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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed June 25, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 9 are currently amended. Claims 1-17 are pending and under examination.
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 1-17 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 claims 1 and 9, the claims end with the recitation “the machines”. The limiting effect of the recitation in each of the claims is unclear. It is not clear whether “the machines” is necessarily referring to “the production machine” and “the at least one container treatment machine” or whether the recitation is reasonably referring to more than one container treatment machine (i.e. when there is more than one treatment machine, together they would be “machines”) or whether something else is intended. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
The other claims are rejected as dependent claims.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lappe et al. (US 8,506,869).
Regarding claim 1, Lappe et al. teach a container treatment system (Abstract; Figures 1-5) comprising a production machine for producing a preform (Figure 1 (101); Figure 2 (201); col. 7, lines 17-44), at least one container treatment machine arranged downstream of the production machine in a transport direction of the preform (Figure 1 (102) and/or (103); Figure 2 (202) and/or (203); col. 7, line 45-col. 8, lines 26; paragraph [0010] of the published application makes clear that a blow molding machine itself is also to be considered a “container treatment machine”), and a control unit, wherein the production machine and the at least one container treatment machine are integral with one another (Figures 1 and 2; col. 2, lines 62-67; col. 7, lines 17-29; formed as a “block”; paragraphs [0012], [0040] and [0049] of the published application discuss that “integral” is to be understood to mean that the containers are produced by machines within the same system – the containers of Lappe et al. are produced by such a common/same system), wherein the control unit is designed to synchronize a first operation of the production machine and a second operation of the at least one container treatment machine with one another (Abstract; col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 61; col. 4. lines 4-37; col. 5, lines 3-62; col. 6, lines 18-42; col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 52; Figures 1 and 5; paragraphs [0020]-[0022] and [0064] of the published application discuss that “synchronize” is to be understood to mean that the operations are coordinated with each other – the operations of Lappe et al. are coordinated as required).
As to the added limitations directed to the control unit, col. 5, lines 3-8 teaches that “a closed-loop control element” may be utilized “which is configured such that it controls the operation of the preform manufacturing means and/or the blow molding machine in response to an operating state of the blow molding machine”. At col. 5, lines 28-33, Lappe et al. teach “The control element, in particular the closed-loop control element, can also be configured such that it can determine an operating setting…for the preform manufacturing means”. At col. 3 ,lines 7-24, suitable machines for the production machine are disclosed (e.g. injection molding machines or extruders) These citations are understood to clearly disclose to one having ordinary skill in the art that data is to be received from the production machine/preform manufacturing means. The word “closed-loop” is understood to clearly convey this. Further, the treatment machine(s) of Lappe et al. is understood to be controlled as claimed as well (col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 56; col. 4, lines 4-32; col. 5, lines 57-col. 6, line 40; col. 7, lines 65-col. 8, line 3; col. 9, lines 60-col. 10 ,line 31). As set forth above operations are “synchronized” “with one another” to the extent required and the machines are controlled in a closed-loop manner. With this teaching in Lappe et al. the claim as presented is understood to be met by Lappe et al. The limitations directed to components such as a computer or computing system, cables/wireless are understood to be intrinsic components of such a closed-loop control system. As such, Lappe et al. is understood to anticipate the claim.
Regarding claim 9, Lappe et al. teach a method for controlling an operation of a container treatment system (Abstract; Figures 1-5), wherein the container treatment system comprises a production machine for producing a preform (Figure 1 (101); Figure 2 (201); col. 7, lines 17-44), at least one container treatment machine arranged downstream of the production machine in a transport direction of the preform (Figure 1 (102) and/or (103); Figure 2 (202) and/or (203); col. 7, line 45-col. 8, lines 26; paragraph [0010] of the published application makes clear that a blow molding machine itself is also to be considered a “container treatment machine”), and a control unit (col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 61; col. 4. lines 4-37; col. 5, lines 3-62; col. 6, lines 18-42; col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 52), wherein the production machine and the at least one container treatment machine are integral with one another (Figures 1 and 2; col. 2, lines 62-67; col. 7, lines 17-29; formed as a “block”; paragraphs [0012], [0040] and [0049] of the published application discuss that “integral” is to be understood to mean that the containers are produced by machines within the same system – the containers of Lappe et al. are produced by such a common/same system), wherein a first operation of the production machine and a second operation of the at least one container treatment machine are synchronized with one another by means of the control unit (Abstract; col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 61; col. 4. lines 4-37; col. 5, lines 3-62; col. 6, lines 18-42; col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 52; Figures 1 and 5; paragraphs [0020]-[0022] and [0064] of the published application discuss that “synchronize” is to be understood to mean that the operations are coordinated with each other – the operations of Lappe et al. are coordinated as required).
As to the added limitations directed to the control unit, col. 5, lines 3-8 teaches that “a closed-loop control element” may be utilized “which is configured such that it controls the operation of the preform manufacturing means and/or the blow molding machine in response to an operating state of the blow molding machine”. At col. 5, lines 28-33, Lappe et al. teach “The control element, in particular the closed-loop control element, can also be configured such that it can determine an operating setting…for the preform manufacturing means”. At col. 3, lines 7-24, suitable machines for the production machine are disclosed (e.g. injection molding machines or extruders) These citations are understood to clearly disclose to one having ordinary skill in the art that data is to be received from the production machine/preform manufacturing means. The word “closed-loop” is understood to clearly convey this. Further, the treatment machine(s) of Lappe et al. is understood to be controlled as claimed as well (col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 56; col. 4, lines 4-32; col. 5, lines 57-col. 6, line 40; col. 7, lines 65-col. 8, line 3; col. 9, lines 60-col. 10 ,line 31). As set forth above operations are “synchronized” “with one another” to the extent required and the machines are controlled in a closed-loop manner. With this teaching in Lappe et al. the claim as presented is understood to be met by Lappe et al. The limitations directed to components such as a computer or computing system, cables/wireless are understood to be intrinsic components of such a closed-loop control system. As such, Lappe et al. is understood to anticipate the claim.
As to claims 2 and 10, Lappe et al. teach the first operation and the second operation comprise parameters as claimed (col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 61; col. 4. lines 4-37; col. 5, lines 3-62; col. 6, lines 18-42; col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 52; Figure 5).
As to claims 3 and 11, Lappe et al. teach regulating the parameters as claimed (col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 61; col. 4. lines 4-37; col. 5, lines 3-62; col. 6, lines 18-42; col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 52; Figure 5).
As to claims 4 and 12, Lappe et al. teach controlling based on properties as claimed (col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 61; col. 4. lines 4-37; col. 5, lines 3-62; col. 6, lines 18-42; col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 52; Figure 5).
As to claims 5 and 13, Lappe et al. teach an inspection machine/equipment used to detect measured values and properties which then identify preforms as rejects (col. 4, lines 4-62; col. 5, lines 4-62; col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 52).
As to claims 6 and 14, Lappe et al. teach regulating the parameters as claimed (col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 61; col. 4. lines 4-37; col. 5, lines 3-62; col. 6, lines 18-42; col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 52; Figure 5).
As to claims 7 and 15, Lappe et al. teach transport components (Figure 1 (104) and/or (105); Figure 2 (204) (206) and/or (205)) and teach the control unit is designed as claimed (Lappe et al. teach regulating the parameters as claimed (col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 61; col. 4. lines 4-37; col. 5, lines 3-62; col. 6, lines 18-42; col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 52; Figure 5).
As to claims 16 and 17, Lappe et al. teach the production machine is an injection molding machine (col. 7, lines 30-44).
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.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lappe et al. (US 8,506,869) and further in view of any one of Lafferty et al. (US 2020/0108593), Stensvad et al. (US 2015/0224695), Chang et al. (US 6,593,053), Choi (US 2002/0026264), Hibi et al. (US 6,258,303) or Gutjahr (US 5,016,184). Note: this is an alternative rejection of claims 1-17
Regarding claim 1, Lappe et al. teach a container treatment system (Abstract; Figures 1-5) comprising a production machine for producing a preform (Figure 1 (101); Figure 2 (201); col. 7, lines 17-44), at least one container treatment machine arranged downstream of the production machine in a transport direction of the preform (Figure 1 (102) and/or (103); Figure 2 (202) and/or (203); col. 7, line 45-col. 8, lines 26; paragraph [0010] of the published application makes clear that a blow molding machine itself is also to be considered a “container treatment machine”), and a control unit, wherein the production machine and the at least one container treatment machine are integral with one another (Figures 1 and 2; col. 2, lines 62-67; col. 7, lines 17-29; formed as a “block”; paragraphs [0012], [0040] and [0049] of the published application discuss that “integral” is to be understood to mean that the containers are produced by machines within the same system – the containers of Lappe et al. are produced by such a common/same system), wherein the control unit is designed to synchronize a first operation of the production machine and a second operation of the at least one container treatment machine with one another (Abstract; col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 61; col. 4. lines 4-37; col. 5, lines 3-62; col. 6, lines 18-42; col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 52; Figures 1 and 5; paragraphs [0020]-[0022] and [0064] of the published application discuss that “synchronize” is to be understood to mean that the operations are coordinated with each other – the operations of Lappe et al. are coordinated as required).
As to the added limitations directed to the control unit, col. 5, lines 3-8 teaches that “a closed-loop control element” may be utilized “which is configured such that it controls the operation of the preform manufacturing means and/or the blow molding machine in response to an operating state of the blow molding machine”. At col. 5, lines 28-33, Lappe et al. teach “The control element, in particular the closed-loop control element, can also be configured such that it can determine an operating setting…for the preform manufacturing means”. At col. 3 ,lines 7-24, suitable machines for the production machine are disclosed (e.g. injection molding machines or extruders) These citations are understood to clearly disclose to one having ordinary skill in the art that data is to be received from the production machine/preform manufacturing means. The word “closed-loop” is understood to clearly convey this. Further, the treatment machine(s) of Lappe et al. is understood to be controlled as claimed as well (col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 56; col. 4, lines 4-32; col. 5, lines 57-col. 6, line 40; col. 7, lines 65-col. 8, line 3; col. 9, lines 60-col. 10 ,line 31). As set forth above operations are “synchronized” “with one another” to the extent required and the machines are controlled in a closed-loop manner. As set forth above in the section 102 rejection, the limitations directed to components such as a computer or computing system, cables/wireless taken in their appropriate context are understood to be intrinsic components of such a closed-loop control system. Alternatively, to the extent these are not explicitly set forth in Lappe et al., each of Lafferty et al. (Abstract; Figures 1-11; paragraphs [0007], [0008], [0029]-[0031], [0039]-[0042], and [0053]), Stensvad et al. (Figures 2-4 and 7; paragraph [0026]), Chang et al. (col. 7, line 63- col. 8, line 35), Choi (Abstract; Figures 1-4; paragraphs [0008]-[0014]), Hibi et al. (Figure 1) or Gutjahr (Figures 1 and 2; col. 1, line 5 – col. col. 6, line 32; disclosure of applicable and known elements) teach analogous control units wherein the limitations directed to a control unit as claimed are further articulated.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Lappe et al. and any one of the secondary reference and to have utilized and configured control unit as claimed in the method and system of Lapp et al., as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively providing closed-loop control of each machine in the system in order to produce a product having desired properties and at commercially viable speeds and costs.
Regarding claim 9, Lappe et al. teach a method for controlling an operation of a container treatment system (Abstract; Figures 1-5), wherein the container treatment system comprises a production machine for producing a preform (Figure 1 (101); Figure 2 (201); col. 7, lines 17-44), at least one container treatment machine arranged downstream of the production machine in a transport direction of the preform (Figure 1 (102) and/or (103); Figure 2 (202) and/or (203); col. 7, line 45-col. 8, lines 26; paragraph [0010] of the published application makes clear that a blow molding machine itself is also to be considered a “container treatment machine”), and a control unit (col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 61; col. 4. lines 4-37; col. 5, lines 3-62; col. 6, lines 18-42; col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 52), wherein the production machine and the at least one container treatment machine are integral with one another (Figures 1 and 2; col. 2, lines 62-67; col. 7, lines 17-29; formed as a “block”; paragraphs [0012], [0040] and [0049] of the published application discuss that “integral” is to be understood to mean that the containers are produced by machines within the same system – the containers of Lappe et al. are produced by such a common/same system), wherein a first operation of the production machine and a second operation of the at least one container treatment machine are synchronized with one another by means of the control unit (Abstract; col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 61; col. 4. lines 4-37; col. 5, lines 3-62; col. 6, lines 18-42; col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 52; Figures 1 and 5; paragraphs [0020]-[0022] and [0064] of the published application discuss that “synchronize” is to be understood to mean that the operations are coordinated with each other – the operations of Lappe et al. are coordinated as required).
As to the added limitations directed to the control unit, col. 5, lines 3-8 teaches that “a closed-loop control element” may be utilized “which is configured such that it controls the operation of the preform manufacturing means and/or the blow molding machine in response to an operating state of the blow molding machine”. At col. 5, lines 28-33, Lappe et al. teach “The control element, in particular the closed-loop control element, can also be configured such that it can determine an operating setting…for the preform manufacturing means”. At col. 3, lines 7-24, suitable machines for the production machine are disclosed (e.g. injection molding machines or extruders) These citations are understood to clearly disclose to one having ordinary skill in the art that data is to be received from the production machine/preform manufacturing means. The word “closed-loop” is understood to clearly convey this. Further, the treatment machine(s) of Lappe et al. is understood to be controlled as claimed as well (col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 56; col. 4, lines 4-32; col. 5, lines 57-col. 6, line 40; col. 7, lines 65-col. 8, line 3; col. 9, lines 60-col. 10, line 31). As set forth above operations are “synchronized” “with one another” to the extent required and the machines are controlled in a closed-loop manner. As set forth above in the section 102 rejection, the limitations directed to components such as a computer or computing system, cables/wireless taken in their appropriate context are understood to be intrinsic components of such a closed-loop control system. Alternatively, to the extent these are not explicitly set forth in Lappe et al., each of Lafferty et al. (Abstract; Figures 1-11; paragraphs [0007], [0008], [0029]-[0031], [0039]-[0042], and [0053]), Stensvad et al. (Figures 2-4 and 7; paragraph [0026]), Chang et al. (col. 7, line 63- col. 8, line 35), Choi (Abstract; Figures 1-4; paragraphs [0008]-[0014]), Hibi et al. (Figure 1) or Gutjahr (Figures 1 and 2; col. 1, line 5 – col. col. 6, line 32; disclosure of applicable and known elements) teach analogous control units wherein the limitations directed to a control unit as claimed are further articulated.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Lappe et al. and any one of the secondary reference and to have utilized and configured control unit as claimed in the method and system of Lapp et al., as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively providing closed-loop control of each machine in the system in order to produce a product having desired properties and at commercially viable speeds and costs.
As to claims 2 and 10, Lappe et al. teach the first operation and the second operation comprise parameters as claimed (col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 61; col. 4. lines 4-37; col. 5, lines 3-62; col. 6, lines 18-42; col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 52; Figure 5).
As to claims 3 and 11, Lappe et al. teach regulating the parameters as claimed (col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 61; col. 4. lines 4-37; col. 5, lines 3-62; col. 6, lines 18-42; col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 52; Figure 5).
As to claims 4 and 12, Lappe et al. teach controlling based on properties as claimed (col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 61; col. 4. lines 4-37; col. 5, lines 3-62; col. 6, lines 18-42; col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 52; Figure 5).
As to claims 5 and 13, Lappe et al. teach an inspection machine/equipment used to detect measured values and properties which then identify preforms as rejects (col. 4, lines 4-62; col. 5, lines 4-62; col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 52).
As to claims 6 and 14, Lappe et al. teach regulating the parameters as claimed (col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 61; col. 4. lines 4-37; col. 5, lines 3-62; col. 6, lines 18-42; col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 52; Figure 5).
As to claims 7 and 15, Lappe et al. teach transport components (Figure 1 (104) and/or (105); Figure 2 (204) (206) and/or (205)) and teach the control unit is designed as claimed (Lappe et al. teach regulating the parameters as claimed (col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 61; col. 4. lines 4-37; col. 5, lines 3-62; col. 6, lines 18-42; col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 52; Figure 5).
As to claims 16 and 17, Lappe et al. teach the production machine is an injection molding machine (col. 7, lines 30-44).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lappe et al. (US 8,506,869), as applied to claims 1-17 above, and further in view of either one of Colton (US 2017/0227472) or Sabin et al. (US 2005/0082707). Note: this is an alternative rejection of claims 5 and 13.
As to claims 5 and 13, Lappe et al. teach the system and method as set forth above, including what is understood to be an inspection machine under a reasonable interpretation. Alternatively, Lappe et al. do not disclose a fully distinct and additional “machine” as part of the production machine of the system. However, each of Colton (Abstract; Figures 1-17; paragraphs [0022]-[0035]) and Sabin et al. (Abstract; Figure 1 (130) (150) (160) (162) (170) (180)) teach analogous systems and methods wherein preforms/injection molded articles are inspected with an inspection machine as claimed and a control unit that is designed to adapt as claimed is utilized.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Lappe et al. and either one of the secondary references and to have employed an inspection machine as claimed and to have utilized a control unit designed to adapt as claimed in the system and method of Lappe et al., as suggested by either one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of improving product quality, improving productivity/efficiency, and reducing the number of defective articles produced.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lappe et al. (US 8,506,869) and further in view of any one of Lafferty et al. (US 2020/0108593), Stensvad et al. (US 2015/0224695), Chang et al. (US 6,593,053), Choi (US 2002/0026264), Hibi et al. (US 6,258,303) or Gutjahr (US 5,016,184), as applied to claims 1-17 above, and further in view of either one of Colton (US 2017/0227472) or Sabin et al. (US 2005/0082707). Note: this is an alternative rejection of claims 5 and 13.
As to claims 5 and 13, Lappe et al. teach the system and method as set forth above, including what is understood to be an inspection machine under a reasonable interpretation. Alternatively, Lappe et al. do not disclose a fully distinct and additional “machine” as part of the production machine of the system. However, each of Colton (Abstract; Figures 1-17; paragraphs [0022]-[0035]) and Sabin et al. (Abstract; Figure 1 (130) (150) (160) (162) (170) (180)) teach analogous systems and methods wherein preforms/injection molded articles are inspected with an inspection machine as claimed and a control unit that is designed to adapt as claimed is utilized.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Lappe et al. and either one of the secondary references and to have employed an inspection machine as claimed and to have utilized a control unit designed to adapt as claimed in the system and method of Lappe et al., as suggested by either one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of improving product quality, improving productivity/efficiency, and reducing the number of defective articles produced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 25, 2026 have been fully considered. For the reasons further described below, the examiner is not completely clear regarding the premise of applicant’s argument and the applied reference is understood to provide considerably more applicable teaching than has been argued. The amended claim language adds nine lines to the claim. However, each limitation added to the claims has not been argued. In one sense, this seems reasonable to the examiner because most of the added limitations appear to only be necessary to provide context for the underlying point of the argument. As such, from this premise, much of the added language is understood by both the examiner and applicant to be necessarily found in the system and method of Lappe et al. In another sense, which remains unclear, the arguments may be suggesting that limitations such as “a computer or computing system” or the recited cables/wireless connections are what overcomes the teaching of Lappe et al. because such limitations are not explicitly recited in the reference. In either event, the arguments are not persuasive. It is further noted that it appears to the examiner that the arguments are not fully commensurate in scope with the language set forth in the claims.
The arguments appear to the examiner to be suggesting that Lappe et al. is reasonably understood to disclose a system and method that sends data to the machines that correspond with the claimed machines and that the system and method of Lappe et al. are also reasonably understood to disclose sending data from the blow mold (i.e. one of the corresponding treatment machines), but that there is nothing in the reference to suggest receiving data from the preform manufacturing machine (i.e. from a corresponding production machine). As such, from this argument, the examiner concludes that the only argued missing limitation from Lappe et al. is a system or method having a control system that receives data from the production machine/preform manufacturing means. This argument is not persuasive.
The argument points to paragraph [0095] of Lappe et al. to generally support this position. As an initial matter, it is noted that paragraph [0095] of Lappe et al. appears to be referring to the published application of Lappe et al. The rejection is based upon the corresponding patent and the corresponding location in the reference is col. 9, lines 60-64. However, it is submitted that more is said regarding control of the production machine/preform manufacturing means. For example, col. 5, lines 3-8 teaches that “a closed-loop control element” may be utilized “which is configured such that it controls the operation of the preform manufacturing means and/or the blow molding machine in response to an operating state of the blow molding machine”. Continuing at col. 5, lines 28-33, “The control element, in particular the closed-loop control element, can also be configured such that it can determine an operating setting…for the preform manufacturing means”. In context, the preform manufacturing machine can be an injection molding machine or an extruder (col. 3, lines 15-24). These citations are understood to clearly disclose to one having ordinary skill in the art that data is to be received from the production machine/preform manufacturing means. The word “closed-loop” is understood to clearly convey this.
As set forth above in the body of the rejection the operations are “synchronized” “with one another” to the extent required and as set forth above the control unit receives data as required from the preform manufacturing means/production machine. As such, the claims as presented are still understood to be met by Lappe et al. The other limitations in the claim (e.g. a computer or computing system, cables/wireless) are understood to be intrinsic components of such a closed-loop control system.
It is further noted that the argument seems to possibly suggest an intended limitation that is not positively or necessarily set forth in the claims related to regulating the blow molding machine based on an operation of the preform manufacturing machine. To the extent such a limitation is required by the claim, it is understood to be met for the reasons set forth above. If there is a difference between the teaching of Lappe et al. and the instant disclosure, it is submitted that it has not yet been positively recited in the claims. As such, it is submitted that the claims would need to be further amended to overcome the teaching of Lappe et al.
Additionally, the examiner has provided secondary references in the alternative that more explicitly flesh out components/configurations of control units in the analogous art. These are understood to generally suggest how one having ordinary skill in the art would implement/configure the control schemes suggested by Lappe et al.
It is submitted the claims would need to be further amended to overcome the prima facie case set forth above. The examiner also notes his availability to discuss the application via telephonic interview.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art references disclose analogous and applicable container treatment systems and methods. These references should be considered prior to replying to the Office Action:
Larsen (US 2005/0104263; Abstract; Figure 1; paragraphs [0005]-[0012]);
Hirdina (US 2022/0063173; paragraphs [0008]-[0018] and [0036]-[0039]; claim 1);
Takehana et al. (US 2019/0022913; Figure 2; paragraphs [0012], [0013], [0026] and [0034]-[0066]); and
Forsthoevel (US 9,403,311; Abstract; Figure 1; col. 2, lines 34-41).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights