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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, and 5-41 are pending, claims 2, 4, and 42-122 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims in the Response of 1/02/2026 is entered. Claims 5-6, 10-15 and 28 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. The amendments to the claims overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of these claims, and thus the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
35 USC 101 Arguments
Applicant argues that the claims do not automate a mental process. Examiner disagrees.
It is noted that the abstract ideas that trigger 101 subject matter eligibility do not need to only comprise a single type of abstract idea, for instance the abstract idea exceptions may comprise mental processes and mathematical concepts.
Applicant attacks the assertion that the claims are directed towards an abstract idea because the “limitation go beyond mere observation by requiring specific quantitative determinations about the physical characteristics of the detected defects.” Response, pg 8 last line of the last full paragraph. Applicant further argues that because the controller is configured to determine the location of the defect in a manufactured consumable, this is “a meaningful constraint”, presumably on the abstract idea and asserts that this is not taught in the cited prior art, Response pg 9 lines 1-4. Applicant argues that the improvements are to the manufacturing technology itself rather than merely claiming an abstract idea applied to a generally claimed manufacturing process, Response pg 9 paragraphs 2-3.
Applicant argues that because the operation happens at manufacturing speeds, no human could mentally track where the defect will be located in a consumable, Response pg 10, 3rd full paragraph. Applicant argues that to form the consumable, the sheet is cut, gathered, and wrapped at manufacturing speeds, Id., presumably arguing that the defect could not be followed by observation. Applicant misunderstands what process is being automated. Examiner asserts, the process being automated is quality control and defect identification, in both the raw material and the final product consumable based on the detection in the raw material. Examiner disagrees that a human could not perform the abstract ideas as a mental process.
A human could observe the defect and location of the defect by using information provided by the sensor to detect the both the defect and the defect’s location in a product. To the extent that quantification of the defect is required, there is no evidence that the parameters of the defect could not be reasonably be determined by human observation. A sensor detecting and displaying a scaled image of a defect would readily convey this information to a human, which would be readily observable and measurable.
A human, understanding the manufacturing process speed and the manufacturing process, could determine when that defect will be outputted into a consumable, based on the predictable timing of the defect passing through the manufacturing apparatus. A human could predict where the defect would be located in the consumable, based on identified location of the defect in the raw material, and the predictable output of the defect detected at a specific location in the raw material into a specific location in the consumable. Using sensors to observe the presence of a defect at a particular time and location on a raw material, observing the passage of time after the identification of a particular defect at a particular location in a raw material, and correlating the output of that defect to a specific consumable and location within the consumable is a mental process that could be conducted within the human mind, and which the invention seeks to automate.
In particular, using sensors to record defects in a web, encoding the recorded images of those defects, and synchronizing the movement of the web captured to the images in the recordings is within the ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Dalmia et al. (US 6,259,109 B1), ([col 1 lines 39-42]), first cited to Applicant in the Non-Final Rejection of 04/16/2025. Martins explicitly discloses a similar function and technique. “A computer system may comprise one or more algorithms for interpreting imaging data to determine the presence of defects or substandard materials or products in a manufactured material or product.”([0122]). The use of Dalmia was not considered necessary to convey this limitation in the Final rejection of 10/01/2025, nor is it necessary in this rejection either. Applicant does not, anywhere at all in their application, instruct one of ordinary skill in the art, how to specifically implement this function. The implementation is disclosed as within the ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Dalmia, as understood by a fair reading of Martins, and further evidenced by the omission in the present Specification specifically how to configure the controller to perform this task (the task being understood to be mere observation and whatever mathematical calculation may be required to predict the defect output into a particular location of the consumable), further supporting a finding that the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application, compare with 2019 PEG Example 45, showing a way where the abstract idea is integrated into the apparatus (Note: the claims of Example 45 where integration was found, the integration of the abstract idea went beyond observation).
Applicant just instructs one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller to do it. This is considered to language that is similar to instructions to “apply it”, which has been found to not meaningfully limit a claim in an eligibility rejection, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant further argues that because the controller is configured to determine the location of the defect in a manufactured consumable, this is “a meaningful constraint” and asserts that this is not taught in the cited prior art, Response pg 9 lines 1-4. Applicant argues that the improvements are to the manufacturing technology itself rather than merely claiming an abstract idea applied to a generally claimed manufacturing process, Response pg 9 paragraphs 2-3. Examiner disagrees.
Determining the location of the defect is prediction (inherently involving mathematical calculation) based on mere observation. There is no integration. Applicant argument amounts to an argument that field of use provides a meaningful constraint. It does not. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Martins was found to teach locating a defect from a material used in a manufacturing process to a location within a product, ([0122]). “A computer system may comprise one or more algorithms for interpreting imaging data to determine the presence of defects or substandard materials or products in a manufactured material or product.”([0122]). Applicant and Examiner understand this paragraph differently. Examiner reasonably believes that by determining the location of the defect to be within a manufactured product, the location of the defect in the product is reasonably disclosed. The claim does not, for instance, require encoding the defect detected by the sensor such that the defect location within a product can be determined to within 1 mm of its actual location. There also isn’t any disclosure in the Specification regarding how to accomplish locating the defect with such precision. Nor is there such disclosure regarding determining the location of the defect in an axial location of the consumable, see claim 3.
To the extent such techniques are required to enable the invention, they must be found within the ordinary skill in the art. Dalmia reasonably evidences that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of “applying” the abstract idea claimed by Applicant, despite this lack of disclosure.
Courts have indicated that the “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology, MPEP 2106.05(a) II. Improvements to Any Other Technology or Technical Field, Example iii. (under the examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology).
Here the claims amount to the routine gathering and analyzing of information regarding the defects in the raw materials by using sensors and a processor to gather and analyze defect data, to predicatively identify the location of defects in the products produced by a manufacturing process. This is insufficient to show an improvement to technology upon which subject matter eligibility may be found.
Applicant argues that the “claimed apparatus satisfies the ‘particular machine’ consideration under 2106.05(b) as illustrated in Example 44 (Denveric Acid), Claim 2.” It is noted that Example 44 does not appear in the MPEP but is rather part of Appendix I to the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples, (2019 PEG). When utilizing the guidance, it is important that the examples chosen are reasonably aligned with the issues presented by an application’s claims. To that end, 2019 PEG includes an issue spotting chart, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
492
1046
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant has chosen to argue Example 44, which contains an abstract idea directed to a product of nature. Applicant has not claimed a product of nature. Applicant’s reliance on this example is odd. In Example 44, the particular machine consideration was performed on the device implementing the product of nature. The delivery device recited specifically identified components, which were claimed in a particular orientation, and the delivery device was an integral part of the claim, which controlled the delivery of the natural product, making the integration of the abstract idea more than just a field of use limitation or other insignificant limitation. The delivery device was found to be a particular device that integrated the product of nature exception into a practical application. In the present claims, Applicants have not provided the additional limitations in more than generic detail. The additional limitations have nothing to do with the detection and determination of the location of the defects or the parameters of the defects. It is noted that while the application of a judicial example by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility, MPEP 2106.05(b) Particular Machine. Examiner’s revised 101 will include a comparative analysis of the more analogous example 45 for Applicant’s benefit. Applicant’s reliance on Example 44 is misplaced.
Applicant arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections are not persuasive, and the claimed subject matter is rejected as being subject matter ineligible under 35 USC 101 as further described in the rejection below.
35 USC 103 Arguments
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, Applicant argues that Martins does not teach determining defect location within a product formed by a manufacturing process as required by former claim 2, now amended into claim 1.
As discussed above, Martins was found to teach locating a defect from a material used in a manufacturing process to a location within a product, ([0122]). “A computer system may comprise one or more algorithms for interpreting imaging data to determine the presence of defects or substandard materials or products in a manufactured material or product.” ([0122]). Martins thus teaches a system where detected defects in the raw materials are tracked through a manufacturing process to their eventual location within a product. This meets the broadest reasonable limitation required by the claim.
Examiner agrees that Martins does not explicitly teach how to determine the axial position of a defect within a product produced by a manufacturing process. It is noted, neither does Applicant provide such teaching.
Rather, Applicant instructs one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller to do it, stating the “dimensions and position of the defect in the sheet 3 can be extrapolated to determine the dimensions and position of the defect within the formed for. For example, the axial location of the defect 6 along the rod 8 can be determined.”
This is understood to be identical to the methodology taught by Martins, which provides a similar level of detail. “A computer system may be configured to receive data from an imaging unit and interpret the data to identify and/or quantify the incidents of defects during a manufacturing process, and a computer system may comprise one or more algorithms for interpreting imaging data to determine the presence of defects or substandard materials or products in a manufactured material or product.” ([0122]). This is understood to teach extrapolating location of a defect in a manufactured product from the location of a detected defects in a raw material. The rejection of claim 3 explained that locating the axial location of the defect in the consumable was also obvious.
Applicant and Examiner disagree on the teachings of Martins, and what one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious in light of those teachings. It is unclear what Examiner may do to reconcile Applicant’s misunderstandings regarding the modification of the Pryor reference with the Martins reference.
In particular, Applicant does not appear to fully consider that Martins is modifying the base reference of Pryor, and instead argues against each reference individually, rather than what would be obvious based on their combined teachings.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Martins reasonably teaches tracking and determining the location of a defect in a product formed from a material sheet where a defect has been detected, ([0122]). This discloses determining the location of the defect to be within the product.
Pryor discloses a feeding apparatus for receiving a sheet of aerosol-generating material and configured to supply the sheet of aerosol-generating material along a conveyance path, ([col 5 lines 21-24], [col 5 lines 35-56]; Fig 1; the feeding apparatus comprises a bobbin receiving mechanism for feeding a sheet of aerosol generating material from a bobbin); and
a consumable forming apparatus configured to receive the sheet of aerosol generating material and form the sheet of aerosol-generating material into a consumable, ([col 5 lines 21-34], [col 5 line 57- col line 68], Fig 1; the consumable forming apparatus comprises a strand forming apparatus, which includes a cutting apparatus that cuts the sheet of aerosol generating material into strands, as well as a gathering apparatus that gathers the strands of aerosol generating material, and forms the gathered strands/strips into a continuous rod, which is subdivided into a plurality of rods). Thus, Pryor discloses an apparatus that forms two products, a discreet rod cut from the continuous rod, and an intermediate product in the form of the continuous rod.
Martins doesn’t teach that the defect is found in the product based on direct detection by a sensor. It uses the defect detection algorithm to do so, and uses the algorithm to identify the unusable, unsellable, or otherwise compromised material or product obtained from a manufacturing process. As applied to Pryor, this would require predicting where the defects were in an axial location within the continuous rod (a product of Pryor) produced by the apparatus of Pryor, to determine which of the discreet rods cut (also products of Pryor) contain defects. The references must be considered together, to understand the rejection. The limitations requiring determining the location of a defect, including determining the axial location of a defect are found obvious by the combination of references.
Applicant argues that the Office provides no evidence that the determination of the location of a defect in a consumable would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, pg 12 last full paragraph. The rationale to modify or combine prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art, the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established by scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law, MPEP 2144 I. Rationale May Be In A Reference, or Reasoned from Common Knowledge In The Art, Scientific Principles, Art-Recognized Equivalents, Or Legal Precedent. Consider the rejection of claim 3 from the Final Office Action of 10/01/2025:
PNG
media_image2.png
600
1269
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner found it would be obvious to modify Pryor with Martins to reject claims 1-2, but that Martins did not particularly teach identifying the axial location of a defect in a product, where the defect from the material sheet was manufactured into a consumable. Examiner then found that such a further modification of Pryor to include this function was obvious based on the teachings of Martins as they would relate to product formed by the apparatus of modified Pryor. The obviousness rationale reproduced above underpins the finding of obviousness. Applicant argues that the cited art does not contain the reasoning, but KSR discarded the requirement that the teaching, suggestion, and motivation must come from cited references.
To help Applicant’s understanding of the rejection, Examiner reminds Applicant of the disclosure in Dalmia, which teaches imaging the web, an encoder for synchronizing movements of the web with the video, Dalmia ([col 1 lines 37-45]). Tracking a defect identified in an image with the movement of that defect on the web through the manufacturing process, which would include its eventual particularized location within a product, including its axial location, was known to one of ordinary skill in the art, and considered so well understood that neither Applicant nor Martins considered it necessary to explain the process of encoding, which allows following a defect detected in a raw material through a manufacturing process to determine its location in a product made from that manufacturing process.
Applicant makes the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine various defect detection means and methodology, to identify and remove defective products from production automatically. As Examiner has previously stated, quality control precedes Applicant’s filing date. It would be obvious to incorporate existing defect detection apparatus to improve product quality and allow for the automatic inspection and removal of defective consumables. Automating a manual activity is a valid rationale (based on legal precedent) and motivation for modifying a reference, MPEP 2144.04 III. Automating A Manual Activity.
The modification to the apparatus of Pryor allows one of ordinary skill to detect the location of a defect in a material sheet, track its location in a consumable formed from the material sheet, and determine an action to take regarding the resulting cut consumable. This replaces manually inspecting every consumable produced by a process for defects that were detected and known to be in the material sheet. Automating this quality control operation is obvious, and the motivation is based on legal precedent which has found that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to automate a manual activity.
Applicant further argues that Martins does not teach tracking raw materials through a multi-stage manufacturing process and that there is no reason to track defects because they (the defects) would be excised prior to product manufacture, Response pg 12 last 2 lines. Martins teaches that the defect may be tracked through a manufacturing process and the location of the defect determined to be within a manufactured product, ([0122]). The teachings of Martins do not require the removal of every defect from a manufacturing raw material before the raw materials are used to manufacture products. There is simply no such teaching in Martins. Martins contemplates that manufacturing raw materials may have defects, and these defects may be present in the products produced from those raw materials. Applicant arguments that Martins requires that the defects in raw materials must be removed finds no support in the reference.
Applicant makes many assertions with regard to Martins, Response pg 13-14 reproduced below:
PNG
media_image3.png
166
654
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
469
644
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant is reading Martins too narrowly and is ignoring the plain words describing the capability taught by Martins. Martins absolutely teaches detection of defects in material sheets. Examiner thanks Applicant for that admission, Remarks pg 14 3rd full paragraph. It is unclear why Applicant, having read paragraph ([0122]), does not also understand Martins contemplates identifying detected defects from the material sheet in a product formed from the material sheet.
Reviewing Martins, and in particular ([0122]), the following findings are made:
The system of Martins is capable of detecting and/or quantifying the incidence of defects during a manufacturing process, Applicant admission, Pg 14 3rd full paragraph and also “A computer system may be configured to receive data (e.g., 1D or 2D images) from an imaging unit and interpret the data to identify and/or quantify the incidence of defects during a manufacturing process.” ([0122]).
Martins continues: “A computer system may comprise one or more algorithms for interpreting imaging data to determine the presence of defects or substandard materials or products in a manufactured material or product.” ([0122] indicating that the algorithm may be used to detect the presence of a defect in a manufactured material or product).
Martins teaches “the defect detection algorithm or quality control algorithm may identify an unusable, unsellable, or otherwise compromised material or product obtained from a manufacturing process.” ([0122]).
Simply put, it is found that the computer algorithm as contemplated by Martins is capable of determining where defects from a raw material will land in a manufactured product, where the algorithm uses image data that comprises defects in the raw material.
“A material or product may be discarded, repaired, or reprocessed based upon the identification of one or more defects or substandard quality by a defect detection algorithm or quality control algorithm.” ([0122]). These teachings from Martins recognizes using a defect detection system that includes the advantages discussed by Applicant argument 1, 3-4 from above.
Examiner provided a reasonable rationale to modify the defect detection system further to include determining the axial location of defects in a consumable made from a material sheet comprising defects. This modification was supported by a reasoned statement regarding the obviousness rationale. There is no requirement that such a rationale be contained within a reference. In this case it is supported by legal precedent, MPEP 2144.04 III. Automating A Manual Activity, where failure to determine the location of a defect in a consumable would result in manual inspection of all the consumables produced to find the defective consumables. The modification automates the task of finding the defect in the consumables produced from raw materials containing defects.
Applicant asserts that the rejection of record can only be made based upon impermissible hindsight reasoning, Response pg 14 2nd to last full paragraph, and asserts that Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s disclosure to fill in gaps in the prior art. Applicant asserts that Examiner has not provided an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support a conclusion of obviousness under KSR.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, 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).
The cited references disclose the claimed limitations and/or render them obvious and the cited references predate Applicant’s earliest claim of priority. Quality control precedes also predates Applicant’s earliest claim of priority. It would be obvious to incorporate existing defect detection apparatus to improve quality and automate the quality control process. Automation is a recognized supporting source of supporting rationale, MPEP 2144.04 III. Automating a Manual Activity. Further modifying the apparatus to determine the axial location of a defect in a continuous rod of consumable produced by the process, where the process further produces individual consumables by cutting the continuous rod into discreet lengths, and where the disclosure teaches that the defect may be identified in the product, necessarily renders obvious locating the defect in the axial length of the continuous rod.
As stated in the rejection of record, it is considered obvious to further identify the location of the defect in the final product to the greatest extent possible, to further automate and facilitate automating what action to take regarding that product, such as discarding, repairing, or reprocessing the product.
All of Applicant arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea comprising mental processes that include observation and judgment based on the observation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract ideas are not incorporated into a sufficiently particular machine and only comprises additional limitations that are well understood, conventional, and routine. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are not only well understood, conventional, and routine, but the additional elements are integrated together with the elements associated with the abstract ideas in a manner that is also well understood, conventional, and routine.
The abstract ideas of claim 1 are considered a sensor configured to detect information indicative of defects in the sheet of aerosol generating material as the sheet of aerosol-generating material passes along the conveyance path; and a controller configured to determine the presence of a defect in the sheet of aerosol generating material based on the information detected by the sensor.
It is found that claim 1 and all dependent claims are directed towards an apparatus, which is a statutory class of patent eligible subject matter. MPEP 2106.03 I. (An apparatus is considered a machine.) However, these claims are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea - observation/judgment) such that the further analysis of subject matter eligibility of claim 1 is required.
When viewed as a whole, the claims are directed towards a controller determining (a controller making a judgement) the presence of a defect in a sheet of aerosol generating material and determining the location of the defect in a product based on information regarding the defect. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. Mental Processes (“examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
The abstract idea is considered the idea of improving quality control for a product by monitoring a raw material fed into a production apparatus for defects, determining whether the raw material has defects, and automating the process of determining the location of the defects in a product produced by the apparatus.
Claim 1 (and all claims depending on claim 1) recite an abstract idea, a controller making a judgement, which is a mental process that could be performed in the human mind but for the recitation of a sensor and controller. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C. (A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process.) Because the claims are directed to the concept of defect detection and defect location (including later claims where the abstract idea further includes characterizing the defect) and this evaluation can be done in a human mind, the claims are directed to abstract ideas that can be performed by humans without a computer. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.
The claim is found to not recite additional elements sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Here, the basic additional elements recited include a feeding apparatus for receiving a sheet and supplying the sheet along a conveyance path and a consumable forming apparatus configured to receive the sheet and form the sheet into a consumable.
Although the abstract idea is presented as part of an apparatus that produces a consumable aerosol generating article, these elements only provide a general-purpose apparatus comprising, “a feeding apparatus” and “a consumable forming apparatus”, which is not sufficient to apply the judicial exception to a particular machine.
The additional elements recited by the claims do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception because the components are just general-purpose components of an apparatus for producing aerosol generating articles. Integrating a judicial exception into a practical application has only been found by courts when implemented in conjunction with a particular machine, MPEP 2106.04(d) I.
Consideration of whether the judicial exception has been integrated into a particular machine requires the evaluation of several relevant factors including “the particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus”, whether the machine or apparatus implements the steps of the method”, “whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field of use”. MPEP 2106.05(b). (Also noting “that while the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility.”)
Where integration of the judicial exception has been found, the additional elements of the claim have been such that the elements were not general limitations but rather were particular in nature (a claim integrating an abstract idea held to be patent eligible recited additional limitations including “the particular type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. 306 U.S. at 95-96; 40 USPQ at 203.”
Another example where courts found integration of the abstract idea was in Eibel Process, in which gravity (a law of nature or natural phenomenon) was applied by a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web. Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923).”),
Here, the additional limitations of the claims are not integrated into an apparatus in a way sufficient to support a finding that the judicial exception is integrated into a particular apparatus because the additional limitations are directed to the production of aerosol generating consumables generally, rather than a particularized apparatus for the same.
It is further noted that the additional limitations do not implement the abstract idea (there is no involvement of the additional limitations in performing the abstract idea). Consider 2019 PEG, Example 45 pg 18-29, especially with respect to claim 3 found on page 20, and the analysis related to this claim found on page 25. The analysis is similar through step 2A prong one. However, in example 45 the additional elements recited in the claim are evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. In example 45, the inclusion of the ARCY thermocouple that repeatedly measured the temperature of the mold was considered enough. Much like the sensor and controller in the those claims, imaging is repeatedly done on the moving web. The current claims use the controller to determine parameters from the images, much like the processor of example 45 determines the extent of cure completion based on temperatures read by the sensors and calculations done by the processor. The limitation of the particular detail regarding the ARCXY thermocouple does not alter the performance of the claimed limitations. Neither do the additional limitations contained in Applicant claims and Specification.
This determination precludes the claimed apparatus comprising these additional limitations from being a particular machine, and the additional limitations are extra-solution activity amount to extra solution activity, and are also considered field of use limitation (detection of defects in an aerosol generating article raw material as opposed to defects in a raw material used in a general manufacturing process). The configuring the controller to perform the functions that comprise the abstract idea still amounts to mere instructions to “apply it”, which has been found to not meaningfully limit a claim in an eligibility rejection, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Another consideration of whether the additional limitations amount to significantly more, are whether the additional elements are well understood, routine, and conventional, previously known to the industry. MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity. Here all of the limitations of claims 21-28, 30-37, and 41 are routine within the aerosol consumable manufacturing industry. One way that a limitation is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional is whether or not a lack of written description in the specification regarding the limitations would result in a 35 USC 112(a) rejection, when considering the limitations in light of the ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2106.05(d) I.2.
In the present specification each of the general limitations for the apparatus feeding and consumable forming process, including cutting, gathering, and wrapping are all only described in the present Specification generally. However, no 35 USC 112(a) description rejection related to these limitations was made because one of ordinary skill in the art would have the knowledge to understand these limitations despite the absence of significant description regarding these limitations in the present Specification.
Additionally, although citations to prior art are not required to make this finding, see MPEP 2106.05(d)I.2, support for such a finding may come from a citation to a publication that demonstrates the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional. Here support for this finding further evidenced by Pryor et al. (US 4,889,143) – which describes a rod forming process for the manufacture of cigarette rods or cigarette filter elements that comprises shredding strips of sheet like reconstituted tobacco material into strands, gathering the strands into a rod-like shape, and circumscribing them by paper wrap to form a continuous rod, and severing the rod at regular intervals to provide a plurality of rods of the desired length, ([Abstract]), it is further noted that the sheets may be sourced from rotatable bobbins, ([col 5 lines 35-40]). It is found that these limitations are all commonly used in the prior art, similarly to the way those limitations are claimed in claims 1, 30-37, and 41, and it is found that these limitations are well known, routine, and conventional in the tobacco arts.
Contrast these limitations and analysis with the limitation of the ARCXY thermocouple and the analysis in Example 45 of pg 26 of 2019 PEG. Because claim 3 was found to be a means plus function claim, and interpreted as requiring the specific ARCXY thermocouple claim 3 was considered allowable because the Specification and a review of the prior art made clear, use of the ARCXY thermocouple in injection molding apparatus was not considered routine or conventional.
Examiner has reviewed the claims and Specification for limitations that if claimed would not be considered routine and conventional. None were found.
Claims 2-3, 5-20, 29, 31, 38-39, and 40 are directed to further aspects of the abstract idea and/or do not add additional limitations related to the apparatus.
Claims 21-28 include additional limitations regarding the apparatus, but are still considered insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into the apparatus in a manner sufficient to support patent eligibility, because these limitations are considered well known, routine and conventional, when considering these limitations as part of an obvious modification of the apparatus of Pryor to further comprise structures to detect defects in a sheet of aerosol material used in the apparatus of Pryor. Such limitations may be found in Martins Loureiro et al. (US 2023/0021315 A1) (Martins), which teaches a web inspection system for analysis of a moving web of material, which includes a camera for imaging the web, a light assembly, and is capable of detecting faults or features of the web as well as categorizing the faults or features detected, see the rejections below.
Based on the references, all of the additional apparatus limitations in any of the claimed combinations are also found to be well known, routine, and conventional. Thus, the claims as a whole are directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1,3, and 5-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor et al. (US 4,889,143), in view Martins Loureiro et al. (US 2023/0021315 A1) (Martins).
Regarding claim 1, 3, 29, and 41, Pryor discloses:
An apparatus for manufacturing a consumable, for an aerosol provision system, ([col 2 lines 6-10]), the apparatus comprising:
a feeding apparatus for receiving a sheet of aerosol-generating material and configured to supply the sheet of aerosol-generating material along a conveyance path, ([col 5 lines 21-24], [col 5 lines 35-56]; Fig 1; the feeding apparatus comprises a bobbin receiving mechanism for feeding a sheet of aerosol generating material from a bobbin); and
a consumable forming apparatus configured to receive the sheet of aerosol generating material and form the sheet of aerosol-generating material into a consumable, ([col 5 lines 21-34], [col 5 line 57- col line 68], Fig 1; the consumable forming apparatus comprises a strand forming apparatus, which includes a cutting apparatus that cuts the sheet of aerosol generating material into strands, as well as a gathering apparatus that gathers the strands of aerosol generating material, and forms the gathered strands/strips into a continuous rod, which is subdivided into a plurality of rods).
Pryor additionally discloses that the aerosol generating sheet used to form the consumable may have variable parameters such as an appearance, composition, and properties, ([col 3 lines 54-55]). Pryor discloses that the color or range of colors may be limited to those desired, ([col 3 lines 55-56]), that the sheet should have a minimum dry tensile strength, ([col 3 lines 58-62]), and that the sheet may be a nonwoven sheet comprising materials comprising wood, tobacco, grains, flax, other similar materials, and combinations thereof, ([col 3 lines 62-68]). Pryor further specifies many quality parameters for the sheet including composition, ([col 4 lines 1-28]), basis weight, ([col 4 lines 14-18]), moisture content, ([col 4 lines 18-27]), thickness, ([col 4 lines 28-39]), processing characteristics of the strand width, ([col 4 lines 40-63]), the total width of the sheet used is influenced by factors such as the thickness of the sheet like material, the number of strands desired, the nature or character of the strands produced, the surface character of the sheet, the porosity of the sheet, and other factors, ([col 4-5 lines 67-8]). Pryor explicitly indicates that some of these parameters have an impact on the quality of the consumables formed by the rod, ([col 4 lines 14-27] disclosing that moisture content for the sheet must be controlled to avoid shrinkage of the rods; [col 4 lines 48-54] disclosing that strand width may impact performance characteristics such as resistance to draw). It is reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art by Pryor that ensuring the sheet of aerosol generating material meets predetermined parameters is desirable because doing so would tend to limit variations in the consumables produced by the apparatus, and that where the sheet used to manufacture the consumables does not meet the predetermined parameters, the consumables produced from that sheet may not meet requirements for making smoking articles from those consumables.
Pryor does not disclose a sensor configured to detect information indicative of defects in the sheet of aerosol- generating material as the sheet of aerosol-generating material passes along the conveyance path, nor does Pryor disclose a controller configured to determine the presence of a defect in the sheet of aerosol generating material based on the information detected by the sensor, or that the controller is configured to determine one or more parameters of the defect and the parameters of the defect includes one or more of the: length, width, depth, the angle of the extent of the defect with respect to the direction of the conveyance path, the area of the defect, the density of the sheet, the thickness of the sheet or the porosity of the sheet.
Martins teaches detection systems to actively monitor the output from manufacturing equipment, including optical detection systems that are coupled to computer systems for defect detection, ([0004]), and is thus considered reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. Martins teaches a system comprising an imaging unit configured for use with a material fabrication machine useable to produce a material sheet, ([0006]). Martins teaches calibrating the imaging unit to target a region as the material sheet is produced by the material fabrication machine, and generate data corresponding to the image or video, ([0006]). Martin teaches that the system also comprises an image analysis unit in communication with the imaging unit, where the imaging unit comprises one or more processors that are individually or collectively configured to process the data to control quality or detect a presence of one or more defects on the material sheet substantially in real-time, as the material sheet is produced by the material fabrication machine, ([0006]). In some embodiments the material sheet comprises a net, web, or film, ([0018]), where the material sheet can be porous or non-porous, ([0019]). Martins further discloses that the optical detection systems are for quality control or identifying defects during the manufacturing of materials and products, and may be used for detecting defects arising from primary or secondary manufacturing processes, ([0077]), and that optical detection systems may be physically integrated within a manufacturing device to permit defect detection or quality control in real time during the material or product manufacturing process, ([0105]). Martins teaches that optical detection systems permit the detection of manufacturing defects over a broad length of scales and are capable of detecting defects not readily apparent to the human eye, ([0074]). Martins teaches that a quality control method measures one or more observable parameters, including length, width, depth, thickness, diameter, circumference, shape, color, density, weight, and strength, comparing the one or more parameters of a material or parameter to a known benchmark, or monitoring variance of the one or more parameters during a manufacturing process, ([0067]). Martins teaches that imaging systems may include porosity detection, ([0093]), and that optical detection systems may be utilized to identify defects or substandard quality in materials or products, and that defects may be characterized by defect: length, width, depth, thickness, diameter, area, and volume, ([0100]-[0101]), where the defect may include holes, cracks, fractures, pits, pores, depressions, tears, burns, stains, bends, breaks, domains of thinning, domains of thickening, stretches, compressions, bulges, deformations, discontinuities, missing substituents, blockages, occlusions, or unwanted inclusions, ([0101]), and that the characteristic dimensions of the defect may be determined by the system, ([0102]).
The system of Martins is capable of detecting and/or quantifying the incidence of defects during a manufacturing process, “A computer system may be configured to receive data (e.g., 1D or 2D images) from an imaging unit and interpret the data to identify and/or quantify the incidence of defects during a manufacturing process.” ([0122]). Martins teaches: “A computer system may comprise one or more algorithms for interpreting imaging data to determine the presence of defects or substandard materials or products in a manufactured material or product.” ([0122] indicating that the algorithm may be used to detect the presence of a defect in a manufactured material or product). Martins teaches “the defect detection algorithm or quality control algorithm may identify an unusable, unsellable, or otherwise compromised material or product obtained from a manufacturing process.” ([0122]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Pryor with the quality control system taught by Martins. Pryor discloses an apparatus for manufacturing a consumable from a sheet of aerosolizable material, where the parameters of the sheet are important. Martins teaches incorporating an imaging unit (meeting the limitation of a sensor) and system comprising controllers to process the images from the imaging unit to provide quality control for manufacturing processes, including secondary processes, and also integrating such quality control systems into a manufacturing apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would know how to configure the controller to determine the various claimed parameters of the defect, based on the running direction of the sheet of Pryor, and various defects that the optical imaging system of Martins is capable of detecting, and comparing whether the sheet used in the manufacturing apparatus of Pryor meets pre-determined values for the sheet (benchmarks) to find defects in the sheet pertaining to those parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would know, from Martins, Pryor, and general manufacturing experience, that defects comprising deviations from the benchmarks for the claimed parameters, impact the consumable suitability manufactured from a sheet comprising such defects, and would be motivated to configure the imaging unit and controller to monitor, detect, and determine the parameters of the defects to improve quality control of the manufacturing process. One of ordinary skill in the art would motivated to configure the controller to automatically detect the presence of the defects based on their location in the material web in the products, as taught by Martins because manually inspecting each consumable produced by the apparatus of modified Pryor would be inefficient, time consuming, and labor intensive. Automating a manual task is considered a motivation for making a modification that is supported by legal precedent, an approved rationale under KSR. See MPEP 2144.04 III. Automating a Manual Activity.
Pryor discloses an apparatus that forms two products, a discreet rod cut from the continuous rod, and an intermediate product in the form of the continuous rod.
Martins reasonably teaches tracking and determining the location of a defect in a product formed from a material sheet, ([0122]). This discloses determining the location of the defect to be within the product and thus the location of the defect is determined according to the teachings of Martins because Martins uses the defect detection algorithm to do so, and uses the algorithm to identify the unusable, unsellable, or otherwise compromised material or product obtained from a manufacturing process. As applied to Pryor, this would require predicting where the defects were in an axial location within the continuous rod (a product of Pryor) produced by the apparatus of Pryor, to determine which of the discreet rods cut (also products of Pryor) contain defects. Considering the references together, the limitations requiring determining the location of a defect, including determining the axial location of a defect are found obvious by the combination of references.
Regarding claim 5, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Martins teaches the quality control comparing the one or more parameters of a material or parameter to a known benchmark (understood to be a pre-set value, ([0067]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 5.
Martins teaches that the quality control may be qualitative, (pass/fail), or quantitative, ([0067]). Martins teaches that the controller is configured to classify a defect based on the comparison between parameters of the defect and the pre-set values and
Regarding claim 7, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Martins teaches the controller is configured to determine the presence of a defect in at least one discrete region of the sheet of aerosol generating material based on the information detected by the sensor, ([0005] teaching that the optical system may be calibrated to a target region of the manufactured material or product).
Regarding claim 8-9, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Martins teaches that the optical detection systems may permit the detection of manufacturing defects or substandard materials over a broad range of length scales, ([0074]). Martins teaches that defects may occur at any length scale, and teaches that the optical detection system is capable of identifying a defect at a given length scale, ([0102]). Martins teaches that the measuring observable parameters and comparing them to benchmarks to determine defects, ([0067])). Martins teaches that the parameters to be observed may include thickness, density, ([0067]) or porosity, ([0093]) of the sheet, which would include detecting defects arising from deviations from benchmarks associated with these parameters that are present along the entire length of the sheet, because such defects may impact the quality of the consumables produced by the apparatus of Pryor.
Regarding claim 10, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 6.
Martins teaches the controller is configured to evaluate the quality of a region of the sheet of aerosol-generating material based on the quantity or surface density of the one or more defects within said region and/or the classifications of one or more of the defects within said region, ([0097]).
Regarding claim 11-12, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 10.
Pryor does not disclose the evaluation of quality produces a quality metric, and wherein the controller is configured to store the quality metric in memory, and wherein the quality metric is associated with said region.
As above Martins teaches the controller is configured to evaluate the quality of a region of the sheet of aerosol-generating material based on the quantity or surface density of the one or more defects within said region and/or the classifications of one or more of the defects within said region, ([0097]). Martins further teaches that the control system includes memory, ([0144]), and that imaging data may be saved for future analysis, ([0124]). The evaluation of quality of a region may produce a quality metric such as a grade for the material, and excessive defects may result in the region receiving a lower grade for the material. Martins teaches that a computer may generate a set of corrective actions for addressing the one or more defects detected by the image analysis unit, ([0022]). Martins teaches that the detection system algorithm or quality control algorithm may identify an unusable, unsellable, or otherwise compromised material or product obtained from a manufacturing process, and that the material or product may be discarded, repaired, or reprocessed based on the identification of defects by the system, ([0122]). Martins does not explicitly teach storing the quality metric in memory.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the memory present in the defect detection system of Martins to store the quality metric associated with the region of material used to produce products from that region of material, to enable grading the products produced from the region of material according to the quality metric associated with the region of material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of storing the quality metric of the regions of material and associating that quality metric with the individual consumables or batches of consumables produced from the regions of material to facilitate grading those products, based on the quality of the regions of material used in their manufacture, to limit destructively sampling the produced products to determine the quality of the regions of material used in their manufacture.
Regarding claim 13-15, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 10.
Martins teaches the controller is configured to perform a particular action dependent on the evaluation of the quality of the sheet, including intervention of a control system to discard or recycle a material or product produced, ([0142] the detection of one or more defects or substandard quality in a manufactured material or product may lead to the product being discarded or reworked).
Regarding claim 16, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Martins teaches the sensor comprises a signal transmitter and signal receiver for defect detection and wherein the signal is a laser signal, ([0107] teaching that the imaging unit detects material defects via the transmission, reflection, refraction, scattering, or absorbance of light), and that the imaging unit may comprise one or more light sources or illumination units, including lasers, ([0108]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Martins teaches using a plurality of sensors, ([0111]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 17.
Martins teaches the plurality of sensors are configured to detect regions of the sheet that are offset in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the conveyance path and/or are configured to detect regions of the sheet that are offset in a direction along the conveyance path, ([0119]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Martins teaches the sensor is configured to determine the topology of at least a portion of the sheet of aerosol-generating material, ([0112] teaching that the sensor may capture three dimensional data, [0120] tracking objects (including defects) in video frames in a 3D format meeting the limitation of determining the topology of at least a portion of the sheet).
Regarding claim 20, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Martins teaches the sensor may be located above or below the sheet, ([0013]-[0014] the imaging unit may be for front side imaging of the target region, back side imaging of the target region, and the illumination may be on the same side or opposite side of the sheet).
Regarding claim 21, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Martins teaches the sensor comprises a camera, ([0016]).
Regarding claim 22-24, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 21.
Martins teaches the imaging system may comprises an illumination unit configured to transmit and direct light onto a target region, ([0011]). Martins teaches the illumination may be from above or below the sheet, ([0013]-[0014] the imaging unit may be for front side imaging of the target region, back side imaging of the target region, and the illumination may be on the same side or opposite side of the sheet), and that the imaging unit may comprise one or more light sources or illumination units, ([0108]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 22.
Martins teaches the illuminator comprises a filter, ([0110]).
Regarding claim 26-27, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 21.
Martins teaches that the light source may emit light within a defined region of the electromagnetic spectrum, ([0108]). Martins teaches the illuminator comprises a filter, and that the filtered light source may filtered by a polarizing filter, ([0110]). Martin does not explicitly teach filtering the light received by the camera with a polarizing filter or matching the filter of the illuminator to the filter of the camera, such the electromagnetic radiation emitted past the filter of the illuminator may also pass the filter of the camera, to be received by the camera.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied a polarizing filter to the illuminator/light source such that electromagnetic radiation from the light source is transmitted onto or through the sheet of aerosol generating material, and to apply an aligned polarizing filter to the camera as well, to further ensure that the light received by the camera was further restricted to the light transmitted by the light source. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, to ensure that the information received regarding the captured images was formed from the light source, which would ensure that the detection information captured was not based on unexpected transmission of light, which could lead to errors in the detection of defects and would reduce glare and increase contrast in the images formed by the imaging unit.
Regarding claim 28, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 21.
Martins teaches the sensor comprises a camera, ([0016]), and that the camera may be a three-dimensional camera that is configured to capture three-dimensional images of the sheet, ([0112] teaching that the sensor may capture three dimensional data, [0120] tracking objects (including defects) in video frames in a 3D format).
Regarding claim 30, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Pryor discloses the feeding apparatus supplies a continuous sheet of aerosol-generating material and, the feeding apparatus comprises a bobbin receiving mechanism for receiving a bobbin of a sheet of aerosol-generating material and the feeding apparatus comprises a bobbin of a sheet of aerosol-generating material, ([col 5 lines 21-24], [col 5 lines 35-56]; Fig 1; the feeding apparatus comprises a bobbin receiving mechanism for feeding a sheet of aerosol generating material from a bobbin)
Regarding claim 31, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Pryor further discloses that the sheet of aerosol-generating material comprises tobacco, ([col 2 lines 64-67]).
Regarding claim 32-34, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Pryor further discloses the strip forming apparatus comprises a cutting apparatus configured to cut at least a portion of the sheet of aerosol-generating material into strips of aerosol-generating material, , ([col 5 lines 21-34], [col 5 line 57- col line 68], Fig 1; the consumable forming apparatus comprises a strand forming apparatus, which includes a cutting apparatus that cuts the sheet of aerosol generating material into strands, as well as a gathering apparatus that gathers the strands of aerosol generating material, and forms the gathered strands/strips into a continuous rod, which is subdivided into a plurality of rods).
Regarding claim 35, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the consumable forming apparatus comprises a wrapping apparatus configured to wrap the aerosol-generating material in a wrapper, ([col 7 lines 5-15]).
Regarding claim 36, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Pryor the consumable forming apparatus comprises a cutting apparatus for cutting the consumable into discrete consumables. ([col 7 lines 64-68 – col 8 lines 1-6]).
Regarding claim 37, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 36. Pryor discloses that the plurality of rods severed from the continuous rod are collected supplied to a cigarette making machine, ([col 8 lines 2-6]). Pryor further discloses that the severed intervals are made at a desired, predetermined length, ([col 7 lines 64-66]). Pryor discloses that a smoking article may comprise a portion of smokable material attached to a filter, ([col 9 lines 41-60]). Pryor does not disclose that the length is single-length or double-length.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have set the desired length of the cut rod to either a single length or a double length. Because the rods are used to make smoking articles with a filter attached at one end, it is obvious to set the length of the rod such that after a filter is attached at one end, a discreet smoking article is formed. It is equally obvious to cut the rod into a double length rod, such that a filter may be attached to both ends, with the smoking article manufacturing process comprising a further step of cutting the filter attached rod in two, in order to make two smoking articles in an obvious variation of the smoking article manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 38, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 36.
Martins teaches that a computer may generate a set of corrective actions for addressing the one or more defects detected by the image analysis unit, ([0022]). Martins teaches that the detection system algorithm or quality control algorithm may identify an unusable, unsellable, or otherwise compromised material or product obtained from a manufacturing process, ([0122]).
Regarding claim 39-40, modified Pryor discloses the apparatus of claim 36.
Martins teaches the controller is configured to perform a particular action dependent on the evaluation of the quality of the sheet, including intervention of a control system to discard or recycle a material or product produced, ([0142] the detection of one or more defects or substandard quality in a manufactured material or product may lead to the product being discarded or reworked).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL E VAKILI whose telephone number is (571)272-5171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Michael H. Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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.
/D.E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747