DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
In response to the amendment filed 11/06/2025, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn from the previous office action:
Objections to the claims
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: "thermal image acquisition device" in claim 7, which is disclosed on page 6 of the present specification to comprise a thermal camera. Claim 8 adds structure and therefore does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 7-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Published Application US20150343698A1, hereafter referred to as O'Connell.
Regarding claim 1, O’Connell discloses a method for inspecting a container (16) made of plastic material ([0036] plastic) manufactured by molding using at least one mold (14) ([0034] method of measuring placement of material in a blow molded container 16), the method comprising:
capturing a thermal image of the container (16) on leaving the mold (14) ([0035] measuring placement of sidewall and base material of the container 16 by detecting IR with IR camera 18 as it is released from rotary wheel 4);
identifying, on the thermal image, of at least one critical zone corresponding to a structural part of the container (16) ([0038] apparatus operates to measure placement of material in sidewall and base of container 16 by using IR camera 18 image of container 16), and
directly characterizing the container (16) in real-time ([0038] IR camera 18 sends image directly to microprocessor 20 which compares the image to stored reference data), in which a rule for acceptance or rejection of the quality of the container is applied, as a function of the thermal image of the container on leaving the mold ([0038] comparing stored data about desired material distribution to electrical signals from IR camera 18; [0040] defect detection, [0050] if free of defects, container 16 is conveyed downstream), wherein the acceptance rule is parameterized to consider a container as acceptable if, for each identified critical zone, the temperature of the container (16) is lower than a predetermined threshold temperature ([0038] IR temperature profile is used which corresponds to desired material placement).
Regarding claim 4, O’Connell discloses generating an alert to an operator if the container considered as unacceptable is identified ([0044] producing alarm in response to defect detection).
Regarding claim 7, O’Connell discloses a machine for manufacturing containers made of plastic material ([0034]), the machine comprising:
a forming unit for forming the containers with at least one blowing station (2) comprising at least one mold (14) ([0034] blow molding machine 2 with mold stations 6);
thermal image acquisition device (18) positioned at the output of the forming unit ([0035] measuring placement of sidewall and base material of the container 16 by detecting IR with IR camera 18 as it is released from the rotary wheel 4); and
a computing unit (20), connected to the thermal image acquisition device (18), the computing unit (20) being parameterized to implement the method as claimed in claim 1 ([0035] IR camera 18 sends electrical signals to microprocessor 20, see 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, O’Connell discloses wherein the thermal image acquisition device (18) comprises a thermal camera ([0035] IR camera 18).
Regarding claim 9, O’Connell discloses wherein the forming unit comprises a plurality of molds for forming the containers ([0034] blow molding machine 2 with mold stations 6), the computing unit (20) being parameterized to associate each container with one of the molds (6) ([0054] IR camera 18 and microprocessor 20 operatively associated with blow molder provide detailed information so as to correlate wall thickness of a given container with the mold process parameters and mold station at which it is made) and generate an alert to an operator in the event of a container considered as unacceptable, said alert including association information making it possible to determine in which of the molds of the forming unit the container considered as unacceptable was manufactured ([0044] producing alarm in response to defect detection).
Regarding claim 10, O’Connell discloses a dialogue interface with an operator, the dialogue interface allowing the presentation of the alert generated by the computing unit (20) ([0045] output device 22 may be display).
Regarding claim 17, O’Connell discloses wherein the forming unit comprises a plurality of molds for forming the containers ([0034] blow molding machine 2 with mold stations 6), the computing unit being parameterized to associate each container with one of the molds ([0054] IR camera 18 and microprocessor 20 operatively associated with blow molder provide detailed information so as to correlate wall thickness of a given container with the mold process parameters and mold station at which it is made) and generate an alert to an operator in the event of a container considered as unacceptable, said alert including association information making it possible to determine in which of the molds of the forming unit a container considered as unacceptable was manufactured ([0044] producing alarm in response to defect detection).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-3 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20150343698A1, hereafter O'Connell, as applied to claim 1 above and as further evidenced by "Glass Transition Temperatures for Selected Polymers” in CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 104th Edition (Internet Version 2023), John R. Rumble, ed., CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL, hereafter referred to as Rumble.
Regarding claim 2, O’Connell is silent on wherein the predetermined threshold temperature is between 45° and 75°.
