DETAILED ACTION
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, 11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dachs (US 9,545,746) in view of Derrien (US 10,493,686).
As to claim 1, Dachs teaches a plant for producing and treating containers. Dachs teaches a container production unit for producing containers (Abstract, blow molding machine) and a container treatment unit downstream of the container production unit (6:21, labelling apparatus). Dachs teaches a cooling unit (fan; Fig. 2, item 31) for cooling the containers produced in the container production unit and inherently arranged downstream of the container production unit. The cooling unit is configured to cool the produced containers using a cooling medium (air).
Dachs is silent to (a) a preform production machine which produces preforms and (b) the cooling unit applying cooling medium as a function of control parameters of the preform production machine and/or as a function of control parameters of the container production unit and/or as a function of the container treatment unit.
Derrien teaches (a) a preform production machine for producing preforms (1:20-22) and (b) a cooling unit (fan) for applying cooling medium (air) as a function of measured temperature (3:30-33; 5:32-45) since measured temperature is a function of control parameters. Although Derrien teaches the cooling unit is used for preforms, in the combination with Dach’s cooling fan applied to containers, one would have also recognized that the Dachs fan could be operated as a function of the measured temperature of the articles, as taught by Derrien.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Derrien cooling unit control parameters into Dachs because this is the use of a known technique/controller (of Derrien) to improve a similar device (of Dachs) in the same way. Dachs provides a fan for cooling containers and constitutes a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement by providing a controller which can adjust cooling of containers by varying fan speed. Derrien provides a comparable device improved in the same way by varying fan speed for cooling of a blow molding preform. One could have applied the known improvement in the same way to the Dachs fan to provide automatic control of the Dachs cooling unit.
As to claim 2, Dachs provides a labeling unit (6:21). As to claim 3, in addition to providing an obvious improvement to the container cooling unit already taught by Dachs, Derrien also teaches a preform treatment unit (Fig. 2) inherently arranged upstream of a container production unit for adjusting the temperature of the preforms. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to also incorporate Derrien’s preform treatment unit into Dachs in order to adjust the temperature of the Dachs preforms, and to simultaneously control the cooling unit as a function of the preform treatment unit. As to claims 4 and 5, Dachs teaches a fan which applies air as the cooling medium. As to claims 6 and 7, Dachs teaches a stretch blow molding machine as the container production unit (1:20). In the combination of Derrien with Dachs above (see rejection of claim 1), the temperature of the article resulting from the Dachs stretch blow molding machine would be used to establish the cooling fan speed used with the Derrien cooling unit, and this combination would have been prima facie obvious for the same reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. As to claim 11, Derrien teaches an operating unit (60) which is interpreted to be “higher” level and programmable since it calculates a gradient from sensor data (15:11-15). In the combination of Derrien with Dachs above, one would have found it obvious to control all the machines and units using the operating unit (60) of Derrien. As to claims 16 and 17, Dachs already teaches cooling the bottoms of the produced containers, and Derrien adds an injection molding machine for producing preforms in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dachs (US 9,545,746) in view of Derrien (US 10,493,686), and further in view of Takada (US 4,450,878). Dachs and Derrien teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 10, Dachs is silent to the cooling unit controlled to cool as a function of filling machine control parameters.
Takada teaches biaxially molding a bottle and then cooling with a cooling unit to avoid deformation by the heat of the liquid filled in the bottle (Abstract and Figs. 7-9). Therefore, Takada teaches a cooling unit configured to cool produced containers at least as a function of filling temperature.
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Takada cooling unit into Dachs as an improvement that would avoid deformation of the bottle as a result of filling with a hot liquid. One of ordinary skill could have applied the Takada cooling unit to Dachs, and the results would have been predictable (avoiding of deformation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
These claims recite that the cooling unit is configured to cool the produced containers as a function of injection-molding machine parameters (claim 8). The prior art does not specifically show a cooling unit configured to cool produced containers according to these machine parameters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments appear to be on the grounds that the system of claim 1 achieves several advantages including the ability to base the cooling capacity on how the upstream or downstream machines are being run, rather than merely reacting to a fixed time interval or temperature measured from the article. Applicant argues that even if considered together, the cited references fail to disclose the cooling unit is configured to cool the produced containers as a function of control parameters of the preform production machine and/or as a function of control parameters of the container production unit, and/or as a function of the container treatment unit. Applicant argues that Dachs uses a fan that uses a temporal triggering condition and does not disclose any control or adjustment of the cooling capacity of the medium (such as air flow rate). Applicant argues that Derrien teaches thermal conditioning prior to blow molding by varying the cooling aid to adjust the temperature profile, and that feedback control is based on the wall temperature of the preform, and that this cannot be equated with the claimed control of the cooling unit as a function of control parameters of the preform production machine, container production unit, or container treatment unit. Applicant further argues that the application of the Derrien control scheme to the Dachs fan would result in the container bottom being cooled on the basis of a measured temperature of the container, but still does not disclose the claimed dependency on control parameters. Applicant states that the combination merely amounts to an improvement to a similar device in the same manner is likewise incorrect since Derrien optimizes the temperature distribution prior to blow molding, while Dachs seeks to prevent deformation of the bottom of an already molded container after pressure relief. Tanaka discloses cooling in connection with hot filling and does not disclose controlling with respect to the claimed units/machines.
The Examiner has carefully considered these arguments and respectfully disagrees. The claim phrase “as a function of” is as broad as the phrase “based on” in that both phrases require a relationship between two things, but are completely silent as to what that relationship is. To summarize Applicants arguments, they appear to be on the grounds that “as a function of control parameters” precludes cooling after direct temperature measurement because Applicant does not believe this qualifies “as a function of control parameters” of the upstream/downstream machines or units. However, the Examiner believes that there is no basis for using the scope of “as a function of” to distinguish over the prior art when the relationship or function is unstated. Even if the relationship or function between cooling and machine/unit control parameters is indirectly reflected in a direct temperature measurement, this meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim because all relationships are included within “as a function of control parameters”. It is informative to also note that the claimed process does not require any sort of controller that digitally connects the claimed cooling unit to any of the preform production machine, container production unit, or container treatment unit. Such a configuration might have required an interpretation that the control parameters for each device be digitally transferred to a controller, some algorithm performed, and a set of control parameters be sent to the cooling unit. But the “as a function of” is so broad to as encompass the relationship between cooling parameters and the direct measured temperature of the preform or container resulting from the control parameters.
Regarding the summary of Derrien and Dachs, Derrien teaches a preform production machine for producing preforms (1:20-22) and a cooling unit (fan) for applying cooling medium (air) as a function of measured temperature (3:30-33; 5:32-45), and measured temperature is a function of control parameters upstream in the machine or plant. As further discussed in the rejection of claim 10, Takada teaches biaxially molding a bottle and then cooling with a cooling unit to avoid deformation by the heat of the liquid filled in the bottle (Abstract and Figs. 7-9). Therefore, Takada teaches a cooling unit configured to cool produced containers at least as a function of filling temperature in the subsequent container treatment unit. Therefore, what the references collectively show is that the ordinary artisan in this art would have understood the relationship between cooling and upstream temperature during production and that this measured temperature is a function of control parameters that produce that temperature, and between cooling and downstream temperature during treatment and that this measured temperature is a function of control parameters that produce that temperature. Applicant may wish to provide further distinctions such as a computer controller, particular software or algorithm, and data cables connecting the various unis to the controller to distinguish over this prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights