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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 1/15/2024 was considered and placed on the file of record by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 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 1-15 are rejected for the following vague and indefinite language: “rod-like.”
The following claims 9 and 15 elements are vague and indefinite because it is not clear how a singular rod-like (cylinder/cigarette) article contains two filled segments and two tubular end segments;
“9. The system according to claim 1, wherein the system is configured to measure the parameters of the multi-segment rod-like article comprising two filled segments and two tubular end segments,”
“15. The method according to claim 11, further comprising; measuring parameters of the multi-segment rod-like article comprising two filled segments and two tubular end segments,”
The following claims 2-4, 6, 8, 10 elements are vague and indefinite because “the determined parameter” lacks antecedent basis.
2. The system according to claim 1, wherein the determined parameter is a length of the tubular end segment.
3. The system according to claim 1, wherein the determined parameter is a length of the multi-segment rod-like article.
4. The system according to claim 1, wherein the determined parameter is a distance between the front surface and the illuminating device.
6. The system according to claim 5, wherein the determined parameter is quality of the edge of the multi-segment rod-like article.
8. The system according to claim 1, wherein the determined parameter is a position of the first filled segment.
10. The system according to claim 9, wherein the determined parameter is a distance between the first front surface and the second front surface.
The following claim 13 elements are vague and indefinite: “12, further comprising: illuminating the edge of the tubular end segment.”
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owczarek (US 2020/0022402) in view of Wilson (US 2006/0098214).
Regarding claim 1, Owczarek teaches a measuring system for measuring parameters of a multi-segment rod-like article comprising at least one filled segment and at least one tubular end segment, wherein the measuring system comprises:
a transporting device for transferring the multi-segment rod-like article along a path of movement transversely to an axis of the multi-segment rod-like article, wherein the transporting device is provided with transport flutes (see figure 1, para. 0030, 0054, Owczarek discusses transport chain with loader, tray, unloader, and conveyor that transfers cigarette rod/cylinder articles; see para. 0054, Owczarek discusses pushing element and restraining elements);
at least one illuminating device for generating a light beam for illuminating a front surface of the filled segment by passing through the interior of the tubular end segment (see figure 1, para. 0052, Owczarek discusses transmitting light into the cigarette rods);
a registering device for registering an image of the multi-segment rod-like article, wherein the registering device is configured to receive light of the light beam scattered by the material of the filled segment (see figure 1, para. 0052, Owczarek discusses camera capturing light reflected and scattered from the cigarette rods to generate images that provide details such as the shape and color of the rod/cylinder articles);
a processing unit configured to process the image of the multi-segment rod-like article registered by the registering device and to determine the production process parameters and/or parameters of the multi-segment rod-like article (see figure 1, para. 0052, Owczarek discusses camera capturing light reflected and scattered from the cigarette rods, the images provide details such as the shape and color of the rod/cylinder articles; see para. 0074, Owczarek discusses determining the quality of the rod-like object).
Wilson also teaches which penetrates through a material of a wrapper of the multi-segment rod-like article and reaches the registering device, forming an outline of the front surface of the filled segment in the image (see figure 1, para. 0064, 0181, Wilson discusses light penetrating cigarette paper to form images of the rod-like cigarette); and
a processing unit configured to process the image of the multi-segment rod-like article registered by the registering device and to determine the production process parameters and/or parameters of the multi-segment rod-like article (see figure 1, para. 0009, 0018, Wilson discusses image is a digital image, electronically processed to determine physical properties that may include the length of the rolled smoking article, or its mean diameter, ovality, circumference, roundness or shape).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Owczarek with Wilson to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image analysis on cylinder objects.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Owczarek in this manner in order to improve image analysis on a cylinder object by a generating light beam that penetrates the cylinder object’s material when the light beam backscatters, allowing a detector to receive the light beam to properly generate an image that demonstrates properties of the cylinder object. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Owczarek, while the teaching of Wilson continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating image properties of an object by projecting light on the object and receiving light to create an image of the object. The Owczarek and Wilson systems perform light emission on an object to produce image data, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 2, Wilson teaches wherein the determined parameter is a length of the tubular end segment (see abstract, para. 0009, 0018, Wilson discusses image is a digital image, electronically processed to determine the physical properties that may include the length of the rolled smoking article, or its mean diameter, ovality, circumference, roundness or shape).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 2. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Owczarek with Wilson to derive at the invention of claim 2. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image analysis on cylinder objects.
Regarding claim 3, Wilson teaches wherein the determined parameter is a length of the multi-segment rod-like article (see abstract, para. 0009, 0018, Wilson discusses image is a digital image, electronically processed to determine the physical properties that may include the length of the rolled smoking article, or its mean diameter, ovality, circumference, roundness or shape).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 3. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Owczarek with Wilson to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image analysis on cylinder objects.
Regarding claim 5, Owczarek teaches wherein the light beam is directed to illuminate an edge of the tubular end segment (see figure 1, para. 0052, Owczarek discusses transmitting light into the cigarette rods).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 5. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Owczarek with Wilson to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image analysis on cylinder objects.
Regarding claim 6, Owczarek teaches wherein the determined parameter is quality of the edge of the multi-segment rod-like article (see para. 0074, Owczarek discusses determining the quality of the rod-like object).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 6. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Owczarek with Wilson to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image analysis on cylinder objects.
Regarding claim 8, Wilson teaches wherein the determined parameter is a position of the first filled segment (see abstract, para. 0009, 0018, Wilson discusses image is a digital image, electronically processed to determine the physical properties that may include the length of the rolled smoking article, or its mean diameter, ovality, circumference, roundness or shape; see para. 0032-0033, Wilson discusses determining positions of elements in the rod-like cigarette).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 8. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Owczarek with Wilson to derive at the invention of claim 8. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image analysis on cylinder objects.
Claim 11 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 12 is rejected as applied to claim 2 or claim 3 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claims 4, 7, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owczarek (US 2020/0022402) in view of Wilson (US 2006/0098214) in view of Kato et al. (US 11,619,591).
Regarding claim 4, Owczarek and Wilson do not expressly disclose wherein the determined parameter is a distance between the front surface and the illuminating device. However, Kato teaches wherein the determined parameter is a distance between the front surface and the illuminating device (see col. 9 line 62-67, Kato discusses calculating a distance between an illumination device and a workpiece surface).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Owczarek and Wilson with Kato to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image analysis on cylinder objects.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Owczarek and Wilson in this manner in order to improve image analysis on a cylinder object by a generating light beam that penetrates the cylinder object’s material when the light beam backscatters, allowing a detector to receive the light beam to properly generate an image that demonstrates properties of the cylinder object and distance measurements. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Owczarek and Wilson, while the teaching of Kato continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating image properties of an object and distance measurements by projecting light on the object and receiving light to create an image of the object. The Owczarek, Wilson, and Kato systems perform light emission on an object to produce image data, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 7, Owczarek and Wilson do not expressly disclose wherein the system comprises a third illuminating device for illuminating a side surface of the multi-segment rod-like article. However, Kato teaches wherein the system comprises a third illuminating device for illuminating a side surface of the multi-segment rod-like article (see col. 18 lines 47-57, Kato discusses multiple illuminating devices capturing images of an object).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Owczarek and Wilson with Kato to derive at the invention of claim 7. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image analysis on cylinder objects.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Owczarek and Wilson in this manner in order to improve image analysis on a cylinder object by a generating light beams using multiple devices that penetrate the cylinder object’s material when the light beam backscatters, allowing a detector to receive the light beam to properly generate an image that demonstrates properties of the cylinder object and distance measurements. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Owczarek and Wilson, while the teaching of Kato continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating image properties of an object and distance measurements by projecting light on the object and receiving light to create an image of the object. The Owczarek, Wilson, and Kato systems perform light emission on an object to produce image data, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 14 is rejected as applied to claim 7 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cieslikowski et al. (US 2019/0383756) discusses radiation R from the radiation source penetrates to a different extent through different materials used in the rod-like articles to generate a two-dimensional image of a multi-segment rod generated after that rod has been x-rayed.
Sikora et al. (US 2006/0260278) discusses inspecting cigarettes using sensors, and rejecting faulty cigarettes.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663