite because it is not clear if the claim recitations thereafter are being positively claimed. The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
Claim 4 (currently amended): The apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein
the apparatus has a feed device configured for feeding the plastics material preforms to be formed to the transport device, and a discharge device configured for discharging the formed containers from the transport device, and
Claim 5 has antecedent basis clarity issues. The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
Claim 5 (currently amended): The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the ejection device is arranged below the transport path of the plastics material preforms
or the plastics material containers.
Claim 6 recites “in particular” which is indefinite because it is not clear if the claim recitations thereafter are being positively claimed. The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
Claim 6 (currently amended): The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the apparatus has a suction device configured for suctioning off a flowable medium from the clean room, wherein this suction device is arranged
Claim 8 recites “the receiving space” which lacks antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests making claim 8 dependent upon claim 7.
Claim 10 is replete with antecedent basis clarity issues. Claim 10 recites “the apparatus” which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “in particular” which is indefinite because it is not clear if the claim recitations thereafter are being positively claimed. The Examiner suggests the following amendments (including the suggested amendments to overcome the claim objections above):
Claim 10 (currently amended): A method for forming plastics material preforms into plastics [[mate-rial]] material containers, wherein a transport device transports the plastics material preforms to be formed along a predefined transport path, wherein the transport device has a rotatable transport carrier on which a plurality of forming stations is arranged, wherein said forming stations each have blow molding devices within which the plastics material preforms can be formed by application of a flowable medium into the plastics material containers, and the forming stations each have application devices in order to apply the flowable medium to the plastics material preforms, wherein the apparatus has a clean room within which the plastics material preforms are expanded into the plastics material containers,
wherein
the plastics material preforms or the plastics material containers are at least temporarily ejected from
Claim 11 is replete with antecedent basis clarity issues. The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
Claim 11 (currently amended): The method according to claim 10,
wherein
the plastics material preforms or the plastics material containers are ejected from the clean room.
Claim 12 is replete with antecedent basis clarity issues. Claim 12 recites “preferably” which is indefinite because it is not clear if the claim recitations thereafter are being positively claimed. The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
Claim 12 (new): The apparatus according to claim 2,
wherein
the apparatus has a feed device configured for feeding the plastics material preforms to be formed to
the transport device, and a discharge device configured for discharging the formed containers from
the transport device, and
device and/or between the discharge device and the feed device.
Claim 13 has antecedent basis clarity issues. The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
Claim 13 (new): The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
the ejection device is arranged below the transport path of the plastics material preforms or
the plastics material containers.
Claim 14 recites “in particular” which is indefinite because it is not clear if the claim recitations thereafter are being positively claimed. The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
Claim 14 (new): The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
the apparatus has a suction device configured for suctioning off a flowable medium from the clean room, wherein this suction device is arranged
Claim 18 is replete with antecedent basis clarity issues. Claim 12 recites “preferably” which is indefinite because it is not clear if the claim recitations thereafter are being positively claimed. The Examiner suggests the following amendments:
Claim 18 (new): The apparatus according to claim 3,
wherein
the apparatus has a feed device configured for feeding the plastics material preforms to be formed to
the transport device, and a discharge device configured for discharging the formed containers from
the transport device, and
device and/or between the discharge device and the feed device.
Claims not listed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
For further examination purposes, the scope of the claims are read in light of the Examiner suggested amendments.
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 3 and 11 are 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 3 is redundant to claim 1, upon which claim 3 is dependent, which already recites the limitations of claim 3.
Claim 11 is redundant to claim 10, upon which claim 11 is dependent, which already recites the limitations of claim 11.
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 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) 1-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215).
(Claim 1) Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215) teach an apparatus for forming plastics material preforms into plastics material containers (figs. 1-3; abstract; [0005]-[0071]) with has a transport device 12 configured to transport the plastics material preforms 10 to be formed along a predefined transport path (fig. 1), wherein the transport device has a rotatable transport carrier 12 on which a plurality of forming stations 2 is arranged, wherein said forming stations 2 each have blow molding devices 64, 66 within which the plastics material preforms 10 can be formed by application of a flowable medium into the plastics material containers 10a, and the forming stations 2 each have application devices 62 configured to apply the flowable medium to the plastics material preforms 10, and wherein the apparatus has a clean room 20 within which the plastics material preforms 10 are expanded into the plastics material containers 10a,
wherein
the apparatus has an ejection device (fig. 2) configured for ejecting plastics material preforms or plastics material containers from the transport path and in particular from the clean room 20, and in that the ejection device is integrated in the clean room 20 and/or the ejection device is integrated in at least one wall delimiting the clean room 20 (fig. 2; [0006], [0047]-[0053]; [0011] the clean room surrounds the transport path and thus ejection is from the transport path and the clean room; as shown in fig. 2, the lock chamber 30 of the ejection device is defined by structure integrated in at least one wall delimiting the clean room 20, and the flap 25 of the ejection device is integrated in at least one wall delimiting the clean room 20; as shown in fig. 2, the flap 25 of the ejection device defines a wall delimiting the clean room 20 and thus the ejection device is integrated in the clean room; alternatively [0029], when the lock chamber 30 is brought in connection with the clean room 20, the clean room extends into the lock chamber such that the ejection device (lock chamber 30) is integrated in the clean room);
(Claim 2) wherein the apparatus has a sealing device configured to seal the clean room from an unsterile environment, and this sealing device preferably has at least one circumferential channel that can be filled with a liquid [0012];
(Claim 3) wherein the ejection device is configured for ejecting plastics material preforms or plastics material containers from the clean room (e.g., [0006], [0047]);
(Claims 4, 12, 18) wherein the apparatus has a feed device 4 configured for feeding plastics material preforms to be formed to the transport device 12, and a discharge device 34 configured for discharging formed containers from the transport device 12, and preferably the ejection device is arranged in a region of the discharge device 34 (figs. 1-2; [0044] forming device 1 adjoins the sterilization device 4 with transport stars for transporting/feeding the preforms to the transport device 12, and containers 10a are discharged from the transport device by transport star 34; [0051] the lock chamber 30 (ejection device) is arranged in a region of the forming device in which the containers have already been fully inflated (i.e., in a region of the discharge device 34); [0052] as shown in fig. 2 the containers can be removed/discharged in two ways either by outlet 18 or by flap 6; and thus, the ejection device 6 is arranged in a region of the discharge device 34; in fig. 2, the discharge device 34 would be adjacent to the outlet 18 and thus would also be adjacent the ejection device 6, 30);
(Claims 5, 13) wherein the ejection device is arranged below the transport path of the plastics material preforms or plastics material containers (e.g., [0027], [0051]);
(Claims 7, 15, 19) wherein the apparatus has a receiving space 8 configured for receiving ejected plastics material preforms or plastics material containers [0047]-[0048];
(Claims 8, 16, 20) wherein the receiving space 8 is configured to be connected to the ejection device by an interface 6 ([0047]-[0048] the flap 6 may also serve as a chute for transporting preforms to be ejected to the receiving device 8).
(Claim 10) Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215) teach a method for forming plastics material preforms into plastics material containers (figs. 1-3; abstract; [0005]-[0071]), wherein a transport device 12 transports the plastics material preforms 10 to be formed along a predefined transport path (fig. 1), wherein the transport device has a rotatable transport carrier 12 on which a plurality of forming stations 2 is arranged, wherein said forming stations 2 each have blow molding devices 64, 66 within which the plastics material preforms 10 can be formed by application of a flowable medium into the plastics material containers 10a, and the forming stations 2 each have application devices 62 in order to apply the flowable medium to the plastics material preforms, wherein the apparatus has a clean room 20 within which the plastics material preforms 10 are expanded into the plastics material containers 10a,
wherein
plastics material preforms or plastics material containers are at least temporarily ejected from the
apparatus and in particular from the clean room 20 by an ejection apparatus (fig. 2), and in that the ejection device is integrated in the clean room 20 and/or the ejection device is integrated in at least one wall delimiting the clean room 20 (fig. 2; [0006], [0047]-[0053]; [0011] the clean room surrounds the transport path and thus ejection is from the transport path and the clean room; as shown in fig. 2, the lock chamber 30 of the ejection device is defined by structure integrated in at least one wall delimiting the clean room 20, and the flap 25 of the ejection device is integrated in at least one wall delimiting the clean room 20; as shown in fig. 2, the flap 25 of the ejection device defines a wall delimiting the clean room 20 and thus the ejection device is integrated in the clean room; alternatively [0029], when the lock chamber 30 is brought in connection with the clean room 20, the clean room extends into the lock chamber such that the ejection device (lock chamber 30) is integrated in the clean room);
(Claim 11) wherein plastics material preforms or plastics material containers are ejected from the clean room 20 (e.g., [0006], [0047]).
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.
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) 4, 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215) in view of DE 102017120106.
As to claim 4, this is an alternative rejection of claim 4 which covers the alternative claim language of the ejection device being arranged between the discharge device and the feed device. Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215) discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed, as mentioned above, except for the ejection device being arranged between the discharge device and the feed device.
DE 102017120106 discloses an apparatus for forming plastics material preforms 10 into plastics material containers 20 (fig. 1) including a feed device 6, a discharge device 8, and a discharge/ejection device 12 arranged between the discharge device 8 and the feed device 6 (fig. 1; [0044] of English translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the ejection device of Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215) to be arranged between the discharge device and the feed device, as disclosed by DE 102017120106, because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the apparatus known to be operable in the art.
As to claims 9 and 17, Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215) discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed, as mentioned above, except for the limitations of claims 9 and 17.
