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). The Examiner agrees that transporter and inspection unit do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The "evaluation unit" is still being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because sufficient structure is not recited. Although the newly added structure of "processor" and "memory unit" may be structure, these are not found to be sufficient structure to perform their stated functions. "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). As a noted in Applicant's statement of January 28, 2026, the "evaluation unit" requires the appropriate software/programming so that it can perform the specialized function as claimed. Currently the recited structure are directed to generic computer components.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(d)
Applicant's arguments are found persuasive and the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicant’s arguments that the evaluation unit must be a part of the claimed device because the claimed device must carry out the method according to claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the device must carry out the method of claim 1. There is no requirement in claim 10 that the device must carry out every step of claim 1. The preamble of claim 10 states the device is "for inspection containers for carrying out the method according to claim 1." The use of "for" is a statement of purpose/intent and it is reasonable to interpret claim 10 as being directed to a device for performing some, but not all the steps found in claim 1. For instance, the device of claim 10 may intended to be used in conjunction with another but different device, and together, perform the method of claim 1.
Double Patenting
Applicant's intention to file a terminal disclaimer at a later time is acknowledged.
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:
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 § 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) 1-6 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolb (US 2014/0299445)
Kolb shows the following:
1. A method for inspecting containers, comprising:
transporting the containers as a container mass flow with a transporter, wherein the transporter comprises a carousel and/or a conveyor (Para. [0029]: "The containers 2 move along a conveying path 5");
recording first measurement data of the containers using a first inspection unit comprising a first sensor (Para. [0034]: "different image data of one and the same feature 2a are thus created by the cameras 7.1 and 7.2. ");
recording second measurement data of the containers using a second inspection unit comprising a second sensor (Para. [0034]: "different image data of one and the same feature 2a are thus created by the cameras 7.1 and 7.2."); wherein the first and second measurement data are recorded while the containers are transported as the container mass flow with the transporter;
evaluating the first measurement data and the second measurement data together using an evaluation unit with an evaluation method working on the basis of (Para. [0037]: "The different views of the containers 2 recorded by the cameras 7.1 and 7.2 are combined by the evaluation unit 9"),
determining an inspection result from the output data (Abstract: "an evaluation unit, which is capable of determining the position and/or the rotary position of at least one feature of the surface of containers to be aligned");
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 (See connection between cameras 7.1 and 7.2 and evaluation unit 9; Para. [0037]: "The different views of the containers 2 recorded by the cameras 7.1 and 7.2 are combined by the evaluation unit 9"), and
evaluating the common input data by the evaluation unit with the evaluation method working on the basis of (Para. [0037]: " The different views of the containers 2 recorded by the cameras 7.1 and 7.2 are combined by the evaluation unit 9 so as to obtain preferably a virtual view of the container 2." Abstract: "an evaluation unit, which is capable of determining the position and/or the rotary position of at least one feature of the surface of containers to be aligned").
Kolb shows features, e.g. a seam (para. [0030]), is identified in the images but does not show the use of artificial intelligence to identify the features and form the output data. Official notice is taken that the use of deep learning artificial intelligence trained with training data to identify features in an image was well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use artificial intelligence to identify the features in the images of Kolb in order to quickly and accurately identify the features.
Kolb does not show that the evaluation unit 9 comprises a processor and a memory unit. Official notice is taken that processors and memory units were well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a processor and memory unit in order to execute the image processing and store the images for later recall.
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 (see discussion for claim 1 above).
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first inspection unit and/or the second inspection unit comprises at least one camera (see discussion for claim 1 above).
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 (different cameras at different angles).
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 (each are different cameras).
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 (Para. [0037]-[0039]).
8. The method according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation method working on the basis of artificial intelligence is trained with training data sets (see discussion for claim 1 above).
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.
(Kolb shows all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above, but does not show how the training data is obtained. Official notice is taken that using cameras to obtain training data with training objects was well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use the cameras to take images of training containers in order to obtain training data for training the artificial intelligence.)
10. A 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, wherein the transporter comprises a carousel and/or a conveyor,
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,
wherein the first inspection unit comprises a first sensor and the second inspection unit comprises a second sensor, and wherein the first and second measurement data can be recorded while the containers are transported as the container mass flow with the transporter,
wherein an evaluation unit comprising a processor and a memory 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, and
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 by the evaluation unit with the evaluation method working on the basis of artificial intelligence to form the output data. (See discussion of claim 1 above. Please also see the alternative rejection of claim 10 below).
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 (See discussion of claim 1).
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 (See discussion of claim 5).
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 (different cameras at different angles).
15. The device according to claim 10, wherein the inspection result comprises a fill level.
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, wherein the transporter comprises a carousel and/or a conveyer (para. [0002] above; See conveyor of Fig. 1 in DE 10 2010 004972),
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 wherein the first inspection unit comprises a first sensor and the second inspection unit comprises a second sensor (para. [0002]), and
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 in the prior Office actions of 10/28/2025 (p. 4) and 02/19/2026, 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 preamble of claim 10 is "A device for inspection containers for carrying out the method according to claim 1." There is no requirement that the device of claim 1 perform all the steps of claim 1 alone. Claim 10's referral to method claim 1 in the preamble is a statement of the intended use of the device.
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 § 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 10-13 and 15 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.
Claims 10-13 and 15 are drawn to the structure of a device ("A device for inspection containers…") and also recites method steps ("evaluating the first measurement data and the second measurement data using the evaluation unit…"). A single claim that recites both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
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." As to the combining, it would have been obvious to combine the data for supplementing or redundancy.
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 transporter comprises a carousel and/or a conveyor;
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 comprising a first sensor;
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 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:
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 transporter comprises a carousel and/or a conveyor;
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 comprising a first sensor;
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 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 by the evaluation unit with the evaluation method working on the basis of
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 by combining with the second. 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 the transporter comprises a carousel and/or a conveyor;
wherein a transport device transports the containers along a predetermined transport path
recording first measurement data of the containers using a first inspection unit comprising a first sensor;
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
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 by the evaluation unit with the evaluation method working on the basis of
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 conveyors/transporters were well known and it would have been obvious to use a onveyor/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, wherein the transporter comprises a carousel and/or a conveyor;
in the beverage processing industry, (transporters are obvious in the industry)
recording first measurement data of the containers using a first inspection unit comprising a first sensor;
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 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 by the evaluation unit with the evaluation method working on the basis of
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, wherein the transporter comprises a carousel and/or a conveyor;
on a conveyance path; the transport direction of the containers (claim 9)
recording first measurement data of the containers using a first inspection unit comprising a first sensor;
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
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 by the evaluation unit with the evaluation method working on the basis of
registering the position of containers or checking their alignment
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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights