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 1-14 in the reply filed on 06/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I and II directed to a single invention. This is not found persuasive because the apparatus can still be used in a distinct method. Further, apparatus and method claims are different statutory categories of invention are require distinct searches. An apparatus claims covers what a system is so functional language in the preamble of an apparatus claim are usually given little to no patentable weight, whereas the method claims covers a series of steps so preambles and statements of intended purpose in a method claim are often given substantial patentable weight.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1-2, 4-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FORSTHOEVEL (US 20220072758) in view of HIRINDA (US 20200290260) and Haner (US 20150037518).
Regarding Claim 1, FORSTHOEVEL discloses an apparatus for producing plastics material containers with …..(Figure 1, preform-10 are fed to the heating device-2 consists [0109]) and with a forming device which is configured for forming the plastics material preforms into the plastics material containers (Figures 1, preform-10, forming dvice-44 [0109], [0112]), and the forming device has a plurality of forming stations configured for forming the plastics material preforms into the plastics material containers (Figures 1, forming station-44, [0112]) and with a transport apparatus which is configured for transporting the plastics material preforms produced by the production device to the forming device (Figure 1, transport apparatus-41, [0112]), …the forming device has a second control device which is configured for controlling the forming device ( Figure 1, control-42, [0112]); the apparatus has a first inspection device which is configured for inspecting at least one area of the plastics material preforms produced by the production device and has an image recording device which is configured for recording a spatially resolved image of a plastics material preform., and wherein this first inspection device has an image recording device which is configured for recording a spatially resolved image of a plastics material preform or of a plurality of plastics material preforms ([0110).
Forsthoevel didn’t specifically disclose that this first inspection device is arranged between the production device and the forming device . However, It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to place inspection device between the production device and the forming device for the purpose of catching defcets before they enter the forming line.
Forsthoevel didn’t disclose that wherein the production device/plant has a first control device which is configured for controlling the production device. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art., HIRINDA discloses that a first control device which is configured for controlling the production device/plant ([0007], [0010], [0037);
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Forsthoevel with that of the control device of the production unit/plant taught by HIRDINA for the purpose of when plastic preforms are transported from the plant the optimize the manufacturing process by minimizing defects, minimizing idle time.
The above combination disclose that preforms are being fed into the device ([0109]) but didn’t particularly disclose that production device has a plurality of production units configured for producing the plastics material preforms. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Haner discloses production device for producing the preform (Figure 1, preform-5, [0040]).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Forsthoevel/HIRINDA with that of the Haner’s teaching of producing preform for the purpose of uniformity and minimizing deformity in the production line.
11. Regarding Claim 2, Forsthoevel /HIRINDA discloses according to wherein the first control device is configured for controlling the individual production units independently ([0037], HIRINDA) and /or the second control device is configured for controlling the individual forming stations independently of one another (Figure 1, [0022], [0112], [0113], Forsthoevel).
12. Regarding Claim 4 HIRDINA discloses wherein the first inspection device has an evaluation device/recording device which is configured and intended for evaluating the images recorded by the inspection device ( [0030]).
13. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Forsthoevel with that of the inspection device taught by HIrinda for the purpose of optical inspection of the preforms ([0030])
14. Regarding Claim 5 Forsthoevel discloses apparatus is provided with at least one further treatment device ([0086]), The prior art didn’t specifically teach that treatment device is arranged downstream of the forming device in the transport direction, for treating the plastics material containers. However, It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
15. Regarding Claim 6 Forsthoevel discloses transport device is configured for transporting the plastics material preforms individually from the production device to the forming device (Figure 1, [0112]).
16. Regarding Claim 7 Forsthoevel discloses according to wherein at least the first inspection device has an optical sensor device ([0030], HIRDINA).
17. Regarding Claim 8, HIRDINA discloses wherein the transport device has a removal device which is configured to take the plastics material preforms from the production units ([0028], [0029], separating unit).
18. It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Forsthoevel teaching with that of the HIRINDA’s teaching of removal device for the purpose of defective plastic preform.
19. Regarding Claim 9. HIRDINA discloses according to wherein the apparatus has a second inspection device which is configured for inspecting the plastics material preforms ([0028], [0030], monitoring unit-second inspection device) .
20. It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Forsthoevel teaching with that of the HIRINDA’s teaching of second inspection device for the purpose of physical properties of the plastics material preform
21. Regarding claim 10 HIRDINA discloses wherein at least the first or the second inspection device is configured for detecting at least one value which is characteristic of physical properties of the plastics material preforms ([0030], monitoring unit inspects physical properties of the plastics material preform ).
22. Regarding Claim 11 Forsthoevel discloses according to the first and/or the second control device and/or a control device of the at least one further treatment device is controlled ([0086])
23. Regarding Claim 12, Forsthoevel discloses apparatus according to wherein the apparatus has a heating device configured for heating the plastics material preforms produced by the production device (Figure 2, heating device-2, [0109]).
24. Regarding Claim 13, Forsthoevel discloses the apparatus has a discharge device that is configured for ejecting individual plastics material preforms from the transport path between the production device and the forming device ( [0044]).
25. Regarding Claim 14, HIRINDA discloses apparatus has a third inspection device configured for inspecting the plastics material preforms and/or the plastics material containers ([0035], temperature detection device).
26. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FORSTHOEVEL (US 20220072758) in view of HIRINDA (US 20200290260) and Haner (US 20150037518) further in view of OLENBURG (US 20220307979)
27. Regarding Claim 3 , above combination of Forsthoevel/HIRINDA didn’t disclose that apparatus according to wherein the apparatus has an assignment device that is configured for assigning to each inspected plastics material preform the production unit that has produced this plastics material preform. However, in the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, OLENBURG discloses an assignment device that is configured for assigning to each inspected plastics material preform the production unit ([0102])
28. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Forsthoevel/HIRDINA with that of OLENBURG for the purpose of the sorting the preforms for further in the production and to designed to maximize the precision.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights