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 June 5, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-8 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 1-3, 5, 6, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being unpatentable over Forsthovel et al. (US 2009/0261513), further in view of Stainer (US 2009/0108505).
Regarding claim 1, Forsthovel discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 3, 5, an apparatus for manufacturing containers comprising:
a heating device (item 33, Fig. 1 ([0062], line 7)) for preforms of the containers, the heating effect of which is adjustable ([0054], lines 1-4; [0067]; [0099]),
a forming device (items 34, 35, Fig. 1 ([0063])) having adjustable parameters which influence the forming process ([0055]),
a measuring device which is designed to perform a transmission measurement for light that passes through the produced container (items 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, Figs. 1, 3 ([0068]; [0069]; [0070], [0095] (e.g., the radiation detector devices 14, 16, 18)); it is noticed that, in [0095], specifically, an apparatus having the absorption examination unit (6) includes a radiation emitting device which irradiates light in an infrared wavelength range onto the plastic containers, and the absorption examination unit (6) includes a radiation detector device which detects light that has been irradiated onto and transmitted by the plastic containers (10)),
a closed-loop control (e.g., as illustrated in Fig. 5, this control unit 59 may also be a closed loop control unit ([0074], lines 1-3)) that is designed to process the result of the transmission measurement and a target value of the transmission measurement (e.g., values which are characteristic of the infrared absorption degree are compared with values stored in memory ([0090], lines 1-3 from bottom); Here, the values stored in memory can be considered as the target values) and, based upon the result of the transmission measurement and the target value, to adjust
the heating effect of the heating device ([0074]) and/or
one or more adjustable parameters of the forming device.
It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.
The emitters 11, 12, 13 and detectors 14, 16, 18 of Forsthovel are “designed to perform” a transmission measurement for light passing through any appropriate object (a preform, a finished container, etc.). In other words, the emitters 11, 12, 13 and detectors 14, 16, 18 are capable of performing the recited functionality and, therefore, meet the measuring device limitation.
Forsthovel disclose the target value (e.g., characteristic values stored in a data base ([0044], line 1 from bottom)). For example, Forsthovel discloses that, the measurement device (i.e., by the infrared absorption spectrometer ([0025])) determines, e.g., on the basis of one preform per batch and/or shot, the infrared absorption and compares the infrared absorption with a stored database.
Further, Forsthovel discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5, several heating devices (as shown in Fig. 1 or Fig. 5) are provided whose heating effect is adjustable and which can heat different regions along a longitudinal axis of the preform, and wherein the measuring device has several measuring sensors which, along the longitudinal axis of the container, at different locations, can carry out a transmission measurement for light that passes through the container, wherein the closed-loop control can regulate the heating effect of the several heating devices based upon the several measuring sensors ([0071]-[0078]).
For example, Forsthovel discloses that, the unit 6 provides characteristic values for the infrared absorption degree of the plastic preforms 10 moving past said unit ([0073], lines 1-3 from bottom). It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 3, these characteristic values for the infrared absorption degree of the plastic preforms includes the whole body of the preforms (e.g., different regions along a longitudinal axis of the preforms).
Then, these values are transmitted to a control unit 59. This control unit may also be a closed loop control unit. The control unit 59 makes use of the determined characteristic values for controlling the heating unit (33) in accordance with the preform absorption characteristic ascertained ([0074], lines 1-6).
Thus, the heating unit (33) including multiple heating means 61a-61e (as shown in Fig. 4) provides the heating effect to the whole body of the preforms based on the feedback from the determined infrared absorption characteristic values.
However, Forsthovel does not explicitly disclose that, the target value is determined from a history measurement value stored in the controller.
In the same field of endeavor, blow molding, Steiner discloses that, the describing data are preferably stored together with the measured parameters and the changed control parameters. In this way, it is possible to achieve a self-learning effect of the apparatus of the method. In this case it is possible to output, in addition to the control parameters, both the output values and also the target values of the control parameters ([0028], lines 1-7 from bottom).
Here, the measured parameters and the changed control parameters should include the required target value. Otherwise, the changed control parameters will not be executed.
It is noticed that, in the teachings of Steiner, references 4, 5, and 6 denote various measuring devices which measure certain characteristic physical states of the containers, such as for example a base weight, a wall thickness of the container, a temperature of the preform or the like ([0038]).
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 Forsthovel to incorporate the teachings of Steiner to provide that the target value is determined from a history measurement value stored in the controller. Doing so would be possible to adjust the control parameters of the apparatus as a function of the measured parameter, as recognized by Steiner ([0011]).
Regarding claims 2, 3, Forsthovel discloses that, the three radiation emitting devices 11, 12, 13 may emit different wavelength ranges ([0069]). The radiation detector devices 14, 16, 18 are associated with the individual radiation emitting devices 11, 12, 13 ([0070], lines 5-8). Thus, Forsthovel is capable of providing the transmission measurement with light at two different wavelengths. As illustrated in Fig. 5, Forsthovel discloses that, the result of the transmission measurement for the light of the two different wavelengths can be made available individually to the closed-loop control.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 7, Forsthovel discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4, the measuring device (e.g., one of items 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18) is provided to perform the transmission measurement on the container several times at different locations of the container at approximately the same height of the container or at different heights of the container (i.e., Fig. 4 is related to claim 5 and Fig. 3 is related to claim 6), and to average the results, add them, and to provide the measurement result obtained in this way for the closed loop control. For example, ss illustrated in Fig. 3, the measuring device is designed such that the light passes between the illumination (e.g., item 11) and a receiver (e.g., item 14) of the light through two walls of the container (related to claim 7).
It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.
Regarding claim 8, Forsthovel disclose the target value (e.g., characteristic values stored in a data base ([0044], line 1 from bottom)). However, Forsthovel does not explicitly disclose that, the target value is determined from a history measurement value stored in the controller. In the same field of endeavor, blow molding, Steiner discloses that, the describing data are preferably stored together with the measured parameters and the changed control parameters. In this way, it is possible to achieve a self-learning effect of the apparatus of the method. In this case it is possible to output, in addition to the control parameters, both the output values and also the target values of the control parameters ([0028], lines 1-7 from bottom).
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 Forsthovel to incorporate the teachings of Steiner to provide that the target value is determined from a history measurement value stored in the controller. Doing so would be possible to adjust the control parameters of the apparatus as a function of the measured parameter, as recognized by Steiner ([0011]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/2026 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that the base reference Forsthovel does not disclose for heating different regions along a longitudinal axis of a preform, it is not persuasive.
For example, Forsthovel discloses that, the unit 6 provides characteristic values for the infrared absorption degree of the plastic preforms 10 moving past said unit ([0073], lines 1-3 from bottom). It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 3, these characteristic values for the infrared absorption degree of the plastic preforms includes the whole body of the preforms (e.g., different regions along a longitudinal axis of the preforms).
Then, these values are transmitted to a control unit 59. This control unit may also be a closed loop control unit. The control unit 59 makes use of the determined characteristic values for controlling the heating unit (33) in accordance with the preform absorption characteristic ascertained ([0074], lines 1-6).
Thus, the heating unit (33) including multiple heating means 61a-61e (as shown in Fig. 4) provides the heating effect to the whole body of the preforms based on the feedback from the determined infrared absorption characteristic values.
Regarding arguments in claim 1 that the reference Steiner does not disclose for using a stored measured parameter as a nominal value, it is not persuasive.
Steiner discloses that, the describing data are preferably stored together with the measured parameters and the changed control parameters. In this way, it is possible to achieve a self-learning effect of the apparatus of the method. In this case it is possible to output, in addition to the control parameters, both the output values and also the target values of the control parameters ([0028], lines 1-7 from bottom).
Here, the measured parameters and the changed control parameters should include the required target value. Otherwise, the changed control parameters will not be able to be executed.
In [0028] of the teachings of Steiner, the output values are majorly about the measured parameters (i.e., for example, a base weight, a wall thickness of the container, a temperature of the preform or the like). The target values of the control parameters are extra ([0028], lines 1-3 from bottom).
Specifically, Steiner discloses that, these describing data are preferably stored together with the measured parameters and the changed control parameters. In this way, it is possible to achieve a self-learning effect of the apparatus of the method ([0028], lines 10-13).
It is well known in the art that, for the blow molding machine, the self-learning effect of the apparatus about the measured parameters (i.e., for example, a base weight, a wall thickness of the container, a temperature of the preform or the like) is a process to make the necessary change/adjustment based on the historical measured data.
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