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 Status
This Office action is in response to the filing of 3/5/2025. Claims 1-10 are currently pending. Claims 1-10 have been amended in a preliminary amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “paperboard container transport sub-system” of claim 1 and corresponding to conveyor or linear actuator 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Floerke (US 2019/0016493 A1) in view of Schoenbaechler (EP 3434998 A1). Note that for convenience, citations to the written description of Schoenbaechler refer to the attached translation.
Regarding claim 1, Floerke discloses a paperboard container filling machine comprising an aseptic chamber (zones A-E – Fig. 1; para. 0036), the aseptic chamber comprising: an upper air distribution chamber (23 – Fig. 1); a lower processing chamber (zone D – Fig. 1) housing processing equipment (9 – Fig. 1; note that the lower portion of 9 is in zone D) configured for interacting with paperboard containers (P – Fig. 1) passing through the processing chamber (9 – Fig. 1 are filling nozzles, para. 0037, hence they are interpreted to interact with the containers); a throughflow plate (22 – Fig. 2) separating the air distribution chamber and the processing chamber (see Fig. 2); and a paperboard container transport sub-system (the cell chains, para. 0006) 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 (para. 0022; note that traveling “through” a zone means that it enters and exits the zone), wherein the throughflow plate has a predefined thickness (as can be seen in Fig. 2, 22 has a thickness, hence it has a predefined thickness) and comprising a plurality of openings (the perforations of 22, para. 0047) configured for directing the air from the air distribution chamber to the processing chamber (para. 0047).
However, Floerke does not expressly disclose that the openings are in the form of slits.
Schoenbaechler teaches a throughflow plate (100 – Fig. 5A) having a predefined thickness (D – Fig. 1A) and comprising a plurality of openings (102 – Fig. 5A) in the form of slits (see Fig. 5A) configured for directing air from one chamber to another (pg. 3, third full paragraph, lines 1-5), the slits having a predefined length (L – Fig. 5B), a predefined width (W – Fig. 5B), and a predefined length/width ratio (pg. 3, third full paragraph, lines 7-8), wherein said predefined thickness is at least 1.5 times said predefined width (the thickness is 0.5-2 mm, pg. 5, last 3 lines – pg. 6, first; the width is 0.1-0.8 mm, pg. 3, third full paragraph, lines 6-7; several combinations in these ranges result in a thickness that is 1.5 times said predefined width), and wherein said predefined length/width ratio is larger than any one of: 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, and 20 (pg. 3, third full paragraph, lines 7-8). In this case, the throughflow plate of Schoenbaechler is analogous to the throughflow plate of both Floerke and applicant’s invention since all three are used for controlling airflow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have formed the openings of Floerke as slits having a predefined length/width ratio and plate thickness to width ratio as taught by Schoenbaechler since Floerke is silent with respect to the form of the openings and Schoenbaechler teaches a known solution.
Floerke, as modified by Schoenbaechler, further discloses:
Claim 2, the slits (102 – Fig. 5A, Schoenbaechler) are rectilinear (as is clear from Fig. 5B, Schoenbaechler).
Claim 3, the slits (102 – Fig. 5A, Schoenbaechler) are arranged along a plurality of parallel lines (see Fig. 5A, Schoenbaechler).
Claim 4, the slits (102 – Fig. 5A, Schoenbaechler) occupy any one of: 5-50% of the total area of the throughflow plate; and 10-30% of the total area of the throughflow pate (col. 6, second full paragraph, 4-5, Schoenbaechler, the column spacing is between .5 times the length of a slit and 2 times the length of a slit; looking at Fig. 5A there is either no space or negligible space between columns, hence it is clear that, depending on the specific column spacing, the slits occupy 5-50% of the total area of the throughflow plate).
Claim 5, the slits (102 – Fig. 5A, Schoenbaechler) are aligned with the container transport path (in Floerke, the openings are arranged in columns, see Fig. 2; hence, when Floerke is modified by Schoenbaechler, the slits will either extend left to right or front to back in Fig. 2 of Floerke; in either case they are interpreted to be aligned with the container transport path because either the longitudinal length of a slit or a width of a slit is aligned with the container transport path).
Claim 6, the throughflow plate is planar (both 22 – Fig. 2 of Floerke and 102 – Fig. 5a of Schoenbaechler are planar).
Claim 7, the slits (102 – Fig. 5A, Schoenbaechler) are arranged parallel or substantially parallel to each other (see Fig. 5A, Schoenbaechler).
Claim 8, the slits (102 – Fig. 5A, Schoenbaechler) are aligned parallel or substantially parallel to the transport path (same reasoning as above for claim 5).
Claim 10, a method of establishing an airflow in an aseptic chamber (zones A-E – Fig. 1, para. 0036, Floerke) of a paperboard container filling machine, the aseptic chamber comprising: an a upper air distribution chamber (23 – Fig. 1, Floerke) configured for receiving air from an air supply channel (24 – Fig. 1, Floerke); a lower processing chamber (zone D – Fig. 1, Floerke) housing processing equipment (9 – Fig. 1, Floerke; note that the lower portion of 9 is in zone D) configured for interacting with paperboard containers (P – Fig. 1, Floerke) passing through the processing chamber (9 – Fig. 1, Floerke, are filling nozzles, para. 0037, hence they are interpreted to interact with the containers); and a paperboard container transport sub-system (the cell chains, para. 0006, Floerke) 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 (para. 0022, Floerke; note that traveling “through” a zone means that it enters and exits the zone), the method comprising the step of bringing the air from the distribution chamber to the processing chamber through a throughflow plate (100 – Fig. 5a, Schoenbaechler) having a predefined thickness (D – Fig. 1A, Schoenbaechler) and comprising a plurality of slits (102 – Fig. 5A, Schoenbaechler) configured for directing the air from the air distribution chamber to the processing chamber (para. 0047, Floerke; pg. 3, third full paragraph, lines 1-5, Schoenbaechler), the slits having a predefined length (L – Fig. 5B, Schoenbaechler), a predefined width (W – Fig. 5B, Schoenbaechler), and a predefined length/width ratio (pg. 3, third full paragraph, lines 7-8, Schoenbaechler), wherein said predefined thickness is at least 1.5 times said predefined width (the thickness is 0.5-2 mm, pg. 5, last 3 lines – pg. 6, first; the width is 0.1-0.8 mm, pg. 3, third full paragraph, lines 6-7; several combinations in these ranges result in a thickness that is 1.5 times said predefined width, Schoenbaechler), and wherein said predefined length/width ratio is larger than any one of: 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, and 20 (pg. 3, third full paragraph, lines 7-8, Schoenbaechler).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 9, the primary reason for allowance is the inclusion of a planar section and two curved sections, each curved section displaying a convex ruled surface facing the processing chamber.
Both Floerke and Schoenbaechler both teach a planar portion flanked by two upstanding side portions (see Fig. 2 of Floerke which shows upstanding side walls on 22 and Fig. 4 of Schoenbaechler which shows upstanding side walls on 100). However, neither of the sidewalls are curved with a convex ruled surface. Another reference, Rachlin (US 2859681), discloses a throughflow plate (39 – Fig. 4) having a planar center portion (40 – Fig. 4) and two bent side portions (41 – Fig. 4). However, in this case, the side portions are straight, not curved. There are not any known references that would provide the teaching to allow Floerke to be further modified to include this feature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fitzner (DE 4233932 A1) discloses a throughflow pate (11 – Fig. 1) comprising openings (12 – Fig. 1), wherein the diameter of the openings are dependent on the plate thickness (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
9/2/2026
