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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 07/10/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-12 and 21-27 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (US 5468443 of record) hereinafter Takada in view of Deau (US2015/0321412 of record), Kodaira et al. (US2022/0193963 of record) hereinafter Kodaira, Menassa et al. (US2006/0190131 of record) hereinafter Menassa, Senn et al. (US2011/0236517 of record) hereinafter Senn, and Damon (US2013/0218699).
Regarding claim 1, Takada teaches:
A molding system for forming plastic articles (Fig 9; col 10, ln 50-64), the molding system comprising:
a plurality of process stations each operable to receive an input unit and produce an output unit (Fig 9, 11: injection units 202, first injection molding stations 10, second injection molding station 12, temperature regulating stations 14, blow molding stations 16; col 10, ln 50-64; col 14, ln 56-57), the plurality of process stations comprising:
at least one melt dispensing station for dispensing molten molding material (Fig 9, 11: injection units 202; col 14, ln 56-57); and
a plurality of shaping stations each for forming molding material into a molded shape (Fig 9: first injection molding stations 10, second injection molding station 12, temperature regulating stations 14, blow molding stations 16);
wherein output units from said at least one melt dispensing station are input units for said plurality of shaping stations (Fig 9; col 7, ln 6-40);
a plurality of possible paths between at least one upstream process station and a plurality of downstream process stations operable to receive an input unit from the at least one upstream process station (Fig 9; col 6, ln 58-col 7, ln 5);
a transport system for selectively moving input and output units between ones of said plurality of process stations (Fig 9; col 6, ln 58-col 7, ln 5);
Takada does not teach wherein the plurality of shaping stations are configured to produce output units of different types,
a controller for each of said plurality of process stations, operating respective process stations according to a plurality of operating conditions, the plurality of operating conditions comprising the respective process stations as ready to receive an input unit, performing a process on an input unit, or ready to release an output unit; and
a supervisory controller operable to track a current operating condition of each process station and track a cumulative production of each type of output units, select paths from the plurality of possible paths between upstream process stations ready to release an output unit, and downstream process stations ready to receive an input unit, and provide instructions for said transport system to move said input and output units along said selected paths,
wherein the selection of paths from the plurality of possible paths is at least partially based on an allocation factor assigned to each type of output unit and the supervisory controller maintains the cumulative production in proportion to the respective allocation factors.
In the same field of endeavor regarding management of production lines, Deau teaches a controller for each of a plurality of process stations, operating the respective process stations according to a plurality of operating conditions (slave controllers 37: [0066-0079]) and a supervisory controller operable to track a current operating condition of each process station (master control unit 36; [0060-0065]) for the motivation of automating molding machines ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Takada with the master and slave controllers as taught by Deau in order to automate molding machines.
Takada in view of Deau does not teach the operating conditions defining the stations as ready to receive an input unit, performing a process on an input unit, or ready to release an output unit.
In the same field of endeavor regarding management of production lines, Kodaira teaches a controller that defines a molding station as ready to receive an input unit, performing a process on an input unit, or ready to release an output unit for the motivation of monitoring and controlling a molding process (Fig 12b; [0157-0164]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controllers as taught by Takada in view of Deau to define the operating state of the molding stations as taught by Kodaira in order to monitor and control a molding process.
Takada in view of Deau and Kodaira does not teach a supervisory controller operable to select paths from the plurality of possible paths between upstream process stations ready to release an output unit, and downstream process stations ready to receive an input unit, and provide instructions for said transport system to move said input and output units along said selected paths.
In the same field of endeavor regarding management of production lines, Menassa teaches a supervisory controller operable to define a plurality of possible paths between at least one upstream process station and a plurality of downstream process stations operable to receive an input unit from the at least one upstream process station, select paths from the plurality of possible paths between upstream process stations ready to release an output unit, and downstream process stations ready to receive an input unit, and provide instructions for said transport system to move said input and output units along said selected paths (Fig 2; [0026, 0029]) for the motivation of automatically balancing workloads ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the supervisory controller as taught by Takada in view of Deau and Kodaira with the controller operations as taught by Menassa in order to automatically balance workloads.
Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, and Menassa does not teach wherein the plurality of shaping stations are configured to produce output units of different types.
In the same field of endeavor regarding management of production lines, Senn teaches a plurality of shaping stations that are configured to produce output units of different types for the motivation of allowing different types of products to be produced in the same production cycle ([0102-0104]; abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shaping stations as taught by Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, and Menassa to produce different types of output for as taught by Senn in order to allow different types of products to be produced in the same production cycle.
Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, and Senn does not teach a supervisory controller operable to track a cumulative production of each type of output units, wherein the selection of paths from the plurality of possible paths is at least partially based on an allocation factor assigned to each type of output unit and the supervisory controller maintains the cumulative production in proportion to the respective allocation factors.
In the same field of endeavor regarding management of production lines, Damon teaches a supervisory controller operable to track a cumulative production of each type of output units, wherein the selection of paths from the plurality of possible paths is at least partially based on an allocation factor assigned to each type of output unit and the supervisory controller maintains the cumulative production in proportion to the respective allocation factors for the motivation of maintaining an inventory of subcomponents for further processing ([0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the supervisory controller as taught by Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, and Senn with the tracking as taught by Damon in order to maintain an inventory of subcomponents for further processing.
Regarding claim 2, Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Takada further teaches wherein said plurality of shaping stations are a plurality of primary shaping stations (Fig 9, 11: first injection molding stations 10, second injection molding station 12, injection molding stations 110), and said molded shape is an intermediate molded shape (preforms 130; col 10, ln 50-64) and said plurality of process stations further comprise at least one secondary shaping station, wherein output units from said plurality of primary shaping stations are input units for said at least one secondary shaping station (col 10, ln 50-64; col 14, ln 56-col 15, ln 14; col 15, ln 36-57), said at least one secondary shaping station operable to re-shape articles in said intermediate molded shape into a final molded shape (Fig 9, 11: blow molding stations 16, blow molding station 114; col 10, ln 50-64; col 15, ln 36-57).
Regarding claim 3, Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Takada further teaches wherein said plurality of shaping stations comprise injection molds (Fig 9, 11: first injection molding stations 10, second injection molding station 12, injection molding stations 110).
Regarding claim 4, Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Takada further teaches wherein said plurality of primary shaping stations comprise injection molds (Fig 9, 11: first injection molding stations 10, second injection molding station 12, injection molding stations 110) and said at least one secondary shaping station comprises a blow mold (Fig 9, 11: blow molding stations 16, blow molding station 114; col 10, ln 50-64; col 15, ln 36-57).
Regarding claim 21, Takada teaches:
A molding system for forming plastic articles (Fig 9; col 10, ln 50-64), the system comprising:
a plurality of process stations each operable to receive an input unit and produce an output unit (Fig 9: first injection molding stations 10, second injection molding station 12, temperature regulating stations 14, blow molding stations 16; col 10, ln 50-64), the process stations comprising:
a plurality of melt dispensing stations for dispensing molten molding material (Fig 9: first injection molding stations 10, second injection molding station 12); and
a plurality of shaping stations each for forming molding material into a molded shape (Fig 9: temperature regulating stations 14, blow molding stations 16);
wherein output units from said plurality of melt dispensing stations are input units for said plurality of shaping stations (Fig 9; col 7, ln 6-40);
a plurality of possible paths between a plurality of upstream process stations and at least one of the plurality of downstream process stations operable to receive an input unit from the plurality of upstream process stations (Fig 9; col 6, ln 58-col 7, ln 5);
a transport system for selectively moving input and output units between ones of said process stations (Fig 9; col 6, ln 58-col 7, ln 5).
Takada does not teach wherein the plurality of melt dispensing stations and/or the plurality of shaping stations are configured to produce output units of different types,
a controller for each of said process stations, operating the respective process stations according to a plurality of operating conditions, the operating conditions defining comprising the stations as ready to receive an input unit, performing a process on an input unit, or ready to release an output unit;
a supervisory controller operable to track a current operating condition of each process station and track a cumulative production of each type of output units, select paths from the plurality of possible paths between upstream process stations ready to release an output unit, and downstream process stations ready to receive an input unit, and provide instructions for said transport system to move said input and output units along said selected paths, wherein the selection of paths from the plurality of possible paths is at least partially based on an allocation factor assigned to each type of output units and the supervisory controller maintains the cumulative production in proportion to the respective allocation factors.
In the same field of endeavor regarding management of production lines, Deau teaches a controller for each of a plurality of process stations, operating the respective process stations according to a plurality of operating conditions (slave controllers 37: [0066-0079]) and a supervisory controller operable to track a current operating condition of each process station (master control unit 36; [0060-0065]) for the motivation of automating molding machines ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Takada with the master and slave controllers as taught by Deau in order to automate molding machines.
Takada in view of Deau does not teach the operating conditions defining the stations as ready to receive an input unit, performing a process on an input unit, or ready to release an output unit.
In the same field of endeavor regarding management of production lines, Kodaira teaches a controller that defines a molding station as ready to receive an input unit, performing a process on an input unit, or ready to release an output unit for the motivation of monitoring and controlling a molding process (Fig 12b; [0157-0164]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controllers as taught by Takada in view of Deau to define the operating state of the molding stations as taught by Kodaira in order to monitor and control a molding process.
Takada in view of Deau and Kodaira does not teach a supervisory controller operable to select paths from the plurality of possible paths between upstream process stations ready to release an output unit, and downstream process stations ready to receive an input unit, and provide instructions for said transport system to move said input and output units along said selected paths.
In the same field of endeavor regarding management of production lines, Menassa teaches a supervisory controller operable to define a plurality of possible paths between at least one upstream process station and a plurality of downstream process stations operable to receive an input unit from the at least one upstream process station, select paths from the plurality of possible paths between upstream process stations ready to release an output unit, and downstream process stations ready to receive an input unit, and provide instructions for said transport system to move said input and output units along said selected paths (Fig 2; [0026, 0029]) for the motivation of automatically balancing workloads ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the supervisory controller as taught by Takada in view of Deau and Kodaira with the controller operations as taught by Menassa in order to automatically balance workloads.
Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, and Menassa does not teach wherein the plurality of melt dispensing stations and/or the plurality of shaping stations are configured to produce output units of different types,
In the same field of endeavor regarding management of production lines, Senn teaches a plurality of melt dispensing stations and/or a plurality of shaping stations that are configured to produce output units of different types for the motivation of allowing different types of products to be produced in the same production cycle ([0037, 0102-0104]; abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shaping stations and controller as taught by Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, and Menassa to produce different types of output and to allocate preforms based on the desired treatment of the preforms as taught by Senn in order to allow different types of products to be produced in the same production cycle.
Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, and Senn does not teach a supervisory controller operable to track a cumulative production of each type of output units, wherein the selection of paths from the plurality of possible paths is at least partially based on an allocation factor assigned to each type of output unit and the supervisory controller maintains the cumulative production in proportion to the respective allocation factors.
In the same field of endeavor regarding management of production lines, Damon teaches a supervisory controller operable to track a cumulative production of each type of output units, wherein the selection of paths from the plurality of possible paths is at least partially based on an allocation factor assigned to each type of output unit and the supervisory controller maintains the cumulative production in proportion to the respective allocation factors for the motivation of maintaining an inventory of subcomponents for further processing ([0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the supervisory controller as taught by Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, and Senn with the tracking as taught by Damon in order to maintain an inventory of subcomponents for further processing.
Regarding claim 22, Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon teaches the apparatus of claim 21.
