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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the additional valve of the p+ pressure channel" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Amended Claim 1 requires all the features of claim 3. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, and 3-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asbrand et al. (U.S. Patent 9,339,969). Regarding Claims 1, 3, and 10, Asbrand et al., hereafter “Asbrand,” show that it is known to have an apparatus and a method of forming plastic preforms into plastic bottles comprising the steps: placing a plastic preform to be expanded in a blow mould, wherein said blow mould comprising at least two side parts and a bottom part (Column 4, lines 13-16); inserting a stretching rod through the mouth of the plastic preform into the interior of the plastic preform to stretch it in its longitudinal direction (L) (Column 4, lines 45-48); applying a first pressure level (P1) to the plastic preform ; applying the plastic preform with at least a second pressure level (P+, Pi), wherein the second pressure level (P+, Pi) differs from the first pressure level (P1), applying the plastic preform with a third pressure level (P2), wherein this third pressure level (P2) differing from the second pressure level (P+) (Column 2, lines 45-59), wherein a connection between the pressure reservoir of the first pressure level and a connection between the pressure reservoir of the second pressure level can be established and separated, and wherein a regulated and/or controlled valve and/or a pairing of a shut-off valve and a regulated and/or controlled throttle valve is arranged between the pressure reservoir of the first pressure level and the pressure reservoir of the second pressure level (Column 4, lines 65-67; Column 5, lines 1-10). Asbrand does not specifically show the claimed first and second modes, but he describes selectively choosing various valve options which would result in various/desired recycling and connection arrangements (Column 4, lines 65-67; Column 5, lines 1-9; Column 6, lines 6-22, 48-67; Column 7, lines 1-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Asbrand’s disclosure of valve arrangements in order to accomplish any desired pressure control, such as that which is claimed, in order to satisfy customer/process requirements for end products.
Regarding Claim 4, Asbrand shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein during a blow-out, compressed air of individual pressure levels of at least one of the pressures (P2, Pi, P1) can be conducted by the valve block in such a way that at 15 least a part of these pressures can be recycled (Column 2, lines 19-28; Column 4, lines 3-9).
Regarding Claims 5 and 9, Asbrand shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein pressure channels, at least two pressure reservoirs can be connected to one another 20 and/or are connected via a connecting valve, so that at least two pressures of pressure channels can be controlled and/or recycled in a regulated manner with respect to one another by a pressure channel assigned to the connecting valve, in particular wherein two pressure reservoirs are filled via a single valve (Column 6, lines 11-22).
Regarding Claims 6 and 8, Asbrand shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein at least one valve is provided for generating a pressure level within a pressure reservoir associated with the pressure level, so that the pressure levels are generated 30 by means of a control of the valves (Column 4, lines 65-67; Column 5, lines 1-10).
Regarding Claim 7, Asbrand shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the second pressure level (P+) is provided by a single pressure reservoir or by at least two separate pressure reservoirs (element 14).
Regarding Claim 11, Asbrand shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein pressure channels, at least two pressure reservoirs can be connected to one another 20 and/or are connected via a connecting valve, so that at least two pressures of pressure channels can be controlled and/or recycled in a regulated manner with respect to one another by a pressure channel assigned to the connecting valve, in particular wherein two pressure reservoirs are filled via a single valve (Column 6, lines 11-22). It would have been obvious for P1 pressure channel to be fed by the P+ pressure based on the desired air flow of the system.
Regarding Claim 12, Asbrand shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the second pressure level P2 corresponds to an intermediate blowing pressure (Column 2, lines 51-52).
Regarding Claim 13, Asbrand shows the method of claim 1 above, but he does not specifically show 5 valves. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have any appropriate amount of valves, such as that which is claimed, in order to gain the desired control capabilities over the molding system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Asbrand does not show a regulated valve as claimed. This is not persuasive because it is interpreted that since Asbrand describes a choosing various valve options for desired connection/pressure arrangements, his valves meet the limitation of regulated, as they are controlled (i.e. regulated) as desired.
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 MONICA HUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. 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.
MONICA ANNE HUSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights