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 § 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation " the measuring results" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear precisely what “result” or measurement is being referred to in claim 16. The preceding claims discuss the active step of measuring, determining wall thickness. For the purpose of this examination “the measurement results” in claim 16 is assumed to be referring to “the glass distribution measurements” in claim 1. Appropriate correction is necessary.
Regarding claim 21, there is no active step of how a first and second distance for different products and a rotational position yield an outer diameter or skew position. Furthermore, a “skew” must be relative to something but there is nothing in the claims to indicate what claim 21 is attempting to indicate as skewed. Is it a thickness of the glass product relative to another portion of the glass product? Is it the axis of the glass product? Is it one glass product skewed relative to a successive glass product? Is it the glass product relative to a virtual glass product determined from a previous glass product?
Claim 22 is rejected as being an ominous type claim. Claim 22 recites, “are transported on a conveyor along the path, wherein each product between steps b. and c. is placed on the conveyor with a rotational position around an axial axis of the glass product that varies per glass product. “ The axial axis of the glass product is considered the center axis how can a center axis vary between products if the product shape or shape relative to a rotational axis is not defined. It is unclear how to properly examine claim 22 without bringing limitations from the specification into the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 1-23 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bathlet et al. (US 20150076353).
Regarding claims 1 and 27, Bathlet discloses a method for inspecting hollow glass products of glass product material (abstract), wherein the glass products are manufactured by:
Forming hot glass containers, this necessarily requires heating a glass material to a temperature at which the glass product may be formed in shaping cavities [0022]-[0023];
Transporting the glass products successively along a pre-determined path (see arrow in at least Fig 1)
inspecting the glass products [0024]-[0027]
Bathlet discloses transporting the glass products along a conveyor (5) Fig 1 [0054].
Bathlet discloses the glass products are formed at a high temperature [0052] and no further heating of the products during the conveying step thus the formed products are inevitably cooled.
Bathlet discloses inspecting the glass products as they are transported successively along the conveyor. The inspecting comprises:
at least one sensor (6) of the measurement system (11) for measuring a glass thickness via infrared radiation emitted by the container [0023]-[0025], [0054]-[0056], [0077]
Bathlet discloses inspecting the glass products comprises determining a glass thickness of at least one measuring point M of an inspection area Z [0076]-[0077].
The inspection area point M is along a rotational position of the axial axis’ (Z) as depicted in Fig. 4 relative to the sensor [0076]-[0077]. Bathlet discloses determining the thickness distribution over the inspection area [0080].
Bathlet discloses determining a thickness distribution over a measurement area thus combining point measurements thus different rotational positions around the axial axis measurement area however does not disclose combining the glass thickness distribution measurements of different glass products.
Bathlet suggests inspection areas of containers of the same production may be taken into account for all containers coming from the same cavity [0086]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine thickness distribution measurements of different glass products as motivated to detect a thickness abnormality identical in each container, including a future product, or virtual product, from a single production process.
Regarding claim 2, the product is transported in a horizontally directed plane, wherein the axial axis of the product is vertically directed (See Fig 1-2) perpendicular to the transport direction.
Regarding claim 3, the glass thickness distribution mapped as described in at least [0075]-[0076] indicates relative variations in glass thickness as indicated in [0077].
Regarding claim 4, Bathlet does not indicate the glass thickness distribution comprises absolute values of the glass thickness distribution however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the absolute thickness because it would indicate the offset of a desired thickness regardless of thinner or thicker areas than the desired thickness.
Regarding claim 6, Bathlet discloses the lateral glass thickness distribution in a first area of the virtual glass product that extends around the axial axis of the virtual glass product as defined by the measurement area(See Fig 1-4) given the broadest reasonable interpretation because no dimensions to what constitutes as “extends” are defined thus any area is considered to meet the claim.
Regarding claims 7-8, Bathlet discloses point measurement of the thickness [0058]-[0059] does not explicitly state the measurement is carried out “at least three times” to obtain a thickness distribution. Bathlet discloses measurement needs to be carried out multiple times to determine a temperature distribution [0062]-[0063]
It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to determine the amount of times the measurement is carried out as motivated to determine the distribution.
Regarding claim 9, the sensor is displaced in the axial direction for obtaining recordings in different areas see sensors on opposite axial sides of container in Fig 2-3.
Regarding claims 10-11, as seen in Fig 1 a plurality of products are produced and conveyed along the at least one sensor (11) and the lateral glass thickness distribution of a virtual glass product has been obtained on the basis of measurements with the at least one sensor on products that have been manufactured in what is considered a same production flow [0075]-[0078] in different positions along the glass product (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 12, at least one sensor (11) in each case a glass thickness is determined of a part of a wall of a glass product of which an outer surface of (2) faces the at least one sensor (Fig 1-3).
Regarding claim 13, the at least one sensor (11) determines the thickness of a location of the glass product using an infrared radiation on an outer surface and inner surface the field depth of which is adapted so that the distribution of the infrared radiation of the rear face of the container opposite to the front face on which the inspection area is defined at least [0085]
Regarding claims 14-15, the product is transported in a horizontal plane, wherein the at least one sensor is moved in vertical direction for measuring on the glass product at different heights as depicted in Fig 1-3 [0076].
Regarding claim 16, the measuring results obtained with the at least one sensor a skew position relative to the vertical of the product is determined See 11 Fig 3. [0062], The distance between the inner surface and outer surface is necessarily measured given the broadest reasonable interpretation because this defines the thickness.
Regarding claims 17-18 at least two sensors are opposite to each other and face each other and wherein the products are transported between the at least two sensors Fig 1 [0076].
Regarding claim 19, each sensor necessarily measures a distance is measured between the sensors and an outer surface of the wall that faces the corresponding sensor as depicted in Fig 1 and described in [0075]-[0079] from the measurements an outer diameter of the glass product is determined by knowing the outer measurement. The claim does not require a calculation or program or controller language thus knowing the outer diameter from the measurements may be mental and still considered to meet the claim.
Regarding claim 20, it would be obvious to modify the method of Bathlet with additional third, fourth, or even more sensors to determine the thickness of the wall of the glass product at more positions as motivated to provide a product with more uniform desired thickness. [0085]-[0086] disclose providing further measurements In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Providing more sensors for more measurements is not unexpected.
Regarding claim 21, Bathlet discloses determining the thickness of glass distribution=, the orientation of the thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art an outer diameter and/or skew position of the virtual glass product is determined.
Regarding claim 22, Bathlet discloses the products are transported on a conveyor along the path, and sensors on at least two sides around the axial axis.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rotate the product relative to the sensors as opposed to placing additional sensors around the product as motivated to achieve the same result of detecting the thickness at multiple locations around the axis of the product.
Regarding claim 23, Forming hot glass containers, this necessarily requires heating a glass material to a temperature at which the glass product may be formed in shaping cavities [0022]-[0023];
Transporting the glass products successively along a pre-determined path (see arrow in at least Fig 1), inspecting the glass products [0024]-[0027]
when the formed glass product is released for further use it inevitably cools thus a non heating portion of the conveying line is considered to correspond to the claimed cooling apparatus.
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bathlet et al. (US 20150076353) as applied above and further in view of Portner (DE 102019005487) as cited in US 20210041233.
Regarding claims 24-26, Bathlet discloses measuring the wall thickness of conveyed glass containers however does not clearly recite a rotational position of each glass product on the conveyor is determined.
In an analogous art, Portner discloses inspecting a finished glass product or reasons of quality assurance, there is a great interest in assigning each hollow glass article manufactured to the respective set of parameters including the production station used and / or the pre- and finished molds used in order to be able to recognize and correct any incorrect settings or states at an early stage.
Portner checks the glass product for wall thickness uniformity where the product is provided with an individual identification, or marking, the glass products are rotatably mounted and successively relative to at least one sensor 13 , which is set up to measure the wall thickness distribution (Fig 2).
It would be obvious to apply a marking that can hold information on a glass product as taught by Portner motivated that it can hold identify information, such as a location, or orientation of the product during an inspection process and it would be obvious to rotate the glass product on a conveyor relative to the sensors as motivated to provide more measurement locations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bathlet does not disclose determining a rotational position on the container and Bathlet shows Fig 3 [0075]depicts inspection areas have the same rotational position.
In response to this argument, Applicant is relying on one figure and embodiment of inspection areas Z over what Applicant deems is the same rotational position (page 9 of the remarks filed 12/04/2025). Applicant is referring to one embodiment of Bathlet which discusses a container with three different slopes and the measurement of these different sloped areas as stated in [0076]. Applicant fails to read the prior art as a whole and the fact that Bathlet desires measuring the thickness of the entire product. Fig 3 depicts measurements system 11 which includes two rotational positions around an axial axis with the sensors on each side as depicted in at least Fig 1. [0077] discusses Fig 4 and shows that the sensor takes into account the measurement of thicknesses neighboring points M thus along at least one axial axis. Measuring at least one thickness at a desired position on the product meets the claim limitations of determining the thickness and rotational position given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Applicant argues how the thickness distribution measurements are combined in the present claims however does not indicate how this differentiates from being obvious over the prior art. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NL 9301568 measuring wall thickness and comparing against desired criteria, i.e. virtual product
US 5291271 and rotation of container and sensed for measuring wall thickness
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 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 JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm.
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 Hindenlang can be reached at (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 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741