DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 2. Claim s 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court ( Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014 ) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019 )), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101. Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to two of the four statutory class es , apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example) , we recognize that the limitations “determining a presence or absence of a product defect, based on an electric signal associated with the sound detected by the sound collection device,” is an abstract idea, as it involves mental process under the BRI. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application . In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “a sound collection device configured to detect sound, and one or more arithmetic logic devices, wherein at least one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices is configured to execute a product determination function,”, “a pressure sensor configured to detect pressure of a pressurized fluid to be supplied to expand a product, wherein at least one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices is further configured to execute an instrument determination function,” “ collecting sound emitted from a blow molding machine,” but said limitations are merely directed to, recited at high level of generality, insignificant data collection activity, and recitation of general-purpose processors to implementing the abstract idea. The claims additionally recite “at least one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices is configured to notify a worker of the product defect, in response to determining that the product defect is present,” but said limitation, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to insignificant post-solution activity. The claims do not improve the functioning of the sound collection device, sensors and one or more arithmetic logic devices, and do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are not improvement in the abstract idea of determining the presence or absence of a product defect. In short, the claims do not recite sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “a sound collection device configured to detect sound, and one or more arithmetic logic devices, wherein at least one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices is configured to execute a product determination function,” “a pressure sensor configured to detect pressure of a pressurized fluid to be supplied to expand a product, wherein at least one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices is further configured to execute an instrument determination function,” “collecting sound emitted from a blow molding machine,” but said limitations are merely directed to, recited at high level of generality, insignificant data collection activity, and recitation of general-purpose processors to implementing the abstract idea, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims additionally recite “at least one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices is configured to notify a worker of the product defect, in response to determining that the product defect is present,” but said limitation, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to insignificant post-solution activity, that are also well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. In Summary , the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea . As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101. 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 -2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Pena, US Pat No. 6,416,308 (hereinafter Pena) . Regarding Claim s 1 and 6 . Pena discloses a blow molding machine ( Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 45-55 ), comprising: a sound collection device configured to detect sound ( Fig. 1, Col. 4, lines 44-55, sound detector system 38 ) ; and one or more arithmetic logic devices, wherein at least one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices ( Col. 5, lines 63-67 ) is configured to execute a product determination function for determining a presence or absence of a product defect, based on an electric signal associated with the sound detected by the sound collection device ( Col. 6, lines 27-40 , defective if sound level greater than the predetermined set point ) . Regarding Claim 2 . Pena discloses at least one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices determines that the product defect is present, in response to an intensity of a component, which is included in the electric signal, relating to sound at a predetermined frequency exceeding a predetermined threshold (Col. 6, lines 27-40, defective if sound level greater than the predetermined set point ; Col. 4, lines 44-58) 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. 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. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pena, US Pat No. 6,416,308 in view of Hayward et al., US-PGPUB 2005/0181087 (hereinafter Hayward) (cited by the Applicant) Regarding Claim 3 . Pena discloses particular frequency of the sound level ( Col. 4, lines 44-58 ) Pena does not explicitly disclose the predetermined frequency is selected from 40 to 65 Hz or 5000 to 20000 Hz. Hayward discloses determining the defect in blow-molded plastic containers, which includes using frequency in the range of 20 kHz to 60 kHz ( Paragraphs [0022], [0030]) At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Hayward in Pena and use the predetermined frequency that is selected from 40 to 65 Hz or 5000 to 20000 Hz , so as to accurately detect defect with reduced noise. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pena, US Pat No. 6,416,308 in view of Protai et al., US-PGPUB 2017/0326780 (hereinafter Protai ) FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" and alternately in view of Masanobu, et al., JP 3272522 (hereinafter Masanobu) (cited by the Applicant) (machine English translated version) Regarding Claim 4 . Pena does not disclose a pressure sensor configured to detect pressure of a pressurized fluid to be supplied to expand a product, wherein at least one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices is further configured to execute an instrument determination function for determining a presence or absence of an instrument abnormality, based on an electric signal associated with the pressure detected by the pressure sensor. Protais discloses a pressure sensor configured to detect pressure of a pressurized fluid to be supplied to expand a product ( Paragraph [0068], [0162], pressure sensor ) , wherein at least one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices is further configured to execute an instrument determination function for determining a presence or absence of an instrument abnormality, based on an electric signal associated with the pressure detected by the pressure sensor ( Paragraphs [0161] -[ 0166], failures ) At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Protais in Pena and have a pressure sensor configured to detect pressure of a pressurized fluid to be supplied to expand a product, wherein at least one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices is further configured to execute an instrument determination function for determining a presence or absence of an instrument abnormality, based on an electric signal associated with the pressure detected by the pressure sensor , so as to efficiently manufacture non-defective containers. --------------------- alternately in view of Masanobu --------------- Pena does not disclose a pressure sensor configured to detect pressure of a pressurized fluid to be supplied to expand a product, wherein at least one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices is further configured to execute an instrument determination function for determining a presence or absence of an instrument abnormality, based on an electric signal associated with the pressure detected by the pressure sensor. Masanobu discloses a pressure sensor configured to detect pressure of a pressurized fluid to be supplied to expand a product ( Claim 1, Paragraph [0024], pressure detector ) , wherein at least one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices is further configured to execute an instrument determination function for determining a presence or absence of an instrument abnormality, based on an electric signal associated with the pressure detected by the pressure sensor ( Claim 4; Paragraphs [0003]- [0009]; [0045]-[0059]) At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Masanobu in Pena and have a pressure sensor configured to detect pressure of a pressurized fluid to be supplied to expand a product, wherein at least one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices is further configured to execute an instrument determination function for determining a presence or absence of an instrument abnormality, based on an electric signal associated with the pressure detected by the pressure sensor, so as to reliably detect abnormality in the blow molding machine and efficiently manufacture non-defective containers. 9 . Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pena, US Pat No. 6,416,308 in view of No one et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0166909 (hereinafter Noone) and alternately in view of Masanobu , JP 3272522 (cited by the Applicant) (machine English translated version) Regarding Claim 5 . Pena does not disclose at least one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices is configured to notify a worker of the product defect, in response to determining that the product defect is present. Noone discloses one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices is configured to notify a worker of the product defect, in response to determining that the product defect is present ( Paragraph [0037] warning if defect, [0073], blow forming process ) At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Noone in Pena and have at least one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices is configured to notify a worker of the product defect, in response to determining that the product defect is present , so as to timely address the defective product. alternately in view of Masanobu --------------- Pena does not disclose at least one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices is configured to notify a worker of the product defect, in response to determining that the product defect is present. Masanobu discloses disclose at least one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices is configured to notify a worker of the product defect, in response to determining that the product defect is present ( Paragraph [0046]) At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Masanobu in Pena and have at least one of the one or more arithmetic logic devices is configured to notify a worker of the product defect, in response to determining that the product defect is present, so as to timely address the defective product. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Derrien , US-PGPUB 2017/0203495. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7922 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 11-4 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Arleen Vazquez can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2619 . 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. /HYUN D PARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857