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
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11, 15-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Wolfe (US 2012/1030677).
Regarding claim 1, Wolfe discloses a method of forming blow-molded containers (abstract, [0021]), the method comprising: training a predictive model (validate a model relating blow molder input parameters and material distribution, [0065], Fig. 16), implemented by a control system that comprises at least one processor (processor 142, [0065]), to generate blow molder operating parameters for a blow molder based on inputs to the model (production tolerance as input, and associated control parameters as operating parameters, particularly if changed as part of validating the model, [0065], Fig. 16), wherein the inputs comprise one or more container characteristics and current operating parameters for the blow molder (material distribution and control parameters, [0065-67], Fig. 16); after training the predictive model, forming, with the blow molder, blow-molded containers from preforms ([0026-27] [0066]), wherein forming the blow-molded containers comprises: sensing, by one or more sensors, the current operating parameters for the blow molder during formation of blow-molded containers ([0065-67], Fig. 16); inspecting, by an inspection system (inspection system 50, [0029], Figs. 2-3), blow-molded containers after formation by the blow molder to determine the one or more container characteristics for the blow-molded containers ([0068-69]);
wherein forming the blow-molded containers comprises: sensing, by one or more sensors, the current operating parameters for the blow molder during formation of blow-molded containers ([0065-67]); inspecting, by an inspection system, blow-molded containers after formation by the blow molder to determine the one or more container characteristics for the blow-molded containers ([0065-69]); determining, by the control system, updated blow molder operating parameters for the blow molder based on the predictive model, the current operating parameters for the blow molder, and the one or more container characteristics determined by the inspection system ([0066]); outputting, by the control system, the updated blow molder operating parameters to the blow molder ([0066]); and applying, by the blow molder, the updated blow molder operating parameters in the formation of the blow-molded containers from the preforms ([0066]).
Regarding claim 2, Wolfe discloses wherein forming the blow-molded containers further comprises: heating, by the blow molder, the preforms ([0026]); and stretching, by the blow molder, the preforms by blowing fluid into the preforms to stretch the preforms to form the containers ([0027]).
Regarding claim 3, Wolfe discloses wherein the fluid comprises air ([0027]).
Regarding claim 4, Wolfe discloses wherein: stretching the preforms comprises a pre-blow of the preforms (pre-blow referenced in [0063]), stretching of the preforms by a stretching rod (core rod, [0027]), and a high-pressure blow of the preforms (stretched using air, [0027]); and the updated blow molder operating parameters output by the control system and applied by the blow molder comprise: an updated pre-blow pressure level for the pre-blow of the preforms ([0063]); an updated high-pressure blow pressure level for the high-pressure blow for the preforms ([0063]); and an updated blow timing ([0063]).
Regarding claim 5, Wolfe discloses wherein the updated blow molder operating parameters output by the control system and applied by the blow molder comprise further a temperature set point for the preforms (temperature of preform oven 2, [0056]).
Regarding claim 6, Wolfe discloses wherein the one or more container characteristics for the blow-molded containers determined by the inspection system comprise a material distribution profile of the blow-molded containers (abstract, [0055] [0063-67]).
Regarding claim 7, Wolfe discloses wherein the one or more container characteristics for the blow-molded containers determined by the inspection system comprise two or more average 2-wall thickness measurements for the blow-molded containers ([0021] [0023] [0029]).
Regarding claim 8, Wolfe discloses wherein the inspection system comprises: two or more light sensors ([0023]); and two or more light sources ([0022]), wherein: each of the two or more light sensors is paired with one of the two or more light sources([0022-23); each of the two or more light sources emit light energy at first and second wavelengths ([0022]); the containers absorb more of the light energy at the first wavelength than at the second wavelength ([0022]); and the containers, after formation, pass between, on a first side of the containers, the two or more light sensors and, on a second side of the containers, the two or more light sources ([0022-23]).
Regarding claim 9, Wolfe discloses wherein the inspection system further comprises a camera for capturing images of the containers ([0059]).
Regarding claim 10, Wolfe discloses wherein the one or more container characteristics for the blow-molded containers determined by the inspection system comprise a mass of the blow-molded containers ([0023] [0029]).
Regarding claim 11, Wolfe discloses wherein the one or more container characteristics for the blow-molded containers determined by the inspection system comprise a volume of the blow-molded containers ([0023] [0029]).
Regarding claim 15, Wolfe discloses wherein the predictive model comprises a regression model ([0065] [0067]).
Regarding claim 16, Wolfe discloses wherein training the predictive model comprises training the predictive model to (A) minimize a difference between (i) the one or more container characteristics for the blow-molded containers determined by the inspection system and (ii) target container characteristics for the blow-molded containers (model validated if correlation is greater than predetermined value, approaching production tolerance, [0065]), while (B) minimizing a difference between (i) the updated blow molder operating parameters and (ii) current operating parameters for the blow molder (model validated if correlation is greater than predetermined value, approaching production tolerance, [0065]).
Regarding claim 17, Wolfe discloses wherein the updated blow molder operating parameters comprises changes to the current operating parameters of the blow molder ([0065]).
Regarding claim 19, Wolfe discloses updating the predictive model to obtain an updated predictive model ([0065-66], Fig. 16); and after obtaining the updated predictive model, forming, by the blow molder, blow-molded containers from preforms using the updated predictive model (Fig. 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe (US 2012/1030677) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fuhrer (US 2013/0037996) and Haesendonckx (US 2011/0260350).
Regarding claim 12, Wolfe teaches a method substantially as claimed. Wolfe does not disclose wherein the one or more sensors for sensing the current operating parameters for the blow molder during formation of blow-molded containers comprise one or more blow molder temperature sensors for sensing temperatures from the blow molder, such that the updated blow molder operating parameters for the blow molder determined by the control system are based in part on the temperatures from the blow molder.
However, in the same field of endeavor of blow molding with strict process requirements (abstract), Fuhrer teaches wherein the one or more sensors for sensing the current operating parameters for the blow molder during formation of blow-molded containers comprise one or more blow molder temperature sensors for sensing temperatures from the blow molder ([0027])
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of blow molding and modeling thereof (abstract), Haesendonckx teaches wherein the one or more sensors for sensing the current operating parameters for the blow molder during formation of blow-molded containers comprise one or more blow molder temperature sensors for sensing temperatures from the blow molder (modeling blow mold temperature, [0019]), such that the updated blow molder operating parameters for the blow molder determined by the control system are based in part on the temperatures from the blow molder ([0019]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wolfe to include temperature sensors in the blow molds and updating blow molder operating parameters based on data measured by such sensors because [0027] of Fuhrer teaches such sensors and [0019] of Haesendonckx teaches that blow molding temperature is a desired influencing factor in a simulation model for automatic control of the blowing operation.
Regarding claim 13, Wolfe as modified teaches wherein the one or more blow molder temperature sensors comprise one or more pyrometers (Fuhrer does not teach the type of temperature sensors, but it would have been obvious for them to by pyrometers because [0012] of Haesendonckx teaches that pyrometers can be used to measure temperatures in blow molding apparatuses).
Regarding claim 14, Wolfe discloses wherein: the blow molder comprises a plurality of molds ([0027]). Wolfe does not disclose the one or more sensors for sensing the current operating parameters for the blow molder during formation of blow-molded containers comprise one or more mold temperature sensors for sensing temperatures from the plurality of molds of the blow molder, such that the updated blow molder operating parameters for the blow molder determined by the control system are based in part on the temperatures from the plurality of molds of the blow molder.
However, in the same field of endeavor of blow molding with strict process requirements (abstract), Fuhrer teaches the one or more sensors for sensing the current operating parameters for the blow molder during formation of blow-molded containers comprise one or more mold temperature sensors for sensing temperatures from the plurality of molds of the blow molder ([0027])
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of blow molding and modeling thereof (abstract), Haesendonckx teaches the one or more sensors for sensing the current operating parameters for the blow molder during formation of blow-molded containers comprise one or more mold temperature sensors for sensing temperatures from the plurality of molds of the blow molder (modeling blow mold temperature, [0019]), such that the updated blow molder operating parameters for the blow molder determined by the control system are based in part on the temperatures from the plurality of molds of the blow molder ([0019]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wolfe to include temperature sensors in each blow mold and updating blow molder operating parameters based on data measured by such sensors because [0027] of Fuhrer teaches such sensors and [0019] of Haesendonckx teaches that blow molding temperature is a desired influencing factor in a simulation model for automatic control of the blowing operation.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe (US 2012/1030677) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haner (US 2015/0037518).
Regarding claim 18, Wolfe teaches a method substantially as claimed. Wolfe does not disclose wherein training the predictive model comprises training the predictive model periodically during operation of the blow molder.
However, in the same field of endeavor of blow molding with strict process requirements (abstract), Haner teaches wherein training the predictive model comprises training the predictive model periodically during operation of the blow molder ([0025]; note that this teaching is also in [0052] of the foreign priority document for Haner).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wolfe to train the model periodically because [0025] of Haner teaches that periodic testing and updating maximizes documentation of production and product quality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Haesendonckx (US 8,758,670) teaches subject matter similar to Haesendonckx (US 2011/0260350), cited above. Fuhrer (US 9,266,275) teaches subject matter similar to Fuhrer (US 2013/0037996), cited above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Sam Xiao 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights