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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed Aug. 20, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witz et al. (WO 2017/020116) in view of Feuilloley (US 2010/0127435).
Regarding claim 1, Witz discloses as illustrated in Figs. 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, a container is fabricated from a preform (item 300 in Figs. 3-4 or item 930 in Fig. 9) (page 32, lines 26-31). As illustrated in Figs. 3, 4, the preform 300 has a thickness which varies progressively along any transverse cross-section between a thick zone (for example, as illustrated in Fig. 4, the thick zone has a thickness of T3) and a thin zone (for example, as illustrated in Fig. 4, the thin zone has a thickness of T2). As illustrated in Figs 12, 13, when transferring the heated preform by the preform carrier (mould) 930, the contact surface 932 of preform carrier 930 will be aligned (concentric) with the outer surface 1202 of the circumferentially offset preform, but will no longer be aligned with the mold core 920’ (page 31, lines 28-31). Thus, Witz discloses that, the greater the thickness of the body portion of the preform, the greater is a distance from the zone to an inner wall of the mould (as shown in Fig. 13). Specifically, Witz discloses that, the preform is reheated using an infra-red (IR) or other type of a heating element of a blow-molding (page 2, lines 25-27).
Witz discloses that, for example, in some implementations in the reheating oven of the blow-molding equipment (page 20, lines 6-8), areas (of the preform 300) with subcutaneously higher wall thickness can be subjected to higher degrees of reheating (page 20, lines 12-13).
However, Witz does not explicitly disclose a heating apparatus comprising an array of infrared emitters.
In the same field of endeavor, heating preforms, Feuilloley discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, introducing the preform (item 1 in Fig. 3 ([0028], lines 1-2)) into a heating apparatus comprising an array of infrared emitters arranged in multiple columns and multiple rows (item 11 in Fig. 3 ([0029])), the preform and said array being disposed such that the longitudinal axis and the columns of the array of infrared emitters are parallel or directed obliquely with respect to each other (e.g., as shown in Fig. 3);
orienting angularly the preform at an input angular position by rotating the preform around the longitudinal axis (as shown in Fig. 5; [0040], lines 1-7 from bottom; [0022] (i.e., the spinner 3 is applied to rotate the preform accordingly)); setting power levels of the infrared emitters so as to divide the array of infrared emitters into subsets of columns, each subset of columns generating heat at a different power level from an adjacent subset of columns ([0030], [0031], [0039]); and
heating the preform with the array of infrared emitters while translating the preform in a direction parallel to the rows of the array at a translation speed ([0019] (i.e., a constant linear speed)), and simultaneously rotating said preform around its longitudinal axis in front of said infrared emitters at a rotation speed (as shown in Fig. 3), and
it is noticed that, Feuilloley discloses that, in [0019], the rotation speed (i.e., through a rotary gripping device 3), the translation speed (i.e., a constant linear speed), the input angular position (i.e., based on cross section of a preform as shown in Fig 1.) and the power levels of the infrared emitters (for example, as shown in Fig. 5 or 6) being set so that the greater the thickness of the zones of the body portion, the higher is the power level of the subsets of columns facing said zones of the body (for example, in page 20, lines 12-13 of the teachings of Witz (also see above)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Witz to incorporate the teachings of Feuilloley to provide a heating apparatus comprising an array of infrared emitters. Doing so would be possible for a heating technique to have better selectively (including to provide precisely heating) and possible allowing the energy consumed to be reduced, as recognized by Feuilloley ([0007], [0008]).
Witz discloses that, for example, the preform 300 can be subjected to highest degree of reheating around the thickest fourth point 416 (as shown in Fig. 4) and the lowest degree of reheating around the thinnest third point 414 (as shown in Fig. 4) (page 20, lines 13-19). Here, the thickest fourth point 416 can be considered as the claimed first point in claim 8 and the thinnest third point 414 can be considered as the claimed second point. Further, Witz discloses that, for example, the preferential reheating process can be effected by means of placing more lamps around or towards certain portions (e.g., the point 416 or 414) of the preform 300 when the preform 300 is in the reheating oven of the blow-molding equipment (page 20, lines 6-8).
Thus, Witz discloses that, at least the first point (i.e., the thickest fourth point 416) of the preform faces a subset of lamps generating heat at the highest power level as the preform moves along and the second point (i.e., the thinnest third point 414) faces a subset of lamps generating heat at the lowest power level as the preform moves along.
However, Witz does not explicitly disclose the heating apparatus comprising an array of infrared emitters and also does not disclose the trajectory of the moving path of the preform in the oven.
Feuilloley discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, the heating profile is of sinusoidal shape along the path (i.e., the trajectory in the oven) ([0039], lines 2-3). Thus, Feuilloley discloses that, at least the heating profile being of sinusoidal shape along the path is providing the highest power level and the lowest power level.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Witz to incorporate the teachings of Feuilloley to provide a heating apparatus comprising an array of infrared emitters in the path of the oven and the first point of the preform faces a subset of lamps generating heat at the highest power level as the preform moves along the path and the second point faces a subset of lamps generating heat at the lowest power level as the preform moves along the path. Doing so would be possible for a heating technique to have better selectively (including to provide precisely heating) and possible allowing the energy consumed to be reduced, as recognized by Feuilloley ([0007], [0008]).
Regarding claims 2-5, Witz does not explicitly disclose a heating apparatus comprising an array of infrared emitters.
Feuilloley discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, the number of columns for each subset of columns is determined according to the dimension of the emitters in the direction of the preform translation, the perimeter of the transverse cross-section of the body portion, the translation speed and the rotation speed ([0019], [0020], [0022], [0029] (e.g., a matrix 12 (line 5)), [0030] (it is noticed that, in the matrix 12, each diode 11 emits a beam oriented transversely to the path travelled and lying in a horizontal plane, in such a way that each diode 11 contributes to heating an annular portion of each preform 1, which runs, at its height, through the oven 2 (lines 1-5))).
when setting the power levels of the heat generated by the infrared emitters, the array of infrared emitters is divided into sub-arrays, the subsets of columns of each sub-arrays generating heat at decreasing power levels from one end subset of columns to an opposite end subset of columns ([0034]).
the body portion of said preform comprising an outer surface and an inner surface having longitudinal axis which are offset with respect to one another, wherein when setting the power levels of the heat generated by the infrared emitters, the array of infrared emitters is divided into sub-arrays, each sub-array comprising two end subsets of columns and one inner subset of columns, the subset of columns of each sub-array being configured to generate heat at decreasing power levels from each end subset of columns to the inner subset of columns (as shown in Figs. 5, 6 (for example, a heating profile of sinusoidal type has been shown ([0017])); [0037]-[0052]).
the power levels of the infrared emitters of all the sub-arrays are set similarly ([0036] (it is noticed that, at least the infrared emitter 11 in the teachings of Feuilloley is capable of providing the similar radiation/power level for each emitter 11); Specifically, as illustrated in Fig. 6, the infrared emitters in the one sub-arrays are set with a similar level of radiation (i.e., the crenellated type ([0017], [0042], [0046]))).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2025 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that the combination of Witz and Feuilloley does not establish a case of obviousness, and the rejection fails to provide any reason that would have motivated the skilled person to modify the base reference Witz with the secondary reference Feuilloley, it is not persuasive.
Witz discloses that, for example, the preform 300 can be subjected to highest degree of reheating around the thickest fourth point 416 (as shown in Fig. 4) and the lowest degree of reheating around the thinnest third point 414 (as shown in Fig. 4) (page 20, lines 13-19). Further, Witz discloses that, for example, the preferential reheating process can be effected by means of placing more lamps around or towards certain portions (e.g., the point 416 or 414) of the preform 300 when the preform 300 is in the reheating oven of the blow-molding equipment (page 20, lines 6-8).
Thus, in the teachings of Witz, at least multiple lamps in the oven are applied to heat the preform.
Further, Witz discloses that, how the preferential reheating is executed is not particularly limited (page 20, lines 5-8) and a reheating oven may be applied (page 20, lines 8-10).
Basically, Witz discloses that at least the oven can be applied for heating the preforms. Witz realizes that doing so would be possible to heat specific/certain portions of the preforms (page 20, lines 6-8). The claimed the heating device is that the substitution of one known element for another is prima facie obvious IF yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, something to do with heating the preforms with at least an array of emitters comes from Feuilloley itself.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Witz to have the heating of the preforms as Feuilloley teaches that it is known to have the heating tooling including the array of emitters. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
However, Witz does not explicitly disclose the heating apparatus comprising an array of infrared emitters and also does not disclose the trajectory of the moving path of the preform in the oven.
Feuilloley discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, the heating profile is of sinusoidal shape along the path (i.e., the trajectory in the oven) ([0039], lines 2-3). Thus, Feuilloley discloses that, at least the heating profile being of sinusoidal shape along the path is providing the highest power level and the lowest power level.
Both Witz and Feuilloley are teachings how to treat the preforms first and then make the bottles from the preforms (e.g., referring ABSTRACTs in both arts).
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that Feuilloley discloses that, the heating profile is of sinusoidal shape along the path, but the preform of Feuilloley moves along a straight line along the array. Thus, Feuilloley does not disclose moving the preform along a trajectory that positions any specific points of the preform toward the highest/lowest point of the heating profile. These are not found persuasive.
Feuilloley discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, introducing the preform (item 1 in Fig. 3 ([0028], lines 1-2)) into a heating apparatus comprising an array of infrared emitters arranged in multiple columns and multiple rows (item 11 in Fig. 3 ([0029])), the preform and said array being disposed such that the longitudinal axis and the columns of the array of infrared emitters are parallel or directed obliquely with respect to each other (e.g., as shown in Fig. 3).
Feuilloley discloses that, orienting angularly the preform at an input angular position by rotating the preform around the longitudinal axis (as shown in Fig. 5; [0040], lines 1-7 from bottom; [0022] (i.e., the spinner 3 is applied to rotate the preform accordingly)); setting power levels of the infrared emitters so as to divide the array of infrared emitters into subsets of columns, each subset of columns generating heat at a different power level from an adjacent subset of columns ([0030], [0031], [0039]).
Feuilloley discloses that, heating the preform with the array of infrared emitters while translating the preform in a direction parallel to the rows of the array at a translation speed ([0019] (i.e., a constant linear speed)), and simultaneously rotating said preform around its longitudinal axis in front of said infrared emitters at a rotation speed (as shown in Fig. 3).
It is noticed that, Feuilloley discloses that, in [0019], the rotation speed (i.e., through a rotary gripping device 3), the translation speed (i.e., a constant linear speed), the input angular position (i.e., based on cross section of a preform as shown in Fig 1.) and the power levels of the infrared emitters (for example, as shown in Fig. 5 or 6) being set so that the greater the thickness of the zones of the body portion, the higher is the power level of the subsets of columns facing said zones of the body (for example, in page 20, lines 12-13 of the teachings of Witz).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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 L 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741