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
Claim Interpretation:
Applicant argues “transporter,” “inspection unit,” and “evaluation unit” should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the terms are recognized in the art to be structure. The Examiner does not dispute these terms may be nouns, but no evidence is before the Examiner that the terms are recognized in the art to be the name of structure, class of structures, or sufficient structure for performing their stated functions. The claims also do not recite sufficient structure. "Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the function in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure." MPEP 2181 (I). Here, Applicant points to the specification to identify examples of what the corresponding structures are. Applicant states the terms refer to "well-known class of physical structures," "a class name for structures," and "this category of machinery" but does not provide any evidence of what the category is. The specification may give examples, but examples do not serve to define. Applicant's statements that terms are "understood by the skilled artisan" and "well-understood" are taken as attorney arguments and not as evidence. As such, the Examiner is not persuaded that the terms should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
As a note, Applicant's statement that "evaluation unit" is just the hardware such as a processor is not found to be sufficient structure and that it also requires the appropriate software/programming so that it can perform the specialized function as claimed.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The prior rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
The rejection of claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues AAPA teaches the first measurement data and the second measurement data are evaluated separately and then combined. The Examiner appreciates the distinction Applicant is arguing; however, the Examiner submits the language of the claim does not provide sufficient clarity such that the claim distinguishes from the AAPA. The claim recites the evaluation is done together, not that raw first measurement data is combined with raw second measurement data and then evaluated. The breadth of "evaluation the first measurement data and the second measurement data" covers evaluating the group of first and second measurement data.
Furthermore, the combining of an evaluated first measurement data with an evaluated second measurement data produces an output data. This act of combining the two evaluated data and then evaluating the combined evaluated data amounts to an evaluation as claimed. This is because the "evaluation" is not specific as to what the evaluation is. The claim only requires that the evaluation step have a basis in artificial intelligence and results in a non-specific "output data."
Applicant argues the combination of AAPA and Lelkes does not teach that the containers are transported in a container mass flow and argues the teachings of Lelkes alone when the claim is rejected on the combination of AAPA and Lelkes. Here, AAPA teaches the containers being transported in a container mass flow. Applicant also argues that impermissible hindsight was used, stating the there is insufficient evidence in the prior art. In response, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
For the reasons stated above, the Examiner does not find that claim 1 does not distinguish from the combination of AAPA and Lelkes.
Double Patenting
Applicant's intention to file a terminal disclaimer at a later time is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 15, the claim is directed to the structure of the device of claim 1. The only limitation found in claim 15 is to a desired result which does not provide any further limitation to the structure of claim 10. The result recited in claim 15 is a result from operating an evaluation unit which is not an element of claim 10. Claim 10 recites three elements: a transporter, a first inspection unit, and a second inspection unit as being part of the device. Although an evaluation unit is mentioned in the claim, the evaluation unit is not an element of the claimed device.
Regarding claim 11, the claim merely recites a desired result from operating the device of claim 10.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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:
transporter (equivalent structure is taken to be a conveyor belt, outfeed star wheel, carousel) in claims 1-15;
inspection unit (equivalent structure is taken to be a camera), in claims 1, 2 and 4-15. The inspection unit in claim 3 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because sufficient structure is recited in the claim.
evaluation unit (equivalent structure is taken to be artificial intelligence trained with data of filled containers) in claims 1-15.
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) 10, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”).
The Specification of the disclosure states on page 1:
[0002] Methods and devices for inspecting containers are known in which the containers are transported with a transporter as a container mass flow and are recorded with a first inspection unit as first measurement data and with a second inspection unit as second measurement data in order to deliver information about the same inspection result, such as, for example, a fill level of the containers. Usually, the first measurement data and the second measurement data are evaluated separately and the results are combined, for example, with fuzzy logic.
[0003] Moreover, the evaluation of the first measurement data and the second measurement data is usually carried out with an evaluation unit that works on the basis of conventional evaluation methods and that must be adapted to the respective container types and/or varieties with parameters. Moreover, the combination of results must be determined and set up explicitly and/or during the installation or development of the device.
[0004] DE 10 2010 004972 A1 discloses a method for inspecting containers, wherein the containers are transported with a transport device along a predetermined path, a first area of the containers inspected by means of a first inspection device and a second area of the containers inspected by means of a second inspection device. The first and second inspection devices each output data that is characteristic of the inspected areas. The first data and the second data are associated with one another.
[0005] DE 10 2004 053567……
According to paragraphs [0002]-[0005] above, AAPA shows:
10. The device for inspection containers for carrying out the method according to claim 1, with
a transporter for transporting the containers as a container mass flow (para. [0002]),
a first inspection unit to record the containers as first measurement data, and
a second inspection unit to record the containers as second measurement data (para. [0002]),
wherein
an evaluation unit is designed to evaluate the first measurement data and the second measurement data together with an evaluation method working on the basis of artificial intelligence to form output data in order to determine an inspection result from the output data (The evaluation unit is not an element of the device of claim 10. The last element of the list is the second inspection unit because the word "and" in the claim indicates the next listed element is the last. In addition, claim 10 does not state that the device "comprises" the evaluation unit. Applicant was given notice of this an objection to claim 10 in the prior Office action of 10/28/2025 (p. 4) where suggestions were provided by Examiner. Applicant has selected to not amend the claim to positively recite the evaluation unit as an element of the device of claim 10. As such, the only structures covered by claim 10 are the transporter, the first inspection unit, and the second inspection unit. The recitation of the evaluation unit is of the method of claim 1 which does not serve to structurally distinguish. The method of claim 1 is the intended use of the claimed device of claim 10).
11. The device according to claim 10, wherein the evaluation method working on the basis of artificial intelligence comprises a deep neural network in order to evaluate the first measurement data and the second measurement data together with the deep neural network (The claim is directed to the structure of the device and recitations of how the device is operated do not serve to distinguish. The structure of the device of claim 11 is the same as that of claim 10).
15. The device according to claim 10, wherein the inspection result comprises a fill level
(The claim is directed to the structure of the device and recitations of desired results do not serve to distinguish. The structure of the device of claim 15 is the same as that of claim 10).
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in view of Lelkes (US 2019/0138858).
The Specification of the disclosure states on page 1:
[0002] Methods and devices for inspecting containers are known in which the containers are transported with a transporter as a container mass flow and are recorded with a first inspection unit as first measurement data and with a second inspection unit as second measurement data in order to deliver information about the same inspection result, such as, for example, a fill level of the containers. Usually, the first measurement data and the second measurement data are evaluated separately and the results are combined, for example, with fuzzy logic.
[0003] Moreover, the evaluation of the first measurement data and the second measurement data is usually carried out with an evaluation unit that works on the basis of conventional evaluation methods and that must be adapted to the respective container types and/or varieties with parameters. Moreover, the combination of results must be determined and set up explicitly and/or during the installation or development of the device.
[0004] DE 10 2010 004972 A1 discloses a method for inspecting containers, wherein the containers are transported with a transport device along a predetermined path, a first area of the containers inspected by means of a first inspection device and a second area of the containers inspected by means of a second inspection device. The first and second inspection devices each output data that is characteristic of the inspected areas. The first data and the second data are associated with one another.
[0005] DE 10 2004 053567……
According to paragraphs [0002]-[0005] above, AAPA shows:
1. A method for inspecting containers, comprising:
transporting the containers as a container mass flow with a transporter (para. [0002]);
recording first measurement data of the containers using a first inspection unit (para. [0002]);
recording second measurement data of the containers using a second inspection unit (para. [0002]);
wherein the first and second measurement data are recorded while the containers are transported as the container mass flow with the transporter (para. [0002]);
evaluating the first measurement data and the second measurement data together using an evaluation unit with an evaluation method working on the basis of [conventional evaluation means, fuzzy logic, complex testing] to form output data (para. [0003]); and
determining an inspection result from the output data (paras. [0003]-[0005]).
As indicated by the strikeout above, AAPA does not show the use of artificial intelligence to form the output data.
Lelkes shows the measurement of containers (e.g. 13) and measurements of a variety of parameters with multiple sensors and uses artificial intelligence to obtain measurement parameters from the different sensors to (para. [0015]: “It is also possible to use a combination of several sensors based either on the same or different physical effects.”; para. [0017]: “Another method is the use of machine learning algorithms by the classifier. The developer thereby does not have to define the distinguishing features. The developer can instead train the machine learning classifier with different containers, and the classifier itself learns to classify the various containers.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to modify the AAPA to analyze the measurement data from the two measurement devices with the use of artificial intelligence so that distinguishing features do not have to be defined thus saving time and work.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein performing the evaluation method working on the basis of artificial intelligence comprises executing at least one method step with a deep neural network, and evaluating the first measurement data and the second measurement data together with the deep neural network to determine the output data (Lelkes para. [0021]: "the so-called ‘deep learning’ method").
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first inspection unit and/or the second inspection unit comprises at least one camera. (AAPA DE 10 2004 053567, para. [0002]: "a plurality of optical sensors”).
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein recording the second measurement data comprises using a measurement method that is different from that used recording the first measurement data (Lelkes para. [0015]: "It is also possible to use a combination of several sensors based either on the same or different physical effects").
5. The method according to claim 4, wherein the first inspection unit comprises a first sensor and the second inspection unit comprises a different second sensor (Lelkes para. [0015]: "It is also possible to use a combination of several sensors based either on the same or different physical effects").
6. The method according to claim 1, wherein evaluating the first measurement data and the second measurement data together using the evaluation unit with the evaluation method working on the basis of artificial intelligence to form output data comprises checking a plausibility of the first measurement data and the second measurement data by the evaluation unit (Lelkes para. [0016]: "One way to implement this classifier is for the designer to analyze the signals from the detection sensor when using different cntainers, to define distinguishing features, and to design the classifier so that it can successfully classify the containers based on the characteristics.").
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein evaluating the first measurement data and the second measurement data together using the evaluation unit with the evaluation method working on the basis of artificial intelligence to form output data comprises: combining the first measurement data and the second measurement data to form common input data for the evaluation unit, and evaluating the common input data the evaluation unit with the evaluation method working on the basis of artificial intelligence to form the output data (Lelkes para. [0014]: "at least one sensor…the signals of the detection sensor be evaluated by at least one classifier.").
8. The method according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation method working on the basis of artificial intelligence is trained with training data sets (Lelkes para. [0017]: "The developer can instead train the machine learning classifier with different containers, and the classifier itself learns to classify the various containers.") .
9. The method according to claim 8, wherein forming the training datasets comprises:
recording first training measurement data of a training container with the first inspection unit;
recording second training measurement data of a training container with the second inspection unit; and
combining the first training measurement data and the second training measurement data to form one of the training data sets (Lelkes para. [0019]: "The learning algorithm here needs to learn from the signals of the recognition sensor").
10. The device for inspection containers for carrying out the method according to claim 1, with
a transporter for transporting the containers as a container mass flow (para. [0002]),
a first inspection unit to record the containers as first measurement data, and
a second inspection unit to record the containers as second measurement data (para. [0002]),
wherein
an evaluation unit is designed to evaluate the first measurement data and the second measurement data together with an evaluation method working on the basis of artificial intelligence to form output data in order to determine an inspection result from the output data (see the discussion above for claim 1).
11. The device according to claim 10, wherein the evaluation method working on the basis of artificial intelligence comprises a deep neural network in order to evaluate the first measurement data and the second measurement data together with the deep neural network (Claim 11 does not serve to structurally distinguished as discussed above in the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In addition, see Lelkes para. [0021]: "the so-called ‘deep learning’ method").
12. The device according to claim 10, wherein the first inspection unit comprises a first sensor and the second inspection unit comprises a different second sensor (Lelkes para. [0015]: "It is also possible to use a combination of several sensors based either on the same or different physical effects").
13. The device according to claim 12, wherein the second sensor is designed to record the containers with a measurement method that is different from that of the first sensor (Lelkes para. [0015]: "It is also possible to use a combination of several sensors based either on the same or different physical effects").
14. The method according to claim 1, wherein the inspection result comprises a fill level (Lelkes para. [0040]: "In addition to container detection, the system of the present invention can also be trained to detect fault conditions. The status ‘coffee has overflowed’ can, for example, be detected.”).
15. The device according to claim 10, wherein the inspection result comprises a fill level (Claim 15 does not serve to structurally distinguished as discussed above in the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In addition, see Lelkes para. [0040]: "In addition to container detection, the system of the present invention can also be trained to detect fault conditions. The status ‘coffee has overflowed’ can, for example, be detected.”).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-13 and 15 of copending Application No. 17/996,588 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are broader than the claims of the reference application. The reference application determines a fill level of a container whereas claim 1 recites a broader nonce "inspection result." The reference application recites a sensor unit whereas claim 1 recites a broader nonce "inspection unit."
Claim 1 of the Application
Claim 1 of the reference application
A method for inspecting containers, comprising:
A method of checking a fill level of containers
transporting the containers as a container mass flow with a transporter;
wherein the containers are transported by a transporter as a container mass flow
recording first measurement data of the containers using a first inspection unit;
measurement data of the containers are captured by a sensor unit
recording second measurement data of the containers using a second inspection unit; wherein the first and second measurement data are recorded while the containers are transported as the container mass flow with the transporter;
wherein the sensor unit comprises different sensors, each operating with a different measurement method, wherein the containers are captured as the measurement data by the different sensors,
evaluating the first measurement data and the second measurement data together using an evaluation unit with an evaluation method working on the basis of artificial intelligence to form output data; and
wherein the measurement data are evaluated by an evaluation unit,… wherein the measurement data are evaluated by the evaluation unit using artificial intelligence so as to determine the fill level
determining an inspection result from the output data.
wherein the measurement data are evaluated by the evaluation unit…so as to determine the fill level
Claim 2 corresponds to claim 2 of the reference application.
Claim 3 corresponds to claim 3 of the reference application.
Claims 4 and 5 correspond to " wherein the sensor unit comprises different sensors" in claim 1 of the reference application.
Claim 6, 8, and 9 correspond to claim 1 of the reference application.
Claim 10 corresponds to claim 11 of the reference application.
Claim 11 corresponds to claim 11 of the reference application.
Claim 12 corresponds to claim 11 of the reference application.
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 11 of the reference application.
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 1 of the reference application.
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 11 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-13 of copending Application No. 17/997,010 (reference application) in view of Lelkes. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application does not recite a second inspection unit; however a second inspection unit is obvious in view of Lelkes. Lelkes shows a second inspection unit as discussed for claim 1 above and it would have been obvious to use a second inspection unit in order to produce a redundant measurement to validate or supplement the measurement of the first inspection unit.
Application 17/997,012
Application 17/997,010
1. A method for inspecting containers, comprising:
1. A method for optically inspecting containers in a drinks processing system,
transporting the containers as a container mass flow with a transporter;
wherein the containers are transported by a transporter as a container mass flow and
recording first measurement data of the containers using a first inspection unit;
are captured as camera images by an inspection unit arranged in the drinks processing system,
wherein the first measurement data
a second evaluation unit with an image processing method
evaluating the first measurement data and and
operating on the basis of artificial intelligence is trained on site with the specific training data set
in order to determine an inspection result from the output data.
wherein the camera images with faulty containers are classified as fault images and the faults are correspondingly assigned to the fault images as fault markings,
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,216,062 in view of Lelkes.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference patent does not recite a second inspection unit; however a second inspection unit is obvious in view of Lelkes. Lelkes shows a second inspection unit as discussed for claim 1 above and it would have been obvious to use a second inspection unit in order to produce a redundant measurement to validate or supplement the measurement of the first inspection unit. The dependent claims are also obvious in view of Lelkes.
Application 17/997,012
U.S. Patent No. 12,216,062
1. A method for inspecting containers, comprising:
9. A method for inspecting a non-transparent and reflective can,
transporting the containers as a container mass flow with a transporter;
wherein a transport device transports the containers along a predetermined transport path
recording first measurement data of the containers using a first inspection unit;
an image recording device records at least one spatially resolved image of the inner base wall
evaluating the first measurement data and and
with an evaluation method working on the basis of artificial intelligence to form output data
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 17/997,350 (reference application) in view of Lelkes. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are broader except for the recitation of a transporter and a second inspection unit. Lelkes shows a second inspection unit as discussed for claim 1 above and it would have been obvious to use a second inspection unit in order to produce a redundant measurement to validate or supplement the measurement of the first inspection unit. Official notice is taken that transporters were well known and it would have been obvious to use a transporter in the beverage processing industry in order to move the containers to different processing areas.
Application 17/997,012
Application No. 17/997,350
1. A method for inspecting containers, comprising:
8. A method comprising monitoring the operation of a container treatment machine for treating containers
transporting the containers as a container mass flow with a transporter;
in the beverage processing industry, (transporters are obvious in the industry)
recording first measurement data of the containers using a first inspection unit;
at least one component outputting to the control unit data relating to its operating state and/or the operating state of the container treatment machine,
" at least one component" includes a second
with an evaluation method working on the basis of artificial intelligence to form output data
neural network configured and trained to determine, based on the data,
in order to determine an inspection result from the output data.
whether a deviation of the operating state of the container treatment machine from a normal state is present and/or imminent.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,867,045 in view of Lelkes.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference patent does not recite an evaluation unit based on artificial intelligence; however the use of artificial intelligence was well known and it would have been obvious to use artificial intelligence in order to improve the evaluation of the signals. The dependent claims are also obvious in view of Lelkes.
Application 17/997,012
U.S. Patent No. 8,867,045
1. A method for inspecting containers, comprising:
1. Triggering light grid for at least one of registering the position of containers or checking their alignment
transporting the containers with a transporter as a container mass flow;
on a conveyance path; the transport direction of the containers (claim 9)
recording first measurement data of the containers using a first inspection unit;
with: a plurality of light barriers provided at different height levels with respect to the conveyance path, wherein these light barriers can be activated and read out selectively and separately from one another
a triggering unit for generating control signals on the basis of output signals of the light barriers, the triggering unit being formed to selectively evaluate the output signals of the read out light barriers
evaluating the first measurement data and and
evaluate the output signals
in order to determine an inspection result from the output data.
registering the position of containers or checking their alignment
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 Iacolleti 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