DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 17-23 in the reply filed on Jun. 4, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the special technical feature of the invention requires “the NIR cameras being placed directly on the sections with an orientation facing the parison devices making it possible to view the negatives of the parts in the open position”. Applicant argues rotary pyrometer is mounted on a rail and the pyrometer moves along the rail. The argument against the prior art presented in the restriction requirement dated Apr. 9, 2026 persuasive. However, the Examiner still maintains, the special technical feature of the invention does not make a contribution over the prior art of Simon (US 2012/0261850) and Simon (US 2015/0142163 – hereinafter Pub’163), as presented below. Below the Examiner is presenting additional teachings by Simon, such as paragraph [0035].
Simon (abstract, Figs. 3 and 4, [0032] and [0034]) discloses a temperature control system for a blank mold for a parison. Simon discloses a first section of the I.S. machine comprising mold halves 50 and 52 and mold halves 70 and 72, where each set of mold halves correspond to a parison device including two parts. Simon ([0017]) teaches measuring the surface temperature of the blank mold halves in an open state. Simon discloses a pyrometer 100 for measuring mold blank temperatures that view the parison device at each section. Simon ([0035]) also teaches alternatives, such as fixed pyrometers or thermal cameras viewing the molds or a single traveling pyrometer. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, since fixed thermal pyrometers or thermal cameras are also suggested for viewing the molds, to provide multiple thermal cameras provided for viewing the molds at each section. Simon ([0024]) discloses cooling passages within the blank molds and heat is transferred and removed by cooling hair through cooling passages. Simon ([0025]) discloses the cooling air supplied by an air supply valve. Accordingly, the cooling passages and air supply valve disclosed by Simon provides for a device for cooling the two parts.
Simon fails to explicitly disclose the thermal cameras as NIR cameras. However, Pub’163 ([0010] and [0018]) teaches an alternative temperature measuring device, such as a thermal camera 30 sensitive to radiation in the near infrared (NIR). Therefore, based on the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art, the teachings disclosed by Simon, and the additional teachings by Pub’163, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, multiple measurement devices (i.e. pyrometers or thermal cameras) could be used to acquire temperatures for the molds at each section of the apparatus of Simon and the temperature measurement devices could be substituted by a thermal NIR camera, since the pyrometer, thermal cameras and thermal NIR cameras perform the same function, specifically providing temperature information. Accordingly, the special technical feature linking Groups I and II does not provide a contribution over the prior art, and no single general inventive concept exits.
Therefore, restriction is appropriate, and the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains implied phrases, such as term “relates to”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The drawings are objected to because some of the reference characters are hard to read due to poor quality, in Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6, 16, and 17. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed Oct. 9, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
NPL Cite No. 2 is in French.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner interprets lines 1-6 of claim 17 as the preamble of the claim. Lines 7-14 comprise the body of claim 17. The Examiner notes more weight is given to the body of the claim and active steps in the body of the claim.
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 17-23 is/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.
The term “corrective data” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “corrective” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Please clarify what defines “corrective” data.
Regarding claim 17, In line 9, Applicant claims “the parts of the parison devices”, but it is unclear to the Examiner which parts of the parison devices Applicant is referencing. In claim 17, Applicant claims sections of a machine where each section comprises a parison device including two parts, and it is unclear to the Examiner if Applicant is referencing each of the two parts of each section having a parison device or only a few sections having a parison device. Additionally, in line 13, Applicant recites “the devices for cooling the parison devices”, and it is unclear which of the devices or which of the parison devices Applicant is referencing. Please clarify if Applicant is activating each device for each parison device. Please clarify Claim 17. Claims 18-23 depend from claim 17 and are also indefinite.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Typographical error in line 1, Applicant recites “the sections”. In order to provide antecedent basis for “the sections” throughout the claim (line 14), “the sections” in line 1 should be “sections”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the sections" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner interprets “the sections” should be “sections.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the NIR cameras" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner interprets “the NIR cameras” should be “NIR cameras”
Claims 17 and 18 recites the limitation "the negatives" in line 9 of claim 17 and line 4 of claim 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner interprets “the negatives” should be “negatives” in line 4 of claim 17, which will provide antecedent basis in claim 18.
Claims 17 and 18 recites the limitation "the grayscales" in line 7 of Claim 17 and lines 4 and 7 of claim 18 and “said grayscales” in line 10 of claim 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. The Examiner interprets “the grayscales” in line 7 of claim 17 should be “grayscales”, which will provide antecedent basis for “said grayscales” in line 10 of claim 17 and “the grayscales” in line 4 of claim 18.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant claims “prior steps of acquiring the database of visual colors corresponding to defined temperatures on the parison devices in the open position”. This step lacks clarity, because it is unclear to the Examiner what “prior steps” Applicant is referencing and which parison devices in the open position Applicant is referencing. Accordingly the scope of the claim is unclear, since “prior steps” are undefined. Additionally, Claim 18 recites the limitation "the database of visual colors . . ." in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear whether this relates to a database in line 12 of claim 17. Additionally, in step SA, lines 5-6 if “making it possible to view negatives of the two parts of the parison devices in the open position” is referencing each parison device or which parison devices are being referenced. Additionally, clarify if step SC of correlation is applied to each NIR camera or which NIR camera is being referenced and clarify if step SC assigning applies to each parison device. Please clarify claim 18. Claims 19 and 20 also share dependency from claim 18 and are also indefinite.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "said database" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please see claim 18 issues above.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the pyrometer type" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 claims “said parison device” in line 5, but references at least one of the parison devices in line 3. Please clarify if “said parison device” should be “said at least one of the parison devices”.
Claim 19 claims “. . . at least one temperature measurement member, in particular of the pyrometer type”. With the term, “in particular”, it is unclear to the Examiner if the at least one temperature measurement member is required to be a pyrometer. Please clarify claim 19.
Claim 20 references “said parison devices”, and it is unclear which of the parison devices Applicant is referencing or if Applicant is referencing all parison devices.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the grayscales" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please see claims 17 and 18 issues above.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the NIR cameras" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please see claims 17 and 18 issues above.
Claim 20 references “said temperature measurement members” and there is “at least one temperature measurement member” in claim 19 and “several temperature measurement members” in claim 20. Please clarify “said temperature measurement members” since it is unclear which temperature measurement members Applicant is referencing.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the grayscales" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please see claims 17 and 18 issues above.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the NIR cameras" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please see claims 17 and 18 issues above.
The term “an abnormally high and prolonged temperature” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “abnormally high and prolonged temperature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Please clarify claim 21.
The term “corrective data” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “corrective” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Additionally, with the term “when”, it is unclear to the Examiner if the ejecting is required. Please clarify claim 22.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the output of the sections" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the grayscales on at least one item blank" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “corrective data” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “corrective” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Additionally, the step of computing the corrective data appears to be a mental step since the computing of the data is not applied to an active step of the claim.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a translation into English from a foreign document and are replete antecedent basis errors. Please verify antecedent basis in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 17-18 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (US 2012/0261850) in view of Simon (US 2015/0142163 – hereinafter Pub’163), Hagman et al. (US 2024/0319013), and Gaylo et al. (US2023/0257292A1 – hereinafter Gaylo).
Regarding claim 17, Simon (abstract, Figs. 3 and 4, [0032] and [0034]) discloses a temperature control system for a blank mold for a parison. Simon discloses a first section of the I.S. machine comprising mold halves 50 and 52 and mold halves 70 and 72, where each set of mold halves correspond to a parison device including two parts forming at least one parison mold. Simon ([0017]) teaches measuring the surface temperature of the blank mold halves in an open state. Simon (Figs. 3-4 and [0032] and [0034]) discloses a pyrometer 100 for measuring mold blank temperatures that view the parison device at each section. Simon ([0035]) also teaches surface temperatures of the blank molds may be monitored in any suitable manner, as an alternative to a traveling pyrometer, such as fixed pyrometers or thermal cameras viewing the molds or a single traveling pyrometer. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, since fixed thermal pyrometers or thermal cameras are also suggested, to provide multiple fixed thermal cameras provided for viewing the molds at each section. Simon ([0024]) discloses cooling passages within the blank molds and heat is transferred and removed by cooling hair through cooling passages. Simon ([0025]) discloses the cooling air supplied by an air supply valve. Accordingly, the cooling passages and air supply valve disclosed by Simon provides for a device for cooling the two parts.
Simon fails to explicitly disclose the thermal cameras as NIR cameras. However, Pub’163 ([0010] and [0018]) teaches an alternative temperature measuring device, such as a thermal camera 30 sensitive to radiation in the near infrared (NIR). Therefore, based on the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art, the teachings disclosed by Simon, and the additional teachings by Pub’163, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, multiple measurement devices (i.e. pyrometers or thermal cameras) could be used to acquire temperatures for the molds of the parison devices at each section of the apparatus of Simon and the temperature measurement devices could be substituted by a thermal NIR camera, since the pyrometer, thermal cameras and thermal NIR cameras perform the same function, specifically providing temperature information of the blank molds in the open position in real time.
Simon ([0011]) discloses controlling the supply of coolant air to the blank molds based on a temperature measurement. This is interpreted as a step of activating the devices for cooling the parison devices based on temperature, but fails to disclose the activating is based on corrective data. However, Hagman ([0031]) teaches pixels of a thermal infrared image is indicative of a temperature associated with the pixel and teaches mapping a temperature value corresponding to a color value or a greyscale value to provide for a temperature image.
Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Hagman, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with the use of a thermal NIR camera for temperature measurements with pixels includes mapping temperature value to a corresponding color value or a greyscale value and this can be used as a temperature measurement for activating the devices for cooling the parison devices (i.e. molds) and placing pixel data into a database. Therefore, Simon in view of Pub’163, and Hagman, provides for measuring in real time pixels by means of NIR cameras placed directly on the sections with an orientation making it possible to view thermal images (i.e. negatives) of parts of the parison devices in the open position, placing pixel data in a database and mapping grayscales or colors to a temperature measurement.
Simon, Pub’163, and Hagman fail to disclose the claimed step of computing corrective data and said visual colors being assigned to defined temperatures and obtained from a database. However, Gaylo ([0124]) teaches a thermal imaging system that stores and maintains a database of thermal image data and/or characteristics of the glass tube (i.e. item being measured) from the thermal image data which may be used to develop baseline targets and/or metrics to use as setpoints for process control. Based on the additional teachings by Gaylo, including maintaining a database and developing baseline targets from the thermal image and metrics to use as setpoints for process control, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the modified method of Simon that includes temperatures measurements and mapping the thermal image to temperatures measurements would include maintaining a database and developing baseline targets from the thermal image and metrics to use as setpoints for the process control taught by Simon, and this provides for computing the claimed corrective data obtained from a database, as claimed in claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, as discussed in the rejection of claim 17, the modified method of Simon provides for NIR cameras placed directly on the sections with an orientation making it possible to view images (i.e. negatives) of the molds (i.e. two parts) of the parison device in an open position. Also discussed in the rejection of claim 17 above, Hagman ([0031]) teaches pixels of a thermal infrared image is indicative of a temperature associated with the pixel and teaches mapping a temperature value corresponding to a color value or a greyscale value to provide for a temperature image. Additionally, Gaylo ([0124]) teaches a thermal imaging system that stores and maintains a database of thermal image data and/or characteristics of the glass tube (i.e. item being measured) from the thermal image data which may be used to develop baseline targets and/or metrics to use as setpoints for process control. With the modified method of Simon in claim 17 providing for a step SD and SE, and the teachings by Hagman that color or greyscale values provide for mapping a temperature value and the teachings by Gaylo including maintaining a database of the item being imaged to develop baseline targets and metrics to use as setpoints for process control, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, a step of acquiring baseline temperature measurements in the process by acquiring grayscales measured on the negative (i.e. thermal image) of the two parts of each parison device by NIR cameras placed on the sections with an orientation making it possible to view negatives of the two parts in the open position, and a step which includes mapping a temperature value corresponding to a color value or a greyscale value to provide for a temperature image, which would provide for the step SC of correlation between the grayscales measured by the NIR cameras and at least one actual temperature measurement and assigning a visual color to a defined temperature of the parison devices.
Regarding claim 21, as discussed in the rejection of claim 17 above, the modified method of Simon provides for mapping temperature and grayscales measured by the NIR cameras. In addition to the rejection of claim 17 above, Simon ([0044]) further teaches temperature measurement from the blank mold is subtracted from a desired temperature established by a temperature setpoint and teaches an error signal can be sent to a controller to provide for corrective cooling. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the cooling based on temperature measurements by analyzing grayscales measured by the NIR camera, and analyzing the temperature (i.e. grayscales) to detect an anomaly, such as difference in a desired temperature from the blank mold and send an error signal (corresponding to emitting an item of alert) in provide for corrective cooling of a blank mold in a section.
Regarding claim 22, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, claim 22 lacks clarity as to the term corrective data and whether an ejecting step is required. However, Simon ([0025]) discloses glass is removed from out of the interior of the mold surfaces and then discloses cooling is switched on after the blank molds are open and after the glass is removed. The removal of the glass from the mold and switching of cooling and discussion by Simon in claim 17 above that coolant supply is based on a temperature measurement, the modified method of Simon provides for ejecting of glass items at an output of the sections of the IS machine, as claimed.
Regarding claim 23, as discussed in the rejection of claim 17 above, Gaylo teaches thermal cameras used to measure a glass item. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the modified method of Simon, the method further comprising measuring in real time the grayscales on at least one item blank present on each parison device in the open position by the means of the NIR cameras and the claimed computing data by teachings of obtaining developed baseline targets and metrics, as taught by Gaylo.
Allowable Subject Matter
There is no prior art rejection against Claims 19-20. However, claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Allowability of these claims will be determined upon resolution of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues of these claims, the base claim, and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the limitations in claim 19 of at least one actual temperature being measured by at least one temperature measurement member and the step SB is performed simultaneously with the step SA. Claim 20 depends from claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 8:15am-4:15pm.
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.
/LISA L HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights