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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-9, 11, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al (JP H10246707 A, where the examiner is providing a machine translation hereinwith for citations) in view of Dey et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,732,529).
As to claims 1 and 8, Sugiura discloses and shows in figures 1-3, an inspection apparatus comprising:
a light emitter (6) configured to emit light to a sealing portion (area that light passes through in figure 1) of a package containing a light energy absorbing material (oxygen absorber A), the light having a wavelength absorbable by the light energy absorbing material (inherent to form the shadow as disclosed) (page 5, ll. 22-24 and ll. 36-38);
a light receiver (7) configured to receive thermal radiation from the sealing portion as thermal information (inherent in IR is used for imaging as disclosed which is clear “thermal radiation”) (page 5, ll. 35-38); and
circuitry (4, where a computer inherently includes at least some circuitry) including multiple image processing algorithms (e.g. the threshold selection requires an algorithm as does the binarized image creation), the circuitry configured to (page 5 l. 39 thru page 6 l. 5):
acquire the thermal information on the sealing portion from the light receiving unit as a two-dimensional image (this is implied both by the sensor being a CCD, but also clearly by figures 2 and 3 which show 2D images) (page 5, ll. 36-38, page 7, ll. 13-16);
determine whether the sealing portion is pass or fail with respect to a first type of sealing defect based on the two-dimensional image acquired (page 1, ll. 18-20; where the examiner is interpreting the detection of a non-defective or defective seal as a form of pass/fail); and
discriminate a type of a sealing defect from other types of sealing defects previously set in the multiple image processing algorithms including a first image processing algorithm (where the examiner is interpreting that since the computer does the work implicitly in determining contents, defective sealing portion, excess and deficiency as a function of algorithms inherently required to be on the computer 4 so it can make the disclosed determinations) in response to a determination that the sealing portion is fail (clearly whereas soon as the image shows a defective a subsequent determination is required to determine excess of deficiency of poor sealing or excess or deficiency of contents) (page 6, ll. 17-18 and ll. 35-40).
Sugiura does not explicitly disclose using a first image processing algorithm and a second image processing algorithm, where the determination is also with respect to a first type of sealing defect among multiple types of sealing defects, which relies on both the first and second image processing algorithms.
However, Dey does disclose in (col. 6, ll. 1-4 and, ll. 35-48) the use of a common PLC based controller that as disclosed is programmable (i.e. it uses an algorithm inherently to be controlled) to measure “pinholes” in preformed cavities to determine if said cavities are defective with an infrared source/detector. Obviously the system of Sugiura would benefit from taking into account an additional sealing defect to further refine product analysis (i.e. determining pass/fail based on an additional type of sealing defect among multiple types).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugiura with using a first image processing algorithm and a second image processing algorithm, where the determination is also with respect to a first type of sealing defect among multiple types of sealing defects, which relies on both the first and second image processing algorithms in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy, as obviously analyzing the sample under test relative to multiple vs a singular defect with varying algorithms produces a more robust defect analysis of the sample under test.
The subject matter of claims 1 and 8 relate in that the technical features of apparatus claim 1 are in each case suitable for implementing the method of claim 8, therefore the method is inherent, in view of the above apparatus rejection.
As to claim 2, Sugiura discloses an inspection apparatus, wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate multiple two-dimensional image data sets used for the multiple image processing algorithms, and the multiple image processing algorithms discriminate the type of the sealing defect from other types of sealing defects based on the multiple two-dimensional image data sets (page 6, ll. 17-18 and ll. 35-40, page 7, ll. 13-16; where the examiner is interpreting that implicitly that both figures 2 and 3 require distinct algorithms used for sealing defect analysis, even further multiple data sets are implied as clearly the system does not analyze only one single package 1A and stop functioning, instead clearly it runs continuously imaging all of the packages in figure 1).
As to claim 3, Sugiura discloses an inspection apparatus, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: and control a light receiver to receive thermal radiation as thermal information at the same condition; and generate the multiple two-dimensional image data sets based on the thermal information acquired (where the examiner notes that figure 1 shows a wire linked to camera 7, and clearly (page 6, ll. 17-18 and ll. 35-40, page 7, ll. 13-16; where the examiner is interpreting that implicitly that both figures 2 and 3 require distinct algorithms used for sealing defect analysis, even further multiple data sets are implied as clearly the system does not analyze only one single package 1A and stop functioning, instead clearly it runs continuously imaging all of the packages in figure 1).
Sugiura does not explicitly disclose where the circuitry is used to control a light emitter to emit light.
However, the examiner takes Office Notice that using a computer such as computer 4 of Sugiura to also control the light source 6 obviously yields a more efficient system able to remotely control the light source.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugiura where the circuitry is used to control a light emitter to emit light in order to provide the advantages of expected results in using a common computer to also control the light source one can obviously time up the light source to only emit when needed so that efficient detection/measuring can be used for sample analysis.
As to claims 5 and 15, Sugiura discloses an inspection apparatus, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: control the light receiver to receive the thermal radiation at different light receiving timings relative to the emission of the light to acquire the thermal information (this is inherently required to image subsequent packages 1A along the line shown in figure 1), and generate the multiple two-dimensional image data sets based on the thermal information acquired (page 6, ll. 17-18 and ll. 35-40, page 7, ll. 13-16; where the examiner is interpreting that implicitly that both figures 2 and 3 require distinct algorithms used for sealing defect analysis, even further multiple data sets are implied as clearly the system does not analyze only one single package 1A and stop functioning, instead clearly it runs continuously imaging all of the packages in figure 1).
Sugiura does not explicitly disclose where the circuitry is used to control a light emitter to emit light.
However, the examiner takes Office Notice that using a computer such as computer 4 of Sugiura to also control the light source 6 obviously yields a more efficient system able to remotely control the light source.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugiura where the circuitry is used to control a light emitter to emit light in order to provide the advantages of expected results in using a common computer to also control the light source one can obviously time up the light source to only emit when needed so that efficient detection/measuring can be used for sample analysis.
As to claims 6 and 16, Sugiura discloses an inspection apparatus, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: control the light receiver to receive the thermal radiation at different light receiving conditions to acquire the thermal information, and generate the multiple two-dimensional image data sets based on the thermal information acquired (page 6, ll. 17-18 and ll. 35-40, page 7, ll. 13-16; where the examiner is interpreting that implicitly that both figures 2 and 3 require distinct algorithms used for sealing defect analysis, even further multiple data sets are implied as clearly the system does not analyze only one single package 1A and stop functioning, instead clearly it runs continuously imaging all of the packages in figure 1).
Sugiura does not explicitly disclose where the circuitry is control the light emitter to emit the light at different light emitting conditions.
However, the examiner takes Office Notice that using a computer such as computer 4 of Sugiura to also control the light source 6 obviously yields a more efficient system able to remotely control the light source. Further since the claim fails to in any manner define “emitting conditions” obviously distinct emission timing (i.e. emission when each sample is moved into place) would constitute “different light emitting conditions”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugiura where the circuitry is control the light emitter to emit the light at different light emitting conditions in order to provide the advantages of expected results in using a common computer to also control the light source one can obviously time up the light source to only emit when needed so that efficient detection/measuring can be used for sample analysis.
As to claims 7 and 17, Sugiura discloses an inspection apparatus, further comprising a display (shown with the computer 4 and disclosed), wherein the circuitry displays on the display: a result of a determination of the sealing defect; the type of the sealing defect (implied by showing the images showing the defects) (page 6, ll. 1-5).
Sugiura does not explicitly disclose a name or a symbol indicating the multiple image processing algorithms that discriminates the type of sealing defect.
However, the examiner takes Office Notice that obviously one can display the name or a symbol to represent the defects found as this is one of the two most basic and common means by which to efficiently relay information to a human reader/observer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugiura with a name or a symbol indicating the multiple image processing algorithms that discriminates the type of sealing defect in order to provide the advantage of expected results and increased efficiency in that obviously uses a name/symbol is one of two of the most obvious choices to simply relay information to a human reader/observer. Without such basic information it is unclear how a human user would even interpret the data as already shown/taught in Sugiura. In other words it is borderline implied that some basic output is displayed on the screen to name or provide a symbol to represent the defect state of the sample under test.
As to claims 9 and 18, Sugiura fails to disclose an inspection apparatus, further comprising: a conveyor to convey the package to a position between the light emitter and the light receiver, wherein the conveyor temporarily stops the package while the light emitter emits the light and the light receiver receives the thermal radiation.
However, Dey does disclose and show in figure 4 and in (col. 6, l. 64 thru col. 7, l. 3; col. 7, ll. 16-25; col. 10, ll. 36-43) the use of a conveyor (i.e. web as disclosed) to relay packages during construction and inspection. Further the examiner is interpreting that clearly Dey can produce the intended result of a conveyor that stops the packages while the light emitter and receiver emit light, as the system stops for example when no label is detected.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugiura with an inspection apparatus, further comprising: a conveyor to convey the package to a position between the light emitter and the light receiver, wherein the conveyor temporarily stops the package while the light emitter emits the light and the light receiver receives the thermal radiation in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy and lower cost as obviously if the imaging is done while the object is not moving a lower cost detector can be used as the exposure time would not need to be as small. Further Conveying the packages obviously allows the expected result of an increase in rate of inspection per hour.
As to claims 11 and 20, Sugiura discloses and shows in figure 1, an inspection apparatus according to claim 9, wherein: the light emitter is an area light source to emit the light to the entire sealing portion in a single shot, and the light receiver is an area light receiving element to receive the thermal radiation from the entire sealing portion in a single shot (explicitly shown in figure 1) (page 5, ll. 22-26; where the CCD as disclosed is implicitly 2D i.e. area in producing images 2 and 3).
Claim(s) 4, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al in view of Dey et al. further in view of Pope et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2022/0390313 A1).
As to claims 4, 12 and 14, Sugiura does disclose an inspection apparatus, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: and control the light receiver to receive the thermal radiation at different number of two-dimensional images, and generate the multiple two-dimensional image data sets based on the thermal information acquired (where the examiner notes that figure 1 shows a wire linked to camera 7, and clearly (page 6, ll. 17-18 and ll. 35-40, page 7, ll. 13-16; where the examiner is interpreting that implicitly that both figures 2 and 3 require distinct algorithms used for sealing defect analysis, even further multiple data sets are implied as clearly the system does not analyze only one single package 1A and stop functioning, instead clearly it runs continuously imaging all of the packages in figure 1).
Sugiura does not explicitly disclose where the circuitry is used to control a light emitter to emit light.
However, the examiner takes Office Notice that using a computer such as computer 4 of Sugiura to also control the light source 6 obviously yields a more efficient system able to remotely control the light source.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugiura where the circuitry is used to control a light emitter to emit light in order to provide the advantages of expected results in using a common computer to also control the light source one can obviously time up the light source to only emit when needed so that efficient detection/measuring can be used for sample analysis.
Sugiura in view of Dey fails to disclose the light receiver being controlled to acquire different quantities of two-dimensional images or generating multiple two-dimensional image data sets used for the multiple image processing algorithms, wherein the discriminating the type of the sealing defect is based on the multiple two- dimensional image data sets.
However, Pope does disclose in ([0055], ll. 23-26; [0056], ll. 10-13) that the thermal imaging cameras used for detecting defects in a package under test can be taking as a single image, a sequence of images or video streams, each of which is an obvious variation in the number of images in a 2D scanner. Obviously these sequence of videos can be interpreted as multiple 2D image data sets.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugiura in view of Dey where light receiver being controlled to acquire different quantities of two-dimensional images or generating multiple two-dimensional image data sets used for the multiple image processing algorithms, wherein the discriminating the type of the sealing defect is based on the multiple two- dimensional image data sets in order to provide the advantage of expected results, obvious taking multiple images provides defect analysis redundancy for higher accuracy, or using a video stream an operator and review the analysis in real time.
As to claim 13, Sugiura discloses an inspection method comprising: controlling the light emitter to emit the light; controlling the light receiver to receive the thermal radiation as thermal information at a same condition (i.e. the same approximate time window when the package is between the emitter/detector pair) (page 5, ll. 22-26 and ll. 36-38).
Sugiura in view of Dey fails to explicitly disclose generating the multiple two-dimensional image data sets based on the thermal information acquired.
However, Pope does disclose in ([0055], ll. 23-26; [0056], ll. 10-13) that the thermal imaging cameras used for detecting defects in a package under test can be taking as a single image, a sequence of images or video streams, each of which is an obvious variation in the number of images in a 2D scanner. Obviously these sequence of videos can be interpreted as multiple 2D image data sets.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugiura in view of Dey generating the multiple two-dimensional image data sets based on the thermal information acquired.in order to provide the advantage of expected results, obvious taking multiple images/sets provides defect analysis redundancy for higher accuracy, or using a video stream an operator and review the analysis in real time.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al in view of Dey et al. further in view of White et al. (EP 0330495 A2).
As to claims 10 and 19, Sugiura in view of Dey does not explicitly disclose an inspection apparatus, wherein: the conveyor further comprises a position-and-angle aligner to align a position and an angle of the package relative to a conveying direction.
However, White does disclose and show in figure 1 and in (col. 9, ll. 12-21) the use of a conveyer with a “position-and-angle” aligner (front and rear retaining guide walls 27 and 28) to align the position of the conveyor in the conveying direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugiura in view of Dey with an inspection apparatus, wherein: the conveyor further comprises a position-and-angle aligner to align a position and an angle of the package relative to a conveying direction in order to provide the advantage of expected results in using a basic position and angle aligning device one can obviously relay the packages under test in a uniform manner for accurate inspection to the defect measuring systems within the production system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/Michael P LaPage/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877