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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The amendment filed 09/17/2025 has been received and considered. Claims 1-27 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2. Claims 22-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) The claims 22-25 and 27 recite steps or acts; thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
(Step 2A – Prong One) For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 22 recites:
determining acceptable ranges for minimum wall thickness, section weight, and elastic modulus× wall thickness for a bottle (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion: in particular, a person can mentally judge acceptable ranges by mentally comparing data i. e. minimum wall thickness.);
comparing wall thickness values of a set of bottle-blowing simulation experiments to the acceptable range for wall thickness to identify a first qualifying set of experiments (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion: in particular, a person can mentally evaluate experiments to identify qualification of experiment by mentally comparing between wall thickness values and the acceptable range judge acceptable ranges.);
comparing section weight values of the first qualifying set of experiments to the acceptable range for section weight to identify a second qualifying set of experiments (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion: in particular, a person can mentally evaluate experiments to identify qualification of experiment by mentally comparing between section weight values and the acceptable range judge acceptable ranges.); and
comparing elastic modulus× wall thickness values of the second qualifying set of experiments to the acceptable range for elastic modulus× wall thickness to identify a third qualifying set of experiments (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion: in particular, a person can mentally evaluate experiments to identify qualification of experiment by mentally comparing between elastic modulus× wall thickness values and the acceptable range judge acceptable ranges.).
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
(Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements of “simulation experiments” and “set of experiments” which could be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
(Step 2B - inventive concept) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “simulation experiments” which could be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Further dependent claims 23-25 and 27 recite:
23. The method of claim 22, wherein the acceptable range for wall thickness is a minimum wall thickness determined from thermal stability data and permeation data, wherein the thermal stability data and the permeation data are based on testing of a finished bottle or FEA (finite element analysis) of a simulated bottle (insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting itself and “apply it”).
24. The method of claim 22, wherein the acceptable range for section weight is a minimum section weight determined from pressurization data, wherein the pressurization data is based on testing of a finished bottle or FEA (finite element analysis) of a simulated bottle (insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting itself and “apply it”).
25. The method of claim 22, wherein comparing wall thickness values comprises comparing wall thickness values at multiple areas of each simulated bottle (mental process), and wherein the acceptable range for wall thickness is different for each area (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering), and wherein comparing section weight values comprises comparing section weight values for multiple sections of each simulated bottle (mental process), and wherein the acceptable range for section weight is different for each section (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering).
27. The method of claim 22, wherein the first qualifying set of experiments comprises experiments having wall thickness values within the acceptable range for wall thickness, the second qualifying set of experiments comprises experiments among the first qualifying set of experiments having weight values within the acceptable range for section weight, and the third qualifying set of experiments comprises experiments among the second qualifying set of experiments having elastic modulus x wall thickness values within the acceptable range for elastic modulus x wall thickness. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or “apply it”)
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 1-27 are allowed.
4. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 1-27 are considered allowable since when reading the claims in light of the specification, none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the independent claims 1, 13, and 22 as whole.
Specifically, none of the prior art of record discloses a method of for producing blow molding instructions for a bottle preform including wherein the downselection criteria comprises: an elastic modulus x wall thickness value of the simulated blown bottle as disclosed in independent claims 1 and 13 of the instant application in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
In addition, none of the prior art of record discloses a method for downselecting blow molding experiments including determining acceptable ranges for….elastic modulus x wall thickness for a bottle and comparing elastic modulus x wall thickness values of the second qualifying set of experiments to the acceptable range for elastic modulus x wall thickness as disclosed in independent claim 22 of the instant application in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 09/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully withdraws Objections to Drawings in view of the amendment and/or applicant’s arguments.
Examiner respectfully withdraws Claim Objections in view of the amendment and/or applicant’s arguments.
Examiner respectfully withdraws Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 in view of the amendment and/or applicant’s arguments.
Examiner respectfully withdraws Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 in view of the amendment and/or applicant’s arguments.
As per Claims 1-21 and 26, Examiner respectfully withdraws Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 in view of the amendment and/or applicant’s arguments. However, as per Claims 22-25 and 27, 101 rejection maintains.
Applicants have argued that:
Claim 22 as a whole also integrates the alleged abstract ideas into a practical application by claiming an invention that improves a technical field.
Examiner disagrees as the claimed limitation “determining…” and “comparing…” is directed to a mental process which is an abstract idea. As rejected above, the additional elements of “simulation experiments” and “experiments” could be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). There is no additional element that would integrate the invention into a practical application; the limitation would need to add how “a third qualifying set of experiments” are used in the blow modeling experiment/simulation. Further, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which proved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188