DE 102017120106 discloses an apparatus for forming plastics material preforms 10 into plastics material containers 20 (fig. 1) including a state detection device 34 which is suitable configured for detecting a faulty forming process and/or an incorrectly formed container (fig. 1; [0005]-[0006], [0016], [0049], detection of defective quality; faulty forming and/or incorrect container formation would be obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in view of defective quality teachings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215) with a state detection device, as disclosed by DE 102017120106, because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the apparatus capable of detecting defective quality containers.
Claim(s) 6, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215) in view of DE 102017124331.
Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215) discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed, as mentioned above, except for the limitations of claims 6 and 14.
DE 102017124331 discloses an apparatus for forming plastics material preforms 10 into plastics material containers 20 (figs. 1-3) including a clean room 6, an ejection device 44, 46, and a suction device 42 configured for suctioning off a flowable medium from the clean room 6, wherein this suction device 42 is arranged in particular in a region of the ejection device 44, 46 (figs. 2-3 show the suction device 42 arranged in particular in a region of the ejection device 44, 46; English translation, [0007], [0016]-[0021], [0025]-[0026], [0029]-[0030], [0040]-[0044], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215) with a suction device, as disclosed by DE 102017124331, because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the apparatus capable of preventing germs from entering the cleanroom.
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, 3-4, 6-7, and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 18-19 are fully encompassed by claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811.
Claims 2, 5, 8, 10-13, 15-16 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811 in view of Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215).
Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811 discloses the apparatus as claimed as mentioned above, (i.e., Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 and 18-19 being fully encompassed by Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811), except for the limitations of claims 2, 5, 8, 12-13, 15-16 and 20. However, these limitations are disclosed by Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215) as mentioned above. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811 with the limitations of claims 2, 5, 8, 12-13, 15-16 and 20, as recited by Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215), because such modification are known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the apparatus known to be operable in the art. As to claims 10-11, claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811 discloses the apparatus imitations used by the method recited by claims 10-11, but does not disclose the method. Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215) is applied as above and discloses a method as recited by claims 10-11, as mentioned above. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811 with method limitations, as recited by Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215), because such method limitations are known in the art and would enable the apparatus to perform a method known to be operable in the art.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811 in view of DE 102017120106.
Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811 discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed (i.e., Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 and 18-19 being fully encompassed by Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811), as mentioned above, except for the limitations of claim 9.
DE 102017120106 is applied as above and discloses an apparatus including a state detection device 34 which is suitable configured for detecting a faulty forming process and/or an incorrectly formed container (fig. 1; [0005]-[0006], [0016], [0049], detection of defective quality; faulty forming and/or incorrect container formation would be obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in view of defective quality teachings), as mentioned above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811 with a state detection device, as recited by DE 102017120106, because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the apparatus capable of detecting defective quality containers.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811 in view of Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215) and DE 102017124331.
Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811 discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed (i.e., Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 and 18-19 being fully encompassed by Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811), as mentioned above, except for the limitations of claim 14.
Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215) is applied as above and discloses an apparatus having a sealing device configured to seal the clean room from an unsterile environment, and this sealing device preferably has at least one circumferential channel that can be filled with a liquid [0012], as mentioned above.
DE 102017124331 is applied as above and discloses an apparatus including a suction device 42 configured for suctioning off a flowable medium from a clean room 6, wherein this suction device 42 is arranged in particular in a region of an ejection device 44, 46 (figs. 2-3 show the suction device 42 arranged in particular in a region of the ejection device 44, 46; English translation, [0007], [0016]-[0021], [0025]-[0026], [0029]-[0030], [0040]-[0044], [0047]), as mentioned above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811 with a sealing device, as recited by Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the apparatus capable of sealing; and to further modify the apparatus with a suction device, as disclosed by DE 102017124331, because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the apparatus capable of preventing germs from entering the cleanroom.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811 in view of Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215) and DE 102017120106.
Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811 discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed (i.e., Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 and 18-19 being fully encompassed by Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811), as mentioned above, except for the limitations of claim 17.
Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215) is applied as above and discloses an apparatus having a sealing device configured to seal the clean room from an unsterile environment, and this sealing device preferably has at least one circumferential channel that can be filled with a liquid [0012], as mentioned above.
DE 102017120106 is applied as above and discloses an apparatus including a state detection device 34 which is suitable configured for detecting a faulty forming process and/or an incorrectly formed container (fig. 1; [0005]-[0006], [0016], [0049], detection of defective quality; faulty forming and/or incorrect container formation would be obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in view of defective quality teachings), as mentioned above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,611,811 with a sealing device, as recited by Mueller et al. (US 2020/0198215), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the apparatus capable of sealing; and to further modify the apparatus with a state detection device, as disclosed by DE 102017120106, because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the apparatus capable of detecting defective quality containers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S LEYSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 5712705343. 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.
/J.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights