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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 5-29-26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “not producing any preforms or containers during the retooling of the components” does not constitute a materially different process. This is not found persuasive because the production of preforms or containers during the retooling of the components is an additional strep that may require the apparatus to have additional structural elements. For example, the apparatus is required to be capable of being turned off partially during production of preforms or containers.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5-29-26.
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, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winzinger (US 10710275).
Regarding claim 1, Winzinger discloses a plant 1 for procuring containers 112, the plant comprising a production machine (col. 13 line 40-51) for producing preforms 110, a blow molding machine 8a for producing containers form the preforms and a transport device 9a for transporting the preforms from the production machine to the blow molding machine, wherein the plant comprises a
Retooling apparatus 10 for retooling at least one component of the production machine and/or the blow molding machine (abstract, fig. 1-10, claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Winzinger discloses wherein the retooling apparatus comprises a retooling unit 10 assigned to the blow modeling machine and/or a retooling unit assigned to the production machine, and/or wherein the retooling apparatus comprises a retooling unit that can moved between the blow molding machine and the production machine, wherein the retooling unit is configured to retool the at least one component (see abstract, fig. 1, 3-5).
Regarding claim 7, Winzinger discloses wherein the plant comprises a container handling machine downstream of the blow molding machine for treating containers produced in the blow molding machine, and wherein the retooling apparatus is configured to retool at least one component of the container handling machine (abstract, fig. 1, 3-6).
Regarding claim 8, Winzinger discloses wherein the container handling machine comprises a filler 11 (fig. 5-6) and/or a closer and/or a labeling machine 100 (fig. 3) and/or a printing machine and/or an inspection device.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winzinger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marastoni (EP2785509).
Regarding claim 2, Winzinger discloses wherein the plant comprises a control unit 16, 17 (fig. 6). Winzinger does not teach wherein the transport device comprises a buffer device for storing preforms, wherein the plant comprises a control unit that is configured to control the transport of the preforms in the transport device such that preforms are fed to the buffer device from a transport path of the transport device while the blow molding machine is being retooled and a transport of preforms to the blow molding machine is interrupted, and/or such that preforms are fed from the buffer device to the blow molding machine while the production machine is being retooled. However, Marastoni teaches the plant comprises a buffer, connected to the oven by a conveyor which is configured to transfer to the buffer the parison cooled by the oven when the heating means are off and the oven is operating in the cooling configuration, that means that even when the blow-moulding machine is shut down, the production capacity of the parison moulding machine can be used to the full, constituting a store of parisons which, if necessary, might also be transported elsewhere, to feed other blow-moulding machines in other plants (para 105-106). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Winzinger with the buffer device as taught by Marastoni in order to increase the production efficiency during machine downtime (para 125-127).
Regarding claim 3, Marastoni teaches wherein the buffer device comprises at least two buffer rows, which can be introduced into the transport path of the transport device for receiving and/or conveying preforms and can be moved out of the transport path for buffering preforms (para 107-113).
Regarding claim 5, Marastoni teaches wherein the transport path comprises conveyor rails for the preforms, and wherein the buffer rows comprise receiving rails for receiving the preforms (para 107-116).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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: Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach wherein the transport device upstream of the buffer device comprises a blocking element for selectively blocking and releasing a transport of preforms into the buffer device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM.
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 5702721176. 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.
/X.H.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights