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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 102 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s primary argument is that Shimano does not disclose a “semi-tubular convex surface”, as it is “box shaped one with a u-shaped cross section”, and therefore must have “sharp corners”. The Examiner does not agree with this assertion. Simply put, a U-shape does not imply “sharp corners”, but rather a shape like the letter “U”, as it is typed here. Furthermore, the Applicant’s assertions regarding air flow have no effect upon claim interpretations, as these limitations do not appear in the claim, and therefore have no effect on the claim limitations.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the subject matter of the claim is not provided with any device within the specification or drawings that would perform this function, merely that it exists as a possibility. The Examiner must ask the question of the applicant - does the size of the holes and the adjustment thereof pertain to the manufacturing process, or is this a feature of the actual product, such as using louvres, or gates in order to alter the size and flow accordingly? As seen in the rejection below, this claim will be interpreted as a product by process of production claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibuno, WO 2022176907.
Regarding claim 1, Shibuno discloses: A paperboard (Page 9 of attached translation indicates the container is made of paper, “paper dust is generated from the upper end surface of the container (C1) …“) container filling machine (Title, “Filling and Packaging Machine”) comprising an aseptic (Page 1, “The present invention relates to a filling and packaging machine, and more particularly to a filling and packaging machine used for filling and packaging contents such as beverages and foods into containers in an aseptic state.”) chamber (Fig. 1, chamber 2) the aseptic chamber comprising:
an upper air distribution chamber (see Fig. 9b)
a lower processing chamber (Fig. 1, filling section 8) housing processing equipment configured for interacting with paperboard containers passing through the processing chamber;
a throughflow plate (Fig. 8, UC1, UC2) separating the air distribution chamber and the processing chamber;
a paperboard container transport sub-system (Fig. 1, transfer conveyor 4) configured for transporting the paperboard containers through the processing chamber along a container transport path (Fig. 5, transport path “R”) from an inlet opening (Fig. 1, carton blank inlet 201) to an outlet opening (Fig. 1, filling container outlet 202) of the processing chamber; and
an elongated air distribution duct (Fig. 5 –8, the air flows in from outlets AB1 and AB2 and out through inlets first rectifying cover CC1) configured for receiving air from an air supply channel (Fig. 1, air supply line P1) and comprising a plurality of throughflow holes configured for distributing the air in the air distribution chamber (Page 8, “The two front and rear first clean air outlets (AB1) are each covered with a first rectifying cover (CC1). The first rectifying cover (CC1) is a box-shaped one with a U-shaped cross section and an upward opening attached to the lower surface of the top wall (21) of the chamber (2) so as to surround the first clean air outlet (AB1). For example, it is made of a perforated plate in which a large number of holes are made in a metal plate material such as stainless steel. Also, the first rectifying cover (CC1) may be made of a perforated plastic plate or a mesh material. Due to the rectifying (diffusing) action of these first rectifying covers (CC1), clean air flows into the space between the first clean air outlet (AB1) and the first upper rectifying member (UC1) in the chamber (2). Since the clean air is diffused and supplied evenly, the clean air can be stably distributed throughout the filling section (8) as a downward flow.”).
wherein the air distribution duct (Fig. 5 –8, the air flows in from outlets AB1 and AB2 and out through inlets first rectifying cover CC1) comprises a semi- tubular convex surface facing the throughflow plate (Page 8, “The two front and rear first clean air outlets (AB1) are each covered with a first rectifying cover (CC1). The first rectifying cover (CC1) is a box-shaped one with a U-shaped cross section and an upward opening attached to the lower surface of the top wall (21) of the chamber (2) so as to surround the first clean air outlet (AB1). For example, it is made of a perforated plate in which a large number of holes are made in a metal plate material such as stainless steel. Also, the first rectifying cover (CC1) may be made of a perforated plastic plate or a mesh material. Due to the rectifying (diffusing) action of these first rectifying covers (CC1), clean air flows into the space between the first clean air outlet (AB1) and the first upper rectifying member (UC1) in the chamber (2). Since the clean air is diffused and supplied evenly, the clean air can be stably distributed throughout the filling section (8) as a downward flow.”) and a rectilinear duct axis extending orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the container transport path (see Figs. 5-8).
Regarding claim 2, Shibuno further discloses: the throughflow holes (17) are circular (Page 8, “As shown in FIG. 8, the first upper rectifying member (UC1) is formed with large circular holes (UC10) at locations corresponding to the two left and right CIP units (83)”).
Regarding claim 3, Shibuno discloses: A method of establishing an airflow in an aseptic (Page 1, “The present invention relates to a filling and packaging machine, and more particularly to a filling and packaging machine used for filling and packaging contents such as beverages and foods into containers in an aseptic state.”) chamber (Fig. 1, chamber 2) of a paperboard container filling machine (Page 9), the aseptic chamber comprising:
an upper air distribution chamber (see Fig. 9b);
a lower processing chamber (Fig. 1, filling section 8) housing processing equipment configured for interacting with paperboard containers passing through the processing chamber;
a throughflow plate (Fig. 8, UC1, UC2) separating the air distribution chamber and the processing chamber; and
a paperboard container transport sub-system (Fig. 1, transfer conveyor 4) configured for transporting the paperboard containers through the processing chamber along a container transport path (Fig. 5, transport path “R”) from an inlet opening (Fig. 1, carton blank inlet 201) to an outlet opening (Fig. 1, filling container outlet 202) of the processing chamber;
the method comprising the step of distributing air in the air distribution chamber by bringing the air from an air supply channel to the air distribution chamber through an air distribution duct comprising a plurality of throughflow holes configured for distributing the air in the air distribution chamber , the air distribution duct displaying a semi-tubular convex surface facing the throughflow plate and comprising a rectilinear duct axis extending orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the container transport path (Page 8, “The two front and rear first clean air outlets (AB1) are each covered with a first rectifying cover (CC1). The first rectifying cover (CC1) is a box-shaped one with a U-shaped cross section and an upward opening attached to the lower surface of the top wall (21) of the chamber (2) so as to surround the first clean air outlet (AB1). For example, it is made of a perforated plate in which a large number of holes are made in a metal plate material such as stainless steel. Also, the first rectifying cover (CC1) may be made of a perforated plastic plate or a mesh material. Due to the rectifying (diffusing) action of these first rectifying covers (CC1), clean air flows into the space between the first clean air outlet (AB1) and the first upper rectifying member (UC1) in the chamber (2). Since the clean air is diffused and supplied evenly, the clean air can be stably distributed throughout the filling section (8) as a downward flow.”).
Regarding claim 4, this claim represents a Product by Process Claim. According to MPEP 2113 “Product-by-Process Claims [R-08.2017]”, III. THE USE OF 35 U.S.C. 102/103 REJECTIONS FOR PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COURTS
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; "[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730.
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 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.
/DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights