DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 15-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/06/2026 has been entered.
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 1-2 and 5-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taro et al. (herein after will be referred to as Taro) (JP 2020041840A) in view of Caruthers et al. (herein after will be referred to as Caruthers) (US Patent No. 9,689,820) and in further view of Hiraoka (US 20100141754).
Regarding claim 1, Taro discloses an image acquisition apparatus, comprising:
a light emitter 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 absorbing material; [See Taro [0026] Far infrared radiation device is utilized as a heat application device.]
a light receiver to receive thermal radiation from the sealing portion as thermal information; and [See Taro [0006] Infrared camera for detecting defects in the seal.]
two-dimensional image acquisition circuitry configured to acquire the thermal information on the sealing portion as a two-dimensional image through the light receiver; and [See Taro [0006] Infrared camera for generating a thermographic image for detecting defects in the seal.]
a conveyor to convey a package, wherein: [See Taro [Fig. 2]
Taro does not explicitly disclose
the light receiver is disposed opposite the light emitter across the conveyor,
the conveyor stops conveying the package within a region in which the light emitter emits the light, the light emitter emits the light while conveyance of the package is stopped by the conveyor within the region, and
wherein the two-dimensional image acquisition circuitry acquires at least one two-dimensional image at a time t satisfying a condition below: 0<t<T, where 0 is a time when the light emitter emits the light to one side of the sealing portion and T is a time when surface temperature of another side of the sealing portion reaches peak temperature.
However, Caruthers does disclose
wherein the light receiver is disposed opposite the light emitter across the conveyor, [See Caruthers [Fig. 38]].
wherein the two-dimensional image acquisition circuitry acquires at least one two-dimensional image at a time t satisfying a condition below: 0<t<T, where 0 is a time when the light emitter emits the light to one side of the sealing portion and T is a time when surface temperature of another side of the sealing portion reaches peak temperature. [See Carutherss (Col. 7 lines 27 to line 51, Col. 8 lines 6-33). Also, see Fig. 1B. Also, see (Col. 11 lines 45-59). Also, see Claims 13-14.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus by Taro to add the teachings of Caruthers, in order to improve upon detection of defects [See Carutherss (Col. 1 line 22)].
Taro (modified by Caruthers) do not explicitly disclose
the conveyor stops conveying the package within a region in which the light emitter emits the light, the light emitter emits the light while conveyance of the package is stopped by the conveyor within the region, and
However, Hiraoka does disclose
the conveyor stops conveying the package within a region in which the light emitter emits the light, the light emitter emits the light while conveyance of the package is stopped by the conveyor within the region, and [See Hiraoka [0031 and Fig. 1] Object (9) is stopped on a conveyor (4) such that illumination source (5) illuminates object.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus by Taro (modified by Caruthers) to add the teachings of Hiraoka, in order to adapt the defect imaging apparatus in Taro/Caruthers to a stop and go operation in regards to the imaging/heating operation for an object on a conveyor. Furthermore, it is obvious that there are advantages/disadvantages for capturing an illuminated object on a conveyor belt that is either 1) continuously being conveyed or 2) stopped on the conveyor. In regards to 1), the imaging might not be as precise due to the object continuously moving throughout the illuminator/camera FOV but the speed of the operation will be increased due to the conveyor belt continuously moving objects. In regards to 2), the imaging will be more precise due to the object stopping within the camera/illuminator FOV but the speed of the operation will be decreased due to the conveyor belt stopping objects.
Regarding claim 2, Taro (modified by Caruthers and Hiraoka) disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Taro discloses
wherein: the light receiver does not directly receive the light emitted from the light emitter and passed through the sealing portion and the light receiver does not directly receive the light emitted from the light emitter and reflected by the sealing portion. [See Taro [Fig. 2] Heating device (60) is tilted with respect to the infrared camera.]
Regarding claim 5, Taro (modified by Caruthers and Hiraoka) disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Taro discloses
pass-or-fail determination circuitry configured to determine whether the sealing portion is pass or fail using the two-dimensional image acquired by the two-dimensional image acquisition circuitry. [See Taro [0006] Detecting defects in the seal based on the thermographic image.]
Regarding claim 6, Taro (modified by Caruthers and Hiraoka) disclose the apparatus of claim 5. Furthermore, Taro does not explicitly disclose
wherein: the two-dimensional image includes multiple two-dimensional images.
However, Caruthers does disclose
wherein: the two-dimensional image includes multiple two-dimensional images. [See Caruthers (Col. 8 lines 59-66).]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Taro (modified by Caruthers and Hiraoka) disclose the apparatus of claim 5. Furthermore, Taro does not explicitly disclose
wherein: the multiple two-dimensional images are consecutive multiple two-dimensional images acquired by the two-dimensional image acquisition circuitry at a predetermined interval.
However, Caruthers does disclose
wherein: the multiple two-dimensional images are consecutive multiple two-dimensional images acquired by the two-dimensional image acquisition circuitry at a predetermined interval. [See Caruthers (Col. 8 lines 59-66).]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Taro (modified by Caruthers and Hiraoka) disclose the apparatus of claim 5. Furthermore, Taro does not explicitly disclose
wherein: the pass-or-fail determination circuitry controls the two-dimensional image acquisition circuitry to acquire at least one two-dimensional image at a time t satisfying a condition below: 0<t<T/2.
However, Caruthers does disclose
wherein: the pass-or-fail determination circuitry controls the two-dimensional image acquisition circuitry to acquire at least one two-dimensional image at a time t satisfying a condition below: 0<t<T/2. [See Carutherss (Claims 13-14). Also, see Fig. 1B, imaging for Temp2, Temp3 which is below half of peak temp]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Taro (modified by Caruthers and Hiraoka) disclose the apparatus of claim 5. Furthermore, Taro does not explicitly disclose
wherein: the pass-or-fail determination circuitry controls the two-dimensional image acquisition circuitry to acquire multiple two-dimensional images at a time t satisfying a condition below: t<T/2.
However, Caruthers does disclose
wherein: the pass-or-fail determination circuitry controls the two-dimensional image acquisition circuitry to acquire multiple two-dimensional images at a time t satisfying a condition below: t<T/2. [See Carutherss (Claims 17-19). Also, see Fig. 1B, imaging for Temp2, Temp3 which is below half of peak temp]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Taro (modified by Caruthers and Hiraoka) disclose the apparatus of claim 5. Furthermore, Taro does not explicitly disclose
wherein: the pass-or-fail determination circuitry controls the two-dimensional image acquisition circuitry to acquire at least one two-dimensional image at a time t satisfying a condition below: t<0, and executes a noise removing process on the at least one two-dimensional image acquired at the time t.
However, Caruthers does disclose
wherein: the pass-or-fail determination circuitry controls the two-dimensional image acquisition circuitry to acquire at least one two-dimensional image at a time t satisfying a condition below: t<0, and [See Caruthers (Col. 8 lines 46-58). Baseline image for comparison.]
executes a noise removing process on the at least one two-dimensional image acquired at the time t. [See Caruthers [Claim 4] Correcting thermal image by filtering.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, see examiners rejection for claim 5 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, see examiners rejection for claim 6 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, see examiners rejection for claim 7 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, see examiners rejection for claim 8 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, see examiners rejection for claim 9 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, see examiners rejection for claim 10 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, Taro (modified by Caruthers and Hiraoka) disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Taro does not explicitly disclose
wherein: the two-dimensional image acquisition circuitry acquires the image while the conveyor is stopped.
However, Hiraoka does disclose
wherein: the two-dimensional image acquisition circuitry acquires the image while the conveyor is stopped. [See Hiraoka [0031 and Fig. 1] Object (9) is stopped on a conveyor (4) such that illumination source (5) illuminates object.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, Taro (modified by Caruthers and Hiraoka) disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Taro does not explicitly disclose
wherein: the conveyor has a gap between a first conveyor part and a second conveyor part, and the light emitter emits light at the gap.
However, Hiraoka does disclose
wherein: the conveyor has a gap between a first conveyor part and a second conveyor part, and the light emitter emits light at the gap. [See Hiraoka [0031 and Fig. 1] Object (9) is stopped on a conveyor (4) such that illumination source (5) illuminates object.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taro et al. (herein after will be referred to as Taro) (JP 2020041840A) in view of Caruthers (US Patent No. 9,689,820) in view of Hiraoka (US 20100141754) and in further view of Tadhashi et al. (herein after will be referred to as Tadhashi) (JP 2017067549A).
Regarding claim 3, Taro (modified by Caruthers and Hiraoka) disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Taro does not explicitly disclose
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.
However, Tadashi does disclose
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. [See Tadashi [Fig. 2] Area light source with camera.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus by Taro (modified by Caruthers) to add the teachings of Tadhashi, in order to perform a simple substitution of light sources. This will improve upon the amount of time required for illuminating an area.
Regarding claim 4, Taro (modified by Caruthers, Hiraoka and Tadhashi) disclose the apparatus of claim 3. Furthermore, Taro does not explicitly disclose
wherein: the light emitter is an area light source in which point light sources are in vertical and horizontal directions.
However, Tadhashi does disclose
wherein: the light emitter is an area light source in which point light sources are in vertical and horizontal directions. [See Tadashi [Fig. 2] Area light source.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220390313
US 20060244954
US 20050286606
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights