DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-8 and 16-20 in the reply filed on August 14, 2026 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Examiner Interview/Comment
Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner for an interview. While the rejections below represent the closest available prior art to the invention described in the specification located by the Examiner, claim 1 appears so broad as to likely be met by human selection of preforms by color and size (determination and evaluating) for blow molding (a treatment), with various portions of the human’s mind meeting all claimed “sub-agents”. The Examiner is available to discuss possible amendments that may overcome this view.
The Examiner notes that the Forsthovel prior art applied in the rejection below appears to be assigned to the Applicant for the instant case. The claimed “main agent” and “sub-agents” appear to be directed to artificial intelligence control programs for a blow molding process. The Examiner therefore considers the programming on any commercial embodiment of the Forsthovel reference (or any other programmed controller commercially available from Applicant) to be material to patentability in this case in order to make a meaningful comparison with the control programs in the instant application. Additionally, the artificial intelligence sub-agent is interpreted to be of Applicant’s own creation. If the claimed sub-agent was generated using commercially available AI models (rather than created by Applicant), then the origin of the sub-agents would also be material to patentability.
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 4, 5, and 20 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.
As to claim 4, “such as” is exemplary language that renders the claim indefinite.
As to claim 5, “the infrared absorption measurement” lacks antecedent basis since there is no infrared absorption measurement in claim 1.
As to claim 20, it is unclear what is intended by “has been arranged in an injection mold for producing the preform”. This manufacturing step is prior to (and would not be interpreted as part of) a controlling a container treatment process. If the step is interpreted as part of the process, then the preamble is no longer accurate and the claimed process seems to be a process for blow molding instead of a control process. Please clarify.
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 1-5, 8, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forsthovel (US 20090261513).
As to claim 1, Forsthovel teaches a method for controlling a container treatment system for producing containers from preforms ([0028]). Forsthovel provides an infrared absorption material corresponding to a parameter set for controlling the variables of the blow molding system ([0067]). Forsthovel provides emitting devices and sensors that determine a characteristic of preforms ([0068]) and evaluate the result to select a heating condition from among a set of heating conditions ([0067]). Forsthovel blow molds the preform (controls the container treatment system) using a controllable heating device using a condition selected using the control unit and sensors.
In light of the specification disclosure that a “sub-agent can be considered to be a program in artificial intelligence (AI) that can make decisions or perform a service based on the result of the infrared absorption measurement” and the “sub-agent can independently control the container treatment system”, the sub-agent would be met by individual program and therefore the main agent would be as a larger program or controller that comprises the individual programs. While Boettcher’s control unit does not disclose a level of detail that allows one to ascertain how many and what type of programs are contained on the control unit, Boettcher’s control unit ([0074]) is interpreted to meet a main agent. The structure of the Forsthovel control unit is interpreted to meet the sub-agents since it could be divided into various functions or conditions for heating and/or controlling. Some part of the control unit was necessarily selected or used to control the container treatment system.
As to claims 2, 3, 5, 8, Forsthovel teaches that the determination uses an infrared absorption value of the preform performed in a feeding device before heating ([0073]) with a controllable heating means (interpreted to be an oven temperature profile). Also see Forsthovel’s barcode ([0044]). As to claim 4, the container type is defined by the composition and geometric shape. As to claims 16-20, Forsthovel teaches a blow molding machine using PET preforms ([0024]) with barcodes ([0044]) which necessarily forms PET containers and measurement using infrared absorption ([0073]) and permits a conclusion to be drawn. While Forsthovel does not specifically disclose when the barcode is provided, it would have been obvious that it could only be provided in the injection mold or after injection molding, and either of these options would have been obvious.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forsthovel (US 20090261513) in view of Salomeia (Advances in Polymer Technology, Vol. 32, No. S1 (2013), pp. E436-E450). Forsthovel teaches the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 6, Forsthovel is silent to a statistical design of experiments.
Salomeia teaches performing a factorial (statistical) design of experiments (E437) using four process parameters including preform temperature (E438).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Salomeia design of experiments as an obvious use of a known technique to improve a similar process. Forsthovel teaches a base process upon which the claimed invention can be seen as improvement by the use of a design of experiments process. Salomeia teaches a comparable process (blow molding PET) which is improved in the same way as the claimed invention. One could have applied this Salomeia improvement in the same way to the Forsthovel in order to improve the quality of the bottle (see Salomeia, E438).
As to claim 7, in the combination of Salomeia with Forsthovel, one would have found it obvious to duplicate/repeat the design of experiments process and combine the results in the control unit/main agent.
Conclusion
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