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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed Jan. 20, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-10 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, 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asbrand et al. (US 9,339,969) in view of Wolfe et al. (US 2016/0151957).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, Asbrand discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, an apparatus for forming plastic preforms into plastic containers with a transport device configured to transport the plastic preforms to be formed along a predetermined transport path (as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the transport device has a rotatable transport carrier on which a plurality of forming stations (item 4, Fig. 1 (col. 8, line 26)) are arranged which each have a blow molding device within which the plastic preforms are formed into the plastic containers (ABSTRACT), wherein the forming stations each have a pressurizing device configured to pressurize the plastic preforms with a flowable medium, wherein the pressurizing device is configured to pressurize the plastic preforms with a pre-blowing pressure, at least one intermediate blowing pressure and a final blowing pressure (as shown in Fig. 2 (col. 8, lines 32-35)), and the apparatus has a regulating device (e.g., a regulating circuit (col. 3, lines 1-3); It is noticed that, the reference 26 designates a valve device (col. 6, lines 48-58)) which is configured for regulating a duration of a pressure rise time of at least one intermediate blowing pressure (as shown in Fig. 2; related to claims 5, 8).
However, Asbrand does not explicitly disclose that, the apparatus has a detection device which is configured for detecting at least one value characteristic of the plastic container.
In the same field of endeavor, blow molding, Wolfe discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, the inspection area 21 may be positioned similar to the example inspection area 20 shown in Fig. 1 and/or at any other suitable in-line location ([0058], lines 15-17). Specifically, as illustrated in Figs. 4, 5, cameras 202, 214 and 214’ are applied to take images of the containers (related to claims 6, 7) and the images may be provided to an image processor 210, 210’ to determine properties of the container 66 ([0067], [0068]).
Specifically, as illustrated in Fig. 2, Wolfe discloses that, the control system 102 receives signals from the various inspection systems 103 (i.e., for example, the cameras 202, 214 and 214’ are involved in the inspection systems 103) indicating container characteristic and generates blow molder input parameters or changes thereto to cause the blow molder system 4 to generate containers within desired tolerances ([0056], lines 1-6 from bottom).
Wolfe discloses that, in [0051], the material thickness control (i.e., one of the value characteristics of the plastic container) may control other blow molder input parameters excluding those controlled by the preform temperature control loop (e.g., oven lamp setting, pre-blow timing, pre-blow pressure (i.e., one of intermediate blowing pressure), …) (lines 6-10 from bottom).
In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means (Note: with no specific) to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art
Wolfe discloses the claimed invention except for a fully automatic control system for blow molding though some degree of automated process control in blow molders is possible ([0006], lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to automate the blow molding of Wolfe, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which accomplishes the same result involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to automate the blow process in order to improve the production.
However, Asbrand does not disclose that the apparatus has an evaluation device. Wolfe discloses that, for example, the image processor 210 may perform various pre-processing and/or evaluate the images to determine properties of the container 66 ([0067], lines 14-16).
It is noticed that, the proper properties of the container will determine its quality.
For example, Wolfe discloses that, the control system may decrease the preform temperature set point until a predetermined crystallinity is reached ([0044], lines 1-10 from bottom).
It is noticed that, in the control system of Wolfe, at least the comparison related to the predetermined crystallinity of the preform has to be finished prior to changing the temperature of the preform.
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 Asbrand to incorporate the teachings of Wolfe to provide the apparatus has a detection device which is configured for detecting at least one value characteristic of the plastic container and then updating the blow-molding parameters based on the detection ([0056]), including pressure related parameters like pre-blowing time, pre-blow pressure ([0051]). Doing so would be possible improve overall container quality through controlling container properties such as crystallinity, or material density, base sag, various container dimensions, etc., as recognized by Wolfe ([0008]).
Regarding claim 4, Asbrand does not disclose that the apparatus has an evaluation device. Wolfe discloses that, for example, the image processor 210 may perform various pre-processing and/or evaluate the images to determine properties of the container 66 ([0067], lines 14-16). For example, Wolfe discloses that, the control system may decrease the preform temperature set point until a predetermined crystallinity is reached ([0044], lines 1-10 from bottom).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asbrand et al. (US 9,339,969) in view of Wolfe et al. (US 2016/0151957).
Regarding claim 9, Asbrand discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, an apparatus for forming plastic preforms into plastic containers with a transport device configured to transport the plastic preforms to be formed along a predetermined transport path (as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the transport device has a rotatable transport carrier on which a plurality of forming stations (item 4, Fig. 1 (col. 8, line 26)) are arranged which each have a blow molding device within which the plastic preforms are formed into the plastic containers (ABSTRACT), wherein the forming stations each have a pressurizing device configured to pressurize the plastic preforms with a flowable medium, wherein the pressurizing device is configured to pressurize the plastic preforms with a pre-blowing pressure, at least one intermediate blowing pressure and a final blowing pressure (as shown in Fig. 2 (col. 8, lines 32-35)), and the apparatus has a regulating device (e.g., a regulating circuit (col. 3, lines 1-3); It is noticed that, the reference 26 designates a valve device (col. 6, lines 48-58)) which is configured for regulating a duration of a pressure rise time of at least one intermediate blowing pressure (as shown in Fig. 2).
However, Asbrand does not explicitly disclose that, the apparatus has a detection device (as claimed in claim 1) which is configured for detecting at least one value characteristic of the plastic container.
In the same field of endeavor, blow molding, Wolfe discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, the inspection area 21 may be positioned similar to the example inspection area 20 shown in Fig. 1 and/or at any other suitable in-line location ([0058], lines 15-17). Specifically, as illustrated in Figs. 4, 5, cameras 202, 214 and 214’ are applied to take images of the containers and the images may be provided to an image processor 210, 210’ to determine properties of the container 66 ([0067], [0068]).
Specifically, as illustrated in Fig. 2, Wolfe discloses that, the control system 102 receives signals from the various inspection systems 103 (i.e., for example, the cameras 202, 214 and 214’ are involved in the inspection systems 103) indicating container characteristic and generates blow molder input parameters or changes thereto to cause the blow molder system 4 to generate containers within desired tolerances ([0056], lines 1-6 from bottom).
Wolfe discloses that, in [0051], the material thickness control (i.e., one of the value characteristics of the plastic container) may control other blow molder input parameters excluding those controlled by the preform temperature control loop (e.g., oven lamp setting, pre-blow timing, pre-blow pressure (i.e., one of intermediate blowing pressure), …) (lines 6-10 from bottom).
In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means (Note: with no specific) to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art
Wolfe discloses the claimed invention except for a fully automatic control system for blow molding though some degree of automated process control in blow molders is possible ([0006], lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to automate the blow molding of Wolfe, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which accomplishes the same result involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to automate the blow process in order to improve the production.
Asbrand does not disclose that the apparatus has an evaluation device. Wolfe discloses that, for example, the image processor 210 may perform various pre-processing and/or evaluate the images to determine properties of the container 66 ([0067], lines 14-16).
It is noticed that, the proper properties of the container will determine the quality of the container.
For example, Wolfe discloses that, the control system may decrease the preform temperature set point until a predetermined crystallinity is reached ([0044], lines 1-10 from bottom).
It is noticed that, in the control system, at least the comparison related to the predetermined crystallinity of the preform has to be finished prior to changing the temperature of the preform.
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 Asbrand to incorporate the teachings of Wolfe to provide the apparatus has a detection device which is configured for detecting at least one value characteristic of the plastic container and then updating the blow-molding parameters based on the detection ([0056]), including pressure related parameters like pre-blowing time, pre-blow pressure ([0051]). Doing so would be possible improve overall container quality through controlling container properties such as crystallinity, or material density, base sag, various container dimensions, etc., as recognized by Wolfe ([0008]).
Regarding claim 10, Asbrand does not disclose that the apparatus has an evaluation device for evaluating the at least one value of the container. Wolfe discloses that, for example, the image processor 210 may perform various pre-processing and/or evaluate the images to determine properties of the container 66 ([0067], lines 14-16). For example, Wolfe discloses that, the control system may decrease the preform temperature set point until a predetermined crystallinity is reached ([0044], lines 1-10 from bottom).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claims 1 and 9 that the base reference Asbrand does not specifically require to regulate the intermediate blowing pressure (or the intermediate blowing pressure is no significant impact on bottle quality) and the rejection of Asbrand is in error, it is not persuasive.
At least, as illustrated in Fig. 2 in the teachings of Asbrand, based on the inherence of the blowing molding process of Asbrand, the intermediate blowing pressure pi (col. 8, lines 32-35) cannot be arbitrary and has to be regulated to meet the required blowing pressure during every single step.
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claims 1 and 9 that the reference Wolfe does not teach that the detecting device on the preforms/containers is providing at least one value characteristic of the plastic container and the combination of the references is in error, it is not persuasive.
Wolfe discloses that, for example, the image processor 210 may perform various pre-processing and/or evaluate the images to determine properties of the container 66 ([0067], lines 14-16).
It is noticed that, the proper properties of the container will determine the quality of the container.
For example, Wolfe discloses that, the control system may decrease the preform temperature set point until a predetermined crystallinity is reached ([0044], lines 1-10 from bottom).
It is noticed that, in the control system, at least the comparison related to the predetermined crystallinity of the preform has to be finished prior to changing the temperature of the preform.
Specifically, as illustrated in Fig. 2, Wolfe discloses that, the control system 102 receives signals from the various inspection systems 103 (i.e., for example, the cameras 202, 214 and 214’ are involved in the inspection systems 103) indicating container characteristic and generates blow molder input parameters or changes thereto to cause the blow molder system 4 to generate containers within desired tolerances ([0056], lines 1-6 from bottom).
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