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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-26, 29-31, and 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Winzinger (9,393,732).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Winzinger discloses a device (1) for treating container blanks (10) for a container treatment installation, having: a furnace (column 3, lines 18-19) for heating the container blanks; and a planar drive system (2) having a base element (6) and a plurality of movement devices (30) for transporting the container blanks, wherein the plurality of movement devices are movable independently of one another relative to the base element (column 9, lines 13-14 and 27-33), and the container blanks can be moved through the furnace via the plurality of movement devices (Figure 2 and column 8, lines 65 – column 9, line 11). In re claim 17, Winzinger discloses that the plurality of movement devices are movable independently of one another relative to the base element via magnetic interaction between the base element and the plurality of movement devices (SEE column 3, lines 12-16 and column 9, line 59 – column 10, line 3 and Figure 8). In re claim 18, Winzinger illustrates in Figure 1, that one of: the base element is arranged above the furnace, and the plurality of movement devices can be moved upside down on an underside of the base element; and the base element is arranged beneath the furnace, and the plurality of movement devices can be moved upright on an upper side of the base element. In re claim 19, Winzinger discloses that the furnace has at least one heating channel (located between heating elements 4 and the “unnumbered” middle section of Figure 1) which is open toward a longitudinal outer side; and the base element is arranged on the longitudinal outer side. In re claim 20, Winzinger further discloses that the base element is arranged on the longitudinal outer side for moving the container blanks through the heating channel via the plurality of movement devices (SEE Figure 2). In re claim 21, Winzinger discloses that the plurality of movement devices each have at least one holder (22). In re claim 22, Winzinger discloses that the at least one holder (22) is a mandrel configured to hold at least one container blank at a neck region of the container blank (SEE column 8, lines 7-9). In re claim 23, Winzinger discloses that the holder is designed to be changeable (SEE column 7, lines 46-58). In re claim 24, Winzinger discloses that the at least one holder (22) is rotatable via a rotation mechanism of the respective movement device in order to rotate the at least one held container blank while it is being moved through the furnace (SEE column 7, line 59 – column 8, line 6). In re claim 25, Winzinger discloses that the furnace has a rotation apparatus (25), which is configured to rotate the rotation mechanism while the respective movement device is being moved along the rotation apparatus. In re claim 26, Winzinger discloses that the rotation apparatus is configured to rotate the rotation mechanism via at least one of an interlocking engagement (via element 64) and a force-based engagement. In re claim 29, Winzinger discloses that the planar drive system is configured to rotate the plurality of movement devices relative to the base element about their own vertical axis while the container blanks are being moved through the furnace (SEE Figure 1). In re claim 30, Winzinger discloses that the planar drive system is configured to carry out a stroke movement of the movement device relative to the base element one of when a container blank is transferred to a movement device and when a container blank is transferred from a movement device (SEE column 7, lines 34-45). In re claim 31, the limitation with regards to the planar drive system of being “configured to move a stream of container blanks transferred at non-uniform distances to the plurality of movement devices through the furnace at a uniform distance” is being regarded as a statement of intended use wherein a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim limitation. In re claim 34, Winzinger discloses a sterilization apparatus for sterilizing the container blanks, wherein the container blanks can be moved through the sterilization apparatus via the plurality of movement devices (SEE column 10, lines 41-51). In re claim 35, Winzinger discloses a blow molding machine (120) for blow molding containers from the container blanks, wherein at least one of: the blow molding machine is arranged downstream of the furnace, and the blow molding machine is configured for the transfer of container blanks from the plurality of movement devices (SEE Figure 15 and column 11, lines 14-22). In re claim 36, Winzinger anticipates the use of magnetic interaction between the movement devices and the base element (SEE column 6, lines 27-29 and column 9, lines 59 – column 10, lines 3 and Figure 8). In re claim 37, Winzinger implicitly discloses a stator (stationary parts) as part of the base element (SEE Figures 7-9).
Claim(s) 16-32 and 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lindner et al (9,283,709).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Lindner et al discloses a device (Figure 1) for treating container blanks (3) for a container treatment installation, having: a furnace (1) for heating the container blanks (3); and a planar drive system (the conveying transport system) having a base element (the rail of the transport system, SEE column 6, lines 10-15) and a plurality of movement devices (5) for transporting the container blanks, wherein the plurality of movement devices are movable independently of one another relative to the base element (column 5, lines 56-64), and the container blanks can be moved through the furnace via the plurality of movement devices (column 5, line 65 – column 6, line 2). In re claim 17, Lindner et al discloses that the plurality of movement devices are movable independently of one another relative to the base element via magnetic interaction between the base element and the plurality of movement devices (SEE column 6, lines 3-8). In re claim 18, Lindner et al discloses wherein one of: the base element is arranged above the furnace, and the plurality of movement devices can be moved upside down on an underside of the base element; and the base element is arranged beneath the furnace, and the plurality of movement devices can be moved upright on an upper side of the base element (illustrated by the orientation of the blanks (3) in Figure 1). In re claim 19, Lindner et al discloses that the furnace has at least one heating channel which is open toward a longitudinal outer side (SEE Figure 3); and the base element is arranged on the longitudinal outer side. In re claim 20, Lindner et al discloses that the base element is arranged on the longitudinal outer side for moving the container blanks through the heating channel via the plurality of movement devices (SEE Figures 1 & 3, and column 6, lines 54-67). In re claim 21, Lindner et al discloses that the plurality of movement devices (5) each have at least one holder (11 & 17). In re claim 22, Lindner et al discloses that the at least one holder (11) is a mandrel (17) configured to hold at least one container blank at a neck region of the container blank (SEE Figure 3). In re claim 23, Lindner et al discloses the at least one holder is designed to be changeable and the device has a holder magazine which holds a plurality of different holders, and the plurality of movement devices can be moved to the holder magazine in order to change the at least one holder (SEE column 8, lines 18-32). In re claim 24, Lindner et al further discloses that the at least one holder is rotatable via a rotation mechanism of the respective movement device in order to rotate the at least one held container blank while it is being moved through the furnace (SEE column 2, lines 52-64). In re claim 25, Lindner et al discloses that the furnace has a rotation apparatus (13), which is configured to rotate the rotation mechanism (4) while the respective movement device is being moved along the rotation apparatus. In re claim 26, Lindner et al discloses that the rotation apparatus (13) is configured to rotate the rotation mechanism (4) via at least one of an interlocking engagement and a force-based engagement (SEE column 7, lines 24-30). In re claim 27, Lindner et al further discloses wherein one of the rotation mechanism (4) has a first toothed portion and the rotation apparatus (13) has a second toothed portion which mesh with one another in order to rotate the rotation mechanism (SEE column 6, lines 19-30); the rotation mechanism has a roller (12) and the rotation apparatus has a rolling surface for the roller; and the rotation mechanism (4) interacts with the rotation apparatus (13) via magnetic force in order to rotate the rotation mechanism (SEE column 2, lines 35-41 and column 6, lines 3-8). In re claim 28, Lindner et al further discloses that the first toothed portion is a toothed wheel and the second toothed portion is a toothed rack (SEE column 6, lines 19-27). In re claim 29, Lindner et al discloses that the planar drive system (the conveying transport system) is configured to rotate the plurality of movement devices (5) relative to the base element about their own vertical axis while the container blanks are being moved through the furnace (column 5, lines 56-64 and column 6, lines 54 – column 7, line 10). In re claim 30, Lindner et al discloses that the planar drive system is configured to carry out a stroke movement of the movement device relative to the base element one of when a container blank is transferred to a movement device and when a container blank is transferred from a movement device (SEE column 6, lines 47 – column 7, line 10). In re claim 31, Lindner et al discloses that the planar drive system is configured to move a stream of container blanks transferred at non-uniform distances to the plurality of movement devices through the furnace at a uniform distance (column 7, lines 1-23, this is inherently achieved by controlling of the speed of rotations of the conveying and the blanks). In re claim 32, Lindner et al implicitly discloses that at least one of: the planar drive system is configured to adapt a length of a heating section of the movement of the container blanks through the furnace via the plurality of movement devices; and the planar drive system is configured to adapt a residence time of the container blanks in the furnace by adapting a speed of the plurality of movement devices (SEE column 8, lines 58- column 9, lines 8). In re claim 34, Lindner et al discloses a sterilization apparatus for sterilizing the container blanks, wherein the container blanks can be moved through the sterilization apparatus via the plurality of movement devices (as suggested in column 4, lines 35-44). In re claim 35, Lindner et al discloses a blow molding machine (2) for blow molding containers from the container blanks, wherein at least one of: the blow molding machine is arranged downstream of the furnace (SEE Abstract), and the blow molding machine is configured for the transfer of container blanks from the plurality of movement devices (5). In re claim 36, Lindner et al further discloses that the movement devices are moveable over the base element freely and independently of one another via magnetic interaction with the base element (SEE column 2, lines 35-41 and column 6, lines 3-9, and column 9, lines 47-57). In re claim 37, Lindner et al discloses implicitly in Figure 3, a stator as part of the base element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment, filed 7/22/2025, with respect to the objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendment to the specification is sufficient to overcome the previously cited drawing objection. Additionally, the addition of new Figure 8 to depict an example of the rotation mechanism having a roller and the rotation apparatus having a rolling surface (as per Claim 27) is sufficient to overcome the previously cited objection.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims 16-26, 29-31, 34 and 35 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Winzinger (9,393,732) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Winzinger does not disclose a planar drive system but rather states that Winzinger’s conveying device (2) is a circulating conveyor with a conveyor chain and a fixed transport path which is not planar, is not persuasive. The examiner directs the applicants attention to for example, column 5, lines 54-61 in which Winzinger states that the conveying path of the pre-forms is situated inside the apparatus substantially in a horizontal plane. The examiner takes the position that the pre-forms are conveyed along a straight horizontal plane (ie: an x-axis) which does not deviate in a plane of a y-axis nor z-axis which given its broadly most reasonable interpretation reads on being a planar drive system since the conveyor is clearly driven along a horizontal plane. The applicant argues that the term “planar drive system” is a clear technical term as defined by DE Wikipedia entry on “Planarmotor” or EN Wikipedia entry on “Sawyer motor”, however nowhere in the original disclosure has the term been defined as such and is not being considered in this manner. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The applicant further argues that Winzinger does not disclose that the plurality of movement devices are movable independently of one another relative to the base element. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the plurality of movement devices (30) include holding elements (22) which are connected in a rotationally fixed manner to a carrier unit which allow a rotation of the plastic pre-forms which reads on being movable independent to each other (other pre-forms) and the base element, furthermore, the plurality of movement elements (30) as shown in Figures 5a, 5b are fastened to the basic carrier (SEE column 9, lines 13-14) and can be removed individually separate from the remaining elements (30) and thus are being regarded as being inherently independently movable.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims 16-32, 34 and 35 as being anticipated by Lindner et al (9,283,709) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Lindner does not disclose a planar drive system having a base element and a plurality of movement devices for transporting the container blanks, wherein the plurality of movement devices are movable independently of one another relative to the base element, further stating that Lindner has a conveying device (1) that provides a fixed circulating transport path which is not planar and does not fall under the term “planar drive system”. The examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the original disclosure never defined what its interpretation of a “planar drive system” is. The examiner takes the position that the Lindner et al discloses a conveying unit (4) having a conveying path (6) which transports preforms (3) along a horizontal plane which does not deviate from an x-direction and thus reads on being a planar drive system, additionally the conveyor unit includes a carrier (5) which is used for individually moving the preform through the oven independent from other carrier/preform combinations and has rotational movement relative to longitudinal axis (14) and thus has movement independent from the base element.
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 GREGORY A WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/GREGORY A WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 October 22, 2025