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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 appears to have grammatical errors and should instead recite “…wherein the receiving of the thermal radiation has a wavelength longer than a wavelength of middle wavelength infrared radiation.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Uncooled infrared light receiving element in claims 7 and 17. Here the word “element” is a generic placeholder for the term “means”, is modified by the functional language “to sense long wavelength infrared radiation” and further is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification does not provide structure for an “uncooled infrared light receiving element.” [0039] of the specification recites that an infrared light receiving element includes a cooling infrared light receiving element cooled to extremely low temperature to achieve higher sensitivity and an uncooled infrared light receiving element operable at room temperature which can be used as a light receiving element because of its low costs, however, no specific structure is disclosed for an uncooled infrared light receiving element.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. MPEP 2181 IV recites “A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description and may not be sufficiently enabled to support the full scope of the claim. The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right to exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, an inadequate disclosure may give rise to both an indefiniteness rejection for a means-plus-function limitation and a failure to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.”
The claim limitation “an uncooled infrared light receiving element” (in claims 7 and 17) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide structure for an “uncooled infrared light receiving element.” [0039] of the specification recites that an infrared light receiving element includes a cooling infrared light receiving element cooled to extremely low temperature to achieve higher sensitivity and an uncooled infrared light receiving element operable at room temperature which can be used as a light receiving element because of its low costs, however, no specific structure is disclosed for an uncooled infrared light receiving element.
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, 14, and 17 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.
Claim limitation “uncooled infrared light receiving element” (in claims 7 and 17) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. [0039] of the specification recites that an infrared light receiving element includes a cooling infrared light receiving element cooled to extremely low temperature to achieve higher sensitivity and an uncooled infrared light receiving element operable at room temperature which can be used as a light receiving element because of its low costs, however, no specific structure is disclosed for an uncooled infrared light receiving element. Given that the specification does not provide any further details regarding an uncooled infrared light receiving element, the examiner cannot reasonably provide an interpretation for what an uncooled infrared light receiving element could be
Therefore, claims 7 and 17 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the emitting diode" in “…the emitting emits light from the emitting diode or a laser…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 should instead recite “…the emitting emits the light from an emitting diode or a laser…”.
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 1, 8-11, and 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 11-15 of copending Application No. 18/683,775 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 8-11, and 18-20 from the instant application is claimed by claims 1-5 and 11-15 of copending Application No. 18/683,775.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11 of the instant case, copending Application No. 18/683,775 claims in claims 1-2 and 11-12, an inspection apparatus and inspection method, comprising:
a light emitter configured to emit light to a sealing portion of a package including a light energy absorbing material, the light having a wavelength absorbed by the light energy absorbing material (Claim 1 from [0141] for inspection apparatus and claim 11 from [0141] for inspection method);
a light receiver to receive thermal radiation from the sealing portion as thermal information (Claim 1 from [0141] for inspection apparatus and claim 11 from [0141] for inspection method); and
two-dimensional image acquisition circuitry configured to acquire the thermal information on the sealing portion as a two-dimensional image through the light receiver (Claim 1 from [0141] for inspection apparatus and claim 11 from [0141] for inspection method),
wherein the light receiver does not directly receive the light emitted from the light emitter and passed through the sealing portion and does not directly receive the light emitted from the light emitter and reflected by the sealing portion (Claim 2 from [0141] for inspection apparatus and claim 12 from [0141] for inspection method).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18 of the instant case, copending Application No. 18/683,775 claims in claims 3 and 13, the inspection apparatus and inspection method according to claims 1 and 11 (of the instant case), respectively, wherein:
the light emitter emits light to the sealing portion as one shot, and the light receiver receives thermal radiation from the sealing portion as one shot (Claim 3 from [0141] for inspection apparatus and claim 13 from [0141] for inspection method).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19 of the instant case, copending Application No. 18/683,775 claims in claims 4 and 14, the inspection apparatus and inspection method according to claims 1 and 11, respectively,
wherein the light emitter includes an area light source in which point light sources are arrayed in vertical and horizontal directions (Claim 4 from [0141] for inspection apparatus and claim 14 from [0141] for inspection method).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20 of the instant case, copending Application No. 18/683,775 claims in claims 5 and 15, the inspection apparatus and inspection method according to claims 1 and 11, respectively, and further comprising:
pass-or-fail determination circuitry configured to determine whether the sealing portion is pass or fail using through the two-dimensional image acquired by the two-dimensional image acquisition circuitry (Claim 5 from [0141] for inspection apparatus and claim 15 from [0141] for inspection method).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morris ("Detection and Characterization of Package Defects and Integrity Failure using Dynamic Scanning Infrared Thermography (DSIRT)", December 2015, Journal of Food Science, Vol. 81, Nr. 2, pp. E388-E395).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Morris teaches an inspection apparatus and inspection method, comprising:
a light emitter (Fig. 2: 808 nm laser) to emit light to a sealing portion (Fig. 1: seal area) of a package (Package shown in Fig. 1) including a light energy absorbing material (Abstract: Samples were placed in relative motion to a laterally positioned infrared laser which induces heating through the plane of the seal.; See Fig. 5 which shows that seal is a high surface temperature area due to being heated by the infrared laser.), the light having a wavelength absorbed by the light energy absorbing material (Abstract: Infrared laser heats plane of seal.; See Fig. 5);
a light receiver (Fig. 2: imaging camera or thermopile sensor which could also be a bolometer sensor) to receive thermal radiation, which is based on the light which was emitted (Abstract), from the sealing portion as thermal information (Shown in Figs. 2 and 5 where Fig. 5 shows thermal radiation of the seal as detected by the thermopile sensor/thermal camera); and
two-dimensional image acquisition circuitry (Page E394, Col. 2, 2nd paragraph: PC or dedicated graphics processing unit) to acquire the thermal information as a two-dimensional image (shown in Fig. 5) through the light receiver (Fig. 5: thermal camera/thermopile sensor),
wherein the light receiver does not directly receive the light emitted from the light emitter and passed through the sealing portion (Shown in Fig. 2 where the thermopile sensor is offset from the 808 nm laser so that the thermopile sensor does not directly receive light emitted from the 808 nm laser and passed through the seal (Page E391, 2nd column, 3rd paragraph).) and does not directly receive the light emitted from the light emitter and reflected by the sealing portion (Shown in Fig. 2 where the position of the thermopile sensor ensures that it does not directly receive light that is emitted from the 808 nm laser and reflected by the seal.).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Morris teaches the inspection apparatus and inspection method according to claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Morris further teaches that the light emitter emits at least one of ultraviolet light, visible light, and near infrared light (Fig. 2: Laser is an infrared laser that emits light at a wavelength of 808 nm which is within the near infrared light range (Page E391, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph).).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Morris teaches the inspection apparatus and inspection method according to claims 2 and 12, respectively.
Morris further teaches that the light emitter (Fig. 2: 808 nm infrared laser) emits the light which excludes a wavelength longer than near infrared wavelengths (Page E391, Col. 2, 2nd paragraph: An 808 nm diode infrared laser is within the near infrared range and excludes wavelengths longer than near infrared wavelengths which approximately is >5000 nm.).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Morris teaches the inspection apparatus and inspection method according to claims 3 and 13, respectively.
Morris further teaches that the light emitter (Fig. 2: 808 nm laser) is a light emitting diode (Page E391, Col. 2, 2nd paragraph: Laser used is an 808 nm diode infrared laser.) or a laser having a peak wavelength in near infrared wavelengths.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Morris teaches the inspection apparatus according to claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Morris further teaches that a wavelength of the light emitted from the light emitter (Fig. 2: 808 nm infrared laser) and a wavelength of the thermal radiation received by the light receiver are different (Figs. 6 and 7 shows the thermal radiation detected by a bolometer sensor where in the original images the thermal radiation detected from the seal is ~120˚F. 120˚F corresponds to a wavelength of 9000 nm which is different than the wavelength emitted by the 808 nm infrared laser.).
Note: The 120˚F wavelength calculation was done using Wien’s displacement law (which is well-known) which states that black-body radiation curve for different temperatures will peak at different wavelengths that are inversely proportional to the temperature. Wien’s displacement law equation is shown below:
λ
p
e
a
k
=
b
T
where b is a constant equal to 2898 microns* K, T is the absolute temperature, and
λ
p
e
a
k
is the peak wavelength.
Plugging in ~120˚F into the equation above gives a
λ
p
e
a
k
~ 9000 nm.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Morris teaches the inspection apparatus and inspection method according to claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Morris further teaches that the light receiver (Fig. 2: imaging camera or thermopile sensor which could be a bolometer) receives the thermal radiation having a wavelength longer than a wavelength of middle wavelength infrared radiation (Page E392, Col. 1, last paragraph: FLIR i7 microbolometer sensor detects wavelengths between 7.5 – 13 μm which is longer than some wavelengths within the middle wavelength infrared radiation.).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Morris teaches the inspection apparatus and inspection method according to claims 6 and 16, respectively.
