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 .
Claims 1-74 are pending.
Claims 1-24 are directed to method of forming a preform.
Claims 25-49 and 50-74 are directed to system for forming a preforming, and having control module having the same process limitations as that set forth in claims 1-24.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 13, 19-26, 28, 30, 38, 44-52, 54, 57 and 69-74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIKUTA (US 11099074 B2) in view of QUILLEN (US 2004/0101642 A1).
KIKUTA teaches of forming a molded piece set and with computer color matching system, database, and method of manufacturing, with modifying ratios of colorants, see Figure with step S3 initial calculated ratios of colorants, step S4 producing samples, testing and seeing if within the ranges as seen in step S5, wherein in step S6 there is modifying ratios of colorants, wherein, this is modified back to step S4 in production.
Injection molding in general for the color molded piece to be produced, see Col. 6, lines 66. Wherein, the composition is polymer and the dye or pigment, see Col. 6, line 56-63.
Re: 1, KIKUTA teaches of a method for forming a molded piece set (see Col. 2, lines 10-16), the method comprising:
determining target visual parameters for the container/product (see Col. 2, lines 28-36, regarding the target color);
setting an initial amount of an additive that is estimated to achieve the target visual parameters (see Col. 2, lines 28-45, with the estimating of the ratios calculated and adjustment for the color molded piece, see step 1-1);
dispensing the initial amount of the additive and a thermoplastic resin into an injection molding machine (see step 1-2, of the producing, see Col. 7, lines 38-40);
forming the article by operating the injection molding machine to inject the thermoplastic resin and the additive at the initial amount into a mold configured to form the preform (see teaching of forming via injection molding in general for the color molded piece to be produced, see Col. 6, lines 66);
measuring realized visual parameters of the article with a sensor (see the feature of determining the color difference, see colorimetric optical system, see Col. 4, lines 58-62, spectrophotometer, and with color matching, Col. 15, line 66 to Col. 16, line 9.);
comparing the realized visual parameters of the article to the target visual parameters and determining whether the realized visual parameters are within a predetermined acceptable range of the target visual parameters using a control module configured to perform the comparing (see steps 1-6, Col. 7, lines 52 to Col. 8, line 10);
if the realized visual parameters are within the predetermined acceptable range of the target visual parameters, identifying the preform as acceptable (see Fig. 1, wherein S5 if the range is acceptable in the predetermined range);
if the realized visual parameters are outside the predetermined acceptable range of the target visual parameters, adjusting the initial amount of the additive to a modified amount estimated by the control module to achieve the target visual parameters (see steps S-5 to S-6 in the Fig. and also step 1-7, Col. 7, lines 56-58);
dispensing the modified amount of the additive and the thermoplastic resin into the injection molding machine (see Fig. and step 1-7); and
forming an additional articles by operating the injection molding machine to inject the thermoplastic resin and the additive at the modified amount into the mold (see repeat operations as per S-4, see also step 1-5, see Col. 7, lines 49-51).
KIKUTA fails to specifically teach of forming preforms, though, the reference teaches of various different products, see Col. 2, lines 23-27.
Wherein, QUILLEN teaches of known injection molding of preforms, see [0001, 0011]. This preform being known formed articles via injection molding. Further, the desired known visual qualities of the preform formed being measured, see [0081-0084].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process of KIKUTA with forming preforms as taught by QUILLEN as a known material to be formed via injection molding and in regards of forming at desired compositions in light of the visual parameters, as this is seen under KSR, see MPEP 2143, of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re: 2 (upon 1), wherein the control module, the sensor, and an additive dispensing system configured to dispense the additive are integrally connected.
(See teaching of KIKUTA with the color matching and measurement using spectrophotometer, or sensor.)
Re: 3 (upon 1), wherein the thermoplastic resin includes polyethylene terephthalate (PET).
(See KIKUTA teaching of various polymers including polyethylene, see Col. 2, lines 20-22.)
Re: 5 (upon 1), wherein the sensor is configured to measure the realized visual parameters through a finish of the preform.
(See KIKUTA teaching of visually determining the color difference, see also colorimetric optical system, see Col. 4, lines 58-62, spectrophotometer, and with color matching, Col. 15, line 66 to Col. 16, line 9.)
Re: 11 (upon 1), wherein the realized visual parameters include the following color space values: (L*a*b*) and a yellowness index (YI).
(See teaching by QUILLEN, see [0081-0084], regarding visual parameters for color standards and also of yellowness index.)
Re: 13 (upon 1), wherein the target visual parameters correspond to reference visual parameters.
(See KIKUTA teaching of matching the measurements to the database, see Col. 9, lines 26-36.)
Re: 19 (upon 1), wherein the additive is a colorant.
(See additive being a colorant in reference, see Col. 2, line 50 and Col. 5, lines 15-18 and 36-41.)
Re: 20 (upon 1), wherein the sensor is configured to measure the realized visual parameters by reflecting a light off of the preform.
(KIKUTA teaches of spectrophotometer, and with color matching Col. 15, line 66 to Col. 16, line 9.)
Re: 21 (upon 1), wherein the thermoplastic resin includes high density polyethylene (HDPE).
(See KIKUTA teaching of polyethylene, Col. 2, line 21.)
Re: 22 (upon 1), wherein the thermoplastic resin includes high polypropylene (PP).
(See KIKUTA teaching polypropylene, Col. 2, line 21.)
Re: 23 (upon 1), further comprising continuously comparing the realized visual parameters of subsequent performs formed by the injection molding machine to the target visual parameters, and determining whether the realized visual parameters of subsequent preforms are within the predetermined acceptable range of the target visual parameters using the control module.
(See KIKUTA, steps S5, and also see teaching in claim 1 above.)
Re: 24 (upon 23), further comprising the following: if the realized visual parameters of any of the subsequent preforms are outside the predetermined acceptable range of the target visual parameters, further adjusting the additive to a further modified amount estimated by the control module to achieve the target visual parameters.
(See KIKUTA, steps S6, and also see teaching in claim 1 above.)
Re: 25, KIKUTA teaches of a system for forming a preform, the control module with process limitations that is similar to that of the claim 1 above.
Re: 26 (upon 25), The system of claim 25, similar to claim 2.
Re: 28 (upon 25), similar to claim 3.
Re: 30 (upon 25), similar to claim 5.
Re: 36 (upon 25), similar to claim 11.
Re: 38 (upon 25), similar to claim 13.
Re: 44 (upon 25), similar to claim 19.
Re: 45 (upon 25), similar to claim 20.
Re: 46 (upon 25), similar to claim 21.
Re: 47 (upon 25), similar to claim 22.
Re: 48 (upon 25), generally similar to claim 23.
Re: 49 (upon 48), generally similar to claim 24.
Re: 50, KIKUTA teaches a system for forming an injection molded part, similar to that of claims 1 and 25 and see teachings to claim 1 above. The control module being similar to the claimed process limitation of claim 1 above.
Re: 51 (upon 50), similar to claims 2 and 26.
Re: 52 (upon 50), wherein the part is a closure for a container.
Re: 54 (upon 50), similar to claim 3 and 28.
Re: 57 (upon 50), wherein the sensor is configured to measure the realized visual parameters through the part, the part including a closure for a container.
Re: 62 (upon 50), similar to claim 11 and 36.
Re: 69 (upon 50), similar to claim 19 and 44.
Re: 70 (upon 50), similar to claim 20 and 45.
Re: 71 (upon 50), similar to claim 21 and 46.
Re: 72 (upon 50), similar to claim 22 and 47.
Re: 73 (upon 50), similar to claim 23 and 48.
Re: 74 (upon 73), similar to claim 24 and 49.
Claim(s) 9, 27, 34, 53 and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIKUTA in view of QUILLEN as applied to claims 25 and 50 above, and further in view of STONE (US 2016/0274561 A) and BAYINDIR (US 2009/0097805 A1).
Re: 27 (upon 25). The system of claim 25, wherein the control module is configured to wirelessly communicate with at least one of the thermoplastic resin dispenser, the sensor, and the additive dispensing system.
KIKUTA does not specifically teach of wireless communication.
See teaching by STONE of wireless communications, see [0180, 0183].
See also BAYINDIR that teaches of a sensing fiber data that can be converted into wireless format that is sent to a control module, such as PC, computer, etc, see [0240, 0241, 0244].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the control module of the modified KIKUTA with the use of a wireless communication as taught in both STONE and BAYINDIR for data transmission to the control module, as these are a known manner for data control/transmission within the systems, as this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see KSR, MPEP 2143.
Re: 53 (upon 50), similar to claim 27.
Re: 9 (upon 1), wherein the sensor is configured to detect visible, ultraviolet, or infra-red light.
Further, see teaching by STONE of use of inspection sensor that includes for X-ray, UV, IR, or visible light, see [0168]. Wherein, this particular type of inspection sensor are known in the arts for use for inspection, and wherein, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to have modified KIKUTA with the sensor of STONE, as this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see KSR, MPEP 2143.
Re: 34 (upon 25), similar to claim 9
Re: 60 (upon 50), similar to claim 9 and 34.
Claim(s) 4, 29, and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIKUTA in view of QUILLEN as applied to claims 1, 25, and 50 above, and further in view of TRELEAVEN (US 7081217 B2).
Re: 4 (upon 1), wherein the thermoplastic resin further includes post-consumer recycled (PCR) resin.
KIKUTA does not teach of recycled resin.
However, such use of recycled resin being repurposed in the molding arts are known. As seen in TRELEAVEN that teaches of adjustment of the materials and color concentrate to achieve the desired color in a plastic extrusion from recyclable plastics.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the process of the modified KIKUTA with the use of post-consumer recycled plastics as taught by TRELEAVEN as this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see KSR, MPEP 2143.
Re: 29 (upon 25), similar to claim 4.
Re: 55 (upon 50), similar to claim 4 and 29.
Claim(s) 6-9, 16, 31-34, 41, 56, 58-60, and 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIKUTA in view of QUILLEN as applied to claim 1, 25, and 50 above, and further in view of THOMAS (US 2005/0041848 A1).
Re: 6 (upon 1), wherein the sensor is configured to measure the realized visual parameters through a body of the preform.
KIKUTA does not teach of the particular manner of inspecting a preform.
See teaching by THOMAS concerning sensor for measuring through the body of preform, see use of CCD 50 and beam generator 40 to inspect a preform 30, see Figs. 3 and 6, see also [0020-0024].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the process of the modified KIKUTA with the measurements through the preform body as taught by THOMAS as an alternate manner of inspection of the article as this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see KSR, MPEP 2143.
Re: 31 (upon 25), similar to claim 6
Re: 56 (upon 50), similar to claim 5 and 6, 30, 31.
Re: 7 (upon 1), wherein the sensor is configured to measure the realized visual parameters through at least one wall of the preform.
KIKUTA does not teach of the particular manner of inspecting a preform.
See teaching by THOMAS concerning sensor for measuring through the body of preform, see use of CCD 50 and beam generator 40 to inspect a preform 30, see Figs. 3 and 6, see also [0020-0024].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the process of the modified KIKUTA with the measurements through the preform body as taught by THOMAS as an alternate manner of inspection of the article as this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see KSR, MPEP 2143.
Re: 32 (upon 25), similar to claim 7
Re: 58 (upon 50), similar to claim 7 and 32.
Re: 8 (upon 1), wherein the sensor is a solid-state light sensor including an emitter and a receiver.
KIKUTA does not teach of the particular sensor set up.
See teaching by THOMAS concerning sensor for measuring through the body of preform, see use of CCD 50 and beam generator 40 to inspect a preform 30, see Figs. 3 and 6. The CCD being the claimed receiver and the beam generator being the emitter.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the process of the modified KIKUTA with the sensor setup as taught by THOMAS as a known manner of inspection of a preform as this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see KSR, MPEP 2143.
Re: 33 (upon 25), similar to claim 8.
Re: 59 (upon 50), similar to claim 8 and 33.
Re: 9 (upon 1), wherein the sensor is configured to detect visible, ultraviolet, or infra-red light.
Further, see teaching by THOMAS of a beam generator 40 and in which the sensor, CCD 50, would be able to receive, see Figs. 3 and 6. Wherein, this particular type of sensor for detection the particular light are known in the arts, and wherein, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to have modified KIKUTA with the sensor of THOMAS, as this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see KSR, MPEP 2143.
Re: 34 (upon 25), similar to claim 9
Re: 60 (upon 50), similar to claim 9 and 34.
Re: 16 (upon 1), wherein measuring the realized visual parameters of the preform is performed at one of the following locations: the injection molding machine; end of arm tooling; or a conveyor.
KIKUTA does not teach of the particular location of inspecting a preform.
See teaching of measuring of preform 30 while on a conveyor 20 (see belts 22, 24) in THOMAS, see [0020], see also Figs. 2 and 3.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the process of the modified KIKUTA with the location of inspecting a preform body as taught by THOMAS as a known method of preform inspection as this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see KSR, MPEP 2143.
Re: 41 (upon 25), similar to claim 16
Re: 66 (upon 50), similar to claim 16 and 41.
Claim(s) 10, 35, and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIKUTA in view of QUILLEN as applied to claims 1, 25, 50 above, and further in view of BAYINDIR (US 2007/0019917 A1).
Re: 10 (upon 1), wherein the sensor uses fiber optic cables to transmit and receive light.
KIKUTA does not specifically teach of fiber optic cables used for the sensor.
However, as seen in the sensor arts, BAYINDIR teaches of fiber photodetector [0008], in this regards, the use of fiber optics in the sensors are known in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the sensor of the modified KIKUTA to incorporate the use of fiber optics as taught by BAYINDIR as a known component within the sensor structure for operations, this is seen as a known construction of sensor elements that utilize light, in this case relevant to the colorimeter sensors of KIKUTA.
Re: 35 (upon 25), similar to claim 10
Re: 61 (upon 50), similar to claim 10 and 35.
Claim(s) 12, 16, 37, 41, 63, and 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIKUTA in view of QUILLEN as applied to claims 1, 25, and 50 above, and further in view of COLTON (US 2017/0227472 A1).
Re: 12 (upon 1),. The method of claim 1, further comprising transferring the preform to a cooling tube and measuring the realized visual parameters.
KIKUTA does not teach of the particular location of inspecting a preform.
See teaching by COLTON of visual inspection done while on a carrier that includes a cooling system (which encompasses the claimed cooling tube), see [0071].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the process of the modified KIKUTA with the location of inspecting a preform body as taught by COLTON as a known method of preform inspection as this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see KSR, MPEP 2143.
Re: 37 (upon 25), similar to claim 12
Re: 63 (upon 50), similar to claim 12 and 37.
Re: 16 (upon 1), wherein measuring the realized visual parameters of the preform is performed at one of the following locations: the injection molding machine; end of arm tooling; or a conveyor.
KIKUTA does not teach of the particular location of inspecting a preform.
See teaching by COLTON of visual inspection done while on a carrier (which encompasses the claimed conveyor), see [0070, 0071].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the process of the modified KIKUTA with the location of inspecting a preform body as taught by COLTON as a known method of preform inspection as this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see KSR, MPEP 2143.
Re: 41 (upon 25), similar to claim 16
Re: 66 (upon 50), similar to claim 16 and 41.
Claim(s) 14-15, 17, 39-40, 42, 64-65, and 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIKUTA in view of QUILLEN as applied to claims 1, 25, and 50 above, and further in view of MANCOSH (US 2008/0093763 A1) and LUSTIGER (US 2006/0264557 A1).
Re: 14 (upon 1), further comprising dispensing the additive into the injection molding machine at a screw or at least one feed-throat of the injection molding machine.
The KIKUTA reference does not teach of the particular dispensing manner of the additive to the screw.
In this case, the teaching MANCOSH teaches of the manner of mixing of the polymer with additives (colorants) in an extruder screw, see claims 1 and 28 of MANCOSH. Particularly, with the colorant being controlled in the dispensing, see claims and also see [0022, 0046].
And wherein, as seen in LUSTIGER such use of extruder 29 of the material can be further processed in an injection device 54, see [0091], wherein there is control of the colorant fiber, [0132].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the process of the modified KIKUTA with the use of a extruder screw for dispensing of additive for mixing as taught by MANCOSH and wherein, the use of the of extruder screw for injection molding as taught by LUSTIGER being a known manner preparing the material for molding, as this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see KSR, MPEP 2143.
Re: 39 (upon 25), similar to claim 14
Re: 64 (upon 50), similar to claim 14 and 39.
Re: 15 (upon 1), further comprising dispensing the additive directly into the thermoplastic resin. See teaching above of the MANCOSH in adding the additive to the resin.
Re: 40 (upon 25), similar to claim 15
Re: 65 (upon 50), similar to claim 15 and 40.
Re: 17 (upon 1), further comprising mixing the additive and the thermoplastic resin in the injection molding machine before forming the preform. See teaching above by MANCOSH combined with LUSTIGER regarding the mixing of the additive and resin prior to forming/injection of the preform.
Re: 42 (upon 25), similar to claim 17
Re: 67 (upon 50), similar to claim 17 and 42.
Claim(s) 18, 43, and 68 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIKUTA in view of QUILLEN as applied to claims 1, 25, and 50 above, and further in view of SABIN (US 2005/0082707 A1).
Re: 18 (upon 1), wherein the preform mold is configured for simultaneously molding at least forty-eight preforms.
KIKUTA does not specify the amount of preform that is simultaneously molded by the preform mold.
However, as taught in SABIN, in the known state of the art in the background information, it is known that conventionally, injection molding machines for forming preforms have had forty-eight cavities, and even more as it allows for increased numbers allow for increased output in light of the capital equipment costs for the production, see [0014]. The optical measurement systems allow for measurement of the forty-eight cavity molding apparatus, see [0014].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modify the preform mold of the modified KIKUTA with the conventional forty-eight cavities preform mold as taught by SABIN as this is a known conventional injection molding system for preform production, this is this is seen as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see KSR, MPEP 2143.
Re: 43 (upon 25), similar to claim 18
Re: 68 (upon 50), similar to claim 18 and 43.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744