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 1-16 are pending. Claims 1-11 and 13 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 Invention I (claims 1-13) and the species of “distribution device” of Figure 1a in the reply filed on 01/19/2026 is acknowledged. Applicants argue that Inventions I and II are not distinct because “the Office has failed to identify any mutually exclusive features” and “due to a correlation of elements between at least claims 1 and 14, the Office has failed to show how the inventions have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect”; and “a search burden has not been properly established.” First, there is no requirement for “mutually exclusive features.” Second, as explained by the Examiner, and left unaddressed by Applicants, the “distribution apparatus” of claim 14 is merely intended “for use in a container treatment plant for producing containers according to claim 1”; all that claim 14 requires structurally is “distribution apparatus [] configured to receive a plurality of [] preforms . . . in an orderly manner in the form of a two-dimensional matrix arrangement.” This encompasses any apparatus with this basic, generic structure. Whereas claim 1 is a container treatment plant with a production machine, unit for producing containers and air conveyor in a particular arrangement. To this end, the Examiner in fact explained how these inventions have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. And the Examiner explained that a search for a generic “distribution device” will involve searches in completely different classifications and fields from the container treatment plant of claim 1. Applicants fail to address these facts.
As to the election of species, Applicants argue that “the Office has failed to identify any mutually exclusive features” and “Applicant's specification describes both figures as showing distribution apparatuses configured to perform a similar function-receiving preforms in a two- dimensional matrix arrangement and transferring them to an air conveyor”; and “the Office has failed to properly establish a serious search and/or examination burden.” Again, there is no requirement for “mutually exclusive features.” Further, the Examiner explained that the generic claim 1 encompasses numerous different species of “distribution device,” each with unique features leading to materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect, along with serious search burden in different classifications and fields of search. Thus, both the restriction requirement and election of species requirement are maintained.
Claims 12 and 14-16 are withdrawn as drawn to unelected inventions and species. Unelected Figure 1b is reflected in claim 13.
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 10 and 13 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.
In claim 10, “the carrying bars” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 13, it is not clear if all of the units listed are required because the claim lacks a conjunction, and is not in Markush format. See MPEP §§ 2117 & 2173.05(h).
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DANLER (US 4284370), in view of KR20170075491A.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply familiar air handler/conveyor after the distribution apparatus of KR20170075491A to achieve upright interfacing with production machines, and reduce preform scratching with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 1, KR20170075491A teaches a container treatment plant for producing containers, comprising: a production machine for producing preforms (“The present invention relates to a preform cooling and conveying device and a preform carrier for the conveying device. ¶ PET, a disposable container that can hold various kinds of beverages, is made of polyethyleneterephthalate (PET) as a raw material through a preform molding step and a blow molding step. A preform is first prepared by using an injection apparatus, the preform is fixed to a mold of a blow molding apparatus, and heated and pressed. ¶ The preform is a preform before being molded into a PET bottle through a blow molding step, and its shape takes the form of a test tube.), at least one unit for producing containers from the preforms”), at least one distribution apparatus for the orderly distribution of the preforms produced by the production machine (Fig. 1, which is the same distribution apparatus as instant Figure 1a), wherein the distribution apparatus is configured to receive a plurality of the preforms, produced by the production machine, in an orderly manner in the form of a two-dimensional matrix arrangement and to transfer them to the air conveyor in an orderly manner (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
384
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
586
860
media_image2.png
Greyscale
KR20170075491A Fig. 1, top; Instant Fig. 1a, bottom
As to claim 2, KR20170075491A teaches the distribution apparatus is configured to transfer a portion of the received preforms to the air conveyor in an orderly manner in a row, and wherein the air conveyor is configured to transport the preforms, received from the distribution apparatus, in an orderly manner in a row to the at least one unit for producing containers from the preforms (Figs. 1-8).
As to claim 3, KR20170075491A teaches the distribution apparatus is displaceable transversely to the transport direction of the air conveyor and/or wherein the air conveyor is an aseptic air conveyor (Figs. 1-8).
As to claim 4, KR20170075491A teaches the distribution apparatus has receptacles for the preforms to be received and wherein the receptacles are movable between a holding position in which the preforms are received and held in the distribution apparatus and a release position in which the preforms are no longer held by the receptacles of the distribution apparatus (Figs. 1-8).
As to claim 5, KR20170075491A teaches the distribution apparatus has a plurality of movable support rails and wherein the receptacles for the preforms to be received are formed by the support rails, and the support rails are designed such that the preforms can be received with their support rings suspended in the support rails in the distribution apparatus in the holding position, and wherein the support rails are configured such that they can be moved from the holding position to the release position, wherein the preforms are no longer held by the support rails in the release position and can be transferred to the air conveyor (Figs. 1-8).
As to claim 6, KR20170075491A teaches pairs of support rails are arranged parallel to one another at a distance, and preforms in the holding position can in each case be held by opposite support rails of a pair of support rails, and the pairs of support rails are configured to define a row or column of the two-dimensional matrix arrangement (Figs. 1-8).
As to claim 7, KR20170075491A teaches the distribution apparatus has at least one track for transporting the received preforms and at least one outlet leading to the air conveyor, wherein a portion of the at least one track defines at least one row of the two-dimensional matrix arrangement, and wherein the distribution apparatus is configured to transport the received preforms along the at least one track to the at least one outlet of the distribution apparatus, in order to be able to transfer the received preforms to the air conveyor (Figs. 1-8).
As to claim 8, KR20170075491A teaches the distribution apparatus has a plurality of support rails that define the at least one track, and wherein the support rails are designed such that the preforms can be transported with their support rings suspended in the support rails (Figs. 1-8).
As to claim 9, KR20170075491A teaches the distribution apparatus has a number of mechanically drivable carriers, which are configured to transport the received preforms along the at least one track defined by the support rails to the at least one outlet of the distribution apparatus (Figs. 1-8).
As to claim 10, KR20170075491A teaches the distribution apparatus further comprises circulating transport means, which are assigned to the carrying bars, and wherein the carriers for transporting the preforms are attached to the circulating transport means (Figs. 1-8).
As to claim 11, KR20170075491A teaches the distribution apparatus is configured to receive, at the same time in an orderly manner, a multiple of the number of preforms that can be produced per cycle of the production machine, and/or wherein the distribution apparatus is configured to receive 50 to 300 preforms at the same time in an orderly manner (Figs. 1-8).
As to claim 13, KR20170075491A teaches the at least one unit for producing containers from the preforms is a unit of the following type: infeed unit of a stretch blow molding machine, infeed unit of a heating section, conveyor unit, infeed of a preform cleaning unit, inspection unit, scrap collecting unit (“A preform is first prepared by using an injection apparatus, the preform is fixed to a mold of a blow molding apparatus, and heated and pressed. ¶ The preform is a preform before being molded into a PET bottle through a blow molding step, and its shape takes the form of a test tube”).
KR20170075491A does not explicitly teach an air conveyor after the distribution apparatus and before the container producing machine, at least one air conveyor for the orderly feeding of the preforms produced by the production machine to the at least one unit for producing containers from the preforms.
However, air conveyors for conveying preforms to final molding machines were a well-known option in the art routinely used to increase production efficiency, and reduce scratching of preforms. For example, DANLER teaches
Blown bottles especially blown plastic bottles are now commonly used for packaging a variety of consumer products including soft drink beverages. In the fabrication of blown plastic bottles, a bottle preform is fabricated and subsequently blown into a full-size bottle. Both the bottle preform and the bottle itself have rounded bottoms and are not easily conveyed in an upright manner by conventional handling equipment. Nevertheless, upright conveying is highly desirable for convenient interfacing with other machines at each end of the conveying section involved in the bottle/preform fabrication. And so belt conveyors, bulk conveyors, or side conveyors for bottles and preforms are not satisfactory. Moreover, the plastic bottle or preform is easily scratched during handling and accordingly existing conveyors are additionally unsuitable for handling the bottles and preforms. Bulk and side conveying of the preforms and bottles causes unacceptable damage to their threads and sealing surfaces
(Background of Invention). The device of DANLER utilizes the lip of the preform to handle the preforms (Figs. 1-5). A skilled artisan would have been strongly motivated to include an air transport from the distribution device to the molding/production device of KR20170075491A to transport the round-bottom, lipped preforms of KR20170075491A more efficiently, and prevent scratching. This is the simple addition of a known device to a known problem to achieve known results.
In sum, the claims are obvious because the prior art as whole demonstrates that air conveyors were routinely used to achieve known molding results with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 1-11 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over conflicting claims 1-15 of U.S. 18/925584, in view of DANLER (US 4284370) and KR20170075491A.
The instant claims are obvious over the conflicting claims because it would have been obvious to apply familiar transport devices for preforms as suggested in the conflicting claims to achieve familiar transport results. Specifically, the conflicting claims teach the same production machine-conveyor/distributor-unit for producing containers (i.e. blow molding machine) setup as claimed here:
1. System for producing containers from preforms, the system comprising a production machine for producing preforms, a blow molding machine for producing containers from preforms, a transport device for feeding preforms from the production machine to the blow molding machine and a storage device, to which preforms can be fed from the transport device at a removal point and transferred to the transport device at a transfer point, wherein the storage device comprises a temperature-control device for temperature-control of the preforms.
First, to give meaning to this generic phrase “transport device,” one would look to the specification and find both a distribution apparatus and air conveyor as in Figure 1 here (paras. 0008 & 0047-48, for example). Even if the specification does not provide enough clarity, yest the prior art clearly demonstrates that both distribution apparatus and air conveyor as in Figure 1 were familiar options for transporting preforms. For example, KR20170075491A teaches a container treatment plant for producing containers, comprising: a production machine for producing preforms (“The present invention relates to a preform cooling and conveying device and a preform carrier for the conveying device. ¶ PET, a disposable container that can hold various kinds of beverages, is made of polyethyleneterephthalate (PET) as a raw material through a preform molding step and a blow molding step. A preform is first prepared by using an injection apparatus, the preform is fixed to a mold of a blow molding apparatus, and heated and pressed. ¶ The preform is a preform before being molded into a PET bottle through a blow molding step, and its shape takes the form of a test tube.), at least one unit for producing containers from the preforms”), at least one distribution apparatus for the orderly distribution of the preforms produced by the production machine (Fig. 1, which is the same distribution apparatus as instant Figure 1a), wherein the distribution apparatus is configured to receive a plurality of the preforms, produced by the production machine, in an orderly manner in the form of a two-dimensional matrix arrangement and to transfer them to the air conveyor in an orderly manner (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
384
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
586
860
media_image2.png
Greyscale
KR20170075491A Fig. 1, top; Instant Fig. 1a, bottom
In other words, the distribution device of Fig. 1a was a well-known option for transporting preforms.
Further, DANLER teaches
Blown bottles especially blown plastic bottles are now commonly used for packaging a variety of consumer products including soft drink beverages. In the fabrication of blown plastic bottles, a bottle preform is fabricated and subsequently blown into a full-size bottle. Both the bottle preform and the bottle itself have rounded bottoms and are not easily conveyed in an upright manner by conventional handling equipment. Nevertheless, upright conveying is highly desirable for convenient interfacing with other machines at each end of the conveying section involved in the bottle/preform fabrication. And so belt conveyors, bulk conveyors, or side conveyors for bottles and preforms are not satisfactory. Moreover, the plastic bottle or preform is easily scratched during handling and accordingly existing conveyors are additionally unsuitable for handling the bottles and preforms. Bulk and side conveying of the preforms and bottles causes unacceptable damage to their threads and sealing surfaces
(Background of Invention). The device of DANLER utilizes the lip of the preform to handle the preforms (Figs. 1-5). A skilled artisan would have been strongly motivated to include an air transport from the distribution device to the molding/production device of KR20170075491A to transport the round-bottom, lipped preforms of KR20170075491A more efficiently, and prevent scratching. This is the simple addition of a known device to a known problem to achieve known results.
Thus, the claimed distribution device and air conveyor are obvious options that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine to achieve efficient, clean transport of preforms.
Prior Art
The following prior art is also relevant: US 20170252960 (Fig. 5); US 6663813; US20130061557; US 20150079220; EP1343626B1; EP 0856392.
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, 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.
/YUNG-SHENG M TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743