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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claim amendments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The 35 USC 112 rejection is withdrawn.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 9, reference to Col 13, page 18, lines 10-12) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 36 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. Claims 37-42 are allowed.
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.
Claims 13-15, 18, 26-28, 30-31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorsuch et al. (PG/PUB 20190018396) in view over Tochigi et al. (PG/PUB 20200219112) in view over Mukai et al. (PG/PUB 20050256788) in view over Cox et al. (PG/PUB 20060004475).
Claim 13.
Gorsuch et al. teaches a method of marking a continuous sheet of a metallic material for tracking and tracing metallic workpieces during a manufacturing process and during the subsequent distribution of metallic containers (Figure1, Figure 3, ABSTRACT), comprising:
moving the continuous sheet proximate to a marker (Figure 1, 0007-0008, 0010, 0118 e.g. see at least laser marking sheet metal)
forming, by the marker, a plurality of marks at blank locations of the continuous sheet, wherein each mark of the plurality of marks includes a unique identifier (Figure 3 “ABC,” 0007-0008, 0010, 0118, infra below prior art for employing barcodes/markings to track and trace sources of product defects, including parts associated with the product)
forming the metallic workpieces from the blank locations such that each metallic workpiece has mark of the plurality of marks (Gorsuch, Figure 1, Figure 3 e.g. see producing multiple tabs/metallic workpieces from sheet metal comprising the markings)
However, Gorsuch does not expressly teach the scan, transmission, and database revision limitations descried below. Tochigi, in view over Mukai teaches the scan and transmission limitations described below (e.g. as applied, the markings on the sheet metal later formed into tabs, as per Gorsuch, are encoded with serial numbers via barcode for tracking sources of tab defects (e.g. sheet metal), as per Mukai, and later scanned for tracking and creating a database, as per Toguchi, see also the existing database of Mukai for tracking sources of product defects based on scan events, infra mapping)
scanning, by a sensor, a mark on a metallic workpiece to generate a scan event associated with the unique identifier (Tochigi, ABSTRACT, 0009-0010, 0034, 0052 and see Gorsuch having identification codes located per tab on a beverage container, and see Mukai for identify/tracking parts of a product that causes the defect via applying serial numbers and employing barcode scanning for accessing a database for tracking sources of product defects, ABSTRACT, 0008, 0049-50 , see also Figure 3-68 of Gorsuch, namely encoded markings on a sheet metal (e.g. analogous to source of potential tab defect/component of a tab) and the final tab product (Gorsuch, Figure 1-66, 68, see Mukai as scanning the serial number of a product, analogous to the final tab product having serial number, and tracing sources product defects, analogous to the sheet metal to produce the tab)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, applying the teachings of Mukai, namely tracing sources of product defects via scanning a product serial number via applied barcode and accessing a database based on a scan event, to the teachings of Gorsuch, namely producing tab products from sheet metal, each tab having encoded information, to the teachings of Tochigi, namely scanning a marking via a sensor and creating a database for linking product information-0010, would achieve an expected and predictable result via adapting the tab markings of Gorsuch to comprise encoded serial numbers with the bar code for tracking sources of tab defects, including the sheet metal associated with producing the tab stock and process employed at manufacturing stages, as per Mukai, as well as scanning each marking for accessing a database associated with the tab product and sheet metal, as per Toguchi. Each reference is reasonably pertinent to a problem of tracing product defects including materials causing the defects and would logically commend themselves to tracking the sheet metal used to produce the tab stock with a benefit of quality control.
The applied combination of prior art teaches:
transmitting, via a network, the scan event to a database where the scan event is used to track and trace the metallic workpiece (Tochigi, 0009-0010, 0034, 0051, 0052 e.g. see associated database per scan event via a sensor, the scan including at least the serial number employed to create a database for linking product and process information, supra Mukai for accessing the database via scan event for tracking materials used in product production/quality (0009, 0011, 0012-0014, claim 2 e.g. see using the scan event to track and trace the product information from a database) and see Gorsuch having identification codes located per tab on a beverage container, namely the applied prior art teaches scanning the tab barcode comprising serial number and identify sources of defects/sheet metal); however, the applied combination does not teach the database is revised limitations described below. Cox teaches wherein the database is revised as well as
wherein a record of the database associated with the unique identifier is revised to include information about the continuous sheet (Cox, see database revision as updating the database with product information, 0003, 0006, 0015-0018, supra applied combination for obtaining product information and associated parts based on scanning a serial number by accessing a database, namely scanning a tab product bar code encoded with a serial, and retrieving associated parts used to make the tab product from the database, supra above with associated sheet metal used to produce the tab, see above Toguchi for linking additional information, 0010)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, applying the teachings of Cox, namely updating/revising a database record with product information, to the teachings of the applied prior art, namely scanning a barcode of a tab and identifying parts (e.g. sheet metal) and processes used to make the tab as well as accessing a database for tracking the tab product/product information/components/processes for the components, as well as linking product information via a database of Toguchi, would achieve an expected and predictable result via updating the database to include tab product, manufacturing process employed for the tab, and the associated material, including but not limited to sheet metal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to track and trace tab product information, including the sheet metal used to produce the tab, for identifying sources of tab defects via accessing a database comprising material information, processes employed on the materials, and locations and machines employed for producing the final product from constituent materials. In additional, updating a database with additional, associated metallic workpiece information provides an improved invention by maintaining an updated database.
Claim 14
The method of claim 13, wherein the marks are formed at the blank locations at:(i) an infeed of a press during a dwell period of the continuous sheet; (ii) the infeed of the press between dwells periods of the continuous sheet; or (iii) a location upstream of the infeed of the press where a continuous feed of the continuous sheet is separated from the dwell period by a slack portion of the continuous sheet (Gorsuch, Figure 3, 0005-0008, 0010, 0014 e.g. see conversion of sheet metal into tabs, Figure 1, Figure 3)
Claim 15.
The method of claim 13, wherein the metallic workpieces are one of a cup, a tab, an end shell, and an end closure (Gorsuch, supra claim 13, see tabs)
Claim 18.
The method of claim 13, wherein the marker comprises at least one of a laser and a printer (Gorsuch, 0010-11, 0022)
Claim 26.
The method of claim 13, wherein the information about the continuous sheet in the record comprises one or more of a manufacturer of the continuous sheet, a serial number of a coil of the continuous sheet, and material specifications of the metallic material of the continuous sheet, and wherein the continuous sheet is a tab stock, and each metallic workpiece is a tab, supra claim 13
Claim 27.
The method of claim 26 but does not teach the conversion process, supra claim 1 for including process information, see Gorsuch for the conversion process, further comprising: forming, by a conversion press, the tab from the tab stock such that the mark from the plurality of marks is located on a public side of the tab and wherein the record of the database associated with the unique number is revised to include information about the conversion press. (Figure 1, see conversion process, supra claim 13, 0005-0006 e.g. see conversion process)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Gorsuch, namely a conversion process, to the teachings of the applied prior art, namely updating a database with associated production processes, materials employed, etc. as well as accessing a database for tracking and tracing, would achieve an expected and predictable of including the conversion process used in metallic workpiece manufacturing for tracking and tracing sources of defects as part of updating the database.
Claim 28.
The method of claim 27, wherein the marker forms the plurality of marks during a dwell period of the conversion press (0005-0009, 0020 e.g. see adjusting cycle rates and phase during conversion and marking)
Claim 30.
The method of claim 27, wherein the mark is located on a panel of the tab proximate to a tail end of the tab (Gorsuch, Figure 1-3)
Claim 31.
The method of claim 13, further comprising: forming, by a laser, the plurality of marks by ablating part of a material of the continuous sheet (Gorsuch, 0123 e.g. see laser ablation)
Claim 33.
The method of claim 13, wherein the scan event is used to determine a deficiency in the manufacturing process (Tochigi, claim 1, 0015-0016)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorsuch et al. (PG/PUB 20190018396) in view over Tochigi et al. (PG/PUB 20200219112) in view over Mukai et al. (PG/PUB 20050256788) in view over Cox et al. (PG/PUB 20060004475) in view over Waugh (USPN 5353356)
Claim 16.
The method of claim 13 but does not expressly teach determining defective workpieces (e.g. tabs) for rejecting and inspecting described below, but Tochigi teaches determining poor and good workpieces, supra claim 1 for identifying defective workpieces and associated processes
further comprising: scanning, by a second sensor, the marks on the metallic workpieces to generate a second scan event associated with each mark (Tochigi, Figure 1, 0052-65 e.g. see inspection reading); transmitting, via the network, the second scan events to the database (Tochigi, claim 1, 0034, 0052) ; determining that one of the metallic workpieces is defective (0071, supra claim 1); and identifying a cause of a deficiency in the manufacturing process based on the scan events related to the defective workpiece (claim 1, 00154-0156, supra claim 1)
Waugh teaches rejecting the defective metallic workpiece from the manufacturing process; inspecting the defective metallic workpiece with an additional sensor (Cox, 0030-31 e.g. see “if a component is rejected,” and see Waugh for inspecting a defective product with an additional sensor , Col 8 lines 15-51)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Chrisfort, supra claim 1, namely identifying defective tab product for rejecting, to the teachings of Waugh, namely employing an additional sensor/camera, for analyzing the defect, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorsuch et al. (PG/PUB 20190018396) in view over Tochigi et al. (PG/PUB 20200219112) in view over Mukai et al. (PG/PUB 20050256788) in view over Cox et al. (PG/PUB 20060004475) in view over Jentzsch (PG/PUB 20190084029)
Claim 17
The method of claim 13, wherein each mark of the plurality of marks is located proximate to an outer edge of the respective blank location (Gorsuch, Figure 7A) e.g. see proximate edge locations) , and the metallic workpieces are end shells such that each mark of the plurality of marks is position positioned on a peripheral curl of the respective end shell (see top of container, Figure 1, having peripheral curl along can circumference proximate the tab)
The applied prior art does not teach
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorsuch et al. (PG/PUB 20190018396) in view over Tochigi et al. (PG/PUB 20200219112) n view over Mukai et al. (PG/PUB 20050256788) in view over Cox et al. (PG/PUB 20060004475) in view over Picard (PG/PUB 20180197053)
Claim 29. The method of claim 27 but does not expressly teach the size limitations described below. Pickard teaches the size limitations described below wherein the mark is a two-dimensional code less than 2 mm in size (0061 e.g. see 0.1 to 2mm)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Tochigi, namely tracking marked containers having codes and applying a database for recording the information, to the teachings of Gorsuch, namely marking container tabs with unique identifiers, to the teachings of Picard, namely sizing the barcode, would achieve an expected and predictable result of accounting for tab size for barcode placement.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorsuch et al. (PG/PUB 20190018396) in view over Tochigi et al. (PG/PUB 20200219112) n view over Mukai et al. (PG/PUB 20050256788) in view over Cox et al. (PG/PUB 20060004475) in view over Ahmed (USPN 5247154)
Claim 32.
The method of claim 31 but does not teach the inch depth described below. Ahmed teaches the inch depth described below
wherein the mark has a depth into the continuous sheet up to approximately 0.002 inches (Col 4 lines 3-15)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Tochigi, namely tracking marked containers having codes and applying a database for recording the information, to the teachings of Gorsuch, namely marking container tabs with unique identifiers, to the teachings of Ahmend, namely controlling barcode depth based on material dimensions, would achieve an expected and predictable result of controlling a penetration depth based on container wall or tab thickness.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorsuch et al. (PG/PUB 20190018396) in view over Tochigi et al. (PG/PUB 20200219112) n view over Mukai et al. (PG/PUB 20050256788) in view over Cox et al. (PG/PUB 20060004475) in view over Wells (PG/PUB 20160179909)
Claim 34. The method of claim 13 but does teach the mobile device limitations described below. Wells teaches the mobile device limitations described below
further comprising scanning, by a sensor of a mobile device, a mark of the plurality of marks to generate a mobile scan event to associate the mobile device with the mark and related metallic workpiece (Wells, ABSTRACT, 0006, claim 2 e.g. see associating mobile device to barcode and tool, supra claim 1 for scanning marks and associated beverage container)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Tochigi, namely tracking marked containers having codes and applying a database for recording the information, to the teachings of Gorsuch, namely marking container tabs with unique identifiers, to the teachings of Wells, namely associating a mobile device, code, and tool would achieve an expected and predictable result of tracking scan events, source device, and target container/tabs for historical tracking and quality control.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorsuch et al. (PG/PUB 20190018396) in view over Tochigi et al. (PG/PUB 20200219112) n view over Mukai et al. (PG/PUB 20050256788) in view over Cox et al. (PG/PUB 20060004475) in view over Smith (PG/PUB 20120209783)
Claim 35
The method of claim 13 but does not teach the recycling limitations described below. Smith teaches the recycling limitations described below
further comprising scanning, by a sensor of a recycling plant, the mark to generate a recycle scan event to associate the mark and related metallic workpiece with a completed recycling action (Smith , 0049-50, figure 4A e.g. see scanning mark at one more stages including manufacturing stage)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Tochigi, namely tracking marked containers having codes and applying a database for recording the information, to the teachings of Gorsuch, namely marking container tabs with unique identifiers, to the teachings of Smith, namely tracking recycling stages using associated codes, would achieve an expected and predictable result of tracking beverage containers production, routing, and recycling stages for quality control purposes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Claim 1 relevancy
20200219112 20190240703 20180032951 20170061350
Claim 16 relevancy, see root cause analysis
20230186252 20230081638 20200174462 20190354094 20170132724 20150243108
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) PST.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117