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
Applicant appears to argue that because claim 1 has been amended to no longer recite "filter" and now recites that the "bench measurement system is configured to implement filter techniques" that the claims do not require to show the claimed feature. In light of the amendment, the objection to the drawing has been amended to reflect the new limitation that Applicant contends is a distinguishing feature over the prior art.
Applicant argues that Milne's teaching of filtering is insufficient because Milne does not teach "how a low-pass filter can be implemented to evaluate the coating and texture quality." In response, the Examiner submits that the language of claim 1 does not require the prior art to show how filtering can be implemented to evaluate the coating and texture quality. Claim 1 is drawn to the structure of a device and the language of "to evaluate coating and texture quality" describes the purpose or intended use of the filter. Claims directed to an apparatus must structurally distinguish from prior art.
Applicant argues that Milne does not teach how to implement bright, dark, and/or reflected field filter. In response, the grounds of rejection does not rely on Milne to teach every limitation as it is not under anticipation, but rather under obviousness. The use of bright, dark, and reflected field filtering is known for improving contrast in translucent objects and since Milne teaches the imaging of containers such as syringes and vials, which are often translucent, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to use such filtering for improved contrast.
Applicant contends the use of bright, dark, and reflected field filtering in Milne would render the filter of Milne inoperable for its intended purpose. Since Applicant has not provided any explanation for this contention, the Examiner is not persuaded.
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 bench measurement system that is configured to implement filter techniques to evaluate coating and texture quality must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Applicant contends this limitation is what distinguishes from the prior art of record and none of the figures appear to be directed at this feature. 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 and
bench measurement system in claims 1, 3, and 5
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites "a bench measurement system" and it would not be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art what structure is encompassed by this element. Figure 13 shows the bench measurement system 6400 to include imaging systems 6500, an image processor 160 as well as other components. Claim 1 recites imaging components and a processor as separate elements from the bench measurement system. It is not clear if the claimed imaging components and processor are or are not the same elements (imaging systems 6500, an image processor 16000 included in the bench measurement system.
In addition, the bench measurement system is found to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because it is not a structure for performing the claimed function of "implement[ing] filter techniques to evaluate coating and texture quality;" however, it is unclear what the corresponding structure is. It is not clear if is some controller that initiate a filtering process or if it is merely a type of optical filter.
Claim 1's recitation of plural techniques ("configured to implement filter techniques") is not clear if it is modular in that it can perform different filtering techniques or if it performs multiple techniques simultaneously.
For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted to encompass all the plausible interpretations discussed above.
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, as interpreted by the Examiner, 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) configured to implement filter techniques (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 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
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