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 .
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).
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 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 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.
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).
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