SYSTEM FOR DETECTING
LEAKS FROM CONTAINERS
FIRST OFFICE ACTION
This action takes into account the Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment of Jan. 16, 2024.
DRAWINGS
The drawings have been reviewed and approved.
TITLE
The title is objected to because it is vague and not clearly descriptive of the claimed invention. A recommended title is --System For Detecting Leaked Gas From Containers--.
ABSTRACT
The abstract has been reviewed and approved.
SPECIFICATION
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. The Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which the Applicant may become aware of in the specification.
CLAIMS
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same.
35 U.S.C. § 112
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
Claims 1 - 10 and 12 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter regarded as the invention.
With respect to independent claim 1, lines 10 - 14, confusion exists as to what is “configured to induce the release of volatile substances from each container arrived at the
inspection zone and suck in gas surrounding each of said containers and any volatile substances leaked from said containers”. Is it the inspection apparatus, the extraction means, or the suction means that is such configured?
35 U.S.C. § 102
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), a person shall be entitled to a patent unless 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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Applicant’s cited prior art of Lehmann (2012/0037796).
With respect to independent claim 1, Lehmann sets forth a system for detecting leaks from containers, the system comprising:
conveying means (60) having an inlet conveyor belt (Fig. 6), said means being configured to transport containers (3a) which are already filled with a given food and sealed (Fig. 1) to an inspection zone; and
an inspection apparatus (34) configured to test the tightness of containers (3a) arrived at the inspection zone, said inspection apparatus comprising extraction means and suction means (see “sniffed” in paragraph 5) configured to induce the release of volatile substances from each container arrived at the inspection zone and suck in gas surrounding each of said containers and any volatile substances leaked from said containers (paragraph 5), and detection means (34)
configured to analyze the sucked-in gas and detect the presence of any volatile substances leaked from said containers (3a).
With respect to claim 2, Lehmann sets forth that the detection means comprise sensors for volatile organic compounds (paragraph 156).
35 U.S.C. § 103
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103, 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Applicant’s cited prior art of Lehmann (2012/0037796).
With respect to claim 7, Lehmann sets forth a conveyor (62) configured to receive containers arriving from an inlet conveyor belt (60), but Lehmann fails to explicitly teach a “star” conveyor.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with the Lehmann teaching to interpret conveyor (62) as just such a star conveyor.
The motivation being that the Applicant’s claim fails to specify any details which makes a “star” conveyor unique to any other conveyor other than requiring the star conveyor to receive containers arriving from an inlet conveyor belt. Accordingly, Lehmann’s conveyor (62) receives containers arriving from an inlet conveyor belt (60) and thus meets the requirements of a star conveyor as claimed.
With respect to claim 12, Lehmann sets forth containers (3a) but fails to set forth that said containers are coffee capsules.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with the Lehman teaching that the containers could be used to hold coffee.
The motivation being that Lehmann sets forth that the containers can hold a liquid and does not set forth restrictions as to what type of liquid could be held. Coffee is a very common type of liquid. In addition, using the containers to hold coffee is merely an intended use of the container and does not further limit the system for detecting leaks as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 - 6, 8 - 10, and 13 - 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (claim 1), but would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 3, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the extraction means and inspection apparatus as claimed. Claims 4 and 15 - 19 depend from claim 3.
With respect to claim 5, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the extraction means as claimed. Claims 6, 20, and 21 depend from claim 5.
With respect to claim 8, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the star conveyor as claimed. Claims 9 and 10 depend from claim 8.
With respect to claim 13, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the extraction means and inspection apparatus as claimed. Claim 14 depends from claim 13.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Eric S. McCall whose telephone number is 571-272-2183. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center and information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. For questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is advised to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Eric S. McCall/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855