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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Lines 4-5: “onto a conveying plane located in the x-y direction perpendicular to the z direction” should read “onto a conveying plane located in the x-y plane”
Claim 1, Line 6: “hygienic modular feed device comprising” should read “the hygienic modular feed device comprising”
Claim 2, Lines 3-4: “so that each region of the curved wall has an angle tangential to the horizontal x axis greater than zero” should read “so that at every point on the curved wall, the tangential angle with respect to the x-axis is greater than zero”
Claim 6, Lines 8-11: “b) to generate” should read “b) generate”; “c) to optimally” should read “c) optimally”; “d) to ensure” should read “d) ensure”
Claim 11, Line 3: “arrangeable arranged” should read “arrangeable”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7, 8, and 14 are 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.
Regarding claim 7, “any angle (α)” is unclear because it is not defined in the claim where the angle is formed, therefore making it unclear how the angle relates to the length of the passage path of the X-rays through the bulk material. For examination purposes, it understood from the specification and the drawings that α is the angle formed between the X-ray irradiated from the source above the sample and the central vertical passing through the source.
Regarding claim 8, the meaning of “multi-step connection piece with different predefined connection widths” is unclear. The claim fails to make clear what “multi-step” describes: the “connection”, the “piece”, or some other aspect not disclosed? For examination purposes, a device wherein the user can connect exchangeable pieces of different widths at the inlet opening will be treated as reading on claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, the use of passive voice in describing each action (“the supply quantity/height/conveying speed is controllable”; and “is generated”, “is optimally utilized”, “is achieved”) makes it unclear precisely what steps are being claimed as part of the method. For examination purposes, the limitations are read as if they were recited actively. Thus, claim 14 is interpreted as a method with two steps. The first step is controlling at least one of the following: the supply quantity at the inlet opening, the height and/or inclination of the adjusting element, and the conveying speed of the conveyor device. The second step is performing at least one of the following: generating a substantially constant product stream height, optimally utilizing the radiographic width of an X-ray inspection device, and achieving the highest possible throughput.
Furthermore, as claim 14 is dependent on claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the height and/or inclination of the adjusting element”. The adjusting element is first claimed in claim 4. For examination purposes, it will be considered that one or more of the supply quantity at the inlet opening and the conveying speed of a conveyor device are controllable.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokozuka et al. (JP 2004026483 A) in view of Oguchi et al. (JP 2010107411 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yokozuka teaches a hygienic modular feed device for transferring products (Abstract) of a product stream consisting of bulk material (Fig. 1), which is supplied from a substantially vertical z direction (Fig. 1) into a substantially horizontal conveying direction x (Fig. 1), and onto a conveying plane located in the x-y direction perpendicular to the z direction (Fig. 1), hygienic modular feed device comprising
an upper inlet opening as viewed in the z direction, oriented substantially in the z direction (Fig. 2: top opening)
a lower outlet opening as viewed in the z direction, oriented substantially in the x direction (Fig. 2: lower opening in bottom left of figure) connected to an intermediate region (Fig. 2: tubular body 20)
wherein the intermediate region has a curved wall on the rear side (Paragraph [0015]: the two inclined surfaces are formed at the lower end of the chute by bending, but may be formed by a continuous curved surface) as viewed at least in the conveying direction x, to gently change the direction of the products from the z direction to the x direction such that the pressure resulting from the falling movement of the products is at least partially absorbed by the wall, and accordingly the pressure of the product stream on a conveyor system, in particular conveyor belt, arranged below the outlet opening is reduced (Abstract).
Yokozuka does not teach the feed device being purposed for an inspection device, in particular an X-ray inspection device.
In the same field of endeavor, Oguchi teaches an X-ray inspection device (particularly, one that examines a product stream consisting of bulk material on a conveyor) (Abstract and Figures 1-2). In light of the teachings of Oguchi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yokozuka such that the feed device and conveyor are part of an X-ray inspection apparatus, with the functional benefit of obtaining X-ray data to inspect the bulk product for damage, defects, etc.
Regarding claim 14, an X-ray inspection device having a feed device according to claim 1 is obvious over Yokozuka in view of Oguchi. Yokozuka does not teach a method for optimizing the inspection outcomes of the inspection device, wherein one or more of
the supply quantity at the inlet opening,
the height and/or inclination of the adjusting element, and
the conveying speed of a conveyor device
is controllable such that one or more of: a substantially constant product stream height is generated; the radiographic width of an X-ray inspection device is optimally utilized; and the highest possible throughput is achieved.
In the same field of endeavor, Oguchi teaches a method for optimizing the inspection outcomes of an inspection device (Paragraph beginning with “The determination unit 94 compares the data S20…” in machine translation), wherein one or more of
the supply quantity at the inlet opening (same paragraph: “the amount of articles supplied from the article supply device 12 to the conveyor 6 is reduced”)
the height and/or inclination of the adjusting element, and
the conveying speed of a conveyor device (same paragraph: “the driving speed of the belt conveyor is decreased”)
is controllable such that one or more of: a substantially constant product stream height is generated (same paragraph: “Since the article supply amount is reduced, the thickness of the article 50 on the conveyor 6 is reduced thereafter”); the radiographic width of an X-ray inspection device is optimally utilized; and the highest possible throughput is achieved.
In light of the teachings of Oguchi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yokozuka to include a mechanism for detecting the thickness of the material on the conveyor, and reducing the supply of the material or speed of the conveyor to regulate the thickness. This provides the benefit of avoiding the flow of material on the conveyor becoming too thick, reducing X-ray transmission. This improves accuracy of the inspection device.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokozuka in view of Oguchi, and further in view of Dick (US 20050072812 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yokozuka and Oguchi does not teach the curved rear wall ending in the direction of the outlet opening before it merges into the horizontal, so that each region of the curved wall has an angle tangential to the horizontal x axis greater than zero.
In the same field of endeavor, Dick teaches the curved rear wall ending in the direction of the outlet opening before it merges into the horizontal, so that each region of the curved wall has an angle tangential to the horizontal x axis greater than zero (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0054]: the angle of the lower section of the discharger surface is between 10 degrees and 15 degrees).
In light of the teachings of Dick, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yokozuka and Oguchi such that the curved rear wall of the feed device does not become horizontal toward the outlet. This provides the benefit that the bulk product can slide off the rear wall onto the conveyor more easily, preventing the product from laying still on and possibly clogging the feeder.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the combination of Yokozuka and Oguchi does not teach the hygienic modular feed device having a connection piece in the region of the inlet opening, in particular a multi-step connection piece with different predefined connection widths.
In the same field of endeavor, Dick teaches the hygienic modular feed device having a connection piece in the region of the inlet opening, in particular a multi-step connection piece with different predefined connection widths (Paragraph [0052] and Fig. 12: upper section 1 is exchangeable and connectable to the lower feeder section 2 as needed. Examples of different connection pieces with different widths in Figures 10 and 18).
In light of the teachings of Dick, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yokozuka and Oguchi such that the feed device is connectable to pieces of various widths at the inlet opening. This improves efficiency by allowing the feed device to be quickly and flexibly repurposed for a variety of different inputs.
Claims 3, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokozuka in view of Oguchi, and further in view of Bai (CN 106477289 A).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yokozuka and Oguchi does not teach the intermediate region having a downwardly bending lower edge in its end region before the outlet opening, to allow for reliable emptying after the end of the product feed.
In the same field of endeavor, Bai teaches the intermediate region having a downwardly bending lower edge in its end region before the outlet opening, to allow for reliable emptying after the end of the product feed (Fig. 1: bottom-most section of rear wall of hopper is downwardly bent).
In light of the teaching of Bai, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yokozuka and Oguchi such that the end region of the bottom of the feed device is downwardly bent. This provides the benefit that the bulk product can slide off the device onto the conveyor more easily, preventing the product from laying still on and possibly clogging the feeder.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yokozuka and Oguchi does not teach the hygienic modular feed device having an adjusting element at the outlet opening substantially adjustable in height in the z direction to vary the height of the outlet opening.
In the same field of endeavor, Bai teaches the hygienic modular feed device having an adjusting element at the outlet opening substantially adjustable in height in the z direction to vary the height of the outlet opening (Fig. 1: movable plate 32, which is rotatable up and down about the shaft 33, thus being substantially adjustable in height in the z direction and varying the height of the outlet opening).
In light of the teachings of Bai, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yokozuka and Oguchi to include an adjusting element above the outlet of the feed device that can vary the height of the opening, allowing the user to control the flow rate of the bulk material onto the conveyor or open up the device for cleaning.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yokozuka and Oguchi does not teach the adjusting element being adjustable in its inclination with respect to the vertical z axis, to enable adaptation to the pourability of the products of the bulk material
In the same field of endeavor, Bai teaches the adjusting element being adjustable in its inclination with respect to the vertical z axis, to enable adaptation to the pourability of the products of the bulk material (Fig. 1: movable plate 32, which is rotatable up and down about the shaft 33, thus inherently enabling adaptation to the pourability of the products).
In light of the teachings of Bai, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yokozuka and Oguchi to include an adjusting element above the outlet of the feed device that is adjustable in its inclination with respect to the vertical z axis, allowing the user to control the flow rate of the bulk material onto the conveyor or open up the device for cleaning.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokozuka in view of Oguchi, Bai, and Bagust (US 6276516 B1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yokozuka, Oguchi, and Bai does not teach the hygienic modular feed device having a control device which, during operation of the inspection device, enables the height and/or inclination of the adjusting element to be adapted to the conveying speed of the conveyor system, so as to
generate a continuously specifiable product stream height that is as constant as possible, and/or
generate continuously specifiable mass flow that is as constant as possible, and/or
optimally utilize the radiographic width of an X-ray inspection device, and/or
ensure a constant single layer format for visual inspection.
In the same field of endeavor, Bagust teaches a control device (Fig. 1: actuator 12) which, during operation of the device, enables the height and/or the angle of inclination of the adjusting element (Fig. 3: segment gate 11) to be adapted to the conveying speed of the conveyor system, so as to generate continuously specifiable mass flow that is as constant as possible (Col. 1, Lines 35-46 describe functioning of actuator and gate; Lines 25-27 describe regulating the amount of material discharged onto the conveying system).
In light of the teachings of Bagust, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yokozuka, Oguchi, and Bai such that the adjusting element is controllable by an actuator to regulate the flow of bulk material onto the conveyor during operation of the device. In the context of the inspection device, a regulated flow of material ensures that the X-ray radiation can be kept constant during operation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokozuka in view of Oguchi, Bai, and Ohtani (VN 10035071 B).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the combination of Yokozuka, Oguchi, and Bai does not teach the adjusting element having a curved lower edge such that the passage path of the X-rays through the bulk material is almost the same length at any angle (understood to be the angle formed between the X-ray irradiated from the source above the sample and the central vertical passing through the source).
In the same field of endeavor, Ohtani teaches a curved edge such that the passage path of the X-rays through the material is almost the same length at any angle (Fig. 10, and paragraph beginning with “As detailed above, in this embodiment, the deformer 54…” in machine translation). In light of the teachings of Ohtani, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yokozuka, Oguchi, and Bai such that the interface surface between the X-rays and the inspected sample (in the case of the feed device, that is the lower edge of the adjusting element) is curved, so that all of the off-center parts of the inspected material receive approximately the same amount of X-ray radiation as the part in the center. As explained in Ohtani, this is important for maintaining the homogeneity of the X-ray image across the homogenous sample.
Claims 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokozuka in view of Oguchi, and further in view of Freudinger (US 8925596 B2).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yokozuka and Oguchi does not teach the hygienic modular feed device being arranged in the inspection device by means of a quick-release fastener actuatable without tools such that lateral removal or insertion is made possible.
In the same field of endeavor, Freudinger teaches a feed device being arranged in another device by means of a quick-release fastener actuatable without tools (Figures 33-37: funnel bracket 570) such that lateral removal or insertion is made possible (Figures 33-37 and Col. 13, Line 38: dispensing funnels each removably attached to a funnel bracket). In light of the teachings of Freudinger, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yokozuka and Oguchi such that the feed device is attached to the conveyor inspection system by means of a holding bracket, allowing the user to quickly remove and insert a feed device without tools. This provides the benefit of enabling quick cleaning and/or replacement of the feed device as needed.
Regarding claim 10, Freudinger teaches the hygienic modular feed device being symmetrical about the x-z plane to enable insertion on both sides (Figures 36-37: funnel is symmetrical across the same plane of symmetry as the bracket, allowing to be inserted into the bracket starting from either side).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yokozuka, Oguchi, and Freudinger does not teach the hygienic modular feed device being partially a component of a radiation protection housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique (providing radiation protection housing via shielding materials like steel, lead, concrete) to a known device ready for improvement (the feed device of Yokozuka) to yield predictable results (a feed device for a conveyor as in Yokozuka, made at least partially of an X-ray shielding material such that the feed device provides radiation protection; providing the benefit of a compact setup wherein the feed device provides radiation housing without or with fewer additional surrounding barriers). See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokozuka in view of Oguchi, Freudinger, and Dick.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yokozuka, Oguchi, and Freudinger does not teach the hygienic modular feed device having elements that are one or more of: arrangeable in it or on it; and are modularly exchangeable.
In the same field of endeavor, Dick teaches the hygienic modular feed device having elements that are one or more of: arrangeable in it or on it; and are modularly exchangeable (Paragraph [0052] and Fig. 12: upper section 1 is exchangeable and connectable to the lower feeder section 2 as needed. Examples of different connection pieces with different widths in Figures 10 and 18).
In light of the teachings of Dick, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yokozuka, Oguchi, and Freudinger such that the feed device has modularly exchangeable components on it. This improves efficiency by allowing the feed device to be quickly and flexibly repurposed for a variety of different inputs.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokozuka in view of Oguchi, Freudinger, and Li et al. (CN 109592332 A).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yokozuka, Oguchi, and Freudinger does not teach a dust extraction device being provided, arranged on the hygienic modular feed device or integrated in the hygienic modular feed device.
In the same field of endeavor, Li teaches a dust extraction device being provided, arranged on the hygienic modular feed device or integrated in the hygienic modular feed device (Fig. 1: dust remover interface 14 connected to the feeding hopper 2).
In light of the teachings of Li, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yokozuka, Oguchi, and Freudinger such that the feed device is integrated with a dust remover. This provides the benefit of reducing contamination of the bulk material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM L TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-8389. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-4pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
/WILLIAM LAURENCE TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884