Morris further teaches that the light receiver (Fig. 2: imaging camera or thermopile sensor could be a microbolometer sensor (Page E392, Col. 1, 4th paragraph) where the microbolometer sensor used is a FLIR i7 (Page E392, Col. 1, 4th para.). The FLIR i7 model uses an uncooled microbolometer (see https://www.tequipment.net/FLIRi7.html?srsltid=AfmBOopS5eLaj-I36pwNF_ArIeT1RUYFCKnZksys3B5v8QTUKFNYU01y; Also see attached i7 specification sheet and specification section) includes an uncooled infrared light receiving element (FLIR i7 uses an uncooled microbolometer) configured to sense long wavelength infrared radiation (Page E392, Col. 1, last paragraph: FLIR i7 microbolometer sensor detects wavelengths between 7.5 – 13 μm which includes long wavelength infrared radiation.).
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.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris ("Detection and Characterization of Package Defects and Integrity Failure using Dynamic Scanning Infrared Thermography (DSIRT)", December 2015, Journal of Food Science, Vol. 81, Nr. 2, pp. E388-E395) in view of Ohashi (JP 2017067549 A, where portions of an attached translation are cited below).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Morris teaches the inspection apparatus and inspection method according to claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Morris further teaches that the light emitter (Fig. 2: 808 nm diode infrared laser) emits light to the sealing portion (shown in Fig. 2), and
the light receiver receives thermal radiation from the sealing portion (shown in Fig. 2).
Morris appears to be silent to the light emitter emits light as one shot and the light receiver receives thermal radiation from the sealing portion as one shot.
Ohashi, related to a seal inspecting device, does teach that the light emitter (Fig. 2: light source unit 3) emits light as one shot (shown in Fig. 2 with area light source) and the light receiver (Fig. 2: line sensor 4a) receives thermal radiation from the sealing portion as one shot (shown in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Morris so that the light emitter emits light as one shot and the light receiver receives thermal radiation from the sealing portion as one shot, as disclosed by Ohashi. The above-mentioned process has the advantage of reducing and optimizing the amount of time that is required for inspecting the seal on a package which is reduced to one shot.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris ("Detection and Characterization of Package Defects and Integrity Failure using Dynamic Scanning Infrared Thermography (DSIRT)", December 2015, Journal of Food Science, Vol. 81, Nr. 2, pp. E388-E395) in view of Ziegler (DE 102012103975 B3, where portions of an attached translation are cited below).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Morris teaches the inspection apparatus and inspection method according to claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Morris further teaches that the light emitter (Fig. 2: 808 nm laser) includes a light source.
Morris appears to be silent to the light emitter includes an area light source in which point light sources are arrayed in vertical and horizontal directions.
Ziegler, related to a device for non-destructive thermography inspection, does teach that the light emitter (Figs. 1-2: LED arrays 6 [0046]) includes an area light source in which point light sources are arrayed in vertical and horizontal directions (Shown in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Morris so that the light emitter includes an area light source in which point light sources are arrayed in vertical and horizontal directions, as disclosed by Ziegler. The above-mentioned configuration has the advantage of being able to homogeneously irradiate a large sample area of a test part for non-destructive inspection of inhomogeneities or defects ([0052] from Ziegler).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris ("Detection and Characterization of Package Defects and Integrity Failure using Dynamic Scanning Infrared Thermography (DSIRT)", December 2015, Journal of Food Science, Vol. 81, Nr. 2, pp. E388-E395) in view of Ignatowicz (US 20050286606 A1).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Morris teaches the inspection apparatus and inspection method according to claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Morris further teaches a pass-or-fail determination process to determine whether the sealing portion is pass or fail using through the two-dimensional image acquired by the bolometer (Page E394, Col. 2, 2nd paragraph: “…the bolometer-based camera system was easily able to distinguish between images containing a failed seal and those without…”.).
Morris appears to be silent to having a pass-or-fail determination circuity to determine whether the sealing portion is a pass or fail.
Ignatowicz, related to a method and apparatus for monitoring and detecting defects in package sealing, does teach having a pass-or-fail determination circuity to determine whether the sealing portion is a pass or fail ([0029]: “The results of each of the detection schemes may be combined logically in various ways to produce a single pass fail indication. The system may provide one or more methods of notifying the user of the pass/fail result. Two common outputs may be a relay contact and TCP/IP based communications. The results of the detection schemes may also be utilized in many other ways, with various types of output devices. For example, an output of the controller 24 may be communicably coupled to a monitor or display for viewing the seal 28.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Morris to incorporate a pass-or-fail determination circuity to determine whether the sealing portion is a pass or fail, as disclosed by Ignatowicz. The advantage of the above-mentioned configuration is that a user can be notified of a pass/fail result of the sealing of the package ([0029] from Ignatowicz).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights