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 and 20 in the reply filed on 6-18-26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that 2010/17243 does not teach the technical feature of a transport path wherein three different compressed air reservoirs are used. This is not found persuasive because 2014/0110873 discloses the technical feature of shaping plastic preforms into plastic containers including a transport path wherein three different compressed air reservoirs are used.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 6-18-26.
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, 3 and 11, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-14 and 20 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the highest intermediate blowing pressure" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the final blowing pressure" in line 3of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 is rejected for depending from claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the pressure course" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the evaluation of the pressure course" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, 10 and 20, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4-9, 20, the claim recites “a type-2 working parameter”. It’s not clear what is the scope of a “type-2 working parameter.
Regarding claim 5 and 7-9, the claim recites “the type-1 process parameters”. It’s not clear what is the scope of “the type-1 process parameters”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the type-1 process parameters" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the type-2 process parameters" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the type-2 process parameters" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the type-1 and/or type-2 parameters”" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the type-1 and/or type-2 parameters”" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the type-1 and/or type-2 parameters”" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the working parameter" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the relief pressure" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the pressure fluctuation" in line 4-5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the evaluation of the pressure course" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-2, 4-12, 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asbrand et al. (20140110873).
Regarding claim 1, Asbrand et al. discloses a method for shaping plastic preforms 10 into plastic containers 20 (fig. 1, abstract, claim 11), wherein a transport device 6 transports the plastic preforms along a specified transport path P (fig. 1, para 43, claim 17), and the transport device has a preferably rotatable transport support (fig. 1, para 43), on which a plurality of shaping stations 4 is arranged, wherein these shaping stations each have blow molding devices 2, within which the plastic preforms are shaped into the plastic containers by applying flowable medium, and wherein at least three different pressure stages are applied to the plastic preforms in order to expand them (claim 11, fig. 1-2, abstract), wherein these pressure stages are provided by at lest three different compressed-air reservoirs 12, 14, 16 (fig. 1, para 45-46), and wherein, additionally, the plastic preforms are stretched in their longitudinal direction by stretching rods 22 (fig. 1, para 44), wherein
At least at times, compressed air is returned form the plastic containers to late lest one compressed-air reservoir (claim 20) and at least one value characteristic of the consumption of compressed air is detected (para 11, 38, 49, claim 12, 18).
Regarding claim 2, Asbrand et al. discloses wherein the characteristic value is a measured flow rate, a current relief pressure or a difference between the highest intermediate blowing pressure and the final blowing pressure (para 11, 38, 49 claim 12-16).
Regarding claim 4 and 20, Asbrand et al. discloses wherein on the basis of the evaluation of the pressure course, at least one working parameter, in particular a type-2 working parameter, for the expansion of the plastic preforms and/or for the pressure build-up and/or recycling is changed, in particular in order to reduce the consumption of compressed air (claim 11).
Regarding claim 5, Asbrand et al. disclose wherein after the type-1 process parameters have been entered, an apparatus suggests the type-2 process parameters to an operator (para 8, 11).
Regarding claim 6, Asbrand et al. discloses wherein the type-2 process parameters are determined and/or set in part or completely ban an apparatus (claim 16, para 11-12, 21, 53-54).
Regarding claim 7, Asbrand et al. discloses wherein a determination of the type-1 and/or type-2 parameters is carried out on the basis of a model with or without AI (para 50).
Regarding claim 8, Asbrand et al. discloses wherein a determination of the type-1 and/or type-2 parameters is carried out by regulation or iteratively (para 50, 10, 17, 19-21, 28, 30, 54).
Regarding claim 9, Asbrand et al. discloses wherein a determination of the type-1 and/or type 2 parameters is carried out on the basis of a model with or without AI and by regulation (para 50, 10, 17, 19-21, 28, 30, 54).
Regarding claim 10, Asbrand et al. discloses where the working parameter is selected from a group consisting of a pressure build-up time of a pressure level, in particular an intermediate blowing pressure level, a distribution of a pressure build-up time, a ratio between a recycling time and the pressure build-up time, a distribution of recycling times, a deviation from synchronicity, a way of operating recycling stages, a start of a stretching process, a stretching speed, a throttle cross-section of a valve device, in particular of a pre-blowing valve, a time point at which valve devices open and/or close, a target pressure of a pressure level, and a time point or retracting the stretching rod (abstract, claim 11-16, 18-19).
Regarding claim 11, Asbrand et al. discloses wherein a changed is made taking into account targes, wherein these targets are preferably selected from a group of targets consisting of minimizing the relief pressure and/or the air consumption, maximizing a high-pressure phase and minimizing a pressure build-up time and minimizing the pressure fluctuation of a pressure level (claim 14-16, 18).
Regarding claim 12, Asbrand et al. discloses wherein a specific parameter is changed within a specified range and the effect of this change is detected (para 11, 13, 17, 25, 27, 38-39, 49-50, claim 18).
Regarding claim 14, Asbrand et al. discloses wherein at least one characteristic value for a compressed-air consumption and/or a compressed air course is visualized (para 25).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asbrand et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zoppas et al. (2010/0171243).
Regarding claim 3, Asbrand et al. does not teach wherein the pressure course is recorded during the production of the plastic containers and, preferably, this pressure course is evaluated. However, Zoppas et al. teaches a blow molding machine for blow molding containers. There are specially provided pneumatic vales and sensors, capable of tracking the pressure profile of the pressurized air during the degassing step of the blow cavities (para 78, 132). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asbrand et al. with the teaching of Zoppas et al. in order to reduce the consumption of the air during the production.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asbrand et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Elliott (2008/191394).
Regarding claim 13, Asbrand et al. does not teach wherein at least four different pressure levels are applied to the plastic preforms. However, Elliott teaches applying four different pressure levels to the plastic preforms (see fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asbrand et al. with the teaching of Elliott since Elliott teaches that it’s conventional to apply four different pressure levels to the plastic preforms in the art of blow molding.
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