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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-25 are pending. Claims 1-4, 11-12, 16, 23 and 25 are the subject of this NON-FINAL Office Action. This is the first action on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-23 and 25) and the species of heating power and claim 3 in the reply filed on 02/26/2026 is acknowledged. Applicants argue that unity exists between Groups I and II because the apparatus of claim 24 is specifically designed for carrying out the process of claim 1. Applicants should read claim 24 again: “A data processing device comprising means for implementing the steps of the method as claimed in claim 1.” As was very clearly explained in the Requirement for Restriction/Election, a generic “means for implementing the steps of the method as claimed in claim 1” encompasses anything such as a generic computer, which is not specifically designed for carrying out the process of claim 1. Thus, this argument is treated as an election without traverse because Applicants completely fail to specifically point out why the Examiner’s reasoning is incorrect. See MPEP § 818.01(a).
As to the species election, Applicants argue that the “driving parameters” “are not alternative species of a generic invention.” However, this is contradicted by the claim language “or,” and Applicants next sentence: “they are presented as non-exclusive options using "and/or" language.” The word “or” means they are alternatives. Nothing in the claim requires all of them. Applicants simply misconstrue their claims. As to the modification techniques species, Applicants argue claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 17, and 18 do not recite alternative species of a single step. If this is true, then Applicants have failed to present their claims accordingly. Claim 3, for example, is a species of step iii separate from claim 5 which recites a different modification technique. In other words, all of these dependent claims recite alternative ways of performing the modification. Finally, Applicants also argue there is no search burden. However, that standard is for Applications without national stage entry. The arguments fail.
Claims 5-10, 13-15, 17-22 and 24 are withdrawn as drawn to unelected inventions and species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112- Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 1-4, 11-12, 16, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The steps required by the claimed method are so confusing and unclear that it would require conjecture as to their scope. When the claims become so ambiguous that one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine their scope absent speculation, such claims are invalid for indefiniteness. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962). As an initial matter, it seems the claims are a poor English translation from French. Claim 1 is representative and recites:
1. A method for manufacturing containers made of thermoplastic materials by blow molding or stretch blow molding a preform previously heated in an oven and then disposed in a mold composed of two half-molds delimiting a molding cavity, the preform being blown in the mold, with possibly a pre-blowing step, the preform heating, pre-blowing and blowing steps being driven by a control unit from different so-called driving parameters such as the temperature in the oven, the blowing pressure in the mold and/or the pre-blowing pressure and/or the pre-blowing flow rate and/or the speed of the stretching rod for example, wherein the method comprises at least the following steps of:
i) measuring the thickness of the wall of the containers at the output of the mold, at at least two different heights;
ii) comparing the measurements of the thicknesses with setpoint values determined for each height of the containers;
iii) if the deviation of the measurements of the thicknesses with the determined setpoint values is greater than a determined threshold, modifying at least one of the driving parameters, the modified driving parameter or parameters being selected at least by calculating the theoretical effects of the variation for each parameter on the thicknesses then by selecting the parameter or parameters inducing the smallest deviation between the measured thickness values and the theoretical thickness values; and
iv) the steps i) to iii) are repeated until the deviations of the measurements of the thicknesses with the determined setpoint values are less than the determined threshold.
First, the italicized parts are confusing. It is completely unclear what “possibly,” “so-called” and “such as” mean here, much less show they affect the claim scope. Simply put, one cannot determine if what follows these vague qualifiers is required by the claim.
Second, the inconsistent use of “and/or” makes it confusing to determine whether the temperature in the oven, the blowing pressure in the mold, the pre-blowing pressure, the pre-blowing flow rate and the speed of the stretching rod are alternatives. If so, Applicants should use proper American Markush language. See MPEP § 2117. The seeming list is even more confusing because “and/or” is not used between “the temperature in the oven” and “the blowing pressure in the mold,” yet used between the later options. Finally, the “for example” at the end of this seeming list that starts with “so-called driving parameters such as” is utterly confusing.
Third, in step iii, the italicized “then” is confusing. It’s position creates confusion: “the modified driving parameter or parameters being selected at least by calculating the theoretical effects of the variation for each parameter on the thicknesses then by selecting the parameter or parameters inducing the smallest deviation between the measured thickness values and the theoretical thickness values.” Applicants did not use a comma, yielding a run-on clause in which it is unclear what “then” is modifying.
Finally, all bold words above are improper antecedent bases. As to “the method,” multiple methods are listed in the meandering preamble; thus it is unclear which “method” is referenced.
Claim 2 also contains similar problems:
2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step iii) comprises at least the following steps of:
defining, for each parameter, an optimal reference coefficient chosen from among reference coefficients assigned to each zone of thickness of the wall of the containers;
memorizing lower and upper limits and scales for each of the parameters;
calculating an adjustment of each parameter as a function of the optimal reference coefficient previously defined;
calculating theoretical corrections for each zone of thickness as a function of the calculated adjustments and the scales;
calculating the theoretical thickness deviation of the containers as a function of the theoretical corrections calculated for each zone of thickness;
adding up, for each parameter, the calculated theoretical deviations; and
selecting at least one parameter having the lowest aggregate deviation value.
First, the metes and bounds of the italicized words and phrases are unclear. A coefficient is any number. No specific coefficient is recited, much less described. It is unclear how the coefficient is calculated or determined, which is critical to any coefficient meaning. For example, is this a coefficient of some property? Or merely and arbitrary mathematical constant? Applicants are encouraged to amend the claim consistent with paragraph 0035 of the specification: “Calculating an offset of the blowing and/or heating parameter by multiplying said initial coefficient by the thickness drift;—Determining the new coefficient as a function of the offset applied to the parameter and of the real effect measured on the material distribution of each zone of thickness.”
Similarly, “scales” can mean different things: to weigh, or have weight; a graduated measure or rule of something; a graduated series or scheme of rank or order; a proportion between two sets of dimensions; a distinctive relative size, extent, or degree; to pattern, make, regulate, set, or estimate according to some rate or standard. It is unclear what is meant here.
Claim 3 also contains similar problems:
3. The method as claimed in claim 2, wherein prior to the step of selecting at least one parameter, it comprises a step of ranking the parameters as a function of the calculated theoretical deviations.
The referent for “it” is unclear because claim 3 recites many “its.”
Claim 16 also contains similar problems:
16. The method as claimed in claim 2, characterized in wherein the parameter consists of a parameter of the heating unit such as the heating power at a determined height of the preform and/or the machine rate which modifies the scrolling speed of the preforms in the heating unit and/or the power of a ventilation ensuring the venting of a part of the heat in the heating unit and/or the temperature profile of the preferential heating.
First, once again, Applicants should consult the American practice of claiming lists of alternatives. See MPEP § 2117. Second, “consists” is closed, yet Applicants recite more. Specifically, “parameter consists of a parameter of the heating unit” is closed; yet the claim proceeds to recite additional options. Again, Applicants should consult American transitional phrase rules. See MPEP § 2111.03. As above, “such as” is confusing exemplary language because it is not clear if Applicants intend the examples to be limitations. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). All bold phrases above lack antecedent bases. Next, it is entirely unclear what is a “power of a ventilation.” Ventilation is never measured in power, rather amount of air moved in a period of time. Finally, “preferential heating” makes no sense because no preference, or referent is provided. Who or what prefers the heating? How is this measured? It is impossible to determine what heating is required.
Double Patenting- Obvious Type
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Instant claims 1-4, 11-12, 16, 23 and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over conflicting claims 6-25 of U.S. Application No. 18/725418.
The instant claims are obvious over the conflicting claims because the conflicting claims anticipate the instant claims. Specifically, the conflicting claims teach the same method:
6. The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising at least the following steps of:
i) measuring the thickness of the wall of said containers at the output of the mold, at at least two different heights;
ii) comparing the measurements of the thicknesses with setpoint values determined for each height of the containers;
iii) if the deviation of the measurements of the thicknesses with the determined setpoint values is greater than a determined threshold, modifying at least one of the driving parameters, said modified driving parameter or parameters being selected at least by calculating the theoretical effects of the variation for each parameter on the thicknesses then by selecting the parameter or parameters inducing the smallest deviation between the measured thickness values and the theoretical thickness values;
iv) the steps i) to iii) are repeated until the deviations of the measurements of the thicknesses with the determined setpoint values are less than said determined threshold.
7. The method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the step iii) comprises at least the following steps of:
defining, for each parameter, an optimal reference coefficient chosen from among reference coefficients assigned to each zone of thickness of the wall of the containers;
memorizing lower and upper limits and scales for each of said parameters;
calculating an adjustment of each parameter as a function of said optimal reference coefficient previously defined;
calculating theoretical corrections for each zone of thickness as a function of the calculated adjustments and the scales;
calculating the theoretical thickness deviation of the containers as a function of the theoretical corrections calculated for each zone of thickness;
adding up, for each parameter, said calculated theoretical deviations; and
selecting at least one parameter having the lowest aggregate deviation value.
8. The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein prior to the step of selecting at least one parameter, it comprises a step of ranking the parameters as a function of said calculated theoretical deviations.
9. The method as claimed in claim 8, wherein said parameters are ranked in ascending order, from the lowest aggregate deviation value to the highest aggregate deviation value.
10. The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein after the step of calculating the adjustments and prior to the step of calculating the theoretical corrections, it comprises an additional step of recalculating the adjustments if the calculated adjustments are not within said limits.
11. The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the zero calculated theoretical corrections are excluded.
12. The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the adding up of the calculated theoretical deviations is done as an absolute value.
13. The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the step of selecting the parameter is performed after the calculation of a new average of the thicknesses for each zone and/or the combination of the deviations for each zone of thickness has changed.
14. The method as claimed in claim 13, wherein a new average of the thicknesses for each zone is calculated at a predetermined frequency.
15. The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the new average of the thicknesses for each zone is calculated every m bottles output from the mold and measured, m being an integer number lying between 30 and 80.
16. The method as claimed in claim 8, wherein, if, after n corrections on said selected parameter, n being a predetermined number greater than or equal to 1, the deviation of the measurements of the thicknesses with the determined setpoint values is greater than a determined threshold, a new parameter is selected.
17. The method as claimed in claim 16, wherein the selected new parameter i+1 corresponds to the ranked parameter i+1.
18. The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the optimal reference coefficients, of each parameter, assigned to each zone of thickness of the wall of the containers are variable and are calculated each time a parameter is modified.
19. The method as claimed in claim 18, wherein said calculation of the optimal reference coefficient assigned to each zone of thickness of the wall of the containers is obtained from the calculation of the real effect of the adjustment on each zone of thickness of the wall of the containers.
20. The method as claimed in claim 19, wherein said calculation comprises at least the following steps of:
Calculating an offset of the blowing and/or heating parameter by multiplying said initial coefficient by the thickness drift;
Determining the new coefficient as a function of the offset applied to the parameter and of the real effect measured on the material distribution of each zone of thickness.
21. The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the parameter consists of a parameter of the heating unit such as the heating power at a determined height of the preform and/or the machine rate which modifies the scrolling speed of the preforms in the heating unit and/or the power of a ventilation ensuring the venting of a part of the heat in the heating unit and/or the temperature profile of the heating.
22. The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the parameter consists of a parameter of the forming unit such as the value of the pre-blowing pressure and/or the start of the pre-blowing and/or the pre-blowing flow rate and/or the speed of the stretching rod and/or the blowing pressure.
23. A computer program product comprising a sequence of instructions which, when the program is run by a computer, causes the latter to implement the steps of the method as claimed in claim 1.
24. A data processing device comprising means for implementing the steps of the method as claimed in claim 1.
25. A computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when they are executed by a computer, cause the latter to implement the steps of the method as claimed in claim 1.
Thus, the conflicting claims anticipate the instant claims.
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, if clarified as explained above, along with clarifying claim 1, would be allowable over the prior art. The prior art teaches methods of adjusting parameters of a blow molding or stretch molding machine that affect molded bottle wall thickness based on trained/modeled/virtual/”theoretical” calculations to yield the smallest deviation in desired thickness (US8758670; WO 2016012704; US20210331372; US 20220072759; US20230182369). This is not new. In fact, this general concept cannot be the basis of allowability as it is so generic as to encompass simply adjusting any parameter and determining its effects. However, the Examiner cannot find prior art that teaches or suggests the specific parameter modification technique of claim 2 as clarified in the specification.
Please note, if Applicants proceed with this option, then they must fix all the problems in the withdrawn claims, which are similar to those explained above in the indefiniteness rejections. Otherwise, prosecution will be unduly extended.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELODY TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-1846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Heather Calamita can be reached at 571-272-2876. 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.
/YUNG-SHENG M TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684
Prosecution Insights