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 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/18/2026. The applicants have argued based upon 35 USC 121 have been considered but is unpersuasive. However, it is noted that the applicants have amended the claims with changes that include the features of the elected claim group. The claims will be examined based upon the latest amendment.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “angle of at least 3º”, and the claim also recites “preferably at least 4°, preferably at least 5°, preferably at least 6°, preferably at least 7° and preferably 8° relative to a horizontal plane, and/or the apparatus is arranged at an angle of at most 20°, preferably at most 18°, preferably at most 16°, preferably at most 14°, preferably at most 12°, preferably at most 10° and preferably at most 9°” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2650101 A1 (see IDS, cited paragraphs are from the English translation portion).
The EP reference having teachings as seen in the abstract and [0045], see the two rotatable and mutually parallel rolls, see Fig. 4 and [0045] and [0060], see holding down device 62 above the rolls.
Re 1,the EP2650101 reference teaches an apparatus for feeding plastic preforms to a forming device for forming plastic preforms (10) into plastic containers (see [0001]), comprising
a transport device configured for transporting plastic preforms along a predetermined transport path, wherein the transport device comprises two rotatable and mutually parallel arranged rollers (see rollers 2, 4), between which the plastic preforms (10) can be guided, wherein the transport device comprises a first portion and a second portion,
wherein the first portion of the transport device comprises a sorting device for sorting plastic, which sorting device is configured to bring the plastic preforms into a predetermined orientation (see Fig. 4, wherein the ejection device provides for sorting),
wherein the second portion of the transport device is arranged downstream of the first portion of the transport device in the transport direction, wherein the second portion of the transport device comprises a hold-down device, which extends at least partly along the transport path in the region of the second portion and is configured to determine a height position of the plastic preforms with respect to the transport device, wherein the two rotatable and mutually parallel arranged rollers each extend over the entire first and second portions of the transport device and/or the hold-down device is arranged above the two rotatable and mutually parallel arranged rollers (see hold down device 68 that extend over the rollers 2, 4, see Fig. 5, as it also serves to eject poorly oriented preforms, see [0060], see also ejection element 68 , and guide rail 72 that urges the preforms along).
Re 3 (upon 1), wherein the plastic preforms can be transferred directly from the two rotatable and mutually parallel arranged rollers to the separation device [and preferably to the inlet barrier].
See in the EP reference, the rollers that are parallel to each other, see [0055], see also transferring of the preforms from the rollers, see Figs. 4 and 5. The “preferably” language is seen as optional and thus not a required element in the claim interpretation.
Re 4 (upon 1), wherein the first portion of the transport device has an ejection device which is arranged in a region of the sorting device and/or downstream of the sorting device in the transport direction and is configured for ejecting incorrectly oriented plastic preforms from the transport path.
See teaching by the EP reference in Figs. 4 and 5, see hold down element 62 that can serve to eject the preforms, see also 68 of the ejection element.
Re 12, see teaching in Figs. 3-5 of the EP reference, and by the elements taught in claim 1 above which encompasses the claimed method steps of claim 12.
Re 14 (upon 12), wherein incorrectly oriented plastic preforms are ejected.
See teaching by the EP reference, [0060].
Claim(s) 2, 5, 13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the EP reference as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of DENG (US 2022/0339844 A1).
Re 2 (upon 1), wherein a separation device is arranged downstream of the transport device in the transport direction, which separation device preferably has an inlet barrier and a singly-cycle starwheel, wherein the separation device is arranged directly after the two rotatable and mutually parallel arranged rollers of the transport device.
The EP reference does not specifically teach of a starwheel as the downstream separation device.
However, the DENG reference teaches of a feeding tray 15 (which corresponds to the claimed starwheel, see tray 15 with grooves 17) that acts as the separation device downstream of the transport device, see preform feeding base 3, 4, which corresponds to the claimed transport device, see Fig. 3. The feeding tray 15 having grooves 17 for engaging the preforms 18. Such arrangement are known in the molding arts and one skilled in the art would recognize for incorporating into the EP reference for handling preforms in the molding production.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the EP reference with the additional starwheel as taught by DENG as a known element in the article handling and transport within the production line, see KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re 5 (upon 1), wherein the second portion of the transport device has a rotary segment which is configured for arranging the plastic preforms without jamming, and/or the second portion has an apparatus which is configured for discharging the sorted plastic preforms guided by the upper hold-down device.
Whereupon, the claimed rotary segment can be seen in the teaching of the rotation of the tray in the teaching of DENG. Whereupon, the DENG is applicable in the transport of the preform similar to the teaching in claim 2 above.
Re 13 (upon 12), claimed features as similar to claim 2 above, wherein, see teaching by DENG above.
Re 16 (upon 2), wherein the plastic preforms can be transferred directly from the two rotatable and mutually parallel arranged rollers to the separation device [and preferably to the inlet barrier].
See the teaching by the EP reference in claim 3 above. The langue of “preferably” is seen as optional and thus not a required element in the claim interpretation.
Re 17 (upon 2), wherein the first portion of the transport device has an ejection device which is arranged in a region of the sorting device and/or downstream of the sorting device in the transport direction and is configured for ejecting incorrectly oriented plastic preforms from the transport path.
See teaching by the EP reference in claim 4 above.
Re 18 (upon 2), wherein the second portion of the transport device has a rotary segment which is configured for arranging the plastic preforms without jamming, and/or the second portion has an apparatus which is configured for discharging the sorted plastic preforms guided by the upper hold-down device.
See in teaching by the EP reference in view of DENG for claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the EP reference as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of VAN HAMME (US 2016/0023397 A1).
Re 6 (upon 1), wherein the apparatus is arranged at an angle of at least 3°[, preferably at least 4°, preferably at least 5°, preferably at least 6°, preferably at least 7° and preferably 8° relative to a horizontal plane, and/or the apparatus is arranged at an angle of at most 20°, preferably at most 18°, preferably at most 16°, preferably at most 14°, preferably at most 12°, preferably at most 10° and preferably at most 9°] relative to the horizontal plane.
It is noted that the preferably language in the claim is seen as optional and thus not a required element in the claim interpretation.
VAN HAMME teaches of legs 16 that are height adjustable, whereby able to set the angle desired for the transport device 10 and sorting device 12, see [0046], wherein takes advantage of gravity for the transport along the conveying rolls, the sorting device 12 being arranged at an angle to the horizontal, see [0047], see Fig. 2. See also Fig. 1 of different angles set as seen in the prior art teachings, whereby it is known in the molding arts. Whereupon, the different angles and adjustment taught by VAN HAMME encompasses the claimed angle and it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art for such adjustment to the desired rate of the preform movement as it takes advantage of gravity.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the EP reference with the adjustment to the different angles for the height thereby arranging of the angle to the horizontal as taught by VAN HAMME as it allows for taking advantage of the gravity, see KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP as applied to claim 1 above (or EP in view of DENG, as applied to claim 2 above), and further in view of TANNER (US 2015/0101909 A1).
Re 7 (upon 1), wherein the EP reference does not specifically teach of a position and in particular a distance between the two rotatable and mutually parallel arranged rollers can be adapted to a geometric size of the plastic preforms.
See in TANNER, [0001, 0009], of the adjustment of the transport device, roller sorter, for preforms, see also [0026, 0060, 0062, 0068, 0072] of the various adjustment for including vertical setting, and for the width adjusting screw 18.
Whereupon, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the elements of the modified EP reference with the adjustment features for the elements including the rollers as taught by TANNER allowing for adjustment of the different sized preforms in the transport device, see KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re 8 (upon 1), wherein an adjustment of the distance between the rollers can be carried out centrally and this adjustment can be carried out manually or automatically.
See in teaching by TANNER above that includes teaching of manual screws and further to adjust automatically can be seen as to automating a manual activity, see MPEP 2144.04 (III).
Re 9 (upon 1), wherein the hold-down device is adjustable in a height position and [preferably adaptable to a geometric size of the plastic preforms].
See in teaching by TANNER above, and further see [0001, 0009], of the adjustment of the transport device, roller sorter, for preforms, see also [0026, 0060, 0062, 0068, 0072] of the various adjustment for including vertical setting, and for the width adjusting screw 18. Which can be applicable to the hold down device which can be applied to adjust for varying size of the preforms.
Re 10 (upon 9), wherein the adjustment of the hold-down device can be carried out centrally and/or this adjustment can be carried out manually or automatically.
See in TANNER, [0001, 0009], of the adjustment of the transport device, roller sorter, for preforms, see also [0026, 0060, 0062, 0068, 0072] of the various adjustment for including vertical setting, and for the width adjusting screw 18. Which can be applicable to the hold down device which can be applied to adjust for varying size of the preforms. See the concept of adjustment that can be done manual or automatically, see MPEP 2144.04 (III).
Re 19 (upon 2), wherein a position and in particular a distance between the two rotatable and mutually parallel arranged rollers can be adapted to a geometric size of the plastic preforms.
See in teaching by TANNER in claim 7 above.
Re 20 (upon 2), wherein an adjustment of the distance between the rollers can be carried out centrally and this adjustment can be carried out manually or automatically.
See in teaching by TANNER in claim 8 above, further, see in TANNER that includes teaching of manual screws and further to adjust automatically can be seen as to automating a manual activity, see MPEP 2144.04 (III).)
Claim(s) 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the EP reference (EP 2650101 A1) in view of SCHROETER (US 20201/0114279 A1).
Re 11, a plant for forming plastic preforms into plastic containers with a transport device configured for transporting plastic moldings along a predetermined transport path as claimed in claim 1, wherein the transport device has two rotatable and mutually parallel arranged rollers, with an oven for heating the plastic preforms and with a separation device for feeding separated plastic preforms to the oven, wherein the separation device has an inlet barrier and a singly-cycle starwheel, wherein the separation device is arranged in the transport direction between the transport device and the oven,
wherein the plastic preforms can be transferred directly from the two rotatable and mutually parallel arranged rollers of the transport device to the separation device and preferably to the inlet barrier.
See teaching by the EP reference for claim 1 above, see in particular the abstract and [0045], see the two rotatable and mutually parallel rolls, see Fig. 4 and [0045] and [0060], see holding down device 62 above the rolls. The EP reference does not specifically teach of the starwheel and the oven.
SCHROETER teaches of the preforms that are transported and sorted by the roller sorter that are then transport to an oven, see [0022, 0031-0033, 0052].
Further, see teaching of a transfer using a starwheel, see [0090].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the production line of the EP reference with the additional features of the oven and starwheel as known additional elements in the processing of the plastic preforms, see KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re 15, regarding the claimed method for operating a plant for forming plastic preforms into plastic containers with a transport device, the features can be seen by the teaching of the EP reference in view of SCHROETER above for claim 11, which is applicable to the instant method claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form, predominantly references pertain to transport/sorter rollers.
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
Prosecution Insights