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 of Group I, claims 1-22, in the reply filed on April 10, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed July 16, 2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
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.
Claims 1-22 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "possibly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations before the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the acronym." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein it comprises.” It is unclear which of the previously recited limitations of claim 1 is “it.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the so-called n." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites, in step iv), “the steps i) to iii) are repeated . . .” Because claim 1 recites steps i) – iii), and claim 6 separately recites steps i) – iii), it is unclear which set of “steps i) to iii)” is repeated.
Claim 17 recites “said selected new parameter i+1 corresponds to the ranked parameter i+1” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the index “I” in claim 17 or in any claim from which it depends. Claims 16, 8, 7, 6 and 1 define “n,” a ranking, and parameters, but never an index “I” or a “parameter I”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "said initial coefficient by the thickness drift." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the phrase "such as" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Piana (US 2012/0032364).
Claim 1: Piana discloses 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 (¶ 44), said preform being blown in the mold, with possibly a pre-blowing step, said 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 (¶¶ 49-50, 72-73), a display screen being connected to the control unit (display device 130; ¶¶ 54, 12, 17, 30), wherein the method comprises at least the following steps of:
i) Selecting at least one production configuration from a GUI, the acronym for "Graphical User Interface", each production configuration being associated with one or more driving parameters (¶¶ 6, 12, 17, 30);
ii) Compiling the different driving parameters corresponding to the selected production configurations (¶¶ 6, 86); and
iii) Executing said selected and compiled driving parameters (15, 28-29).
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piana (US 2012/0032364) in view of Wolfe (US 2016/0151957).
Claim 1: Piana discloses 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 (¶ 44), said preform being blown in the mold, with possibly a pre-blowing step, said 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 (¶¶ 49-50, 72-73), a display screen being connected to the control unit (display device 130; ¶¶ 54, 12, 17, 30), wherein the method comprises at least the following steps of:
i) Selecting at least one production configuration from a GUI, the acronym for "Graphical User Interface", each production configuration being associated with one or more driving parameters (¶¶ 6, 12, 17, 30);
ii) Compiling the different driving parameters corresponding to the selected production configurations (¶¶ 6, 86); and
iii) Executing said selected and compiled driving parameters (15, 28-29).
To the extent the preamble is construed to require a reheat oven, a mold, a pre-blowing, a mold, a pre-blowing step, a stretching rod, and the driving parameters, Piana is silent as to the internal operating sequence of its stretch blow molding module. However, Wolfe discloses a conventional reheat, stretch and blow molder in which a preform is initially heated and placed into a mold, and a rod stretches the preform while air is blown into it so that it takes the shape of the mold (¶ 1, 52-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have implemented the stretch blow molding module of Piana as the conventional reheat stretch blow molder of Wolfe because Piana expressly identifies its first treatment unit as a stretch blow molding machine that heats and blows PET preforms and identifies heating parameters of the blow molding machine among the parameters loaded upon type selection, and because using Wolfe’s conventional machine architecture and parameter set for that module amounts to no more than the combination of prior elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a menu-configurable stretch blow molding facility.
Claims 2-5: Piana discloses at least three predefined production configurations, a so-called method configuration, a so-called applications configuration and a so-called options configuration (¶¶ 6, 11), and Wolfe discloses three corresponding, art-recognized dimensions along which the stretch-blow production is configured (¶¶ 35-45).
Claim 6: Piana discloses checking devices 50 that inspect the containers (¶ 48), and identifies the wall thickness of the container (¶ 63), and Wolfe discloses 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 (¶¶ 57-61, 87-90).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights