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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 24-26 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Species A: the embodiment set forth in [0040] of the instant specification (corresponding to claims 1 and dependent claims and possibly a subset of apparatus / method claims), Species B: the embodiment set forth in [0032] of the instant specification (corresponding to claim 24-25 and possibly a subset of method claims), and Species C: the embodiment set forth in [0040-0041] of the instant specification (corresponding to claim 26 and possibly a subset of method claims).
The species are independent or distinct because Species A is drawn wherein ejection takes place both taking into account at least one of the values and taking into account the portion in which this value was determined, whereas Species B is drawn to target criteria selected differently for the main body portion of the plastic preform and the bottom portion of the plastic preform, and Species C is drawn to type of fault in the plastic preform. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 24-26 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Status of Claims
The Amendment filed 12/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 10-12 were previously withdrawn. Claims 2, 8, and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-26 are new and have been added. Claims 24-26 have been withdrawn. Claims 1, 3, 5, 10-14, 16, and 18 has been amended. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-19, and 21-26 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
35 USC 112(b). The amendments to claims 1, 3, 13-14, 16, and 18-19 have overcome the rejection of claims 1-9 and 13-20 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the Office Action mailed 09/23/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 103. Applicant's remarks regarding the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-9, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over the cited prior art are moot as they rely upon amended claim limitations not previously considered. The rejection of amended claims is provided below.
Applicant’s arguments that prior art cited in the rejection of dependent claims 5, 13, 16, and 19 do not make up for the deficiencies of the prior art cited in the rejection of independent claim 1 is not persuasive. However, the rejection of claim 1 is not considered to be deficient as argued above. The rejection of amended claims is provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 is dependent upon cancelled claim 2. For compact prosecution, Claim 14 is examined as being dependent upon amended claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 14-15, 17-18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (JP-2019111781-A - of record).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 14, 17-18, and 21-23, Kimura teaches a method for evaluating plastic preforms wherein the inspection unit 130 is configured to include a plurality of detection cameras CAM for detecting abnormalities in the preforms P1 provided on the transport path of the chain conveyor 110; wherein before the stretch blow molding process, the entire preform P1 is inspected for scratches, bubbles, cracks, foreign matter contamination (material quality of the plastic preforms), etc. in all directions using a plurality of detection cameras CAM; wherein the detection camera CAM of the inspection unit 130 is connected to the control unit 150 and can output a signal to the control unit 150 when an abnormality in the preform P1 is detected; wherein an entry trigger sensor unit 140 can detect the preforms P1 passing through the conveying path of the chain conveyor 110; and wherein when the inspection unit 130 detects an abnormality in the preform P1, the entry trigger sensor unit 140 is activated by instructions from the control unit 150, and when the preform P1 passes through the entry trigger sensor unit 140 (ejection device) located just before the conveying path expansion unit 120, the conveying path expansion unit 120 expands the conveying path, allowing only the abnormal preform P1 to be rejected (wherein said plastic preforms are intended to be heated by a heating device and then expanded by a forming device by application of a flowable medium to form plastic containers, wherein the plastic preforms extending in a longitudinal direction and having several portions in the longitudinal direction, wherein the several portions having at least one mouth portion, a main body portion and a bottom portion, wherein at least the main body portion and the bottom portion being inspected, wherein values characteristic of a material quality of the plastic preforms, including the bottom portion of the plastic preforms, are output to determine whether an ejection takes place by an ejection device wherein the plastic preforms are transported along a predetermined transport path and are inspected during this transport; wherein a control device controls the ejection device such that containers or plastic preforms are or are not ejected; and wherein the control device controls the ejection device on the basis of values which are characteristic of material properties of the inspected plastic preforms) (¶0039-0073).
While Kimura teaches values characteristic of material quality and wherein the ejection takes place taking into account the values characteristic of the material quality (¶0039-0073), Kimura does not explicitly teach wherein the values characteristic of the material quality are assigned to different portions, wherein the values characteristic of the material quality are assigned to the main body portion and to the bottom portion of the plastic preform, and wherein an ejection device ejects preforms by taking into account at least one of the values characteristic of the material quality, and wherein the ejection takes place both taking into account the values characteristic of the material quality and taking into account the portion in which the value characteristic of the material quality was determined; wherein at least one characteristic value is determined which is characteristic of the material quality of the main body portion of the plastic preforms and/or at least one characteristic value is determined which is characteristic of the material quality of the bottom portion or a wall portion of the plastic preform; wherein the values characteristic of the material quality are values characteristic of impurities of the material of the plastic preforms, wherein the impurities are determined and/or evaluated both in a main body portion of the plastic preform and in a bottom portion of the plastic preform, wherein such impurities which occur in a main body portion are assessed differently to impurities which occur in the bottom portion of the main body or of the plastic preform; wherein at least one property of the container to be produced being taken into account in the evaluation of the characteristic values; wherein the material qualities are assessed in a zone-by-zone or portion-by-portion manner; and wherein the assessment of the bottom portion is dependent on how complex or how exact the configuration of the bottom is.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Kimura such that the values characteristic of the material quality are assigned to different portions, wherein the values characteristic of the material quality are assigned to the main body portion and to the bottom portion of the plastic preform, and wherein an ejection device ejects preforms by taking into account at least one of the values characteristic of the material quality, and wherein the ejection takes place both taking into account the values characteristic of the material quality and taking into account the portion in which the value characteristic of the material quality was determined and wherein at least one characteristic value is determined which is characteristic of the material quality of the main body portion of the plastic preforms and/or at least one characteristic value is determined which is characteristic of the material quality of the bottom portion or a wall portion of the plastic preform; wherein the values characteristic of the material quality are values characteristic of impurities of the material of the plastic preforms, wherein the impurities are determined and/or evaluated both in a main body portion of the plastic preform and in a bottom portion of the plastic preform, wherein such impurities which occur in a main body portion are assessed differently to impurities which occur in the bottom portion of the main body or of the plastic preform; wherein at least one property of the container to be produced being taken into account in the evaluation of the characteristic values; wherein the material qualities are assessed in a zone-by-zone or portion-by-portion manner; and wherein the assessment of the bottom portion is dependent on how complex or how exact the configuration of the bottom is with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow only the abnormal preform(s) to be rejected (¶0054).
Regarding claims 6-7, 9, and 15, as applied to claim 1, Kimura does not explicitly teach wherein the plastic preforms are heated after the inspection thereof and are expanded after the heating thereof; wherein a portion of the plastic preforms is ejected before the expansion thereof and after the heating thereof; wherein an inspection of the plastic preforms takes place before the heating thereof; nor wherein the ejection takes place after the heating of the plastic preforms.
However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II). It would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success since Kimura teaches a plastic bottle manufacturing system 10 including a preform molding apparatus 20 and a stretch blow molding apparatus 30; wherein between the preform molding apparatus 20 and the stretch blow molding apparatus 30, a preform alignment and transport apparatus 40 for aligning the preforms P1 and supplying them to the stretch blow molding apparatus 30 is provided; wherein the preform molding apparatus 20 melts the synthetic resin and molds the preform P1 by injection molding, and the preform P1 supplied to the stretch blow molding apparatus 30 in the correct posture by the preform aligning and conveying apparatus 40 is stretch blow molded; and wherein apparatus 30 heats the inside of the mold and blows air into the heated preform P1 to form a plastic bottle P2 (Fig 11 and ¶0039-0073).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Kimura by reordering the steps of heating, expansion, evaluating, and ejecting such that the plastic preforms are heated after the inspection and are expanded after the heating, wherein a portion of the plastic preforms is ejected before the expansion and after the heating, wherein an inspection of the plastic preforms takes place before the heating, and wherein the ejection takes place after the heating of the plastic preforms with a reasonable expectation of success in order to detect abnormalities such as foreign matter contamination (Fig 11 and ¶0039-0073).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (JP-2019111781-A), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Forsthovel (US 2009/0261513 A1).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1, Kimura does not teach wherein the plastic preforms have a predetermined proportion of recycled material, wherein the predetermined proportion of recycled material is higher than 10%.
In the same field of endeavor, performs, Forsthovel teaches that it is well known to form plastic preforms that have at least in part a recycled material (predetermined proportion of recycled material) (¶0004).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to substitute the material taught by Kimura with the recycled material taught by Forsthovel since the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the material disclosed in Kimura in view of Forsthovel such that the predetermined proportion of recycled material is higher than 10% with a reasonable expectation of success in order to control the infrared absorption behavior of the respective preform and account for material compositions varying due to the recycling mixture used (¶0083).
Claims 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (JP-2019111781-A), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Sieradzki (US 2024/0293966 A1).
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 1, while Kimura teaches wherein the plastic preforms to be inspected are inspected (base method), Kimura does not teach wherein the plastic preforms to be inspected are inspected using a thermal imaging camera.
In the same field of endeavor, inspection of plastic preforms and containers, Sieradzki teaches a method of thermal imaging using a heating system 10 and method for optimizing preform temperature profiles and ways of using such systems, especially in blow molding a container from a thermoplastic preform 12, wherein the system 10 includes a first camera 14, a second camera 16, and a heating means 18 (wherein the plastic preforms to be inspected are inspected using a thermal imaging camera) (Fig 1-2 and ¶0029-0038) (known technique applicable to base method).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Kimura by applying the known technique wherein the plastic preforms to be inspected are inspected using a thermal imaging camera disclosed in Sieradzki to the method for evaluating preforms disclosed in Kimura with predictable results and resulting in an improved method. MPEP 2143(D).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 1, while Kimura teaches a method of inspection of material properties (base method), Kimura does not teach wherein the specific container to be produced is also taken into account during the inspection of the material properties.
In the same field of endeavor, inspection of plastic preforms and containers, Sieradzki teaches a method of thermal imaging using a heating system 10 and method for optimizing preform temperature profiles and ways of using such systems, especially in blow molding a container from a thermoplastic preform 12, wherein the system 10 includes a first camera 14, a second camera 16, and a heating means 18 (wherein the specific container to be produced is also taken into account during the inspection of the material properties) (Fig 1-2 and ¶0029-0038) (known technique applicable to base method).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Kimura by applying the known technique wherein the specific container to be produced is also taken into account during the inspection of the material properties disclosed in Sieradzki to the method for evaluating preforms disclosed in Kimura with predictable results and resulting in an improved method. MPEP 2143(D).
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 17, Kimura does not teach wherein the control device controls the ejection device with respect to values characteristic of at least one property of the container to be produced.
In the same field of endeavor, inspection of plastic preforms and containers, Sieradzki teaches a method of thermal imaging using a heating system 10 and method for optimizing preform temperature profiles and ways of using such systems, especially in blow molding a container from a thermoplastic preform 12, wherein the system 10 includes a first camera 14, a second camera 16, and a heating means 18 (wherein the specific container to be produced is also taken into account during the inspection of the material properties) (Fig 1-2 and ¶0029-0038) (known technique applicable to base method).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Kimura by applying the known technique wherein the specific container to be produced is also taken into account during the inspection of the material properties disclosed in Sieradzki to the method for evaluating preforms disclosed in Kimura with predictable results and resulting in an improved method. MPEP 2143(D).
Examiner notes that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II). It would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success since Kimura and Sieradzki teaches a computer (control device) and discharge unit (rejection device).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Okuda in view of Kubalek and Sieradzki through routine optimization to arrive at control device controls the ejection device with respect to values characteristic of at least one property of the container to be produced with a reasonable expectation of success in order to discard a defective container.
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 JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743