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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed April 20, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-6, 7-22 are pending in the application. Claims 7-12 are withdrawn.
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, 4-5, 13, 15, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finger et al. (US 2020/0307064), further in view of Voss et al. (US 4,856,978).
Regarding claim 1, Finger discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1-2, a method for heating plastic preforms (Fig. 1, item 10 ([0047], line 2)), wherein the plastic preforms are transported along a predetermined transport path (as shown in Fig. 1) within a heating device (Fig. 1, item 4 or 14 ([0047], lines 6-11)) and are heated to a predetermined temperature during this transport by a plurality of heating devices arranged along the transport path (as shown in Fig. 1), and wherein a heating power of the heating devices impinging on the plastic preforms can be varied ([0047], lines 1-4 from bottom (i.e., the first warming section G1 and the second warming section G2)),
wherein
the heating power of the heating devices impinging on the plastic preforms is controlled depending on a transport speed of the plastic preforms ([0050] (for example, to take a transport speed of the plastic preforms into consideration in the determination of the heating power)).
Further, Finger discloses that, in [0042], specific heating zones of an individual heating element (or device) are activated, the others (i.e., heating elements) are deactivated. These different heating zones can also be operated with different powers. Combining with the transport speed of the plastic preforms being considered in the determination of the heating power of each heating element ([0050], lines 1-3 from bottom), Finger discloses that the heating power of the heating elements (or devices) is adjusted individually to the transport speed of the plastic preforms.
Further, Finger discloses that, the heating power of each heating device and/or also of adjacent heating devices is controlled and/or changed individually and/or independently of each other ([0040], lines 6-9). It is noticed that, the control device 20 (including a process device 21 ([0050], lines 1-5)) or optionally also a further control device is suitably and intended to control the individual heating elements 4 ([0051], lines 1-3 (i.e., the control device 20 is suitable and intended to control the individual heating elements 4)).
Finger discloses that, the heating power of each heating device and/or also of adjacent heating devices is controlled and/or changed individually and/or independently of each other. In this way it is possible to supply or to heat the plastic preforms along their longitudinal direction with a changing temperature profile ([0040], lines 6-9).
Because the changing temperature profile along the longitudinal direction of each of the preforms has to be less disturbance without any abrupt changes ([0003]; it is noticed that, disturbance variables of different temperatures of the plastic preforms are brought some potential problems such as inconsistent storage of the containers (lines 12-14)), at least each individual heating device is capable of providing the heating power from 0% to 100% without any gap.
It is noticed that, the control device 20 (including a process device 21 ([0050], lines 1-5)) or optionally also a further control device is suitably and intended to control the individual heating elements 4 ([0051], lines 1-3).
Thus, 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 Finger to disclose that, the heating power of the heating devices is stepless controlled.
However, Finger does not explicitly disclose that, the transport speed of the plastic preforms is stepless controlled.
In the same field of endeavor, conveying preforms for blow molding, Voss discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, this rotational movement is transmitted to the preforms 5. For an even distribution of temperature in the preforms, these later are conducted through the heating station 22. The rotational speed is adjustable, as desired, by the stepless adjustment of the speed of rotation of the pertinent driving means (col. 5, lines 5-11).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Finger to have the heating devices disposed in the transport sections of the plastic preforms as Voss teaches that it is known to have a heating section for heating the preforms while continuously transporting them under the stepless adjustment of the speed along a transport line. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device 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).
Regarding claim 4, Finger discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, at least one heating device (for example, item 4) is displaceably arranged along the transport path of the heating device.
Regarding claim 5, Finger discloses that, an internal and/or external temperature of the plastic preforms is detected within the heating device and this temperature is used to control the heating power of the heating devices ([0020], lines 1-13 (i.e., by using a pyrometer to determine the temperature gradients conclusions through the thickness of the plastic preforms)).
Regarding claims 13, 22, Finger discloses that, in [0042], specific heating zones of an individual heating element (or device) are activated, the others (i.e., heating elements) are deactivated. These different heating zones can also be operated with different powers. Combining with the transport speed of the plastic preforms being considered in the determination of the heating power of each heating element ([0050], lines 1-3 from bottom), Finger discloses that the heating power of the heating elements (or devices) is adjusted individually to the transport speed of the plastic preforms.
It is noticed that, during the continuous operation of the transport device 2, each of individual preforms 10 has to be heated to the identical temperature profile.
Thus, Finger discloses that, the heating power of each heating device in the transport device under the consideration of the transport speed of the preforms is provided to the preforms with their temperature profiles to be the same independently of the transport speed.
Regarding claim 15, Finger discloses that, it is also possible that the plastic preforms are rotated during their heating and in particular are rotated about their own longitudinal axis or longitudinal direction ([0011], lines 9-12). As illustrated in Fig. 1, when the temperature sensor 6 (a pyrometer ([0049])) or 16 ([0053]) is disposed at the start of heating or the end of the transport path, the temperature of the preforms is determined by pyrometers wherein the pyrometers are pivoted to vary a measuring location of the temperature.
Regarding claim 19, Finger discloses that, the plastic preforms are pre-tempered ([0025]).
Regarding claims 20, 21, Finger discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the reference 18 is designated as a deflection region ([0052]). It is noticed that, there is no heating elements disposed in the region (i.e., the region can be called “a compensation zone” or “a curved section of the transport path”) and the temperature of the preforms in the region should remain constant.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Finger et al. (US 2020/0307064) and Voss et al. (US 4,856,978) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Blochmann et al. (DE102017126240, English translation provided).
Regarding claim 6, Finger in the combination does not explicitly disclose that, the heating power is controlled via at least a first and a second corner recipe and is linearly interpolated, wherein the first corner recipe containing a first heating power and the second corner recipe containing a second heating power.
In the same field of endeavor, treating plastic preforms, Blochmann discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1-2, the process parameters associated with at least one further process speed are at least partially determined using at least two corner recipes, so that an adaptation of the process speed of the blow molding machine to a speed of at least one further treatment device is made possible (page 3, [0006]). Blochmann discloses that, the process parameters between a first corner recipe, which contains a first speed, and a second corner recipe, which contains a second speed, are interpolated according to a mathematical rule (page 5, [0014]).
It would have been obvious to use the method of the combination to have the heating treatment of the preforms as Blochmann teaches that it is known to have the heating power is controlled via at least a first and a second corner recipe and is linearly interpolated, wherein the first corner recipe containing a first heating power and the second corner recipe containing a second heating power. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar methods 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).
Claims 14, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Finger et al. (US 2020/0307064) and Voss et al. (US 4,856,978) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Lewin et al. (US 2022/0134631).
Regarding claim 14, Finger in the combination dose not disclose a distance to adjacent heating devices is adjusted via the at least one heating device which is arranged displaceably.
In the same field of endeavor, temperature control for blow molding, Lewin discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 6a and 7a, at least the infrared radiators/heaters are capable of being disposed in different positions related to the preforms 10 ([0060]).
Thus, Lewin discloses that, the distance to adjacent heating devices is adjusted via the at least one heating device which is arranged displaceably.
It would have been obvious to use the method of the combination to have the heating treatment of the preforms as Lewin teaches that it is known to have the distance to adjacent heating devices is adjusted via the at least one heating device which is arranged displaceably. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar methods 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).
Regarding claim 17, Finger in the combination dose not disclose a ventilation is adjusted to the transport speed of the plastic preforms in addition to the heating power.
As illustrated in Fig. 3a, Lewin discloses that, a fan 42 is provided in the flow channel 40 in order to ensure a controlled flow of cooling air ([0064], lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to use the method of the combination to have the heating treatment of the preforms corresponding to the transport speed of the preforms as Lewin teaches that it is known to have a fan 42 (i.e., for ventilation) is provided in the flow channel 40 in order to ensure a controlled flow of cooling air. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar methods 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).
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Finger et al. (US 2020/0307064) and Voss et al. (US 4,856,978) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Cetinel et al. (US 2011/0236518).
Regarding claim 16, the combination does not disclose the temperature is determined by pyrometers or IR cameras and wherein a measuring location of the temperature is varied via mirrors.
In the same field of endeavor, device for measuring temperature (for preforms), Cetinel discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 5, a mirror 26 (in Fig. 5) is mounted in the body 22 away from the sensor 24 at a lower end of the waveguide 25 ([0061], lines 1-3 from bottom). This configuration makes it possible to perform a temperature measurement at a single height on the inner wall 12 of the preform ([0062], lines 7-9).
It would have been obvious to use the method of the combination to have the heating treatment of the preforms as Cetinel teaches that it is known to have that the temperature is determined by pyrometers or IR cameras and wherein a measuring location of the temperature is varied via mirrors. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar methods 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The base reference Finger discloses the heating treatment of the preforms corresponding to the transport speed of the preforms. However, Finger does not disclose a heating box disposed in a curved section of the transport path.
The cited other references fail to disclose these features as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/2026 have been fully considered.
In response to applicant’s arguments in claim 1 that, Examiner does not address the features of ‘the control of the heating device enables a variable blow moulding machine, wherein the transport speed in the heating device is increased if the output rate of the blow moulding machine is to be increased’, it is not persuasive.
Basically, in the teachings of Finger, the heating power of the heating devices is connected with the transport speed of the preforms ([0050]). In other words, Finger discloses that, the control of the heating device enables a variable blow moulding machine. It is noticed that, during the continuous operation of the transport device 2 of the blow moulding machine, the increasing of the transport speed in the heating device will cause the increase of the output rate of the blow moulding machine.
Regarding arguments in claim 1 that Examiner has missed to distinguish between heating zones and heating elements and interpreting them both as heating devices which is incorrect, it is not persuasive. In the teachings of Finger, the specific heating zones of an individual heating element (or heating boxes) are activated, and others are deactivated ([0042]). Finger discloses that, these individual heating elements have one or more infrared radiators which are arranged in a vertical direction one above the other ([0033]). Thus, only the heating elements such as infrared radiators can be defined as the heating devices.
Regarding arguments in claim 1 that, Finger teaches that, the heating power of the heating elements along the transport path can only be controlled in discrete steps, it is not persuasive.
It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, Finger discloses that, in the remaining heating zones, the respective heating elements or heater boxes are partly activated and partly not activated ([0057], lines 1-3). In this way a changing temperature profile can also be applied in the longitudinal direction of the plastic preforms ([0057], lines 1-3 from bottom). At least, the partly activated or deactivated heating elements including multiple infrared radiators are capable of providing the continuous non-gap controlling of the heating power to achieve the changing temperature profile of the preforms.
Regarding arguments in claim 1 that no combination of Finger and Voss reasonably to disclose the stepless control of the heating power of the heating elements and the transport speed of the preforms, it is not persuasive.
Again, in the teachings of Finger, the heating power of the heating devices is connected with the transport speed of the preforms ([0050]). At least, the partly activated or deactivated heating elements including multiple infrared radiators are capable of providing the continuous non-gap controlling of the heating power to the preforms (see above). The concept of the stepless controlling is disclosed in the teachings of Voss (col. 5, lines 5-11). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine them to achieve the predictable results.
Regarding arguments in claim 6 that, no combination of Finger and Blochmann could reasonably be claimed to render obvious claim 6, it is not persuasive.
Basically, Blochmann discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1-2, the process parameters associated with at least one further process speed are at least partially determined using at least two corner recipes, so that an adaptation of the process speed of the blow molding machine to a speed of at least one further treatment device is made possible (page 3, [0006]). Blochmann discloses that, the process parameters between a first corner recipe, which contains a first speed, and a second corner recipe, which contains a second speed, are interpolated according to a mathematical rule (page 5, [0014]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine them to achieve the predictable results.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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.
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).
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights