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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes that the independent claims are all written without a transitional word or phrase, such as ‘comprising’, and as such the claims lack a formal delineation between the claim preamble and claim body. See MPEP § 2111.02 and 2111.03. The independent claims are therefore each interpreted as containing one long run-on preamble without any claim body. Examiner notes that the claim limitations may not be given any patentable weight. For purposes of expediency, a detailed rejection is provided below.
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.
Claim 2 is 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. The claim recites, “the determined sealing quantity” with no appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 10-13 is 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. Claim 10 recites, “according to claim 1, depending on this, at least one sealing variable”. While there is a reference to claim 1 here, the language appears grammatically incorrect and as such it is not clear what is meant and whether the claim is referring to the “at least one sealing variable” in claim 1. The term “the” should be used if that is the case.
Claim 11 is 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. Claim 11 recites, “the sealing variables” without appropriate antecedent basis for the plural of this phrase.
Claim 13 is 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. The claim recites, “the training data comprising at least one attachment variable” and later “an attachment variable that is characteristic”. It is unclear whether the claims are attempting to refer to the sealing variable in the parent claims, and if such, this is not appropriate antecedent basis. Also, the second usage of the term does not contain the term “the” to properly designate antecedent basis and does not contain the phrase “at least one”. Finally, it is not clear what is meant by “attachment variable” in the claims and what the metes and bounds of this usage might be.
Claim 14 is 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. Claim 14 recites, “the inspection apparatus” while there is antecedent basis for “inspection device”.
Claim 15 is 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. Claim 15 recites, “depending on this at least one sealing variable”. It is not clear what is meant by the term “this”. It does not provide appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities “the determined sealing quantity is characteristic for a distance.” It appears the word “of” should replace the underlined “for”. Appropriate correction is required
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application Nos. 18/606,725 and 18/685,134 (reference applications). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, 18/606,725 discloses a method for inspecting containers provided with closures for checking a sealing function between the closure and a container provided therewith, wherein the closure being arranged by arrangement in a closure direction on a mouth region of the container, wherein the containers being transported by a transport device along a predefined transport path, and during this transport the containers provided with the closures being at least partially illuminated by a lighting device, and at least one image recording device recording at least one spatially resolved image of the container to be inspected provided with the closure, (claim 1)
wherein in order to check the sealing function, the at least one spatially resolved image is recorded by the at least one image recording device in such a way that a relative position of the closure, viewed in the closure direction relative to the container provided therewith, is depicted, and an image evaluation device, based on the relative position depicted in the at least one spatially resolved image, determines at least one sealing variable that is characteristic of performing the sealing function. (claim 1)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The remaining copending Applications are rejected similarly.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (EP 2940423 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a method for inspecting containers provided with closures for checking a sealing function between the closure and a container provided therewith, wherein the closure being arranged by arrangement in a closure direction on a mouth region of the container, wherein the containers being transported by a transport device along a predefined transport path, and during this transport the containers provided with the closures being at least partially illuminated by a lighting device, and at least one image recording device recording at least one spatially resolved image of the container to be inspected provided with the closure, (Takahashi teaches a system for sealing inspection of a screw cap on a PET plastic bottle, see ¶ 0008. Multiple images are taken with illumination (¶ 0021) during bottle transport (¶ 0020) and the sealing closure is measured by a distance gap index values indicating a magnitude of a gap between the cap and a support ring (¶ 0008).)
wherein in order to check the sealing function, the at least one spatially resolved image is recorded by the at least one image recording device in such a way that a relative position of the closure, viewed in the closure direction relative to the container provided therewith, is depicted, and an image evaluation device, based on the relative position depicted in the at least one spatially resolved image, determines at least one sealing variable that is characteristic of performing the sealing function. (See Figs. 2 and 3 and ¶ 0023-0026 which illustrate the bottle cap closure distance gap sealing variable, termed the gap index, which is measuring the bottle cap/closure sealing in the closure direction (vertical height of the bottle cap relative to the bottle ring flange).)
Takahashi does not expressly disclose that all of its above-cited teachings of bottle cap closure inspection are expressly disclosed as occurring in the same embodiment. That is, despite the reference being clear that these functions are disclosed, there is no express disclosure that the details are all found in the same embodiment. Instead, the reference presents some of the individual detailed disclosures as ‘according to some embodiments.’ It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the various teachings to provide a single system capable of the variety of tasks which are disclosed. In view of these teachings, this cannot be considered a non-obvious improvement over the prior art. Using known engineering design, no “fundamental” operating principle of the teachings are changed; they continue to perform the same functions as originally taught prior to being combined.
Regarding claim 2, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the determined sealing quantity is characteristic for a distance between a sealing region on the closure provided for performing the sealing function and a corresponding sealing region on the container provided for performing the sealing function. (As above, see Figs. 2 and 3 and ¶ 0023-0026 which illustrate the bottle cap closure distance/gap index, which is measuring the closure distance between the bottle cap sealing lip and bottle ring flange.)
Regarding claim 3, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the relative position of the closure relative to the container provided therewith is a relative position of a region of the closure which is designed to be rigid in the closure direction to perform the closing function, or of a feature which is associated therewith in a fixed position in the closure direction relative to the container, and/or in that it is a relative position of the closure in relation to a region of the container which is rigid in the closure direction in order to perform the closing function or a feature which is associated therewith in a fixed position in the closure direction. (As above, see Figs. 2 and 3 and ¶ 0023-0026 which illustrate the bottle cap closure distance/gap index, which is measuring the closure distance between the bottle cap sealing lip and bottle ring flange.)
Regarding claim 6, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the relative position is a relative position with respect to a rotationally symmetrical element arranged in a region of the mouth of the container, a support ring underside, a support ring outer edge, a bend between the support ring and a stretchable and/or stretched region of the container and/or a boundary line between a stretched and a non-stretched region of the container. (As above, see Figs. 2 and 3 and ¶ 0023-0026 which illustrate the bottle cap closure distance/gap index, which is measuring the closure distance between the bottle cap sealing lip and bottle ring flange, which is a rotationally symmetrical element arranged in a region of the mouth of the container.)
Regarding claim 7, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one image recording device records the containers from a direction which forms an angle of at most 60° with a horizontal plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the container and/or with a horizontal plane perpendicular to the closure direction. (See Figs. 1 and 2, the image recording is at the horizontal plane.)
Regarding claim 8, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one spatially resolved image is recorded by at least two image recording devices. (See Fig 1, multiple imagers are used.)
Claim 14 is the inspection apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1. Takahashai teaches an inspection apparatus, see Abstract. Remaining limitations are rejected similarly. See detailed analysis above.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 9-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (EP 2940423 A1) in view of Cochran (US PGPub 2014/0311256).
Regarding claim 4, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the relative position is a relative position with respect to at least one external feature present on the circumferential wall of the closure. (¶ 0023 teaches the inspection processor identifies a position of a lower edge of the cap wall in the image.)
In the field of bottle cap sealing inspection Cochran teaches that the external feature is formed by a texture present on the closure. (Cochran teaches a system for sealing inspection of a screw cap on a plastic bottle. ¶ 0051 and 0063-0067 teaches using the texture features called on bottle caps and bottle support rings termed fiducials, marks or orientation patterns which are oriented with respect to thread elements of the cap and bottle or neck portion.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Takahashi’s bottle cap sealing inspection with Cochran’s bottle cap sealing inspection. Takahashi measures bottle cap sealing by measuring the gap between the bottom lip of the bottle cap and the bottle flange ring. Cochran teaches measuring the bottle cap sealing with an image texture feature on the bottle cap by locating the texture feature to determine it is seated correctly. The combination constitutes the repeatable and predictable result of simply applying Cochran’s teaching here of using a texture feature on the cap to ascertain the position of the cap itself. Simply using a texture feature cannot be considered a non-obvious improvement in view of the relevant prior art here. Using known engineering design, no “fundamental” operating principle of the teachings are changed; they continue to perform the same functions as originally taught prior to being combined.
Regarding claim 5, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the feature is selected from a group comprising features which are formed by a knurled texture, several knurled textures, a perforation region, one or more bends, a groove, several grooves, a circumferential edge, a feature which is designed to be continuously or discretely rotationally symmetrical with respect to the closure direction, and combinations thereof. (Cochran’s texture feature is knurled/patterned texture feature, ¶ 0051 and 0063-0067. Takahashi also teaches that its fiducial is the circumferential edge of the bottle cap which is a feature which is designed to be rotationally symmetrical, see rejection of claim 1.)
Regarding claim 9, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the determined sealing variable is provided for transmission to a closure apparatus for closing containers with closures. (Cochran ¶ 0048 teaches using the sealing status to communicate with the capper via sending a transmission signal to close the feedback loop.)
Regarding claim 10, the above combination discloses the method for operating a closure apparatus for closing containers with closures, wherein the containers being transported along a predefined transport path by a transport device, wherein the closure apparatus detects at least one sealing variable determined according to claim 1, depending on this, at least one sealing variable, carries out a control and/or a regulation of the closure process. (Cochran ¶ 0048 teaches a capper closure device integrated with the inspection and using the sealing status to communicate with the capper via sending a transmission signal to close the feedback loop.)
Regarding claim 11, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the closure apparatus has a plurality of closure units, wherein each closure unit being able to independently carry out a closure process and herein apply a closure to a container, wherein the sealing variables being associated with those closure units which have carried out the corresponding closure process, wherein a control and/or regulation of the closure process of the plurality of closure units taking place in each case depending on the at least one sealing variable associated with the corresponding closure unit. (Cochran ¶ 0012, 0048-0050 and 0082.)
Regarding claim 12, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein a current state and a target state of the closure apparatus and/or one of the plurality of closure units is detected, and a state variable that is characteristic of a failure probability and/or a maintenance requirement is determined depending on a comparison of the current state to the target state. (Cochran ¶ 0048 teaches a capper closure device integrated with the inspection and using the sealing status to communicate with the capper via sending a transmission signal to close the feedback loop between current and target state.)
Claim 15 is the closure apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1. Takahashai teaches an inspection and transport apparatus, see ¶ 0020. Cochran ¶ 0048 teaches using the sealing variable to control the capper. Remaining limitations are rejected similarly. See detailed analysis above.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (EP 2940423 A1) in view of Cochran (US PGPub 2014/0311256) and Niedermeier (DE 102020121088 A1)
Regarding claim 13, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 10, but not the remaining limitation.
In the field of bottle cap sealing inspection Niedermeier teaches a control and/or regulation and/or maintenance of the closure apparatus is performed as a function of a machine learning container closure model, which comprises a set of parameters which are set to values which have been learned as a result of a training process, wherein the training process being carried out on the basis of a set of training data, wherein the training data comprising at least one attachment variable that is characteristic of a relative position of the closure relative to the container provided therewith in relation to the closure direction, as well as an attachment variable that is characteristic of the corresponding closure process. (Niedermeier teaches “the position of the structures could be detected and the angular position thus calculated using a deep neural network, for example CNN. This can be trained, for example, with a large number of annotated camera images (i.e. enriched with angular position information) so that it can determine the position angle from the position and appearance of the marking in the images at runtime.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the above combination’s bottle cap sealing inspection with Niedermeier’s bottle cap sealing inspection. Takahashi measures bottle cap sealing by measuring the gap between the bottom lip of the bottle cap and the bottle flange ring. Cochran teaches measuring the bottle cap sealing with an image texture feature on the bottle cap by locating the texture feature to determine it is seated correctly. These references do no expressly mention that the image features or closure parameters are the result of training/machine learning. Niedermeier teaches using machine learning for bottle cap closure recognition. Performing image recognition via machine learning is a well-known and widely-used technique in the art and simply doing so cannot be considered a non-obvious improvement in view of the relevant prior art here. Using known engineering design, no “fundamental” operating principle of the teachings are changed; they continue to perform the same functions as originally taught prior to being combined.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Raphael Schwartz whose telephone number is (571)270-3822. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am-5pm CT.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571) 272-8243. 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.
/RAPHAEL SCHWARTZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2671