DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Sheet
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 03/05/2025 and 03/25/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites, “…wherein the trough-openings are slits.” However, based on the details of claim 1 and the element identifiers in claim 2, it appears that the claim should instead recite “…wherein the through-openings are slits.” The claim will be interpreted as such.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(b)
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.
Claim 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites that the through-openings “occupy any one of: 5-50% of the total area of the throughflow plate; and 10-30% of the total area of the throughflow plate”. This limitations is ambiguous and fails to clearly define the scope of the invention for the following reasons. The phrase “any one of” typically precedes a discrete list of alternative items or members (e.g. a Markush group), making its application to two continuous ranges unclear. Further, the alternative ranges presented are wholly overlapping, as the 10-30% range is entirely subsumed within the broader 5-50% range. It is unclear whether the intended scope is strictly bounded by the narrower range, covers the broader range, or if the narrower range was merely intended to be a preferred embodiment. Because the intended boundaries cannot be determined, the claim scope is entirely ambiguous. Applicant should amend the claim to clearly define the intended boundaries of the invention.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Florke (US 2019/0016493 A1) in view of Nesher (US 3,426,512).
Regarding claim 1, Florke teaches a paperboard (¶ [0002]) container filling machine (Figures 1 & 2, #1) comprising an aseptic chamber (Florke teaches a preheating zone (A), a sterilization zone (B), a drying zone (C), a filling zone (D), and a sealing zone (E) which form a sterile space; ¶'s [0001], [0035], [0036]), the aseptic chamber comprising:
an upper air distribution chamber (Florke discloses a sterile chamber (19) ¶ [0041] located underneath the cover (1). Florke also discloses a pre-distributor chamber produced between the cover (1) and a pre-distributor element (20) ¶ [0018]. Another sterile chamber (23) is shown in the filling zone; ¶ [0041]);
a lower processing chamber housing processing equipment configured for interacting with paperboard containers passing through the processing chamber (Florke teaches treatment zones (A, B, C, D, E) where open packaging units (P) pass through and interact with processing equipment; ¶ [0007]. For example, the filling zone (D) includes filling connections (8) with filling nozzels (9) arranged underneath them to interact with the packaging units; ¶ [0037]. The space reaches down to below the packaging units (P); ¶ [0036]);
a throughflow plate separating the air distribution chamber and the processing chamber (Florke teaches air guide elements (18, 22, 26) arranged underneath the cover (1); ¶ [0042]. Specifically, the first air guide element (18) constitutes the lower boundary of the sterile chamber (19); ¶ [0046]), the throughflow plate comprising a plurality of through-openings configured for directing the air from the air distribution chamber to the processing chamber (Florke teaches essentially horizontal air guide elements (18, 22, 26) having a plurality of openings; ¶ [0008]. The horizontal base of the air guide element (18) is equipped with a plurality of holes and is preferably designed as a perforated sheet ; ¶ [0046]. Sterile air leads through the evenly perforated base of the air guide element (22) to a "sterile air curtain" formed thereunder; ¶ [0047]), and
a paperboard container transport sub-system configured for transporting the paperboard containers through the processing chamber along a container transport path from an inlet opening to an outlet opening of the processing chamber (Florke teaches that packaging units (P) are continuously moved through the device by means of cell chains; ¶ [0006]. The units are fed to the device along six parallel lines (L1-L6) through an outer wall (11) with six recesses (12); ¶ [0038]),
wherein the throughflow plate comprising comprises a substantially horizontal planar section (Shown in figures 1 and 2 where the air guide elements (18, 22, 26) are essentially horizontal; ¶ [0008]. Florke specifically points out the horizontal base of the air guide element (18); ¶ [0046]).
However, Florke does not specifically teach first and second curved sections, each curved section displaying a convex ruled surface facing the processing chamber, the ruled surface being defined by rulings which are parallel and extend orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to said transport path.
Nesher teaches first and second curved sections, each curved section displaying a convex ruled surface facing the processing chamber, the ruled surface being defined by rulings which are parallel and extend orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to said transport path (Claim 4 of Codling claims that apparatus where "said membrane is convexed on the delivery side thereof" and is also described in col 5, lines 5-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Florke to incorporate the teachings of Nesher to include a convex, divergent perforated plate with the motivation of actively diverging the laminar clean air around the processing equipment positioned along the transport path. As taught by Nesher in col 2, lines 5-17, utilizing a diverging flow is advantageous where flow space is limited and eliminates turbulence caused by obstructions in the fluid stream.
Regarding claim 6, Florke teaches a perforated air guide element used to establish a specific overpressure (0.12 bar to 0.55 bar - ¶ [0024]), to generate an even, downward laminar flow; ¶ [0008].
Florke does not specifically teach wherein the through-openings occupy any one of: 5 - 50 % of the total area of the throughflow plate; and 10 - 30 % of the total area of the throughflow plate.
However, such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. The percentage of open area on a perforated throughflow plate dictates the pressure drop and flow velocity across the plate; it is a classic “result-effective variable”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the open area of Florke’s perforated sheet through routine experimentation to achieve the explicitly desired overpressure parameters taught by Florke in ¶ [0024]. The claimed ranges (5-50% and 10-30%) represent standard operation ranges for perforated diffuser plates and would be discovered during routine optimization.
Regarding claim 7, Florke teaches an elongated air distribution duct configured for receiving air from an air supply channel (Florke teaches a "pre-distributor element" (20, 24, 27) that is supplied with sterile air via vertical supply pipes (4); ¶ [0011]), the air distribution duct comprising a plurality of throughflow holes configured for distributing the air in the air distribution chamber (Florke teaches the pre-distributor element (20) "has a plurality of openings at least on its horizontal base in order to let through the supplied air in a downward direction into a respective sterile air chamber"; ¶ [0011]. It is equipped with "a plurality of rows of holes"; ¶ [0046]) and comprising a rectilinear duct axis extending orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the container transport path (Florke explicitly teaches that the pre-distributor element "spann[s] the entire width of the device"; ¶ [0011]. Because the transport path runs longitudinally (front-to-back), spanning the entire width inherently requires the duct's axis to extend orthogonally to the container transport path).
However, Florke does not specifically teach displaying a semi-tubular convex surface facing the throughflow plate.
Nesher teaches displaying a semi-tubular convex surface facing the throughflow plate (The use of a convex, cylindrical distribution membrane to deliberately diverge laminar gas flow and eliminate turbulence is described in claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Florke to incorporate the teachings of Nesher to include a convex, divergent perforated plate with the motivation of actively diverging the laminar clean air around the processing equipment positioned along the transport path. As taught by Nesher in col 2, lines 5-17, utilizing a diverging flow is advantageous where flow space is limited and eliminates turbulence caused by obstructions in the fluid stream.
Regarding claim 8, Florke teaches a method of establishing an airflow in an aseptic chamber of a paperboard container (¶ [0002]) filling machine (Figures 1 & 2, #1), the aseptic chamber (Florke teaches a preheating zone (A), a sterilization zone (B), a drying zone (C), a filling zone (D), and a sealing zone (E) which form a sterile space; ¶'s [0001], [0035], [0036]) comprising:
an upper air distribution chamber (Florke discloses a sterile chamber (19) ¶ [0041] located underneath the cover (1). Florke also discloses a pre-distributor chamber produced between the cover (1) and a pre-distributor element (20) ¶ [0018]. Another sterile chamber (23) is shown in the filling zone; ¶ [0041]);
a lower processing chamber housing processing equipment configured for interacting with paperboard containers passing through the processing chamber (Florke teaches treatment zones (A, B, C, D, E) where open packaging units (P) pass through and interact with processing equipment; ¶ [0007]. For example, the filling zone (D) includes filling connections (8) with filling nozzels (9) arranged underneath them to interact with the packaging units; ¶ [0037]. The space reaches down to below the packaging units (P); ¶ [0036]); and
a paperboard container transport sub-system configured for transporting the paperboard containers through the processing chamber along a container transport path from an inlet opening to an outlet opening of the processing chamber (Florke teaches that packaging units (P) are continuously moved through the device by means of cell chains; ¶ [0006]. The units are fed to the device along six parallel lines (L1-L6) through an outer wall (11) with six recesses (12); ¶ [0038]),
wherein the method comprises the step of bringing the air from the distribution chamber to the processing chamber through a throughflow plate (Florke teaches air guide elements (18, 22, 26) arranged underneath the cover (1); ¶ [0042]. Specifically, the first air guide element (18) constitutes the lower boundary of the sterile chamber (19); ¶ [0046]) comprising a substantially horizontal planar section (Shown in figures 1 and 2 where the air guide elements (18, 22, 26) are essentially horizontal; ¶ [0008]. Florke specifically points out the horizontal base of the air guide element (18); ¶ [0046]).
However, Florke does not specifically teach first and second curved sections, each curved section displaying a convex ruled surface facing the processing chamber, the ruled surface being defined by rulings which are parallel and extend orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to said transport path.
Nesher teaches first and second curved sections, each curved section displaying a convex ruled surface facing the processing chamber, the ruled surface being defined by rulings which are parallel and extend orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to said transport path (Claim 4 of Codling claims that apparatus where "said membrane is convexed on the delivery side thereof" and is also described in col 5, lines 5-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Florke to incorporate the teachings of Nesher to include a convex, divergent perforated plate with the motivation of actively diverging the laminar clean air around the processing equipment positioned along the transport path. As taught by Nesher in col 2, lines 5-17, utilizing a diverging flow is advantageous where flow space is limited and eliminates turbulence caused by obstructions in the fluid stream.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Florke in view of Nesher, and in further view of Gilkison (US 6,461,233).
Regarding claim 2, Florke in view of Nesher does not specifically teach wherein the trough-openings are slits.
Gilkison teaches wherein the trough-openings are slits (Figure 2, illustrates a plurality of through-openings in the shape of slits).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Florke in view of Nesher to incorporate the teachings of Gilkison to include the through-openings being rectangular slits with the motivation being adapting the geometry of the openings to properly tune the velocity and pressure drop of the laminar airflow, as Gilkison expressly teaches that the size and shape of the apertures should be varied depending on the specific application being performed (see col 8, line 63 – col 9, line 20 of Gilkison). Because Gilkison teaches that rectangular, horizontally elongated apertures successfully maintain controlled, substantially laminar airflow while providing these ergonomic and functional benefits, one having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected success in applying this specific aperture geometry to the perforated distribution plates of Florke.
Regarding claim 3, Florke in view of Nesher does not specifically teach wherein the slits are rectilinear.
Gilkison teaches wherein the slits are rectilinear (Figure 2, illustrates a plurality of through-openings in the shape of rectilinear slits).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Florke in view of Nesher to incorporate the teachings of Gilkison to include the through-openings being rectangular slits with the motivation being adapting the geometry of the openings to properly tune the velocity and pressure drop of the laminar airflow, as Gilkison expressly teaches that the size and shape of the apertures should be varied depending on the specific application being performed (see col 8, line 63 – col 9, line 20 of Gilkison). Because Gilkison teaches that rectangular, horizontally elongated apertures successfully maintain controlled, substantially laminar airflow while providing these ergonomic and functional benefits, one having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected success in applying this specific aperture geometry to the perforated distribution plates of Florke.
Regarding claim 4, Florke in view of Nesher does not specifically teach wherein the slits are arranged along a plurality of parallel lines.
Gilkison teaches wherein the slits are arranged along a plurality of parallel lines (Figure 2, illustrates a plurality of through-openings in the shape of slits arranged along a plurality of parallel lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Florke in view of Nesher to incorporate the teachings of Gilkison to include the through-openings being rectangular slits with the motivation being adapting the geometry of the openings to properly tune the velocity and pressure drop of the laminar airflow, as Gilkison expressly teaches that the size and shape of the apertures should be varied depending on the specific application being performed (see col 8, line 63 – col 9, line 20 of Gilkison). Because Gilkison teaches that rectangular, horizontally elongated apertures successfully maintain controlled, substantially laminar airflow while providing these ergonomic and functional benefits, one having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected success in applying this specific aperture geometry to the perforated distribution plates of Florke.
Regarding claim 5, Florke as modified further teaches wherein the slits are aligned with the container transport path (Figure 2 illustrates that the air flow openings are aligned with the container transport path).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
