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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 5-10 and 12-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirofumi (JP 2003-166809 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hirofumi discloses an inspection device for a converting machine (Figure 1), the inspection device comprising:
a camera (Figure 1, elements 20-25, 30-32 and 60 comprise a camera.) configured to capture an image of a portion of a blank provided with a reference mark (Figure 1 shows blank W and Figure 2 shows a reference mark.), the camera being arranged inside an external housing shroud (Figure 1 shows elements 20-25, 30-32 and 60 are arranged inside an external housing shroud 42.),
wherein the camera comprises an optical module and an electronic processing module (Figure 1 shows that the camera comprises an optical module 23/24/25 and an electronic processing module 60.),
wherein an isolating inner housing is arranged inside the external housing shroud and is enclosing the camera (Figure 1 shows an isolating inner housing 31/41 that is arranged inside of 42 and encloses the camera.),
wherein a thermoelectric element is arranged between the isolating inner housing and the external housing shroud (Figure 1 shows a thermoelectric element 64 that is arranged between 41 and 42.), and in contact with the isolating inner housing and the external housing shroud to cool the camera (Figure 1 shows 64 is in direct contact with 41 and is in contact with 42 through the connections of 41 and 42, see for example at 26, or near 31 and 48. Thermoelectric element 64 is used to cool the inner housing 41 and thus cools the camera.), and
wherein the electronic processing module is thermally connected to the thermoelectric element (Figure 1, since thermoelectric element 64 is used to cool the inner housing 41 then it is “thermally” connected to 60.).
Regarding claim 2, Hirofumi discloses the inspection device according to claim 1, wherein the thermoelectric element is a Peltier element (See page 12 of the provided document, lines 15-26, which recite: “A temperature sensor 62 for detecting the temperature inside…Further, a second thermoelectric cooling element (Peltier element) 64 used for cooling the inner wall 41…”).
Regarding claim 5, Hirofumi discloses the inspection device according to claim 1, wherein the isolating inner housing (Figure 1, 31/41) comprises a first housing part arranged around the electronic processing module of the camera (Figure 1 shows that 41 is arranged “around” 60.) and a second housing part arranged around the optical module of the camera (Figure 1 shows that 31 is arranged “around” 23/24/25.).
Regarding claim 7, Hirofumi discloses the inspection device according to claim 5, wherein the first housing part comprises a recess and wherein the second housing part is partially received within the recess (Figure 1 shows that 31 is located within a recess of 41.).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirofumi (JP 2003-166809 A) in view of Deng et al. (CN 101216349 A).
Regarding claim 6, Hirofumi discloses the inspection device according to claim 5.
Hirofumi fails to explicitly teach wherein the second housing part is tubular.
Deng et al. disclose where a second housing part arranged around an optical module of a camera is tubular (Figure 1 shows that the second housing part around the optical module 7-8 of the camera is tubular.).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination Hirofumi performs the same function as it does separately of providing a housing for a camera, and Deng et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing a tubular shape for a second housing portion around the optical module of a camera.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the second housing part being tubular.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirofumi (JP 2003-166809 A) in view of Quarre (US 2004/0195676).
Regarding claim 8, Hirofumi discloses the inspection device according to claim 5.
Hirofumi fails to teach wherein the first housing part comprises an isolating portion and the thermally conductive portion, and wherein the thermally conductive portion comprises a heat-conductive plate, and wherein the thermoelectric element is positioned between the heat-conductive plate and the external housing shroud.
Quarre discloses wherein a first housing part comprises an isolating portion and a thermally conductive portion, and wherein the thermally conductive portion comprises a heat-conductive plate, and wherein the thermoelectric element is positioned between the heat-conductive plate and an external housing shroud (Figure 1-3 and paragraph [0028], where in a first housing part: 105 is an isolating portion, 180 is a heat-conductive plate, and 130 is a thermoelectric element, where 130 is positioned between 180 and the external housing.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the housing teachings of Quarre in the inspection device taught by Hirofumi. The motivation to combine would have been in order to employ a housing design that allows the cold side of a thermoelectric element to be mounted relatively close to the camera and the hot side of the thermoelectric element to be isolated from the housing cavity in which the camera resides, which provides a more thermally efficient camera housing (See the abstract and paragraph [0002] of Quarre.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirofumi (JP 2003-166809 A) in view of Odom (US 2019/0028617).
Regarding claim 9, Hirofumi discloses the inspection device according to claim 1
Hirofumi fails to teach wherein the external housing shroud is hermetically sealed.
Odom discloses wherein an external housing shroud is hermetically sealed (Paragraph [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sealing teachings of Odom for the inspection device taught by Hirofumi. The motivation to combine would have been in order to prevent the device form being damaged by air, water, contaminants, etc. so as to prevent corrosion and other like damages from occurring.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirofumi (JP 2003-166809 A) in view of Drixler et al. (EP 0 634 648 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Hirofumi discloses the inspection device according to claim 1.
Hirofumi fails to teach wherein a cover of the external housing shroud is provided with a glass surface.
Drixler et al. disclose wherein a cover of an external housing shroud is provided with a glass surface (Figure 1 shows glass 24. See page 13 of the provided document, the paragraph starting “Corresponding to the angle between the strip-shaped receptacle and irradiation directions 16-17 inclined with respect to the viewing opening 12.5, the adjacent area of the light chamber 21.3 is closed off with a light opening 22.6. Both openings 22 are closed in a dust-tight manner by glass plates 24 which are framed on the housing 19 and are plane-parallel. They are oriented at an obtuse angle to one another orthogonally to the directions of exposure or irradiation 16, 17 in order to avoid scattering and reflections on the glass plates 24 in the object image or when the light passes through, which could otherwise interfere with the surface patterns to be evaluated.).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination, Hirofumi performs the same function as it does separately of providing an inspection device, and Drixler et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing a glass surface.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in a cover of the external housing shroud being provided with a glass surface.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirofumi (JP 2003-166809 A) in view of Liu (US 2013/0181396).
Regarding claim 12, Hirofumi discloses a converting machine comprising the inspection device according to claim 1.
Hirofumi fails to teach the converting machine comprising a flexographic printing module and at least one vacuum transfer unit, wherein the at least one vacuum transfer unit is arranged such that a flow of air is generated around the external housing shroud.
Liu discloses a converting machine comprising a flexographic printing module and at least one vacuum transfer unit, wherein the at least one vacuum transfer unit is arranged such that a flow of air is generated around the external housing shroud (Figure 1, the figure shows a flexographic printing press and a vacuum transfer unit, see and paragraph [0048]. See also that there is an inspection device 20.).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination, Hirofumi performs the same function as it does separately of providing an inspection device, and Liu performs the same function as it does separately of providing a converting machine comprising a flexographic printing module and at least one vacuum transfer unit.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the inspection device being used with a flexographic printing module and at least one vacuum transfer unit.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claim 13, Hirofumi and Liu disclose the converting machine according to claim 12, wherein the flexographic printing module comprises at least a first printing unit and a second printing unit and wherein the inspection device is located after the second printing unit (Liu: Figure 1 shows a first printing unit 4 and a second printing unit 6 where the inspection device 20 is located “after” 6. See paragraph [0045].).
Regarding claim 14, Hirofumi and Liu disclose the converting machine according to claim 12.
Hirofumi and Liu disclose the at least one vacuum transfer unit is located vertically below the inspection device (See claim 15 below). Hirofumi and Liu fail to teach wherein the at least one vacuum transfer unit is located vertically above the inspection device. However, since it is not disclosed as being essential to the invention, it would have been an obvious design choice to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the inspection device to be below the at least one vacuum transfer unit since it has been held that a rearrangement of parts is unpatentable and an obvious matter of design choice as long as the rearrangement would not have modified the operation of the device. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 15, Hirofumi and Liu disclose the converting machine according to claim 12, wherein the at least one vacuum transfer unit is located vertically below the inspection device (Liu: Figure 1 shows the at least one vacuum transfer unit is located vertically below the inspection device 20.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the limitations reciting “wherein a wall of the external housing shroud comprises a biased section, which forms a first angle with a longitudinal extension of the external housing shroud, whereby an optical axis of the camera is positioned at the first angle in relation to a vertical direction” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
The closest prior art (Hirofumi (JP 2003-166809 A); Kinney et al. (US 2004/0012775); Byrne et al. (US 2019/0306966); Deng et al. (CN 101216349 A); Franzini et al. (WO 2016/069086 A1); Quarre (US 2004/0195676); Odom (US 2019/0028617); Drixler et al. (EP 0 634 648 A1); Liu (US 2013/0181396)) disclose of an inspection device for a converting machine, wherein the inspection device comprises an external housing shroud (See the rejection above, and also the Final Rejection dated 30 January 2026.), however, none of the prior art, either alone or in combination, disclose specifically that the external housing shroud comprises a “biased section” as specifically claimed and highlighted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
7 April 2026