That being said, lines 4-5 of page 8 of the present specification recite that the containers 2 are advantageously made of plastic material such as PET (polyethylene terephthalate). PET is known to have a glass transition temperature of about 69°C (342K), as evidenced by Table 2 of Rumble. One skilled in the art would have further recognized temperature as a result-effective variable, especially at the temperatures near the melting point and glass transition temperature of PET, where the temperature directly correlates with the flowability of the resin. Further, one skilled in the art would have recognized that the flowability of the resin at temperatures around and above 69°C would have been unacceptable in maintaining the molded shape of the containers, and would have resulted in defects if areas of the containers remained at temperatures too close to or exceeding the glass transition temperature for too long. Since the art of blow molding relies on rapid cooling of molded products for high production speeds, one skilled in the art would further have recognized the limited range of such a temperature threshold, with the upper bound being the glass transition temperature of the resin, and the lower bound being limited by the time it would take to cool to lower and lower temperatures.
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to select a threshold temperature of 45°C to 75°C in order to ensure the newly molded containers were not readily deformable upon exiting the mold, which would have risked the formation of defects, but without excessive cooling times being necessary to reach much lower temperatures that would unnecessarily slow down overall production.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, O’Connell is silent on wherein the predetermined threshold temperature is 60°.
That being said, lines 4-5 of page 8 of the present specification recite that the containers 2 are advantageously made of plastic material such as PET (polyethylene terephthalate). PET is known to have a glass transition temperature of about 69°C (342K), as evidenced by Table 2 of Rumble. One skilled in the art would have further recognized temperature as a result-effective variable, especially at the temperatures near the melting point and glass transition temperature of PET, where the temperature directly correlates with the flowability of the resin. Further, one skilled in the art would have recognized that the flowability of the resin at temperatures around and above 69°C would have been unacceptable in maintaining the molded shape of the containers, and would have resulted in defects if areas of the containers remained at temperatures too close to or exceeding the glass transition temperature for too long. Since the art of blow molding relies on rapid cooling of molded products for high production speeds, one skilled in the art would further have recognized the limited range of such a temperature threshold, with the upper bound being the glass transition temperature of the resin, and the lower bound being limited by the time it would take to cool to lower and lower temperatures.
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to select a threshold temperature of 60°C (69 is close to 60) in order to ensure the newly molded containers were not readily deformable upon exiting the mold, which would have risked the formation of defects, but without excessive cooling times being necessary to reach much lower temperatures that would unnecessarily slow down overall production.
Regarding claims 12-13, O’Connell further discloses generating an alert to an operator if the container considered as unacceptable is identified ([0044] producing alarm in response to defect detection).
Regarding claim 14, O’Connell is silent on wherein the capturing a thermal image of the container on leaving the mold is performed within a time interval less than or equal to 5 seconds from the end of the step of degassing of the container, which occurs on completion of the manufacturing of the container.
That being said, one skilled in the art would have recognized the time between removing the container from the mold and capturing the thermal image of the container to be a result-effective variable, since the longer the time the molded container is out of the mold while having a temperature near or above its glass transition temperature, the greater the risk of deformation of that container absent the support provided by the mold. Therefore, one skilled in the art would have further recognized the need to capture a thermal image of the container as soon as possible in order to catch the risk of a defect as soon as possible, in order to avoid further production of defective containers upstream of the container that has been imaged and shown to risk formation of a defect.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to capture a thermal image of the molded container within a time interval of 5 seconds or less from the end of the step of degassing of the container, in order to prevent further manufacturing defects of upstream products through being made aware of the risk as soon as possible. In other words, the sooner the operator is made aware of a potentially defective container, the faster the operator may act to prevent further defective containers from being produced.
Regarding claim 15, O’Connell is silent on wherein the capturing a thermal image of the container on leaving the mold is performed within a time interval less than or equal to 5 seconds from the end of the step of degassing of the container, which occurs on completion of the manufacturing of the container.
That being said, one skilled in the art would have recognized the time between removing the container from the mold and capturing the thermal image of the container to be a result-effective variable, since the longer the time the molded container is out of the mold while having a temperature near or above its glass transition temperature, the greater the risk of deformation of that container absent the support provided by the mold. Therefore, one skilled in the art would have further recognized the need to capture a thermal image of the container as soon as possible in order to catch the risk of a defect as soon as possible, in order to avoid further production of defective containers upstream of the container that has been imaged and shown to risk formation of a defect.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to capture a thermal image of the molded container within a time interval of 5 seconds or less from the end of the step of degassing of the container, in order to prevent further manufacturing defects of upstream products through being made aware of the risk as soon as possible. In other words, the sooner the operator is made aware of a potentially defective container, the faster the operator may act to prevent further defective containers from being produced.
Claims 5-6 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20150343698A1, hereafter O'Connell.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, O’Connell is silent on wherein the capturing a thermal image of the container on leaving the mold is performed within a time interval less than or equal to 5 seconds from the end of the step of degassing of the container, which occurs on completion of the manufacturing of the container.
That being said, one skilled in the art would have recognized the time between removing the container from the mold and capturing the thermal image of the container to be a result-effective variable, since the longer the time the molded container is out of the mold while having a temperature near or above its glass transition temperature, the greater the risk of deformation of that container absent the support provided by the mold. Therefore, one skilled in the art would have further recognized the need to capture a thermal image of the container as soon as possible in order to catch the risk of a defect as soon as possible, in order to avoid further production of defective containers upstream of the container that has been imaged and shown to risk formation of a defect.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to capture a thermal image of the molded container within a time interval of 5 seconds or less from the end of the step of degassing of the container, in order to prevent further manufacturing defects of upstream products through being made aware of the risk as soon as possible. In other words, the sooner the operator is made aware of a potentially defective container, the faster the operator may act to prevent further defective containers from being produced.
Regarding claim 6, O’Connell is silent on wherein the capturing a thermal image of the container on leaving the mold is performed within a time interval less than or equal to 0.6 seconds from the end of the step of degassing of the container.
That being said, one skilled in the art would have recognized the time between removing the container from the mold and capturing the thermal image of the container to be a result-effective variable, since the longer the time the molded container is out of the mold while having a temperature near or above its glass transition temperature, the greater the risk of deformation of that container absent the support provided by the mold. Therefore, one skilled in the art would have further recognized the need to capture a thermal image of the container as soon as possible in order to catch the risk of a defect as soon as possible, in order to avoid further production of defective containers upstream of the container that has been imaged and shown to risk formation of a defect.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to capture a thermal image of the molded container within a time interval of 0.6 seconds or less from the end of the step of degassing of the container, in order to prevent further manufacturing defects of upstream products through being made aware of the risk as soon as possible. In other words, the sooner the operator is made aware of a potentially defective container, the faster the operator may act to prevent further defective containers from being produced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/06 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of claim 7 on page 5 of applicant’s remarks that the term ‘thermal image acquisition device’ is supported by sufficient structural disclosure in the specification, the examiner agrees, and notes the nature of the 112(f) interpretation is that the claim does not have structure to connect the function (thermal image acquisition) to the generic placeholder (device). This is the reason claim 8 does not require a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 1 on pages 6-7 of applicant's remarks that O'Connell does not disclose the step of identifying critical zones on the thermal image prior to characterization, the examiner notes that applicant relies on features not claimed, namely the requirement that the characterizing step must proceed after the identifying step. O'Connell discloses in [0038] "the apparatus of the present invention operates to measure the placement of material in, for example, the sidewall and base of a plastic blow-molded container by employing infrared camera 18 to detect the infrared light emittance as the containers are released from the molds onto, for example, a discharge conveyor. The infrared camera 18 converts the detected infrared light into corresponding electrical signals which are transmitted to microprocessor 20, which compares the electrical signals with stored reference data regarding desired material distribution throughout the plastic blow-molded container 16." Thus, O'Connell discloses the identifying step and characterizing step as presently claimed.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 7 of applicant’s remarks that O’Connell does not facilitate a direct or real-time characterization of the containers, the examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that the term ‘directly’ as applied to the presently claimed invention refers to a process in the present specification that has a thermal camera capturing a digital image, and that image data is sent to a computing unit which compares the thermal image data to a predetermined threshold temperature (page 8 lines 18-21; page 10 lines 1-5), and as stated in the rejection, this is also what occurs in the process of O’Connell. The examiner further notes that the term ‘real-time’ is understood to mean in as short a time as possible, most closely corresponding to the timeline of the events to which ‘real-time’ is applied. In this case, both the present invention and the disclosed invention of O’Connell refer to a characterization process that happens immediately after the container is molded in order to inform the rest of the manufacturing process for other containers and react to defects as quickly as possible. Finally, the examiner further notes that applicant’s argument that the newly added limitation of “directly characterizing in real-time” makes it possible to limit the risks of defects of the containers while offering the possibility of modifying the container characteristics relies on non-claimed features (the benefits cited to be gained by “directly characterizing in real-time).
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 1 on pages 7-8 of applicant's remarks that O'Connell lacks any disclosure of zone-specific threshold logic, and therefore cannot anticipate the claimed method's targeted, rule-based inspection approach, the examiner disagrees, and notes that claim 1 presently requires identifying on the thermal image at least one critical zone corresponding to a structural part of the container, and this limitation, as stated in the rejection, is met by [0038] of O'Connell, which recites that the apparatus operates to measure placement of material in the sidewall and base of the container (these are understood to be identified critical zones) by using the IR camera image of the container.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY HEMINGWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0235. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6-4.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754