DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the run setting" in the last limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites associating each of the plurality of glass articles with a condition set used to produce the glass article and the one or more attributes measured. This limitation is unclear because there was no positive recitation of a step for making glass articles using a condition set. Furthermore, a nexus linking the step of preparing condition sets to the step of operating the converter to convert the glass tube into a plurality of glass articles is missing. Thus, it is unclear how these two steps are related. This further makes the adjusting step unclear. The adjusting step comprises adjusting process parameters to run the converter at each of the plurality of condition sets. The adjusting step does not include the actual running of the converter. Thus, it is unclear how the preparing step and adjusting steps are related to the operating step.
Claim 1 further recites operating the converter with the parameters set to the run setting determined from the operational models. It is unclear how a run setting is determined. Because of the high level of generality of operational models, the one or more attributes, the plurality of condition sets, the plurality of glass articles that is used to determine run settings, the metes and bounds of this limitation cannot be ascertained.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuszynski (7,660,642), Hendler et al. (2009/0037013), and Studerus (EP 3 584 225 machine translation provided). Claim 1 appears to recite general steps for a design of experiments comprising providing condition sets, operating the apparatus to make a product, measuring the an attribute of the product, repeating the operating and measuring for different condition sets, and making correlations between the condition sets and measured attributes. Such a method is generally known in the art. Tuszynski teaches a similar concept wherein process engineers provide parameters for making a product, make the product, measuring an attribute of the process, and correlating the process parameters to the measured attribute, wherein the process is repeated for different parameters (col. 1 lines 50-67, col. 2 lines 1-3, 10-34, figure 2). Hendler also teaches a similar control method a process engineer uses for controlling a manufacturing processes, the method comprising preparing a plurality of condition sets, wherein each condition set comprises setting for a plurality of process parameters for the manufacturing apparatus (“model that includes parameters for the process tool”), and operating the manufacturing apparatus to produce products and measuring one or more attributes of the product (“during manufacturing process to generate…output” and “inspection” of the product” in [0006]). Hendler further teaches making adjustments to the process parameters according to the condition sets (“re-enter the parameters” in [0006] and “adjustments of the process parameters” in [0007]) and making correlations between the condition set used for making the product and the measured attribute of the product (“actual output values …are compared to model output” [0005]). Hendler further teaches developing an operational model based on the attributes and condition sets (“re-specify the acceptable parameters” in [0006] and “creating a model” in [0007]). Hendler teaches having to do this as part of a periodic maintenance plan and/or in response to changes within a particular process tool ([0007], which suggests the further step of operating the apparatus with the parameters set to a run setting based on the operational models (i.e. the updated model). Since different process tools can be used, it also suggests a plurality of condition sets are prepared. Thus, it appears the design methodology of claim 1 is known in the art and used by process engineers for controlling manufacturing processes. However, Tuszynski and Hendler fails to specify applying the design method for controlling a converter for converting glass tubes to glass articles. Studerus teaches a method for converting glass tubes to glass articles by translating a glass tube through a plurality of processing stations of a converter. Studerus further teaches converters are used for producing a variable of glass articles including vials, cartridges, and syringes, and depending on product made, glass tubes of different diameters is processed, wherein a process using a larger diameter glass tube would naturally require longer processing time (first 4 paragraphs of description on page 2). Accordingly, a method for adapting the converter to accommodate different glass tubes for making different glass articles is necessary. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have applied the design method of Tuszynski and Hendler, comprising preparing a plurality of conditions sets for the different glass articles, producing the glass articles according to the condition sets, wherein the process parameters of the converter is adjusted for each of the condition sets, measuring attributes of the glass articles, and developing operation models for operating the converter to produce the desired glass article, to a converter, such as one disclosed by Studerus, so as to provide operation models for handling different glass tubes for producing different glass articles.
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned above, Tuszynski and Hendler teach an operational model that relates the process parameter to a measured attribute. Naturally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the method to have determined run setting for each the process parameters based on the operation model in order to reproduce the product in subsequent runs.
Regarding claim 3, Studerus teaches attributes of concern include dimensions of the glass tube (4th passage on page 2).
Regarding claim 4, Studerus teaches controlling the rotary drive of the converter, which naturally provides for a part rate (5th passage on page 2), and adjusting the burner output (5th passage on page 5).
Regarding claim 5, Studerus teaches forming a glass preform at a working end of a glass tube at a heating station of the converter and forming the glass preform into a feature of the glass article at the working end of the glass tube, such as shaping a neck (last two passage on page 5, note the separated intermediate preform 2 on right hand side of figure 2 and the feature processing of glass tube 2 on the left hand side). Although condition sets are not specified, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have prepare multiple subsets of condition sets, each pertaining to the respective processing step, in order to control the specific processing step. For example, a first subset of condition sets that allow for the forming of the intermediate glass preform at the working end of the glass tube, i.e. by severing, and a second subset of conditions sets for working a neck feature of the glass article at the working end of the glass tube, as shown in figure 2.
Regarding claims 6-7, as mentioned above, Tuszynski and Hendler teaches operating the apparatus at a condition set, measuring an attribute of the product, and determining an operational model based on the measured attribute and condition set. Since the forming of the intermediate preform by severing involves different operating parameters (a first subset of condition sets) from the operating parameters need at the station for shaping the neck of the preform (second subset of condition sets), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have developed operational models for each of the first and second subsets of condition sets, wherein the operational models provides for respective run settings, since the forming and shaping step have very different modes of operation. Naturally, after run settings are determined, it would be obvious to operate the converter with each of the process parameters of the heating stations set to the respective run settings, so as to produce more products.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuszynski (7,660,642), Hendler et al. (2009/0037013), and Studerus (EP 3 584 225 machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ticli et al. (IT 201900005600 as provide for by applicant). Like Studerus, Ticli teaches a method for converting glass tubes into glass articles by translating the glass tube through a plurality of processing stations ([0015], [0069]), and measuring one or more attributes of the glass articles or glass tubes ([0017] lines 169-170, [0037] lines 440-445). Regarding claim 8, Ticli further teaches assigning a unique identifier to each of the glass articles as it is produced, tracking each of the plurality of glass articles produced through the converter by the unique identifier, and associate the unique identifier with the condition set (“operating parameter’) used to produce the glass article and the measured attribute (“quality parameter”) for the glass article ([0056], [0065]). Ticli teaches the identifier allows for a control unit to perform real time mapping of the glass preform to the heating element, thereby allowing for necessary adjustments. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a similar step of providing a unique identifier in the process of Tuszynski, Hendler, and Studerus, as it provides for real-time feedback to better control the heating of the glass tube.
Regarding claims 9-10, Ticli teaches measuring the attribute for the glass article while operating the converter with the process parameter set to a run setting, determining a predicted attribute for the glass article from the settings, comparing the measured attribute to the predicted attribute and identifying a deviation from normal operating conditions based on the comparison, correcting the upset condition of the converter ([0057], [0063], [0066]), and repeating the operation of measuring and correcting the operating parameters ([(0018]). Ticli teaches wear of system components of the converter may occur over time, and suggests correcting for these changes ([0056], [0068]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated similar steps of comparing a measured attribute to a determining a predictable attribute and correcting for deviations in the method of Tuszynski, Hendler, and Studerus, to ensure the highest quality for the glass article produced, wherein the steps would be repeated for the different condition sets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 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 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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741