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 17, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6-22 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 16-22 are examined. Claims 12-15 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 19, line 3, ‘the a second operating state’ should read “a second operating state”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-11, 17, 18, 20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geltinger et al. (US 8,460,599).
Regarding claim 1, Geltinger discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, a method for forming plastic preforms into plastic containers by at least one apparatus for forming plastic preforms into plastic containers (ABSTRACT), comprising supplying plastic preforms with a flowable medium and are thus formed into the plastic containers (e.g., col. 6, lines 14-17), wherein the plastic preforms are supplied with different pressure levels (e.g., as shown in Fig. 5) and the flowable medium (e.g., col. 3, line 40 (i.e., air)) is stored in at least two reservoirs (e.g., as illustrated in Fig. 3, the first pressure compartment 21, the second pressure compartment 22, and the third pressure compartment 23 (col. 7, lines 30-35) (i.e., at least three reservoirs)) and is supplied from these reservoirs to the plastic preforms(as shown in Fig. 3), wherein at least one of these reservoirs is supplied with the flowable medium by a pressure supply device (e.g., from the external unit 20 to the central pressurized air distributor 25 (col. 7, lines 43-44)), and wherein at least temporarily the flowable medium is returned from the plastic container to at least one of these reservoirs (e.g., guiding at least one part of a venting of the final blown containers into a pressure compartment (col. 3, lines 17-18)), controlling a pressure in at least one reservoir, and comparing a target pressure to an actual pressure in the reservoir , and determining a value characteristic of this comparison (col. 4, lines 36-40 (i.e., a predefined pressure difference between the pressure in the first pressure compartment and a first set pressure is compared)),
wherein
at least one first control variable (e.g., the first pressure in the first pressure compartment) and at least one second control variable (e.g., the control unit extends the venting time of the containers into the first pressure compartment (col. 4, lines 46-48)) are controlled on the basis of this characteristic value, wherein the at least one first control variable and the at least one second control variable are controlled in a prioritized manner (e.g., likewise this time (i.e., the venting time) can be reduced, if the second set pressure is exceeded by the second pressure difference (col. 4, lines 49-51)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pressures in the multiple reservoirs maintaining the preset levels (e.g., based on controlling the first control variable) then control the venting time of air in the containers into the reservoirs (e.g., based on controlling the second control variable) in a prioritized manner.
Geltinger discloses that, a predefined first pressure difference between the pressure in the first pressure compartment and a first set pressure is preferentially between 0.1 bar and 0.6 bar, if the pressure in the first pressure compartment falls below the first set pressure (col. 4, lines 36-40). Furthermore, Geltinger discloses that, the control unit extends the venting time of the containers into the first pressure compartment of low pressure, if the pressure falls below the first set pressure by the first pressure difference (col. 4, lines 46-49).
Thus, Geltinger discloses that, the pressure in the first pressure compartment is evaluated based on the preset pressure first then the venting time is determined how much air being able to return from the containers to the first pressure compartment
Regarding claims 2, 3, Geltinger discloses that, for example, a predefined first pressure difference between the pressure in the first pressure compartment and a first set pressure is preferentially between 0.1 bar and 0.6 bar, if the pressure in the first pressure compartment falls below the first set pressure (col. 4, lines 36-40). Here, the pressure difference of 0.1 bar and 0.6 bar can be considered as an offset value of a pressure for the first control variable. Furthermore, Geltinger discloses that, the control unit extends the venting time of the containers into the first pressure compartment of low pressure, if the pressure falls below the first set pressure by the first pressure difference (col. 4, lines 46-49). Here, the venting time is considered as the second control variable for controlling the air returned from the containers to the reservoir(s) (related to claim 3).
Regarding claims 6, 7, Geltinger discloses that, a predefined first pressure difference between the pressure in the first pressure compartment and a first set pressure is preferentially between 0.1 bar and 0.6 bar, if the pressure in the first pressure compartment falls below the first set pressure (col. 4, lines 36-40). Furthermore, Geltinger discloses that, the control unit extends the venting time of the containers into the first pressure compartment of low pressure, if the pressure falls below the first set pressure by the first pressure difference (col. 4, lines 46-49).
Thus, Geltinger discloses that, the pressure in the first pressure compartment is evaluated based on the preset pressure first then the venting time is determined how much air being able to return from the containers to the first pressure compartment (related to claim 6).
It is noticed that, at least the first pressure in the first pressure compartment is within the first set pressure which is a function of a predetermined operating state of the blow pressure of air. Another operating state of the apparatus is related to the venting time of the containers into the first pressure compartment (related to claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, Geltinger discloses that, the first pressure compartment of low pressure is connected with a pressure sensor (col. 4, lines 55-56).
Regarding claims 9, 10, Geltinger discloses that, the first pressure compartment of low pressure is connected with a pressure sensor (col. 4, lines 55-56). Thus, when a predefined first pressure difference between the pressure in the first pressure compartment and a first set pressure is preferentially between 0.1 bar and 0.6 bar (if the pressure in the first pressure compartment falls below the first set pressure) (col. 4, lines 36-40), the current offset value of the pressure and the characteristic value for the comparison of the pressure difference between the pressure in the first pressure compartment (i.e., the actual pressure) and a first set pressure (i.e., the target pressure) are taken into account.
Regarding claim 11, Geltinger discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 3, from the external unit 20 to the central pressurized air distributor 25 (i.e., the pressure supply device), the pressurized air with the respective pressure level is directedly via a first conduit 21i into the first pressure compartment 21 (col. 7, lines 43-47). Geltinger discloses that, the pressure supply device has an adjustable pressure level in which a control unit is provided which maintains an essential constant pressure in the first pressure compartment (ABSTRACT, lines 1-5 from bottom).
Regarding claim 17, Geltinger discloses that, the at least one first control variable (e.g., the first pressure in the first pressure compartment) and the at least one second control variable (e.g., the control unit extends the venting time of the containers into the first pressure compartment (col. 4, lines 46-48)) are controlled on the basis of this characteristic value, wherein the at least one first control variable and the at least one second control variable are controlled in a prioritized manner (e.g., likewise this time (i.e., the venting time) can be reduced, if the second set pressure is exceeded by the second pressure difference (col. 4, lines 49-51)).
During the operation of the blow molding process (e.g., as shown in Fig. 5), there are multiple stages/states (i.e., from t0 to t5) of blowing pressures.
Regarding claim 18, Geltinger discloses that, a first operating state (e.g., during the time period of t0) is provided in which no manufacturing of plastic containers takes place, wherein in the first operating state, the pressure in the at least one reservoir is controlled unilaterally by approaching the target pressure on one side starting from a pressure lower than the target pressure (e.g., p1 as shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, Geltinger discloses that, a third operating state (e.g., during the time period of t4 and t5) is provided in which the pressure in the at least one reservoir is controlled on the basis of the at least one first control variable and the at least one second control variable, wherein in the third operating state, the pressure in the at least one reservoir is regulated in two stages (i.e., one stage during the time period of t4 and another stage during the time period of t5 ) and controlled on the basis of the at least one first control variable and the at least one second control variable.
Regarding claim 22, Geltinger discloses that, the at least one first control variable (e.g., the first pressure in the first pressure compartment) and the at least one second control variable (e.g., the control unit extends the venting time of the containers into the first pressure compartment (col. 4, lines 46-48)). The first control variable and the second control variable are depended on one another because they are related to the first pressure compartment.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geltinger et al. (US 8,460,599) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Haller (US 2016/0136868).
Regarding claim 16, Geltinger does not explicitly disclose that a current recycling time and a maximum possible recycling time are determined, wherein the current recycling time and the maximum recycling time are taken into account when controlling the at least one second control variable.
In the same field of endeavor, blow molding, Haller discloses that, the parameters for a recycling controller may be, for example, a start value for a recycling controller for recycling the pre-blowing air. It may also be a time value at which or after which a return is started. The value for a recycling controller may also be a maximum value, that is to say a maximum value beyond which blowing air is recycled ([0032], lines 1-8 from bottom).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Geltinger to have the one first control variable and the one second control variable as Haller teaches that it is known to have the current recycling time and the maximum possible recycling time are determined, wherein the current recycling time and the maximum recycling time are taken into account when controlling the at least one second control variable. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geltinger et al. (US 8,460,599) as applied to claim 17 above, further in view of York et al. (US 2025/0381723).
Regarding claim 19, Geltinger discloses that, a second operating state (e.g., during the time period of t3) is provided in which the manufacturing of plastic containers starts, wherein the pressure in the at least one reservoir is regulated in a single stage (e.g., at p2) in the second operating state via a controller.
However, Geltinger does not explicitly disclose applying a PID regulator. In the same field of endeavor, York discloses that, the system, method, and the preforms 2 (as shown in Fig. 1) flowing through the system may be monitored and controlled by computing devices which may include PID ([0063]).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Geltinger to have the one first control variable and the one second control variable in the multiple operating states as York teaches that it is known to have a PID regulator to control the pressure. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The base reference Geltinger dose not disclose the at least one reservoir can at least temporarily be in an overfilled state or in an underfilled state. The references of Haller and York et al. fail to disclose these features as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that the base reference Geltinger does not disclose the prioritized control of the first control variable and the second control variable, it is not persuasive.
Geltinger discloses that, the first pressure in the first pressure compartment and the control unit extends the venting time of the containers into the first pressure compartment of low pressure, if the pressure falls below the first set pressure by the first pressure difference (col. 4, lines 46-49) are controlled on the basis of this characteristic value, wherein the at least one first control variable and the at least one second control variable are controlled in a prioritized manner (e.g., likewise this time (i.e., the venting time) can be reduced, if the second set pressure is exceeded by the second pressure difference (col. 4, lines 49-51).
Basically, the prioritized control of the first control variable and the second control variable is one fundamental function for the blow molding system to run successfully.
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