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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-6 and 12-14) in the reply filed on 04/10/2026 is acknowledged.
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 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites wherein during the thermal conditioning, each reference marking applied to the preform faces a heating means, and in particular faces the heating means with which it is associated. Regarding claim 6, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 6,620,352 B1) in view of Sidel Participations (WO 2021130243 A1, the Examiner uses equivalent translation provided by US 2023/0023175 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Davis teaches a method for producing containers from preforms, said containers being able to have different formats, each format of container having at least three sections along the height of the container (Fig. 1 item 30-parison including M1, M2, and M3), the method comprising at least the following steps of:
thermally conditioning a preform made of a thermoplastic material, said thermal conditioning being performed by at least one heating unit comprising at least one heating module (see Fig. 5 preforms 10 are heated by radiant heaters 72 of the heating module; see col 10 lines 25 - 65), said heating module comprising several heating means positioned one above the other (Fig 5, item 72); and blow-molding or stretch-blow-molding the container by means of a forming unit for the forming of containers (Fig. 5 shows stretch blow molding on the right hand side, including blow mold 25, with cavities 25a; see col 11. Lines 40-65),
wherein said method comprises a calibration step for at least one of the formats of container, comprising the following actions in succession: supplying a sample preform for said format; applying to said sample at least one reference markings distributed along the height of said sample (see claim 1; and also see col 3 lines 4 to col 40 lines 65 disc loses each parison having at least one indicators for detecting material distribution at a predetermined position along the axial extend of the parison).
Davis discloses by having material distribution indicator on the parison (which corresponds to the translation of the rings 24 of the parison 10 to the container as a result of a stretching and circumferential expansion of the parison 10. The distribution indicator 44 appear on the blow molded container as slight transparent distortion lines extending around the circumference of the container 28 generally as around the circumference of the container 28, see col 7 lines 1-20), and using the material distribution data for marked container for producing continuously desired molded article without defect (consistent quality control) (see col 4 lines 30-65), however, fails to teach however, fails to explicitly teach having at least two reference markings being associated with at least one heating means, wherein the at least two reference markings are laser markings or ink markings; thermal conditioning of said sample and blowing of said sample in order to obtain a container to said format, capturing of the position of the reference markings on said container obtained; and attributing of each of the heating means to at least one of the three sections according to the position of the reference markings on said container obtained (it is noted that Applicant’s specification discloses that by doing so one skilled in the art controls the thickness).
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to thermal conditioning and blow molding containers, Sidel Participations teach having a preform including angular marker where measurement is detected by sensor at the start of the path of heating path and then to correct the orientation of said preform downstream of the measurement zone so that its heating profile corresponds exactly to the position of the angular marker (see [0020]-[0030]).
Additionally, Davis describes functional benefit of by having indicator on the parison thereby controlling the thickness and weight of the plastic while it is being shaped into a bottle via blow molding and using sensors similar to applicant’s invention, which ensures the plastic is spread evenly, making the bottle strong without using too much material (see col 6 lines 20 to col 7 lines 65), therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to include having parisons with plurality of reference markings (laser or ink), such as at least two as claimed, during heating as suggested by SIDEL Participation, as well as blow molding, as taught by Davis, for similar functional benefit of controlling various process parameters including thickness or bottle type, thereby achieving quality products.
As for claim 6, Davis further teaches thermal conditioning (Fig 5), thus it is obvious that during the thermal conditioning, each reference marking applied to the preform faces a heating means, and in particular faces the heating means with which it is associated (Figure 5; col 3 lines 35 to col 4 lines 65, col 7 lines 50 to col 8 lines 65).
Claims 7-11 are withdrawn, and are therefore not examined.
Regarding claim 12, Davis teaches a method for producing containers from preforms, said containers being able to have different formats, each format of container having at least three sections along the height of the container (Fig. 1 item 30-parison including M1, M2, and M3), the method comprising at least the following steps of:
thermally conditioning a preform made of a thermoplastic material, said thermal conditioning being performed by at least one heating unit comprising at least one heating module (see Fig. 5 preforms 10 are heated by radiant heaters 72 of the heating module; see col 10 lines 25 - 65), said heating module comprising several heating means positioned one above the other (Fig 5, item 72); and blow-molding or stretch-blow-molding the container by means of a forming unit for the forming of containers (Fig. 5 shows stretch blow molding on the right hand side, including blow mold 25, with cavities 25a; see col 11. Lines 40-65),
wherein said method comprises a calibration step for at least one of the formats of container, comprising the following actions in succession: supplying a sample preform for said format; applying to said sample at least one reference markings distributed along the height of said sample (see claim 1; and also see col 3 lines 4 to col 40 lines 65 disc loses each parison having at least one indicators for detecting material distribution at a predetermined position along the axial extend of the parison).
Davis discloses by having material distribution indicator on the parison (which corresponds to the translation of the rings 24 of the parison 10 to the container as a result of a stretching and circumferential expansion of the parison 10. The distribution indicator 44 appear on the blow molded container as slight transparent distortion lines extending around the circumference of the container 28 generally as around the circumference of the container 28, see col 7 lines 1-20), and using the material distribution data for marked container for producing continuously desired molded article without defect (consistent quality control) (see col 4 lines 30-65), however, fails to teach however, fails to explicitly teach each of the at least two reference markings being associated with at least one heating means, wherein the at least two reference markings are laser markings or ink markings; thermal conditioning of said sample and blowing of said sample in order to obtain a container to said format, capturing of the position of the reference markings on said container obtained; and attributing of each of the heating means to at least one of the three sections according to the position of the reference markings on said container obtained (it is noted that Applicant’s specification discloses that by doing so one skilled in the art controls the thickness).
Because Davis describes functional benefit of by having indicator on the parison thereby controlling the thickness and weight of the plastic while it is being shaped into a bottle, which ensures the plastic is spread evenly, making the bottle strong without using too much material (see col 6 lines 20 to col 7 lines 65), therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to include having parisons with plurality of reference markings (laser or ink), such as at least two as claimed, during heating, for similar functional benefit of controlling various process parameters including thickness or bottle type, thereby achieving quality products.
Davis fails to explicitly teach attributing of each of the heating means to at least one of the three sections according to the position of the reference markings on the container obtained.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to thermal conditioning and blow molding containers, Sidel Participations teach having a preform including angular marker where measurement is detected by sensor at the start of the path of heating path and then to correct the orientation of said preform downstream of the measurement zone so that its heating profile corresponds exactly to the position of the angular marker (see [0020]-[0030]). By doing so, SIDEL participation controls or compensates the angular position of the subsequent hollow bodies in a compensation zone upstream of said measurement zone as function of the angular offset measured for the at least one particular hollow body (see abstract), thereby achieving quality products.
Davis discloses providing markings on the preform and specifying blow molding upon next parison based on the data, thus assigning heating means based on the reference markings on the container obtained for intended purpose (such as control thickness, material property), as taught by SIDEL participation, in combination with Davis would have been obvious for the purpose of controlling the quality (thickness) of the bottle formed.
As for claims 13-14, Davis further provides suggestion for the thermal conditioning is performed by at least one heating unit comprising at least one heating module (Fig 5, item 72 as heating means of the heating module), the heating module comprising several heating means positioned one above the other (see Fig. 5 item 72). However, as noted above, Davis does not explicitly teach wherein each of the at least two reference markings are associated with at least one heating mean, however, discloses having reference marking (indicator) on the preform for blow molding and controlling the thickness as noted above. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention was made similarly use the reference marking on the parison for at least one heating means, for providing similar functional benefit of effectively controlling the heating, thereby controlling thickness similar to controlling the thickness during blow molding as provided by Davis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 - 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 2, Davis fails to explicitly teach
wherein it comprises a step of controlling the wall thickness of the wall of the containers at the sections, said control being performed by means of a control unit, said unit comprising detection means comprising at least two sensors, and the control step involving comparing said thickness measurement against a setpoint value. Claims 3-5 are dependent upon claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2022/0396023 A1 – discloses the neck has a projecting marker than can detected by an option barrier sensor emitting a detecting beam (see [0009]).
US 2022/0288836 A1 – apparatus and method for forming plastic preforms into plastic containers with two preform stores.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights