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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/US2020/021613, filed on 03/08/2019.
Claim Interpretation
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: “laser transmission element being configured to transmit at least one beam of laser energy toward the irradiation zone” in claim 1.
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.
A review of the instant specification found the corresponding structure for the “laser transmission element” in paragraph [0019] of the publication. Cited paragraph states “laser transmission element 108 may have an associated scanner 144 and lens 146”.
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 1-2, 7, 9-10, 12, 15-16, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2013040599 (hereinafter Murokh) in view of US 20040232341 (hereinafter Miyamoto).
Regarding claim 1, Murokh discloses the method comprising: providing a laser irradiation system having a laser transmission element (laser marking device 126 with “optical components”, paragraphs [0020] and [0051] and Fig. 1, reproduced below, Murokh), an irradiation zone (marking zone 146, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 1, Murokh) and an irradiation inspection element (first inspection system “which may include first inspection camera 124”, paragraph [0061] and Fig. 1, Murokh); the laser transmission element (laser marking device 126, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 1, Murokh) being configured to transmit at least one beam of laser energy (laser beam, paragraph [0020], Murokh) toward the irradiation zone (marking zone 146, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 1, Murokh); positioning (indexing wheels, paragraph [0026] and Fig. 1, Murokh) a set of articles (Fig. 5, Murokh) within the irradiation zone (marking zone 146, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 1, Murokh), each article (consumable article 102, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 1, Murokh) having an article surface (surface facing laser marking device 126, Fig. 1, Murokh); irradiating the set of articles (consumable article 102, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 1, Murokh) with the laser energy during an irradiation period (“pulse duration is less than 15 nsec”, paragraph [0034], Murokh) by way of the laser transmission element (laser marking device 126, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 1, Murokh), wherein the irradiation causes interactions between the beam and the article surfaces which (a) transiently generate localized illuminations (laser light would inherently produce visible and/or invisible light from laser reflection and emission of heat) at the article surfaces during the interactions (“[i]n preferred embodiments, the articles may be a pharmaceutical capsules such as, for example, softgels, coated pills, or the like. In such embodiments, at least an outer layer of each said capsule typically includes an additive which absorbs laser light to result in a color change”, paragraph [0052], Murokh), and (b) collectively form post-irradiation patterns (marking pattern, paragraph [0040], Murokh) in the article surfaces wherein the post-irradiation patterns persist after the interactions (“[t]he absorbed energy either modifies the pigment structure and appearance including the color, modifies the structure and appearance of material immediately surrounding the pigment particles, or modifies the appearance of the interface between the pigment particles and the surrounding materials”, paragraph [0018], Murokh); and capturing an irradiation inspection image (marking zone image, paragraph [0061], Murokh) of the irradiation zone (“marking inspection data for the array in the marking zone 146 which has been just marked”, paragraph [0061], Murokh) by way of the irradiation inspection element (first inspection system “which may include first inspection camera 124”, paragraph [0061] and Fig. 1, Murokh).
PNG
media_image1.png
660
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Murokh does not explicitly disclose capturing an image during said irradiation period; wherein the irradiation inspection image includes illumination patterns defined by the localized illuminations.
Miyamoto is directed toward “laser marking for irradiating a material to be printed such as a photosensitive material with a laser beam and forming a predetermined marking pattern such as a character, a sign, or the like by dots which can be visually recognized on the material to be printed” (paragraph [0004]) and “a kind of a photosensitive material for medical use is used as a material to be printed” (paragraph [0048]). Miyamoto teaches an irradiation inspection element (infrared sensor 66, Fig. 5, Miyamoto), capturing an image during said irradiation period (Fig. 8, reproduced below, Miyamoto). Examiner notes that step 106 determines if the scanning of the laser beam LB has started (paragraph [0120]]), thus if the signal is triggered/started in step 106 without setting flag equal to “1”, step 110 would be “No” and “the program returns to step 100 and reading of an output from the infrared sensor 66 is newly started” (paragraph [0121]) without turning off the scanning of the laser beam LB.
PNG
media_image2.png
600
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further, Miyamoto teaches wherein the irradiation inspection image includes illumination patterns (marking pattern MP, Fig. 3, reproduced below, Miyamoto) defined by the localized illuminations (“[t]he infrared sensor 66 detects an infrared ray (heat ray) emitted from a predetermined region on the X-ray film 12 passed along the print roll 32, and outputs an electric signal (voltage) according to the amount of the detected heat ray to the marking determining unit 68. That is, the infrared sensor 66 serves as a temperature sensor used for detecting the surface temperature of an object to be measured in a non-contact manner”, paragraph [0084], Miyamoto).
PNG
media_image3.png
492
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Murokh to incorporate the teachings of Miyamoto to include an irradiation inspection element, wherein the irradiation inspection image includes illumination patterns defined by the localized illuminations, because the “occurrence of erroneous printing, poor printing, and the like can be accurately detected” (Abstract, Miyamoto).
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach after the step of capturing: comparing each illumination pattern (marking pattern MP, Fig. 3, reproduced below, Miyamoto) to a corresponding target pattern to determine whether they match one another (“[t]he system compares the current marking with a specified pattern”, paragraph [0040], Murokh); and if an illumination pattern fails to match the corresponding target pattern, rejecting the respective article (“the system determines via the first inspection camera 124 which capsules in the respective pocket array have to be rejected”, paragraph [0048], Murokh).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 7 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein (a) the laser transmission element (laser marking device 126, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 1, Murokh) comprises multiple lasers (iterative laser beam scans); and (b) in the irradiating step, each laser (laser beam, paragraph [0020], Murokh) irradiates a respective subset of said articles (consumable article 102, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 1, Murokh). Examiner notes that the pending claims do not require a simultaneous irradiation of the subset of articles, so a sequential process would read on the pending claim.
PNG
media_image4.png
198
226
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 9 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein the post-irradiation patterns (marking pattern, paragraph [0040], Murokh) are markings.
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 9, which claim 10 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach during the irradiation period (“pulse duration is less than 15 nsec”, paragraph [0034], Murokh); the article surfaces (consumable article 102 surface facing laser marking device 126, Fig. 1, Murokh) have a first background (portions of consumable article 102 not worked upon by the laser) luminance (as Murokh discloses irradiating consumable article 102 with a laser, it is inherent and necessary that, at least, some level of heat would dissipate to the portions of consumable article 102 not worked upon by the laser and then emit that heat from the article 102 to the environment); the localized illuminations (“[t]he infrared sensor 66 detects an infrared ray (heat ray) emitted from a predetermined region on the X-ray film 12 passed along the print roll 32, and outputs an electric signal (voltage) according to the amount of the detected heat ray to the marking determining unit 68.”, paragraph [0084], Miyamoto) have an illumination luminance (heat being emitted from the consumable article 102 from portions traversed by the laser). As the cited prior art references teach a luminance of portions of the workpiece being worked upon and portions of the workpiece not being worked upon during an irradiation period, it logically follows that the cited prior art references also teach a luminance of portions of the workpiece being worked upon and portions of the workpiece not being worked upon after an irradiation period. In other words, the Examiner is interpreting the second background luminance to be the first area as the first background luminance, with the only exception being those areas measured at different times. Further, the Examiner is interpreting the illumination luminance to be the first area as the marking luminance, with the only exception being those areas measured at different times.
As the cited prior art references teach the first background luminance (portions of consumable article 102 not worked upon by the laser and then emit that heat from the article 102 to the environment) and the illumination luminance (heat being emitted from the consumable article 102 from portions traversed by the laser), it is inherent and necessary that the cited prior art references also teach an illumination contrast defined by a relative difference (heat dissipation between the laser spot on the article 102 to adjacent portions of the article that is not traversed by the laser). In other words, portions of the article 102 traversed by the laser would have a much higher temperature which in turn results in a larger magnitude of IR illuminance in relation to portions of the article 102 that are not traversed by the laser.
Additionally, it is inherent and necessary that after the irradiation period, some level of residual heat is retained within the article 102. This residual heat would inherently and necessary follow the same profile during the irradiation period. In other words, portions of the article 102 traversed by the laser would have a much higher temperature which in turn results in a larger magnitude of IR illuminance in relation to portions of the article 102 that are not traversed by the laser even after the irradiation period.
Furthermore, it is inherent and necessary that heat (IR) being emitted from the article 102 would be greater in magnitude while the article is being irradiated by the laser as opposed to after the laser irradiation has been discontinued. In other words, the cited prior art references inherently teach the illumination contrast is greater in magnitude than the marking contrast.
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 12 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach further comprising capturing an auxiliary inspection image of the irradiation zone (marking zone 146, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 1, Murokh) by way of the auxiliary inspection camera (first inspection camera 124, paragraph [0061] and Fig. 1, Murokh); analyzing the auxiliary inspection image to identify (a) any article retention pockets within the irradiation zone which are not in possession of a respective said article (“[a]n image processor determines the position of each unoccupied pocket on the top wheel”, paragraph [0042], Murokh). Further, Murkoh discloses “[o]nce the respective array of pockets on the top wheel is inspected the marking process begins” (paragraph [0043]), which logically follows that Murkoh discloses capturing an auxiliary inspection image before the irradiation period.
Regarding claim 15, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 15 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein the articles are consumable articles (consumable article 102, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 1, Murokh).
Regarding claim 16, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 15, which claim 15 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein the consumable articles comprise pharmaceutical substances (“[i]n preferred embodiments, the articles may be a pharmaceutical capsules such as, for example, softgels, coated pills, or the like”, paragraph [0052], Murokh).
Regarding claim 23, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 23 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein no dichroic mirrors (cited prior art references are completely silent in regards to dichroic mirrors) are (a) included within the irradiation inspection element (infrared sensor 66, Fig. 5, Miyamoto); or (b) optically disposed between the irradiation zone and any portion of the irradiation inspection element.
Regarding claim 24, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 24 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein no scanners (the cited prior art references have scanners in the laser transmission elements, but are silent in regards to scanners being included in the cameras/sensors) are (a) included within the irradiation inspection element (infrared sensor 66, Fig. 5, Miyamoto); or (b) optically disposed between the irradiation zone and any portion of the irradiation inspection element.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2013040599 (hereinafter Murokh) in view of US 20040232341 (hereinafter Miyamoto) and further in view of Non-Patent Literature: “Using OCR: How Accurate is Your Data” (hereinafter Council).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 2, which claim 3 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein (a) each illumination pattern (marking pattern MP, Fig. 3, reproduced below, Miyamoto) comprises at least one character (Fig. 3 illustrates the illumination pattern comprises “FUJI”), and (b) the step of comparing is performed by way of optical character recognition (“marking pattern on each capsule is analyzed by optical recognition/inspection system” (paragraph [0040], Murokh).
PNG
media_image3.png
492
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, the cited prior art references do not explicitly teach having an OCR accuracy of at least 99.
Council is directed toward optical character recognition software. Council teaches having an OCR accuracy of at least 99 (“most OCR software provides 98 to 99 percent accuracy, measured at the page level”, page 1, Council).
The courts have held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (page 1, Council), a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the ranges overlap at 99% percent accuracy.
Claim 5 recites substantially similar limitations with the exception of at least two characters instead of a single character, and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 3, which claim 4 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein said articles (articles 102 are being feed continuously by an automatic feeding mechanism 182, Fig. 3, reproduced below, Murokh) consecutively subjected to said irradiating (laser marking device 126, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 1, reproduced below, Murokh), the optical character recognition has an OCR accuracy of at least 99% (“most OCR software provides 98 to 99 percent accuracy, measured at the page level”, page 1, Council).
PNG
media_image1.png
660
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the cited prior art references do not explicitly teach at least 1000 articles.
Council is directed toward optical character recognition software. Council teaches (“1,000 characters”, page 1, Council).
The courts have held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (page 1, Council), a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the ranges overlap at 1000 articles/characters.
Claim 6 recites substantially similar limitations with the exception of being dependent upon claim 5, instead of claim 3, and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2013040599 (hereinafter Murokh) in view of US 20040232341 (hereinafter Miyamoto) and further in view of EP 2851134 A1 (hereinafter Ackley).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 7 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach the laser transmission element (laser marking device 126, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 1, Murokh) and a subset of said articles (consumable article 102, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 1, Murokh). As discussed above, the cited prior art references teach an iterative marking that read on the pending claims, a separate interpretation of the pending claims includes multiple lasers marking during the same step.
However, the cited prior art references do not explicitly teach multiple lasers; and each laser irradiates a respective subset of said articles.
Ackley is directed toward a pill marking apparatus. Ackley teaches multiple lasers (first laser 162 and second laser 164, Fig. 3, reproduced below, Ackley); and each laser irradiates a respective subset of said articles (different sides of workpieces).
PNG
media_image5.png
322
458
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Murokh in view of Miyamoto to incorporate the teachings of Ackley to include multiple lasers; and each laser irradiates a respective subset of said articles, because the “pellet-shaped articles can be properly processed regardless of orientation” (paragraph [0030], Ackley).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 7, which claim 8 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein (a) the irradiation inspection element (infrared sensor 66, Fig. 5, Miyamoto) comprises multiple irradiation cameras (first inspection camera 124 and second inspection camera 146, Fig. 1, Murokh). As discussed above, the cited prior art references teach an iterative marking that read on the pending claims, a separate interpretation of the pending claims includes multiple lasers marking during the same step.
However, the cited prior art references do not explicitly teach the step of capturing, each of the irradiation cameras captures a portion of the irradiation inspection image corresponding to the irradiation by a respective said laser.
Ackley is directed toward a pill marking apparatus. Ackley teaches in the step of capturing, each of the irradiation cameras (third camera 172 and fourth camera 174, Fig. 3, reproduced below, Ackley ) captures a portion of the irradiation inspection image corresponding to the irradiation by a respective said laser (third camera 172 captures a portion of the irradiation inspection image corresponding to the first laser 162 and fourth camera 174 captures an image corresponding to the second laser 164).
PNG
media_image5.png
322
458
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Murokh in view of Miyamoto to incorporate the teachings of Ackley to include the step of capturing, each of the irradiation cameras captures a portion of the irradiation inspection image corresponding to the irradiation by a respective said laser, because the “pellet-shaped articles can be properly processed regardless of orientation” (paragraph [0030], Ackley).
Claims 13, 17-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2013040599 (hereinafter Murokh) in view of US 20040232341 (hereinafter Miyamoto) and further in view of US 20130127959 (hereinafter Hanina).
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 13 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach an auxiliary inspection image of the irradiation zone (marking zone 146, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 1, Murokh) by way of the auxiliary inspection camera (first inspection camera 124, paragraph [0061] and Fig. 1, Murokh) after the irradiation period (“[a]rticles that have been marked within the marking zone 146 may be inspected for proper marking and identified as either accepted or rejected by way of the first camera 124”, paragraph [0052], Murokh).
Examiner notes that Applicant has characterized the term “damaged” as “misshapened” in paragraph [0008] of the instant publication, and includes this in the broadest reasonable interpretation when applying art for claim 13.
However, the cited prior art references do not explicitly teach analyzing the auxiliary inspection image to identify any articles within the irradiation zone that are damaged or lack a post-irradiation pattern.
Hanina is directed toward a laser etcher that prints identifiers on objects (i.e., medication pills). Hanina teaches analyzing the auxiliary inspection image to identify any articles within the irradiation zone that are damaged or lack a post-irradiation pattern (“a first or more fractals may be employed to measure for detection of distortion that may be a result of the shape of the pill”, paragraph [0057], Hanina).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Murokh in view of Miyamoto to incorporate the teachings of Hanina to include analyzing the auxiliary inspection image to identify any articles within the irradiation zone that are damaged or lack a post-irradiation pattern, because the shape is included in the product signature and dosage for end-users identifying product for consumption (paragraph [0078], Hanina).
Regarding claim 17, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 15, which claim 17 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein the consumable articles (consumable article 102, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 1, Murokh).
However, the cited prior art references do not explicitly teach that the articles can be candies.
Hanina is directed toward a laser etcher that prints identifiers on objects (i.e., medication pills). Hanina teaches that the articles can be candies (“fractal image may be applied as a game on candy”, paragraph [0092], Hanina).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute Murokh’s consumable article 102 with Hanina’s candy, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of acting as a workpiece for a laser marking process with the intent of being consumed.
Regarding claim 18, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 18 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein the post-irradiation patterns (marking pattern, paragraph [0040], Murokh) of respective said article (consumable article 102, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 1, Murokh) surfaces (surface facing the laser).
However, the cited prior art references do not explicitly teach patterns each extend across curved portions.
Hanina is directed toward a laser etcher that prints identifiers on objects (i.e., medication pills). Hanina teaches patterns each extend across curved portions (“by being printed on a curved surface, for example, a fractal image may be deformed or otherwise influenced in predictable ways, thus allowing for the user of such shape to be employed to further differentiate authentic objects”, paragraph [0064], Hanina).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Murokh in view of Miyamoto to incorporate the teachings of Hanina to include patterns each extend across curved portions, “thus allowing for the user of such shape to be employed to further differentiate authentic objects” (paragraph [0064], Hanina), which assists consumers to take medication appropriately.
Regarding claim 21, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 21 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach the irradiation inspection image (marking zone image, paragraph [0061], Murokh).
However, the cited prior art references do not explicitly teach to analyze the articles for surface defects or material impurities.
Hanina is directed toward a laser etcher that prints identifiers on objects (i.e., medication pills). Hanina teaches analyze the articles for surface defects or material impurities (“by being printed on a curved surface, for example, a fractal image may be deformed or otherwise influenced in predictable ways, thus allowing for the user of such shape to be employed to further differentiate authentic objects”, paragraph [0064], Hanina).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Murokh in view of Miyamoto to incorporate the teachings of Hanina to include analyze the articles for surface defects or material impurities, “thus allowing for the user of such shape to be employed to further differentiate authentic objects” (paragraph [0064], Hanina), which assists consumers to take medication appropriately.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2013040599 (hereinafter Murokh) in view of US 20040232341 (hereinafter Miyamoto) and further in view of US 20130244002 (hereinafter Dassie).
Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 14 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach the post-irradiation pattern (marking pattern, paragraph [0040], Murokh).
However, the cited prior art references do not explicitly teach a material void.
Dassie is directed toward marking pharmaceutical tablets, capsules, or granules (paragraph [0019]) with a laser. Dassie teaches a material void (marking by means of laser ablation, Abstract, Dassie).
The Examiner notes that a consumable article that has its surface ablated would inherently have a material void.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute Murokh’s method of laser marking a pharmaceutical pill with Dassie’s method of laser ablation to mark a pharmaceutical capsule, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of marking a pharmaceutical pill with a laser system.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2013040599 (hereinafter Murokh) in view of US 20040232341 (hereinafter Miyamoto) and further in view of WO-2017012862-A1 (hereinafter Bouchon).
Regarding claim 19, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 19 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach the irradiation inspection element (infrared sensor 66, Fig. 5, Miyamoto) and the irradiation zone (marking zone 146, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 1, Murokh).
However, the cited prior art references do not explicitly teach (a) at least one irradiation camera; and (b) at least one light attenuator optically disposed between the irradiation zone and the at least one irradiation camera.
Bouchon is directed toward a laser marking system. Bouchon teaches the irradiation inspection element (detection system 30, Fig. 11a, reproduced below, Bouchon); (a) at least one irradiation camera (“standard infrared camera [detector 32], paragraphs [0117] and [0123], Bouchon); and (b) at least one light attenuator (“observation can be done through a polarizer [polarizers 50]”, paragraphs [0117] and [0123], Bouchon) optically disposed between the irradiation zone and the at least one irradiation camera (Fig. 11A, Bouchon).
PNG
media_image6.png
340
406
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute Miyamoto’s infrared sensor 66, with Bouchon’s detection system 30, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of monitoring marking of a workpiece with a laser system.
Regarding claim 20, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 19, which claim 20 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach wherein the at least one light attenuator (“observation can be done through a polarizer [polarizers 50]”, paragraphs [0117] and [0123], Bouchon) is selected from the group consisting of polarizers and diffusers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2013040599 (hereinafter Murokh) in view of US 20040232341 (hereinafter Miyamoto) and further in view of US 20130244002 (hereinafter Dassie) with US 20090007933 (hereinafter Thomas) presented as evidentiary support.
Regarding claim 22, the cited prior art references teach all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 22 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, the cited prior art references teach the localized illuminations (“[t]he infrared sensor 66 detects an infrared ray (heat ray) emitted from a predetermined region on the X-ray film 12 passed along the print roll 32, and outputs an electric signal (voltage) according to the amount of the detected heat ray to the marking determining unit 68”, paragraph [0084], Miyamoto).
However, the cited prior art references do not explicitly teach wherein (a) the interaction generates plasma; and (b) the plasma generates the localized illuminations.
Dassie is directed toward marking tablets, capsules, or granules (paragraph [0019]) with a laser. Dassie teaches wherein (a) the interaction generates plasma (laser ablation, Abstract, Dassie). Examiner asserts that laser ablation would inherently and necessarily generate plasma. As evidenced by Thomas, Thomas teaches “UV laser light interacting with the surface causes photoablation effects. Such effects essentially vaporize a volume of the surface material as a gaseous flow or a low-temperature plasma” (paragraph [0022]). As Dassie teaches plasma, it logically follows that the plasma generates the localized illuminations (the plasma would inherently generate illuminations, at least, in the infrared spectrum).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute Murokh’s method of laser marking a pharmaceutical pill with Dassie’s method of laser ablation to mark a pharmaceutical capsule, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of marking a pharmaceutical pill with a laser system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “35 USC 112 …” on pages 11-12 of remark.
In response, examiner agree with applicant’s argument and amendment. Thus, 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
() Applicant argues “35 USC 103 … Applicant notes that claim 1 recites, in particular relevant part, "wherein the irradiation causes interactions between the beam and the article surfaces which (a) transiently generate localized illuminations at the article surfaces during the interactions" and "capturing an irradiation inspection image of the irradiation zone during said irradiation period by way of the irradiation inspection element, wherein the irradiation inspection image includes illumination patterns defined by the localized illuminations" (emphasis added). In stark contrast, Miyamoto appears to teach in relevant part "The infrared sensor 66 detects an infrared ray emitted from each of the plurality of dots 16A generated on completion of the irradiation of the laser beam LB and outputs the Voltage V according to the region of the detected infrared ray." (Miyamoto, para [0092]). Miyamoto then apparently uses that post-irradiation infrared detection to determine whether proper marking is performed or not. (See, e.g., Miyamoto at para [0112]). Miyamoto thus appears to disclose an infrared (IR) sensor picking up residual IR radiation from X-ray film downstream of the marking area. This radiation is caused by elevated temperature of the area marked by IR laser. Moreover, in contrast to the invention defined in Applicant's claim 1, Miyamoto's IR sensor does not appear to capture a specific marking pattern (e.g., Applicant's recited illumination patterns defined by the localized illuminations). Rather, Miyamoto's IR sensor appears to pick up an integral response from the marking area and compare it to the corresponding thresholds to indirectly infer whether or not proper marking has occurred. See, e.g., Miyamoto paragraphs [0027] and [0034]. This situation is clearly illustrated by Miyamoto Fig. 3, where the detection region 74 is much larger than an individual marking dot 16A. Therefore, any variety of distributions of the same number of dots within the detection region 74 will result in the same response from the IR sensor 66, leaving no chance for pattern recognition. See, e.g., Miyamoto paragraph [0095] … ” on pages 13-15 of remark.
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees because Murokh discloses (a) transiently generate localized illuminations at the article surfaces during the interactions (laser light would inherently produce visible and/or visible light from laser reflection and emission of heat). Miyamoto teaches irradiation inspection element 66 capturing an image during said irradiation period (fig.8). Examiner notes that step 106 determines if the scanning of the laser beam LB has started (paragraph [0120]]), thus if the signal is triggered/started in step 106 without setting flag equal to "1", step 110 would be "No" and "the program returns to step 100 and reading of an output from the infrared sensor 66 is newly started" (paragraph [0121]) without turning off the scanning of the laser beam LB. This suggest that inspection element can be used to inspect the article during laser processing. Additionally, [0094] teaches in the detection region 74 of the infrared sensor 66, the irradiation position (scan line 72) of the laser beam LB is included. Consequently, the infrared sensor 66 detects not only the infrared ray emitted from the dot 16A in which irradiation of the laser beam LB has been finished but also infrared rays emitted from the emulsion layer 16 and the base layer 14 (dot 16A) being melted by irradiation with the laser beam LB, and outputs the voltage v according to the amount of the detected infrared rays. In this case, the infrared sensor is able to capture an irradiation inspection image (i.e., the dot 16A in fig.3) during said irradiation period.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights