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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-11, drawn to a method of forming preforms into plastic container, classified in B29C49/783.
II. Claims 12-15, drawn to apparatus for forming plastic preforms, classified in B29C49/62.
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process such as the time period for the return of the flowable medium to the first reservoir being a preset value instead of function of the time for processing the plastic preform.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions require searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries; and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these 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.
During a telephone conversation with Norman Soloway on 1/7/25 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claim 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4, 9, Unclear what the phrase “at least one time and/or period” connotes as time and period are generally synonymous as the temporal duration of a step. The examiner has interpreted time to refer to a point in time such as start time, stop time etc.
The phrase “period for a return” is unclear because it is unspecified as to what is being returned. For the sake of compact prosecution it was assumed that it was intended to read for a return “of flowable medium.”
Claims 1-3, unclear what the phrase “which is characteristic” is supposed to convey in regards to the limitations. For example, in claim 1 eliminating the phrase results in “determined as a function of a time and/or period for the application of pressure from a pressure reservoir to the plastic preform.”
Claim 3 unclear if the at least one parameter is in addition to the “time and/or period
Claim 3 recites the limitation " the application of a further pressure level.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “the valve opening times for the return of the flowable medium into a pressure reservoir… correspond to the valve opening times for the return of the flowable medium into this for the return of the flowable medium into this pressure reservoir.” As written this states that the valve opening time for the return corresponds to itself.
Claim 11 recites the phrase “for regulation,” but unclear of what.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zoppas (US 2010/017243).
As to claim 1, Zoppas teaches a method of forming plastic preforms into plastic containers [Abstract], wherein a plastic preform is expanded into the plastic container by exposure to a flowable medium [0045], wherein the flowable medium is stored under a first pressure in a first pressure reservoir [0045, 0050] as the primary air is compressed and stored in the primary tank [0013, 0016-0018] and under a second pressure which is higher than the first pressure in a second pressure reservoir similarly phrased as a secondary air tank [0046, 0017-0018], and wherein the plastic preform is acted upon by a first blowing pressure via a flow connection between the first pressure reservoir and the plastic preform and is acted upon by the second blowing pressure via a flow connection between the second pressure reservoir and the plastic preform [0045, 0046, 0016, 0017, Fig 2,4], and wherein flowable medium is at least temporarily returned to the first pressure reservoir [0068, 0067], wherein at least one time and/or period for a return into the first pressure reservoir is determined as a function of a time and/or period which is characteristic for the application of pressure from a pressure reservoir to the plastic preform as the start time of the discharging period [0068, 0067] begins at the end of the time period for the secondary pressure step and the secondary pressure step is itself started at the end of the first pressure time period and thus the start time of the discharging/gas return step is a function of either the time periods as well as start/stop times of the 2 different pressure periods[0018].
As to claim 2, Zoppas teaches the least one time and/or period for a return into the first pressure reservoir is determined as a function of a time and/or period which is characteristic for the application of pressure from the first pressure reservoir to the plastic preform as explained above [0018].
As to claim 3, Zoppas teaches that for determining the time and/or period for the return to the first pressure reservoir, at least one parameter is taken into account which is characteristic for the container to be expanded and/or for a time period of the application of a further pressure level as any of the start/stop times or periods for the first pressure step, second pressure step as explained above would be a parameter which is characteristic for the container to be expanded.
As to claim 6, Zoppas teaches the plastic preform is subjected to at least three different pressure levels during its expansion [0045, 0046, 0048].
As to claim 10, Zoppas teaches the valve opening times for the return of the flowable medium into a pressure reservoir are dependent on valve opening times for pressurizing the plastic preform with flowable medium from this pressure reservoir and correspond to the valve opening times for the return of the flowable medium into this pressure reservoir as the first tank utilizes a 2 way valve so the opening time for return would necessarily be dependent on the valve opening time for pressurizing (ie the gas goes 1 direction vs another in the same valve) [0068, 0067].
As to claim 11, Zoppas teaches an on/off valve that is adjusted to manage pressure and therefore discloses at least one valve opening time is changed for regulation [0136, 0026, 0068, 0069, 0070, 0074]. Additionally, Storione also discloses the recycle valve times can be “fine tuned” [0067] or adjusted “ad-hoc” [0043].
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoppas (US 2010/017243) in view of Knapp (US 2016/0176099).
As to claim 4, Zoppas teaches that the recovery time is based on the application of the pressure to preform and that each different pressure is provided by a different air tank as discussed above [0018] and also notes that the secondary air tank may also have gas returned to it [0136] but does not explicitly state a third pressure reservoir with a third pressure is provided, wherein the third pressure is higher than the second.
Knapp teaches a method of blowing plastic preforms [Abstract] and notes the use of 3 different air pressures each higher than the previous one in order to impart a desired wall thickness [0024, 0025]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of a third pressure reservoir with a third pressure is provided, wherein the third pressure is higher than both the second and first, as suggested by Knapp, in order to provide the desired wall thickness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoppas (US 2010/017243) in view of Brunner (US 2011/0057343).
As to claim 4, Zoppas teaches that the recovery time is based on the application of the pressure to preform and that each different pressure is provided by a different air tank as discussed above [0018] and also notes that the secondary air tank may also have gas returned to it [0136] but does not explicitly state a third pressure reservoir with a third pressure is provided, wherein the third pressure is higher than the second.
Brunner teaches a method of blowing plastic preforms [Abstract] and notes the use of 3 pressure reservoirs (8, 9, 10, 10’) with different air pressures each higher than the previous one [0033, 0036, Fig 2, Fig 3] in order to avoid pressure variation[0007-0009]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of a third pressure reservoir with a third pressure is provided, wherein the third pressure provided by a third pressure reservoir is higher than both the second and first, as suggested by Brunner, in order to avoid pressure variation.
Claims 5, 7-9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoppas (US 2010/017243) in view of Storione (US 2004/0173949).
As to claim 5, Zoppas does not explicitly state the plastic preform is transported along a predetermined transport path and expansion takes place during this transport. However, this is just an inherent property of rotary blow molding machines (ie the preform is transported along a circular path in the normal course of operation of a rotary system) which one of ordinary skill in the art would assume the blow molding machine of Zoppas to be without further specification.
In the alternative, Storione teaches a method for making plastic bottles [Abstract] wherein the blow moulding machine is a rotary apparatus [0047, 0061, 0070, Fig 4, 5] as this allows for continuous production even for a very large number of work stations as Storione provides the example of 48 workstations [0070, Fig 4, 5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Zoppas and utilized a molding machine wherein the state the plastic preform is transported along a predetermined transport path and expansion takes place during this transport, as suggested by Storione, as this had demonstrated success at producing blown articles and allowed for continuous production even for a very large number of work stations [0047, 0061, 0070, Fig 4, 5].
As to claim 7, Zoppas does not state the start time of a return of the flowable medium to the x-th reservoir based on the equation start time recycling Px = Start time pressure build-up Px + n* ((3600/station power)/number of forming stations) - tx, wherein tx is a constant, is determined. It is noted that ((3600/station power)/number of forming stations) is just an expression of cycle time per station.
Storione teaches a method for making plastic bottles [Abstract] and is, similar to Zoppas, concerned with recuperating gas [Abstract, 0015] in order avoid wasting energy [0006, 0015] and notes that the time for return of the flowable medium, phrased as “time for which the gas is recovered,” can be recovered “by calculation, taking into account of the cycle times of the machine involved” [0067, 0066]. In other words, determining the start time of a return of the flowable medium based on cycle time per station is routine optimization which is generally recognized to be obvious, see MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Zoppas and had state the start time of a return of the flowable medium to the x-th reservoir based on the equation start time recycling Px = Start time pressure build-up Px + n* ((3600/station power)/number of forming stations) - tx, wherein tx is a constant, is determined, as suggested by Storione, as this would be routine optimization and in order to minimize energy waste.
As to claim 8, the combination of Zoppas and Storione as this is just a mathematical formulation of the relationship between recycling time and cycle time as disclosed in the Storione and is thus just routine optimization as explained above. Additionally, Zoppas does disclose a time period of 50 ms [0051, 0108, 0109] which would constitute an overlapping range.
As to claim 9, The combination of Zoppas and Storione discloses the determining the time and/or period for the return to the first pressure reservoir, at least one parameter is taken into account which is selected from a group of parameters which are characteristic for a number of the forming stations and/or for a power of the forming stations as Storione teaches determination based on cycle times [0067] and cycle time is a function of the number of stations and station power.
As to claim 11, Zoppas teaches an on/off valve that is adjusted to manage pressure and therefore discloses at least one valve opening time is changed for regulation [0026, 0068, 0069, 0070, 0074]. Additionally, Storione also discloses the recycle valve times can be “fine tuned” [0067] or adjusted “ad-hoc” [0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Zoppas and changed a valve opening time, as suggested by Storione, as this would be routine optimization and in order to minimize energy waste.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759