DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 of invention and/or species, and corresponding claims (1-11) is acknowledged. The election has been made with traverse. Non-elected claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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's arguments are not persuasive because they amount to a general allegation and fails distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors upon which the applicant relies for his or her conclusion that the requirement is in error. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| APPARATUS FOR PRODUCING PLASTIC PREFORMS |
| |
| +---------------------------------------------------------+ |
| | PRODUCTION DEVICE | |
| | +---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| | | PRODUCTION UNITS (Plurality) | | |
| | | - Each produces a 1-piece plastic preform | | |
| | | with a main body and a threaded portion | | |
| | +---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| +---------------------------------------------------------+ |
| |
| +---------------------------------------------------------+ |
| | REMOVAL DEVICE (Jointly removes preforms) | |
| | +---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| | | CARRIER | | |
| | | - Holds the removed plastic preforms | | |
| | +---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| | +---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| | | TRANSPORT DEVICE | | |
| | | - Transports carrier + preforms jointly in a | | |
| | | predefined transport direction | | |
| | +---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| +---------------------------------------------------------+ |
| |
| +---------------------------------------------------------+ |
| | INSPECTION DEVICE (Inspects preforms) | |
| | +---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| | | INFRARED IMAGE RECORDING DEVICE (At least 1) | | |
| | | - Records spatially resolved image of a region | | |
| | | of a plurality of produced preforms | | |
| | | - Outputs measured value characteristic of a | | |
| | | physical property | | |
| | +---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| +---------------------------------------------------------+ |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
production units
removal device
transport device
assignment device
cooling device
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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(s) 1-11 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In reference to claim 1, the limitation “a removal device that is configured for jointly removing the plastic preforms manufactured by the production device from this production device” is unclear as to what “jointly” means in the claim.
Jointly means doing something together, sharing ownership, or cooperating as a group.
The claim does not explain what is being done together. Thus, it is impossible to resolve the metes and bounds of the claim.
In claim 7, an “assignment device” is an undefined structure and is not an art recognized term. The term is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), however, the specification lacks an adequate, clearly linked structure, material, or act to perform the function.
Note: Claims 2-11 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naitove (Plastics Tech. (a trade periodical) article published in 2020 titled “Blow Molding: Online PET Preform Inspection Uses AI to ‘Self-Learn’”1) and in view of SACMI400 (Youtube video of SACMI production unit related to the above cited article2) in view of Sieradzki (US 20250001671 A1)
In reference to claim 1 and 11, Naitove discloses “12 cameras to check PET bottle preforms”.
Naitove shows that the preforms have threads.
Naitove does not demonstrate the production of the bottles, however, the production of PET bottle preforms occurs using a production device having production units having molds that produce the preforms and then the preforms are removed from the molds. This is generic terminology. The specific feature of the apparatus as claimed including the functionally configured element are show in cited youtube video which shows an apparatus comprising a production device comprising a production unit having a carrier and transporting means as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
650
1148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the prefrom inspection tool of Naitove into the apparatus of SACMI in order to inspect the preforms to improve quality.
The above cited prior art does not describe the camera as an infrared camera.
In the same field, Sieradzki shows that infrared cameras are used for inspecting preforms (abstract) in order to enabled improved quality control (e.g., paragraph 35: “By creating the two-dimensional thermal image 38, temperature measurements of the heated preform 12 may be readily and easily ascertained before the preform 12 is transferred to the blow molding station and molded into the final container. In some instances, the thermal images 36, 38 and/or the graph 42 may indicate that a preform 12 has “cool regions” 44 or “warm regions” 46. Such regions 44, 46 may result in blowouts during blow molding, thus requiring remedial action during the heating of the preform 12.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use as the camera in the combination an infrared camera to improve the quality control of the apparatus.
In reference to claim 2-3 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See video at around 1:55.
In reference to claim 4 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See Sieradzki at “thermal imaging” (title, abstract). “thermal imaging” encompasses the claimed range.
In reference to claim 5 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See Sieradzki at paragraph 35.
In reference to claim 6 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Inspection of the preforms would occur when the preforms are out of the mold because the mold would obscure full imaging.
In reference to claim 7-9 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See Sieradzki at element 34 (a computer) and;
See Naitove at “artificial intelligence (AI) to “self-learn” all the required QC checks”
In reference to claim 10 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See video around 4:30.
Conclusion
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See references cited in applied prior art for further background. As a whole these references and appropriate secondary and tertiary references are believed sufficient to provide the skilled reader with the opportunity to learn about the technical background requisite to appreciate the body of knowledge needed to understand and communicate regarding the technology at issue.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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 Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner has utilized USPTO approved search resources, such as EIC or external tools, beyond routine search tools and/or leveraged experts in the field. Examiner has cited and explained the relevance of prior art not used in rejections but pertinent to the claims or disclosure. Examiner has provided detailed search documentation through detailed Search Notes, such as annotated search results that identify which data sets were reviewed. When citing the prior art examiner has used annotations clearly in prior art rejections such as, using item-to-item matching to the prior art, pairing exact claim language to particular language used in the prior art, and/or clearly explaining examiner’s interpretation as to how a citation maps to claim language especially when there is not a one-to-one matching of terms.
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 KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 https://www.ptonline.com/products/blow-molding-online-pet-preform-inspection-uses-ai-to-self-learn
2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wer8tEKGbow
Prosecution Insights