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 § 102
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) 1,3-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayakawa (US 2021/0107780 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Hayakawa teaches a method for manufacturing a bottle (Abstract) comprising:
preheating a preform (1) to an internal temperature with an airflow directed within a deduster unit (a sterilizing unit (6) configured for preheating and air rinsing the perform to remove foreign matter from a preform (1)) (see Fig. 1;[0048] and [0057]);
sterilizing the preheated preform with a hydrogen peroxide solution (i.e. perform two sterilization process on the preform (1) using a sterilizer wheel (7) of the sterilizing unit (6) and contact with a sterilizer such as hydrogen peroxide) (see [0048],[0050] and [0057]); and
forming a bottle from the preheated preform using a blow molding process (i.e. molding the perform (1) into a container (2) using a molding unit (17)) (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 11;[0042]).
Regarding claim 3, Hayakawa further teaches the method, wherein the airflow is preheated by a heating element (i.e. the preheating wheel (7) supply hot air and inherently includes a heat source ) (see Fig. 1; [0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Hayakawa further teaches the method, wherein the airflow is ionized by an ionizer (an ionizer providing a source of ionized air for blasting the perform (10 in a second sterilizing step; [0068]).
Regarding claim 5, Hayakawa teaches a system (an aseptic filling apparatus) for manufacturing a bottle (2) (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 11;[0042]) comprising:
a deduster unit (a sterilizing unit (6)) configured direct an airflow toward a preform to preheat the preform to an internal temperature (i.e. the sterilizing unit (6) configured for preheating and air rinsing the perform to remove foreign matter from a preform (1)) (see Fig. 1;[0048] and [0057]);
a hydrogen peroxide sterilization unit configured to sterilize the preheated preform to an internal temperature; and a blow molding unit configured to form a bottle from the preform.
Regarding claim 7, Hayakawa further teaches the system, wherein the deduster unit (a sterilizing unit (6) comprises a heating element configured to preheat the airflow (i.e. the preheating wheel (7) supply hot air and inherently includes a heat source) (see Fig. 1; [0048]).
Regarding claim 8, Hayakawa further teaches the system, wherein the deduster unit (the sterilizing unit (6)) further comprises an ionizer configured to ionize the airflow (i.e. an ionizer providing a source of ionized air for blasting the perform (1) in a second sterilizing step; [0068]) .
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa (US 2021/0107780 – of record) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Hayakawa (US 2016/0257055).
Regarding claim 2, Hayakawa teaches the method as discussed in claim 1 above.
Hayakawa does not explicitly teach wherein the internal temperature is in a range of between about 45 degrees Celsius and between about 50 degrees Celsius.
In the same filed of endeavor, method for manufacturing bottles, Hayakawa’055 teaches a method for sterilizing a bottle (Abstract), comprises preheated a preform (1) to a temperature less than 70° C; and sterilizing the preheated preform (see Fig. 1; [0003] and 0075-[0076]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the internal temperature is in a range of between about 45 degrees Celsius and between about 50 degrees Celsius, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, given the discussion of Hayakawa’055 above, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to the internal temperature is in a range of between about 45 degrees Celsius and between about 50 degrees Celsius in order to improve the sterilization effect of the sterilizer by bringing the preform close to a temperature of the sterilizer.
Regarding claim 6, Hayakawa teaches the system as discussed in claim 5 above.
Hayakawa does not explicitly teach, wherein the internal temperature is in a range of between about 45 degrees Celsius and about 50 degrees Celsius.
In the same filed of endeavor, method for manufacturing bottles, Hayakawa’055 teaches an apparatus for sterilizing a bottle (Abstract), comprises preheated a preform (1) to a temperature less than 70° C; and sterilizing the preheated preform (see Fig. 1; [0003] and 0075-[0076]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the internal temperature is in a range of between about 45 degrees Celsius and between about 50 degrees Celsius, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, given the discussion of Hayakawa’055 above, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to the internal temperature is in a range of between about 45 degrees Celsius and between about 50 degrees Celsius in order to improve the sterilization effect of the sterilizer by bringing the preform close to a temperature of the sterilizer.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adriansens (US 2009/0081326 A1) teaches an installation producing sterile bottles by blow molding starting from preforms (12), includes a sterilizing treatment unit (26), a thermal conditioning unit, and a molding unit (see Fig. 1; [0056-0058]).
Hayakawa (US 2020/0139608 A1) teaches a heating apparatus and a heating method for preforms are provided which eliminate poor sterilization of a mouth portion of a preform to which a disinfectant has been blown and a heating section that heats the preform is provided with a mouth portion heating section, and a mouth portion of the preform is heated to a temperature from 50° C. to 70° C (see [0010-0017]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AHMED ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM-7:30 PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/MOHAMED K AHMED ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights