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 .
Claims 53-65, 68-73 and 75-78 are currently pending in U.S. Patent Application No. 18/635,899 and an Office action on the merits follows.
Priority
Instant claims 53-65, 68-73 and 75-78 are understood to benefit from the priority date associated with parent application 17/393,227, filed 08/03/2021 and prior to the abandonment of Application No. 16/435,292 (01/09/2022 with Notice of Abandonment mailed 02/01/2022). The 02/04/2021 Non-Final Office Action for Application No. 16/435,292 (filed 06/07/2019) identifies claims drawing from the subject matter of e.g. Figs. 13-14, as not entitled to benefit of earlier dates associated with e.g. Application No. 15/823,138. All currently pending claims are understood to benefit from an EFD no earlier than June 07, 2019.
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.
Claims 68-73 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over one or more claims of:
U.S. Patent No. 11,962,876 B2 to parent application 17/393,227.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of reference anticipate and/or render obvious independent claim(s) of the instant application, in further view of the following reasons/considerations:
• Instant claims and claims of reference recite common subject matter, and recite the open ended transitional phrase “comprising” which does not preclude any additional elements recited by claims of reference – see the limitation mappings/table presented below;
• Language/terminology of instant claim(s) constituting minor/slight variations from the claims of reference, if/where present, require interpretations under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and/or plain meaning definitions (MPEP 2173 and 2111) equivalent to/met by language of the reference claims in view of that corresponding/shared Specification. While the disclosure of reference may not be used as prior art (Double Patenting concerns the claims of reference), portions of the specification which provide support for reference claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the scope of claim(s) of reference and the issue of whether an instant claim defines an obvious variation or falls within the scope of an invention claimed in the claim(s) of reference. See MPEP 804 with reference to In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
• Whereby element(s) of instant claim(s) otherwise not present explicitly in corresponding reference claim(s) (see * in the table below – i.e. that second ‘directing’ for a second object that is an instance/object distinct from the first, even if it is the same type (see Applicant’s PGPUB at [0050] e.g. two identical 12 oz. Pepsi bottles) – in view of any argument that the broader/genus ‘sorting a material stream’ may not explicitly require sorting/directing both the first and second objects), at most correspond to those same steps claimed/directed to a first instance, as permissibly modified to be re-iterated for at least a second instance, and/or act (e) of reference as applied to the ‘material stream’ at large, that explicitly comprises “a first item” (in act (a)) and “a second item” (in act (c)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify claims of reference so as to perform that act/step (e) routing for not only a first item, but at least additionally the/a second, since such an additional iteration/sorting (e) as modified, would allow for the sorting of not just one, but a plurality of such objects (see MPEP 2143 example rationale A) in a manner characterized by a reasonable expectation of success.
Instant Claims
Claims of Reference US 11,962,876 B2
Claim 68
A recycling method comprising the acts:
Claim 9 modifying claim 1
A recycling method practiced in a waste management facility that processes an incoming material stream, the method including the acts:
illuminating a material stream with first illumination, and capturing first imagery;
illuminating a first region of the material stream with a first illumination source (claim 9) in view of claim 1 (a) … from imagery depicting a first
item in said material stream;
analyzing the first imagery to detect and decode a first digital watermark formed on a first plastic container;
Claim 1 (a) decoding first machine-readable payload data, in view of inherent detection necessary for decoding – and further under (e) detecting that a machine-readable indicia is present in said imagery; in further view of claim 9 wherein the first machine-readable payload
data is decoded from depiction of the first item captured when illuminated by the first illumination source
directing the first plastic container for recycling in accordance with data decoded from the first digital watermark;
(e) sorting said material stream in the waste management facility based on said determined types of materials;
illuminating the material stream with a second illumination different than the first illumination, and capturing second imagery;
Claim 9 and illuminating a second region of the material stream with a second illumination source of a type different than the first illumination source, … and the second machine-readable payload data is decoded from depiction of the second item captured when illuminated by
the second illumination source.
analyzing the second imagery to detect and decode a second digital watermark formed on
a second plastic container;
Claim 1 (c) decoding second machine-readable payload data, comprising plural symbols, from imagery depicting a second item in said material stream;
directing the second plastic container for recycling in accordance with data decoded from the second digital watermark.
(e) sorting said material stream – in view of * above in addition to that mention of “a second item” at act (c)
Dependent claims 72 and 69 correspond to reference claims 11 and 4 respectively, and are rejected accordingly. Regarding claims 70-71 and 73, these claims further limit that first illumination such that it is red, white, or includes infrared or ultraviolet light, which each constitute obvious illumination alternatives (see MPEP 2143 Rationale (E)), and/or require no more than obvious modification to claims of reference under a similar rationale as that presented in the prior-art based rejections below and e.g. Sutton (US 2021/0001377 A1), Frankel et al. (US 5,314,072), etc..
Claims 53-65 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over one or more claims of:
U.S. Patent No. 11,962,875 B2 (Application No. 17/371,964).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for those same reasons identified above (see those three bullets, and in particular that second bullet as it relates to the language “diverted from” vs. “sorted from”, “digital watermark” vs. “machine readable indicia” (further in view of that last/final ‘wherein’ limitation of reference claim 1)), in further view of the mapping/correspondence identified in the table below:
Instant application
Claims of Reference US 11,962,875 B2
Claim 53
A method of processing imagery depicting first and second plastic objects in a material stream, the method including the acts:
Claim 1
A method of sorting plastic items in a material stream, including the acts:
applying a first digital watermark reading algorithm to first imagery that depicts the first
object;
decoding first plural-symbol payload information from a machine-readable indicia on a first item,
determining a type of plastic of the first object based on first payload data decoded by the
first digital watermark reading algorithm from the first imagery, and diverting the first object
from the material stream towards a first destination in accordance with said determined type of plastic of the first object;
that decoding above in view of the decoded first plural-symbol payload information including a plastic recycling code indicating a type of plastic used in the first item; sorting the first item from said waste stream based on said plastic recycling code included in the first plural-symbol payload information; … the method further including sorting the first item to a first destination based on said plastic recycling code included in the first plural-symbol payload information,
applying a second digital watermark reading algorithm to second imagery that depicts the
second object;
decoding second plural-symbol payload information from a machine-readable indicia on a second item
determining a type of plastic of the second object based on second payload data decoded
by the second digital watermark reading algorithm from the second imagery, and diverting the
second object from the material stream towards a second destination in accordance with said
determined type of plastic of the second object;
based on said identifier code, obtaining a corresponding plastic recycling code from a database; and sorting the second item from said waste stream based on
the plastic recycling code obtained from the database; … the method
further including … and sorting the second item to a second destination based on said plastic recycling code obtained from the database,
wherein:
the second destination is the same as the first destination;
wherein:
the second destination is the same as the first destination;
the first and second plastic objects are two instances of the same type of object;
the first item and the second item are two instances of a same type of item;
each of said objects is marked with both a first digital watermark and a second digital
watermark, the first watermark being formed by a first process and the second watermark being
formed by a second process different than the first process, and the first watermark employing a
first signaling protocol and the second watermark employing a second signaling protocol
different than the first signaling protocol; and
each of said first item and said second item is marked with both a first machine-readable indicia and a second machine-readable indicia, the first machine-readable indicia being formed by a first process and the second machine-readable indicia being formed by a second process different than the first process, said first machine-readable indicia employing a first signaling protocol and the second machine readable indicia employing a second signaling protocol different than the first signaling protocol; and
the first digital watermark reading algorithm is different than the second digital watermark reading algorithm, said difference including that the first algorithm is adapted to read watermarks employing the first signaling protocol, and the second algorithm is adapted to read watermarks employing the second, different, signaling protocol;
the first decoding algorithm is different than the second decoding algorithm, said difference including that the first decoding algorithm is adapted to read machine readable indicia employing the first signaling protocol, and the second decoding algorithm is adapted to read machine-readable indicia employing the second signaling protocol that is different than the first signaling protocol;
wherein an object can be diverted from the material stream based on reading of either the
first or second watermarks, by said respective first or second watermark reading algorithms.
wherein an item can be sorted from the material stream based on reading of either the first or second machine readable indicia, by said respective first or second decoding algorithm; and
wherein the first machine-readable indicia comprises a first digital watermark, and the second machine-readable indicia comprises a second digital watermark.
Limitations of instant dependent claims correspond to those as identified below in a more concise mapping, in further view of Obviousness type Double Patenting procedures as they relate to system/CRM/method claims of congruent scopes – e.g. limitations of article of manufacture claim(s) 2-5 of reference (detailing those first and second indicia/watermarks of the recited container/article), as applicable to method claims reciting those corresponding indicia/marks and functional language associated therewith. Dependent claim(s) omitted from the table below (58-59 and 61-65) pertain to marks/indicia at 300 DPI, employing respective error correction, scrambling keys, spreading modulation sequences and scatter tables broadly/commonly implemented when decoding digital watermark/indicia and requiring no more than obvious modification to claim(s) of reference (see MPEP 2143 Rationale (D)).
Instant application
Claims of Reference
Claim 54
Claim 11
Claim 55
Claim 2
Claim 56
Claim 2
Claim 57
Claim 3
Claim 60
Claim 5 (container/article of manufacture), see also Claim 14 (method)
Claims 75-78 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over one or more claims of:
U.S. Patent No. 11,962,875 B2 (Application No. 17/371,964).
Instant application
Claims of Reference US 11,962,875 B2
Claim 75
A plastic container including a printed label, the label being printed to convey a first digital watermark encoding a payload P1 for sensing by a point of sale scanner in a retail store, the first digital watermark including a first reference signal that enables geometric registration of the first digital watermark for decoding by said scanner, the first reference signal comprising a first constellation of peaks in the 2D Fourier magnitude domain,
Claim 2
A product container manufactured of plastic and including a first digital watermark pattern employing a first signaling protocol, a plural-symbol payload of said first digital watermark pattern conveying data indicating a type of
plastic from which the product container is manufactured characterized in that the product container additionally includes a second digital watermark pattern employing a second signaling protocol different than the first signaling protocol, the plural-symbol payload of said second digital
watermark pattern also conveying data indicating the type of plastic from which the product container is manufactured, wherein the first digital watermark pattern and the second digital watermark pattern differ in signaling protocol, yet both are useful for plastic recycling; …
the first digital watermark pattern encodes a plural-symbol payload P1 for sensing by a recycling apparatus, the first digital watermark pattern including a first reference signal comprising a first constellation of peaks in a 2D Fourier magnitude domain; …
the second digital watermark pattern including a second reference signal comprising a second constellation of peaks in the 2D Fourier magnitude domain different than the first constellation of peaks;
characterized in that a surface of the plastic is shaped to convey a second digital watermark encoding a payload P2 that is different than P1, for sensing by a recycling apparatus, the second digital watermark including a second reference signal that enables geometric registration of the second digital watermark for decoding, the second reference signal comprising a second constellation of peaks in the 2D Fourier magnitude domain that is different than the first
constellation of peaks,
the first digital watermark pattern is encoded as a 3D texture pattern in a surface of the product container, and the second digital watermark pattern is encoded as a pattern of printed variations in local luminance or chrominance on a printed label conveyed by the product container; …. the second digital watermark pattern encodes a plural-symbol payload P2 that is different than P1, for sensing by a point-of-sale scanner in a retail store, the second digital watermark pattern including a second reference signal comprising a second constellation of peaks in the 2D Fourier magnitude domain different than the first constellation of peaks; and
wherein the first digital watermark is encoded as a pattern of variations in local luminance or chrominance, and the second digital watermark is encoded as a 3D texture pattern; and
the first digital watermark pattern is encoded as a 3D texture pattern in a surface of the product container, and the second digital watermark pattern is encoded as a pattern of printed variations in local luminance or chrominance on a printed label conveyed by the product container;
wherein the different constellation of peaks in the second reference signal prevents a point of sale scanner that is attempting to read the payload P1 in a retail store from being confused by the presence of the second digital watermark.
the first constellation of peaks in the first reference signal prevents a point-of-sale scanner that is attempting to read the plural-symbol payload P2 in a retail store from attempting to decode a payload from the first digital watermark pattern.
Regarding claims dependent on instant claim 75:
Instant application
Claims of Reference
Claim 76
Claim 6, wherein some but not all of the peaks in the first constellation overlap with peaks in the second constellation
Claim 77
Claim 7, wherein none of the peaks in the first constellation overlaps with a peak in the second constellation.
Claim 78
Claim 8 wherein each of the peaks in the second constellation lies on a different radial line in a 2D Fourier magnitude plot of the second reference signal, and none of the peaks in the first constellation lies on one of said radial lines.
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 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.
1. Claims 68, 71 and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutton et al. (US 2021/0001377 A1) in view of Thompson et al. (US 4,248,389) (both cited by Applicant).
As to claim 68, Sutton discloses a recycling method (processing of bottle/object 100 at plastic recovery facility MRF or PRF 58, [0041] “a method of uniquely identifying a product for subsequent recycling”) comprising the acts:
illuminating a material stream with first illumination, and capturing first imagery ([0033] “In use, the second image is captured at a different excitation wavelength from the first image”; Examiner notes the ‘second image’ of Sutton best corresponds to the recited ‘first imagery’ – as it concerns a first code/watermark/indicia discernable from e.g. product packaging/labelling [0032] under e.g. a visible light illumination for detecting one or more codes/identifiers – however that ‘first image’ also reads for Sutton as applied (as each imaging may concern a different product instance); see also those two distinct “trace signatures” of Sutton – [0066] “Further preferably, the first and second trace signatures are detected separately”);
analyzing the first imagery to detect and decode a first digital watermark formed on a first plastic container ([0036] “a product database being configured to associate the product with a unique machine readable code being applied at least a portion of the product or its packaging”, [0040] “second camera means for capturing a second digital image of the shape of the product and matching the captured image with the trained database which matches remnants of product labelling and/or product shape and colour to allow at least the manufacturer or brand of the product to be identified”, [0060] “Further preferably, the label also comprises the manufacturer's name and/or a RAL or Pantone code being representative of the manufacturer of the product”, [0065], etc.,);
directing the first plastic container for recycling in accordance with data decoded from
the first digital watermark ([0026] “separating the product from a mixed feedstock for onward recycling”, [0068] “marking a surface of the product with a plurality of trace signatures being representative of the source of manufacture and/or base polymer manufacturer and/or polymer material and/or material grade and/or brand of product, and which enables the subsequent separation of the product based on the detected attributes of the product”; Fig. 3, Fig. 7 etc.,);
illuminating the material stream with a second illumination different than the first
illumination, and capturing second imagery ([0028] “Further preferably, the machine readable code being excited using radiation having an excitation wavelength in the UV, IR, NIR or visible light spectrum”, [0029] “In use, the recovery of the machine readable code and the fluorescing shape or colour may be detected at the same or different excitation wavelengths within the same or different optical detectors”, [0037], [0045-0046] different from that illumination for the case of [0033], [0180] “the printed data code 88 can be used in conjunction with the colour and shape identification, brand, material spectral or taggant markers described herein to provide additional data representative of one or more attributes or characteristics of the product 100 when embodied as a 1D, 2D or 3D data matrix, barcode and QR code, or any other suitable industrial alpha, numerical or alphanumeric coding process”);
analyzing the second imagery to detect and decode a second digital watermark formed on a second plastic container ([0029-0030] obtaining that ‘recovered data’ from the machine readable code, [0030] “Preferably, the recovered data in the machine readable code includes production data and/or PRN and/or PERN and/or EPR compliance information”, in view of [0013] “such as, Extended Producer Responsibly (EPR), Packaging Recovery Note (PRN) and Packaging Export Recovery Note (PERN)”, [0044] “the first trace signature being any chemical or physical marker capable of being read at a detector” in view of that ‘first trace signature’ being distinct from the ‘second trace signature’ [0065-0066], for any second instance of products 100 – see e.g. ‘continuous feedstock of mixed recyclable products’ [0099], etc.,);
directing the second plastic container for recycling in accordance with data decoded from the second digital watermark ([0026], [0068], [0090], Fig. 3, Fig. 7 etc.,).
Sutton further discloses generally that relying on two distinct traces/codes obtained under different illumination conditions (for a plurality of products 100), may allow for the use of a single data matrix code 90 (taggant 102 as printed code 88 and more particularly in the form of data matrix code 90 ([0176])) (even if formed at two distinct instances on each instance of product(s) 100, Fig. 16) in a plurality of contexts to include recycling determinations, and further that information obtained from a comparison of product imagery to known/reference images (for the case of any intact product labeling/packaging distinct from e.g. 88/90), see e.g. [0071] – and/or detecting a RAL/Pantone code from product packaging may also serve as a corroborating identifier facilitating product separation/sorting ([0021], [0068], etc.). Sutton at the minimum suggests that any instances (e.g. first, second, etc.,) of product(s) 100 may be routed/sorted on the basis of such information regardless of where/how such information is derived (e.g. from taggant 88/90 and/or that ‘second image’ for determining at least a manufacturer and/or brand of the product from indicia on product packaging/labeling ([0032-0033)), particularly for instances as suggested in e.g. [0196] wherein any of the taggants and/or packaging/labels may be damaged/distorted.
Thompson evidences the obvious nature of relying on a printed code part of product packaging, e.g. UPC code, in a recycling/reuse/reclamation context (Abs “At the sorting station the individual containers are rotated by a roller in order to bring the UPC Code, bar code or other code on each container into alignment with an optical scanner at the sorting station. The optical scanner produces an output signal representative of the bar code and this is in turn fed to a computer which compares the signal from the optical scanner with a plurality of prestored values in the computer. As a result of this comparison, the computer generates an output signal representative of the type of container at the sorting station. This output signal from the computer in turn is fed to an indexing mechanism which transports the container in the sorting station to one of a plurality of outfeed conveyors”). Thompson further discloses the ubiquitous nature of UPC, barcode or other codes printed/formed on product packaging/containers (col 1 lines 25-30) and rationale for relying on this pre-existing information to facilitate automatic sorting operations accordingly.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system and method of Sutton to perform one or more sorting operations on the basis of e.g. a UPC code existing on intact product packaging/ labeling as disclosed in Thompson and suggested in Sutton, in addition and/or as an alternative to that basis involving one or more taggants 102 of Sutton, the motivation as similarly taught/suggested therein that additionally considering such an alternate source of product identifier information may ensure any final sorting decision is of the highest possible accuracy given the information available, and/or alternatively that a final sorting decision reaches a threshold degree of certainty in a more expedient manner based on whichever source of information is reliably detected first.
As to claim 71, Sutton in view of Thompson teaches/suggests the method of claim 68.
Sutton in view of Thompson further suggests the method wherein the first illumination is white light (Sutton [0197] “under ambient, white or UV light conditions”, [0198] “The brand assigned colour and shape markers 102 can also be identified by higher speed incumbent optical sorters operating under UV or white light conditions, which allows the retrieval of the products 100”, [0203] “Whilst in the preferred embodiment the AI-enabled cameras 154 and 158 operate in UV light and white diffused light in the first and second detection zones 146, 148, respectively, this is in no way intended to be limiting as the AI-enabled cameras 154, 158 can operate with ambient light, white or diffused light, or UV light or a combination of the aforementioned spectra within one detection unit 140”, [0210], etc.,).
As to claim 73, Sutton in view of Thompson teaches/suggests the method of claim 68.
Sutton in view of Thompson further suggests the method wherein one of said first and second illumination includes infrared or ultraviolet light (Sutton e.g. [0210] UV source 156, [0028] “Further preferably, the machine readable code being excited using radiation having an excitation wavelength in the UV, IR, NIR or visible light spectrum”, [0046] “In use, the at least one readable dot may be a fluorescent mark that is transparent, and is only detectable when it is illuminated with UV, NIR and/or IR light at the detector”, [0145] “This has the potential to cause onerous readings when using UV spectrum detection. In these cases, NIR/IR dots and spectrum detection can be used. IR dots will not be inhibited from signal when covered with surplus detergent, as many home care products, washing liquids and fabric softeners etc. contain UV brighteners within their formulation that could otherwise mask a UV ink mark signal”, etc.,).
2. Claim 69 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutton et al. (US 2021/0001377 A1) in view of Thompson et al. (US 4,248,389) and Kerver (US 2018/0345323 A1) (all cited by Applicant).
As to claim 69, Sutton in view of Thompson teaches/suggests the method of claim 68.
Sutton in view of Thompson further suggests the method wherein the first watermark is formed by printing on the first plastic container (Thompson’s UPC; Sutton [0059] “Preferably, the first trace signature is applied to a printed label which is subsequently adhered to the product” [0060] “Further preferably, the label also comprises the manufacturer's name and/or a RAL or Pantone code being representative of the manufacturer of the product”, [0061] “In use, the first trace signature may be applied as a masterbatch or polymer carrier to component parts of the product by pellet, liquid or powder form and supplied by gravimetric or other compatible dosing process”, [0139], etc.,), and the second watermark is formed by 3D texturing on the second plastic container (Sutton 3D barcode disclosure e.g. [0260] “wherein the machine readable code is a 1D, 2D or 3D barcode, data matrix or QR code or any other suitable coding structure”, [0027], [0069], etc.,).
Kerver further evidences the obvious nature of a dot code formed by 3D texturing one or more containers/products (Abs “A method of waste separation includes irradiating the waste by a source of radiation, capturing an image of the waste when irradiated by the source of radiation; where an item in the waste is provided with a pattern, the pattern being provided in or on a surface of the item, the pattern forming a repetition of dots … The pattern may be a relief pattern. The relief pattern may comprise a pattern of bumps and recesses. The pattern, such as in a form of a relief, may also be applied to identify the item”, [0009] “Using a 3 dimensional image , a reliability and detectability of the pattern may be increased (such as in the case of the pattern forming a relief), as on the one hand such a (3 dimensional) pattern may be recognized more easily, and as on the other hand — in a stream of waste, including e.g. crushed packages - capturing the patterns from different viewing angles may increase a likelihood of detection”, [0016] as a whole, [0016] “Providing the relief pattern on the inside of the item may be particularly useful in case the item (i.e. the part where the relief is provided) is made from an at least partly transparent material, so that a relief at the inside is visible from the outside, while keeping a smooth, less contamination sensitive outside surface”, [0048] “Still further, as the relief pattern may exhibit a fine texture, it may be visually pleasing and/or unobtrusive to a human observer. Still further, the relief pattern may be provided on or in a relatively large part of the surface of the item, allowing a reliable identification irrespective of the orientation, distance, contamination of the item or possible damage to the item”, etc.,).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify the system and method of Sutton in view of Thompson such that the 3D trace/dot code 88 of Sutton is formed by 3D texturing on a container as taught/suggested by Kerver, the motivation as similarly taught/suggested therein that such a 3D texturing may ensure the code is more reliably detected even in the face of distortion/damage to the product/container.
3. Claims 70 and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutton et al. (US 2021/0001377 A1) in view of Thompson et al. (US 4,248,389) and Frankel (US 2018/0345323 A1) (all cited by Applicant).
As to claim 70, Sutton in view of Thompson teaches/suggests the method of claim 68.
Sutton fails to explicitly disclose the method wherein the first illumination is red light.
Sutton does however disclose the system/method wherein illumination may optionally be IR/NIR, which is illumination adjacent to/bordering red/those longest wavelengths on the visible light spectrum. Sutton further discloses that the inks of code 88/90 may fluoresce red.
Frankel evidences the obvious nature of red illumination (Frankel col 2 lines 15-25 “Each step of determining whether a bottle has a certain characteristic preferably includes disposing the bottle between a light emitter and a light detector, passing the light through the bottle, and determining if the magnitude of the light has diminished by passage through the bottle. For example, the first sensing area, which determines whether the bottle is clear, uses red light”, col 2 lines 25-35 “As for the third sensing area, a high intensity red light is used”, see further col 1 lines 15-25 discussing background Reed with polarized and colorized light (alternating red and green), col 15 lines 5-10 “Since LED 54 emits red light, the amount of light reaching photocell 56 will be approximately equal to the amount of light leaving LED 54 if the bottle is clear”, etc.,).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify the system and method of Sutton in view of Thompson such that optional illumination further comprises red light as taught/ suggested by Frankel, the motivation as similarly taught/suggested therein and readily recognized by POSITA that such an illumination may serve to quickly/efficiently ascertain material differentiation for commonly encountered compositions, e.g. PET (Frankel col 15 lines 25-30 “Most of the bottles diverted to chute 69 will be clear PET (polyethylene therephtalate) bottles. Otherwise, if bottle 3 is not clear, ejector 61 will not be activated and the bottle will pass to the next sensing area, green bottle sensing area 73”) vs HPDE (Frankel col 16 lines 25-35 “Most of the bottles diverted into chute 89 will be translucent high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles. Otherwise, if the bottle is not translucent, ejector 88 will not be activated and the bottle will pass to the end of the conveyor 8”).
As to claim 72, Sutton in view of Thompson teaches/suggests the method of claim 68.
Sutton in view of Thompson further suggests the method wherein the first illumination includes polarized light.
Frankel further evidences the obvious nature of first illumination including polarized light (col 13 lines 20-55 “Alternatively, if X-ray sensing area 13 is omitted, polarization sensing area 37 will remove the PVC bottles along with glass bottles from the bottle stream. Although it is not shown, instead of sending the glass and PVC bottles to the same storage bin, the diverted bottles could be passed through another polarization sensing area similar to polarization sensing area 37. While non-PVC plastic bottles greatly change polarized light in comparison to PVC and glass bottles, PVC bottles do change polarized light slightly more than glass bottles. In a mixture of glass and PVC bottles, this second polarization area would detect this difference between glass and PVC. The glass and PVC bottles would be sent to separate streams, each destined for their own storage bin. The two polarization areas could also be used in series. Since non-PVC plastic bottles affect polarized light the most, glass the least, and PVC bottles somewhere in between, the first polarization area could have a threshold adjusted to remove only glass bottles, and the second polarization area could have a threshold adjusted to remove all PVC bottles. The remaining bottles would be non-PVC plastic bottles, and would continue down the conveyor”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify the system and method of Sutton in view of Thompson such that optional illumination further comprises polarized light as taught/ suggested by Frankel, the motivation being that as identified above for the case of claim 70 and similarly suggested in Frankel col 3 lines 25-30, col 11 line 55, and col 13, that polarized illumination may serve for efficient material differentiation, e.g. PVC vs PVDC in a manner further characterized by a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 53-65 and 75-78 would be allowable if corresponding Double Patenting rejections set forth in this Office action are overcome (see note above regarding the filing of a Terminal Disclaimer). References of record fail to serve in any obvious combination teaching/ suggesting each and every limitation as required therein, and reasons for allowance are apparent from the record(s) associated with parent application 17/393,227 now US 11,962,876 B2 and related (in view of common parent application 16/435,232) Application No. 17/371,964 now US 11,962,875 B2. See MPEP § 1302.14.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN L LEMIEUX whose telephone number is (571)270-5796. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 6:00 EST.
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, Chan Park can be reached on 571-272-7409. 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.
/IAN L LEMIEUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669