DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 5-22 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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirofumi (JP 2003-166809 A) in view of Garcia (ES 2244268 A1).
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 to cool the camera (Figure 1 shows a thermoelectric element 64 that is arranged between 41 and 42. 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.).
Hirofumi discloses wherein the thermoelectric element is a Peltier element having a first side that abuts an external surface of the isolating inner housing and a second side of the thermoelectric element abuts an internal surface of the external housing shroud (Hirofumi: 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…”), however, fails to explicitly teach wherein a cold side of the thermoelectric element abuts an external surface of the isolating inner housing and a warm side of the thermoelectric element abuts an internal surface of the external housing shroud.
Garcia discloses wherein a thermoelectric element is a Peltier element (Figures 1-2, 2 is a Peltier element), wherein a cold side of the thermoelectric element abuts an external surface and a warm side of the thermoelectric element abuts an internal surface (See page 11 of the provided document, first paragraph which recites: “Such portable devices include cold or heat generating means that include a Peltier cell whose internal surface is susceptible to cooling or heating in function of the polarity of the electric voltage applied to said Peltier cell using the vehicle's battery. Also understand a heat sink or radiator that absorbs heat or cold from the outer surface of the Peltier cell by acting of an external fan that generates an air current through of said heatsink.” Thus, either side of the Peltier element can be warm or cold depending on the polarity of an electric voltage to the Peltier element.).
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 known teachings about Peltier elements as taught by Garcia and apply them to the Peltier element in the inspection device taught by Hirofumi such that a cold side of the thermoelectric element abuts an external surface of the isolating inner housing and a warm side of the thermoelectric element abuts an internal surface of the external housing shroud. The motivation to combine would have been in order to apply the polarity of voltage to allow for the cooling function of the Peltier elements for the internal housing to function properly.
Regarding claim 2, Hirofumi and Garcia disclose the inspection device according to claim 1, wherein the thermoelectric element is a Peltier element (Hirofumi: 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 and Garcia disclose the inspection device according to claim 1, wherein the isolating inner housing (Hirofumi: Figure 1, 31/41) comprises a first housing part arranged around the electronic processing module of the camera (Hirofumi: Figure 1 shows that 41 is arranged “around” 60.) and a second housing part arranged around the optical module of the camera (Hirofumi: Figure 1 shows that 31 is arranged “around” 23/24/25.).
Regarding claim 7, Hirofumi and Garcia disclose 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 (Hirofumi: Figure 1 shows that 31 is located within a recess of 41.).
Regarding claim 16, Hirofumi and Garcia disclose the inspection device according to claim 1, wherein the external housing shroud is configured to transfer heat away from the thermoelectric element (Hirofumi: Figure 1 shows the flow of air between the inner and outer housing moving counterclockwise “away from” the thermoelectric element 64.).
Regarding claim 21, Hirofumi and Garcia disclose the inspection device according to claim 1, wherein the electronic processing module comprises heat-sensitive electronic parts arranged close to the thermoelectric element (Hirofumi: Figure 1 shows electronic processing module 60, which as a processing module has heat-sensitive electronic parts, is arranged “close to” the thermoelectric element 64.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirofumi (JP 2003-166809 A) in view of Garcia (ES 2244268 A1) and further in view of Deng et al. (CN 101216349 A).
Regarding claim 6, Hirofumi and Garcia disclose the inspection device according to claim 5.
Hirofumi and Garcia fail 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, the combination of Hirofumi and Garcia 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.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirofumi (JP 2003-166809 A) in view of Garcia (ES 2244268 A1) and further in view of Quarre (US 2004/0195676).
Regarding claim 8, Hirofumi and Garcia disclose the inspection device according to claim 5.
Hirofumi and Garcia fail 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 the combination of Hirofumi and Garcia. 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.).
Regarding claim 17, Hirofumi, Garcia and Quarre disclose the inspection device according to claim 8, wherein the heat-conductive plate distributes and spreads cold from the thermoelectric element to the electronic processing module of the camera (In the combination, since the heat-conductive plate of Quarre will be connected to the cold side of the Peltier element, then the plate will distribute and spread the cold to the inner housing where the electronic processing module of the camera is located.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirofumi (JP 2003-166809 A) in view of Garcia (ES 2244268 A1) and further in view of Odom (US 2019/0028617).
Regarding claim 9, Hirofumi and Garcia disclose the inspection device according to claim 1
Hirofumi and Garcia fail 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 the combination of Hirofumi and Garcia. 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 and Garcia disclose discloses the inspection device according to claim 1.
Hirofumi and Garcia fail 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, the combination of Hirofumi and Garcia 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, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirofumi (JP 2003-166809 A) in view of Garcia (ES 2244268 A1) and further in view of Liu (US 2013/0181396).
Regarding claim 12, Hirofumi and Garcia disclose a converting machine comprising the inspection device according to claim 1.
Hirofumi and Garcia fail 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, the combination of Hirofumi and Garcia 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, Garcia 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, Garcia 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, Garcia 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.).
Regarding claim 20, Hirofumi, Garcia and Liu disclose the converting machine according to claim 12, wherein a vacuum suction force from the at least one vacuum transfer unit induces an airflow over the external housing shroud which provides a heat transfer to ambient air (In the combination, since Liu discloses of a vacuum transfer unit in Figure 1 and paragraph [0048] located outside of the external housing shroud, then clearly the vacuum suction force will induce an airflow over the external housing shroud which provides a heat transfer to ambient air.).
Regarding claim 22, Hirofumi, Garcia and Liu disclose the converting machine according to claim 12, further comprising a printing quality control system comprising the inspection device, a control unit, and a memory (Liu: Figure 1, 20 is an inspection unit, and paragraph [0051], “image processor” is a control unit, and “storage of information” means that there is a memory, see also paragraph [0055].), wherein the printing quality control system is configured to detect and measure a longitudinal displacement and a lateral displacement between different colors and coatings in the reference mark (See paragraphs [0052]-[0056] of Liu, which in combination with Hirofumi, will detect the defects of the reference mark.).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirofumi (JP 2003-166809 A) in view of Garcia (ES 2244268 A1) and further in view of Hershel et al. (US 6,710,798).
Regarding claim 18, Hirofumi and Garcia disclose the inspection device according to claim 1, further comprising an illumination system comprising a first illumination module comprising at least one illumination unit configured to emit light rays towards the reference mark (Figure 1, 21 is a light source section which emits light towards the reference mark.).
Hirofumi and Garcia fail to teach of the at least one illumination unit being configured to emit diffused light rays.
Hershel et al. disclose of using a diffuser with an illumination system to provide diffused light rays (Figure 3(a) shows diffuser 59, see column 6, lines 48-50.).
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 diffuser teachings of Hershel et al. in the inspection device taught by the combination of Hirofumi and Garcia. The motivation to combine would have been in order to smooth out the light to produce a uniform illumination (See column 6, lines 48-50 of Hershel et la.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 19 are 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 in claim 11 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.
The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 19 is the inclusion of the limitations reciting “…further comprising a second illumination module comprising at least one illumination unit arranged to emit light at a third angle in relation to a vertical axis, such that specular reflected light rays from the reference mark are directed outside an entrance pupil of a camera lens” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
1 June 2026
Prosecution Insights