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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues Milne does not teach a “vial coating inspection system” because Milne does not show that the vial being tested has a coating. Milne shows a vial coating inspection system because Milne shows every structural element recited in claim 1. The term "vial coating inspection system" is merely nomenclature for the intended purpose of the inspection system. The Examiner does not find, nor does Applicant point out, any structural difference between the claim and the system of Milne. In other words, it appears Applicant is calling the same thing by a different name as there appears to be no structural difference.
Applicant argues the limitation “a processor configured to receive image data" is taken out of context by the Examiner and ignores the "of the external coating transmitted from the one or more imaging component." Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. The Examiner explained the limitation requires of the processor. The Examiner stated the limitation requires the processor to have "the capability to receive such data" Applicant has not refuted Examiner's finding that the processor of Milne is capable of receiving such data, rather Applicant argues as different element as not being shown by Milne. Applicant argues that Milne does not show "one or more imaging components for capturing images of one or regions of interest on a vial, the vial comprising an exterior coating" and that it is required that Milne "generate such data." The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claim requires Milne to "generate such data." The limitation drawn to the imaging components describe the purpose of the imaging components by the "for capturing images of a region…" Although Milne does not explicitly show the vial being imaged has a coating, the claim does not require that Milne to acknowledge the inspection system is for use on a vial having a coating.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "filter" of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
Imaging component in claims 1, 5, and 8-12
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Milne et al. (WO 2021/225876).
With respect to claim 1, Milne shows:
1. A vial coating inspection system comprising: a vial coating quality measurement system comprising:
one or more imaging components (visual inspection system 102, camera 202) for capturing images of one or more regions of interest on a vial, the vial comprising an exterior coating, and
a processor (computer system 104) configured to receive image data of the external coating transmitted from the one or more imaging components,
wherein the one or more regions of interest are selected from a neck, a shoulder, a sidewall top middle region, a sidewall middle region, a sidewall bottom region, and a heel of the vial (the visual inspection system is inherently capable of taking images of any region of a vial that has an external coating; See also para. [0051]: "Camera 202 captures one or more images of a container 214"; Claim 1 is drawn to the structure of an inspection system. The vial is not an element of the system. The vial is an object worked upon by the inspection system and does not serve to structurally distinguish . See MPEP 2114), and
wherein the vial coating quality measurement system comprises a bench measurement system (see bench 304, bench system of Figs. 2, 3) comprising a filter (Para. [00167]: "a block in which each new image of the set is low-pass filtered after moving the portion of the container image to the new position," para. [00105]: "Library expansion module 134 may also prevent other, pixel-level artifacts by applying a low-pass (e.g., Gaussian) frequency-domain filter to smooth out the modified image.") to evaluate coating and texture quality (the recitation of "to evaluate coating and texture quality" describes the purpose of the filter and does not impart any particular structure to the filter).
3. The system of claim 1, wherein each imaging component of the one or more imaging components comprises a plurality of cameras (camera 202; para. [0057]: “an example visual inspection system 300 includes three cameras 302a through 302c”).
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the vial coating inspection system includes means for rotating the vial such that the vial is rotated about a central axis and images of the exterior coating of the vial are captured by the one or more imaging components (212; para. [0062]: “By rotating a container in front of the line scan camera, a series of 1 D arrays can be captured and then “stitched” together to form a two-dimensional (2D) rectangular image”; para. [0055]: “Agitation mechanism 212 may include a chuck or other means for holding and rotating (e.g., spinning) containers”).
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) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milne as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Admitted Prior Art.
Milne shows all the elements as discussed for claim 1 above but does not show the use of a reflective filter, a bright field filter and a dark field filter. It is taken to be admitted prior art since Applicant has not traversed the taking of Official notice that reflective, bright, and dark field filtering techniques were well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use these techniques in order to enhance the contrast of translucent containers.
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 Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights