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 July 2, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9-11 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 1-7, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humele et al. (US 8,231,823), further in view of Senn et al. (US 2012/0080827) (hereafter Senn’s 827) and Senn et al. (US 2011/0236517).
Regarding claims 1, 2, Humele discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, a method of heating blanks for plastic molding (ABSTRACT), comprising:
a) receiving plurality of blanks in a sequence, said plurality of blanks comprising blanks of different types, each type for being molded in an associated molding process (as shown in Fig. 6; col. 9, lines 62-67 (e.g., the preforms 1 from the storage 34 are feed to the oven 40 through a feed chute 36) and col. 10, lines 1-3 (e.g., after heating, the preforms are transferred into the stretch-blow moulding machine 14); Because each preform is heated in each individual heating unit 3 (e.g., as shown in Fig. 2) in different location(s), at least these preforms being heated by the different microwave heater(s) can be considered as being different type(s));
b) for each blank in said sequence:
i) determining a heating requirement corresponding to characteristics of said blank and the associated molding process (col. 3, lines 50-67 and col. 4, lines 1-8 (i.e., the temperature (profile) of the preform is measured at least once before and/or during and/or after heating));
ii) generating a microwave field, said microwave field having a strength defining a heating rate (Items 21, 22, 40, Figs. 6, 7, 8, and 11 (e.g., col. 11, lines 60-67 and col. 12, lines 1-8));
iii) determining a heating duration based on said heating requirement (col. 3, lines 63-67 and col. 4, lines 1-8 (e.g., achieving a very accurate temperature profile (of the preform)));
iv) advancing said blank through said microwave field at a speed such that said blank is within said microwave field for a period of time equal to said heating duration, wherein said heating duration and said heating rate correspond to said heating requirement (e.g., as shown in Fig. 8, the transport of the preforms 1 to the resonator 11 and away from the resonator 11 is performed here by grippers 50a, 50b (col. 10, lines 55-57); it is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 7, the reflector element 19 is specifically to heat the tip of the base of the preform (col. 10, lines 24-35); it is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 8, the base of the preform 1 is traveling through the resonator 11 and is heated accordingly; it is also noticed that, the open loop or closed loop control of the operation of heating the preforms 1 is conducted (col. 8, lines 10-18) (related to claim 2)).
v) measuring an input temperature of said blank prior to heating using a temperature measurement device proximate to an entry to a heating chamber (e.g., it is noticed that, in the teachings of Humele, the preform holding unit 26 can be provided with a hole, not shown here, through which, for example, a temperature sensor extends into the interior of the preform 1 to be heated, or through which particular media, e.g., a cooling medium for the purpose of temperature equalization, can enter (col. 9, lines 50-55); It would have been obvious for one of skilled in the art to measure an input temperature of the preform prior to heating using a temperature sensor proximate to an entry to a heating chamber such as the resonator in the microwave field); and
vi) selecting said speed (e.g., as illustrated in Fig. 8, the transport of the preforms 1 to the resonator 11 and away from the resonator 11 is performed here by grippers 50a, 50b. The grippers are preferably part of a transfer and takeover star, which are indicated only in schematic form here by the grippers 50a, 50b and by the central column 37 (col. 10, lines 55-60); it is noticed that, when the grippers 50a, 50b carried the preform through the transfer and takeover star, it has the certain speed).
However, Humele does not explicitly disclose, selecting the speed of the preform based on the input temperature of measurement and the heating requirement.
In the same field of endeavor, forming preforms, Senn’s 827 discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, for example, depending on a rotational speed of the support wheel 42, a control means 30 can determine when or at which peripheral angle the heating process will start for a specific plastics material preforms ([0054], lines 1-4). Further, as illustrated in Fig. 1, an adjustment of the heating power would also be conceivable. Reference numeral 45 denotes a control means for controlling the heating device 40. It would additionally be possible to provide sensor means 48 which may preferably remotely detect a temperature of the plastics material preforms. It would thus also be possible for the further heating process to be stopped when a specific temperature of the plastics material preforms is reached ([0054], lines 11-18). It is also noticed that, the heating device 40 can be a microwave heater ([0040], lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Humele to have each preform being heated in each individual heating unit 3 (e.g., as shown in Fig. 2) in different location(s) as Senn’s 827 teaches that it is known to select the speed of the preform based on the input temperature of measurement and the heating requirement. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method 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).
In the teachings of the base reference Humele, because each preform is heated in each individual heating unit 3 (e.g., as shown in Fig. 2) in different location(s), at least these preforms being heated by the different microwave heater(s) can be considered as being different type(s). However, Humele does not explicitly disclose that, the different types of the preforms comprise preforms of different sizes, shapes, material propertied, or additive properties.
In the same field of endeavor, plastic containers, Senn discloses that, for example, the different plastic containers and/or preforms contain different quantities of an infrared absorption material ([0023], lines 1-3 from bottom).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Humele in the combination to have each preform being heated in each individual heating unit 3 (e.g., as shown in Fig. 2) in different location(s) as Senn teaches that it is known to have the different plastic containers and/or preforms contain different quantities of an infrared absorption material. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method 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 claims 3, 4, Humele discloses that, comparing a temperature profile of the preform based on the at least one measured temperature with a specified temperature profile, and regulating subsequent heating of the preform by adjusting a field-strength distribution in the resonator (col. 12, lines 57-61). As illustrated in Fig. 5, the preform 1 in the case has a region 2 (i.e., in the axial direction) that is to be heated (col. 9, lines 14-15).
Regarding claims 5, 6, Humele discloses that, it is thus also conceivable, for example, for a basic heat profile to be imparted to the preform by the infrared radiation and for the exact temperature profiling then to be performed only by the microwave (col. 7, lines 1-4). Humele discloses that, the open loop or closed loop control of the operation of heating the preforms 1 is conducted (col. 8, lines 10-18). Humele discloses that, regulating subsequent heating of the preform by adjusting a field-strength distribution in the resonator (col. 12, lines 60-61).
Regarding claim 7, Humele discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 11, the tuner is so realized that three tuning pins 23a, 23b, and 23c extend into the microwave conductor 22, thereby affecting the conduction cross section. In this way, the heating of the preforms 1 in the resonator can be adapted (col. 11, lines 54-58).
Regarding claim 9, Humele discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 5a, 5b, 5c, according to Fig. 5a, the preform 1 starts to be moved, along its longitudinal axis A, in the direction of the arrow 17, into the microwave zone of influencer 23 (i.e., represented by the black bar 33) (col. 9, lines 17-25). Humele discloses that, Fig. 5b shows a position in which the preform 1 has been moved to an extent through the microwave zone of influencer 33 (Col. 9, lines 26-28). Fig. 5c shows a position in which the entire region of the preform 1 that is to be heated has already been (col. 9, lines 35-36).
Regarding claims 10, 11, Humele discloses that, the preforms are rotated about their own longitudinal axis during the heating operations. On the one hand, the rotation can be effected uniformly, when with a uniform field strength distribution---results in a uniform temperature profile in respect of the circumference, but it can also be effected in an non-uniform manner (col. 4, lines 60-67). Humele discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 11, the tuning pins 23a and 23b are at the same height and the tuning pin 23c is extended to touch the bottom of the conductor.
Further, Humele discloses that, in the resonator 11 there is a reflector element 19, within the zone of action of the microwave (col. 10, lines 30-31). Humele discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 7, advantageously, the reflector element 19 is so realized that, during the movement of the preform 1 through the resonator 11, at least in the zone of action of the microwave, it is always at the same distance from the tip of the preform (col. 10, lines 36-39). It is noticed that, except the use of the reflector element 19 in this embodiment, at least the resonator 11 is capable of having its peak microwave intensity. Thus, Humele discloses that, generating a circumferential temperature gradient comprises moving a microwave-reflecting device (i.e., the reflector element) to position a region of peak microwave intensity relative to said blank.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2026 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments (as amended) that none of the applied references disclose using this combination of blank characteristics to determine blank speed for each individual blank, it is not persuasive.
In col. 3, lines 50-67 and col. 4, lines 1-8 of the base reference Humele, the temperature profile of the preform is measured at least once before and/or during and/or after heating.
In the teachings of Humele, because each preform is heated in each individual heating unit 3 (e.g., as shown in Fig. 2) in different location(s), at least these preforms being heated by the different microwave heater(s) can be considered as being different type(s).
The reference Senn’s 827 discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, for example, depending on a rotational speed of the support wheel 42, a control means 30 can determine when or at which peripheral angle the heating process will start for a specific plastics material preforms ([0054], lines 1-4).
The reference Senn (US 2011/0236517) discloses that, for example, the different plastic containers and/or preforms contain different quantities of an infrared absorption material ([0023], lines 1-3 from bottom).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Humele to have the different types of blanks as both Senn et al. (US 2012/0080827) (hereafter Senn’s 827) and Senn et al. (US 2011/0236517) teach that it is known to have the blank characteristics being determined via changing the blank speed for each individual blank through heating. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method 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) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding arguments that Senn’s 827 requires ‘the energy introduced into the plastic material preforms remains the same, even if the transport rate is changed’ ([0039]), so introducing the teachings of Senn’s 827 into Humble would not produce the claimed features, it is not persuasive.
In some exemplary embodiments, Senn’s 827 did require the energy introduced into the plastic material preforms remains the same, even if the transport rate is changed. However, when situations are changed such as different materials being applied into the blank preforms, there is no requirement/meaning for Senn’s 827 to maintain the energy input to each individual blank preform.
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