Takada further teaches wherein said plurality of shaping stations are a plurality of primary shaping stations (Fig 9, 11: first injection molding stations 10, second injection molding station 12, injection molding stations 110), and said molded shape is an intermediate molded shape (preforms 130; col 10, ln 50-64) and said plurality of process stations further comprise at least one secondary shaping station, wherein output units from said plurality of primary shaping stations are input units for said at least one secondary shaping station (col 10, ln 50-64; col 14, ln 56-col 15, ln 14; col 15, ln 36-57), said at least one secondary shaping station operable to re-shape articles in said intermediate molded shape into a final molded shape (Fig 9, 11: blow molding stations 16, blow molding station 114; col 10, ln 50-64; col 15, ln 36-57).
Regarding claim 23, Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon teaches the apparatus of claim 21.
Takada further teaches wherein said plurality of shaping stations comprise injection molds (Fig 9, 11: first injection molding stations 10, second injection molding station 12, injection molding stations 110).
Regarding claim 24, Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon teaches the apparatus of claim 22.
Takada further teaches wherein said plurality of primary shaping stations comprise injection molds (Fig 9, 11: first injection molding stations 10, second injection molding station 12, injection molding stations 110) and said at least one secondary shaping station comprises a blow mold (Fig 9, 11: blow molding stations 16, blow molding station 114; col 10, ln 50-64; col 15, ln 36-57).
Claim(s) 5-10 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (US5830390 of record) hereinafter Brown.
Regarding claim 5, Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Takada further teaches plastic articles (col 1, ln 30-34).
Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon does not teach wherein said molding system is operable to concurrently produce articles of a plurality of types.
In the same field of endeavor regarding management of production lines, Brown teaches molding system that is operable to concurrently produce plastic articles of a plurality of types for the motivation of enabling concurrent molding of different parts (col 2, ln 25-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the molding system as taught by Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon to concurrently mold different articles as taught by Brown in order to enable concurrent molding of different parts.
Regarding claim 6, Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, Damon, and Brown teaches the apparatus of claim 5.
Brown further teaches wherein the molding system is configured to be controlled by at least one state model, wherein said plurality of operating conditions are associated with a state of a station state model (col 5, ln 17-24).
Regarding claim 7, Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, Damon, and Brown teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Brown further teaches wherein said supervisory controller is configured to assign an operating state to each of a plurality of types of plastic articles, according to a job state model (col 5, ln 17-24).
Regarding claim 8, Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, Damon, and Brown teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Brown further teaches wherein said supervisory controller is configured to cause said plurality of operating conditions to transition between states of said station state model based on a transition between states of a job state model (col 5, ln 17-24).
Regarding claim 9, Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, Damon, and Brown teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Deau further teaches said controllers and said supervisory controller.
Brown further teaches wherein said at least one state model is associated with a production operating mode, and wherein a controller is configured with further state models for automated execution of additional operating modes (col 5, ln 17-24).
Regarding claim 10, Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, Damon, and Brown teaches the apparatus of claim 9.
Brown further teaches wherein said additional operating modes comprise a tooling change mode (col 5, ln 17-24).
Regarding claim 25, Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon teaches the apparatus of claim 21.
Takada further teaches plastic articles (col 1, ln 30-34).
Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon does not teach wherein said molding system is operable to concurrently produce articles of a plurality of types.
In the same field of endeavor regarding management of production lines, Brown teaches molding system that is operable to concurrently produce plastic articles of a plurality of types for the motivation of enabling concurrent molding of different parts (col 2, ln 25-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the molding system as taught by Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon to concurrently mold different articles as taught by Brown in order to enable concurrent molding of different parts.
Regarding claim 26, Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, Damon, and Brown teaches the apparatus of claim 25.
Brown further teaches wherein the molding system is configured to be controlled by at least one state model, wherein said plurality of operating conditions are associated with a state of a station state model (col 5, ln 17-24).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, Damon, and Brown as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Schmitt et al. (US2021/0081181 of record) hereinafter Schmitt.
Regarding claim 11, Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, Damon, and Brown teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, Damon, and Brown does not teach wherein at least one said state model is implemented according to a packaging machine language standard.
Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, Damon, and Brown is silent as to how the controllers implement the states. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be meditated to look to other state implementations.
In the same field of endeavor regarding management of production lines, Schmitt teaches using PackML as an aspect of industrial automation ([0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried PackML as taught by Schmitt to define the states for the controllers as taught by Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, Damon, and Brown and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since the references teach using controllers to control industrial processes.
Claim(s) 12 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Schmitt.
Regarding claim 12, Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon does not teach an enterprise control platform, said enterprise control platform operable to receive production instructions over the internet and to direct operation of said supervisory controller in accordance with said production instructions.
In the same field of endeavor regarding management of production lines, Schmitt teaches an enterprise control platform, said enterprise control platform operable to receive production instructions over the internet and to direct operation of a supervisory controller in accordance with said production instructions for the motivation of interconnecting the components of the system with a user ([0119-0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon with the enterprise control platform as taught by Schmitt in order to interconnect the components of the system with a user.
Regarding claim 27, Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon teaches the apparatus of claim 21.
Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon does not teach an enterprise control platform, said enterprise control platform operable to receive production instructions over the internet and to direct operation of said supervisory controller in accordance with said production instructions.
In the same field of endeavor regarding management of production lines, Schmitt teaches an enterprise control platform, said enterprise control platform operable to receive production instructions over the internet and to direct operation of a supervisory controller in accordance with said production instructions for the motivation of interconnecting the components of the system with a user ([0119-0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Takada in view of Deau, Kodaira, Menassa, Senn, and Damon with the enterprise control platform as taught by Schmitt in order to interconnect the components of the system with a user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/10/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments regarding the combination of references have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art cannot be combined because they relate to different fields of endeavor. However, all of the prior art references relied upon relate generally to the field of management of production lines.
Applicant argues that Menassa does not teach directing parts based on the part status at each station. However, Menassa is not relied upon to teach this limitation. Kodaira teaches the monitoring of station status based on the part status. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Senn does not teach controlling which preform type is supplied to the system, changing the output type without receiving a different preform, or controlling the paths of parts. However, Senn is relied only for a teaching of wherein the plurality of shaping stations are configured to produce output units of different types as claimed. Menassa is relied upon for teaching controlling the paths of parts as claimed. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, the limitations of controlling which preform type is supplied to the system and changing the output type without receiving a different preform do not appear to correspond to claimed subject matter. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that Senn and Menassa cannot be combined because a controller does not determine which inputs are sent to the system of Senn. However, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Senn teaches shaping stations configured to produce output units of different types. Menassa teaches a supervisory controller for rerouting jobs to the appropriate station based on ambient conditions. Kodaira teaches the monitoring of station status based on the part status. Therefore, the combination of the prior art makes obvious a system that reroutes parts based on the part status to stations that are configured to produce output units of different types.
Applicant argues that Menassa would further be inoperable if combined with Senn because Menassa is unable to weld different part types simultaneously at a single station. First, welding is merely presented by way of example ([0013]). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123. Second, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Senn teaches shaping stations configured to produce output units of different types. Menassa teaches a supervisory controller for rerouting jobs to the appropriate station based on ambient conditions. It is well within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rerouting of Menassa to accommodate for shaping stations configured to produce output units of different types. Third, it is not readily apparent why Menassa would be unable to weld different part types simultaneously at a single station beyond applicant assertions, or why such a requirement is necessary or relevant as it is not required by any of the references or the instant claims. Finally, Senn teaches the ability of a shaping station to produce outputs of different types can be achieved by simply using inputs of different colors to produce products of different colors ([0101]). Again, it would be well within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of Menassa to reroute inputs to the appropriate stations to produce outputs of different types.
Furthermore, Senn and Menassa are not the only references relied upon. Damon teaches receiving inputs of different types, and transferring the inputs of different types to different stations to produce outputs of different type ([0064, 0068]).
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
