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 .
Summary
Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1-16 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Drawings
FIG. 12 is objected to for containing unlabeled boxes. Regarding the content of drawings 37 C.F.R. 1.83 (a) states:
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables and sequence listings that are included in the specification are, except for applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 371, not permitted to be included in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 15 objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 15: In line 1, change “The method” to --A method--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 9, and 12-16 is/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 4: In the last line, the phrase “in particular perpendicular” is indefinite because it is a broader limitation (transversal) followed by a narrower limitation (perpendicular).
Regarding claim 4: The geometry of the components in claim 4 is not sufficiently defined. What direction is transverse to the sealing band? What direction defines the sealing band?
Regarding claim 6: This claim uses the term "and/or." This term is indefinite and the Examiner recommends using "or" which avoids ambiguity and has the same patentable scope as that sought to be covered by "and/or." The Applicant may also consider using phrasing such as "at least one of."
Regarding claim 6: It is unclear what “forces” are acting on the sealing band. The apparatus seems to impart a pulling (tensile) force on the sealing band in a direction perpendicular to the sealing band. Claims 10 and 11 only show a single magnitude of force as a function of either position or time. Therefore, it is unclear what multiple forces are acting on the sealing band. The Examiner recommends changing “forces” to --the force--.
Regarding claim 9: The phrase “preferably the polarization filter is of circular type or elliptical type or linear type” is indefinite because it is a broader limitation followed by a narrower one. The claim has been examined as if this phrase were not present.
Regarding claim 12: The phrase “in particular a pourable food product” is indefinite because it is a broader limitation followed by a narrower one.
Regarding claim 15: Claim 15 refers back to “the method according to claim 11” however claim 11 is an apparatus claim for a packaging plant. It is therefore indefinite as to which claim claim 15 was supposed to depend from. Claim 15 is assumed to depend from claim 12.
Regarding claim 16: It is unclear what this claim is referring to. It appears to reference a “forming a transversal sealing device” step in claim 15 that does not exist. It is not clear what further limitation claim 16 is meant to have on the missing subject matter of claim 15. This claim has not been further examined.
Regarding claims 13 and 14: These claims are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by URUGA et al. (JP 5692096). A machine translation of URUGA has been included with this office action. All references to text in URUGA are to the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 1: URUGA discloses: A sealing quality testing apparatus for determining the quality of a sealing band (page 1 lines 10-13), the sealing band being formed from a first band portion, a second band portion and a layer of heat seal material interposed between the first band portion and the second band portion (The sealing band is not within the scope of the claims. Because the apparatus of URUGA has all of the following structure, it is capable of testing bands of this type. Also, page 1 lines 47-52 disclose this structure.); the sealing quality testing apparatus comprises: a working position for receiving a sample having the sealing band (in between 11 and 12 in FIG. 1); a first clamping device (11) and a second clamping device (12) configured to clamp the sample having the sealing band between one another such that the sealing band in the working position is interposed between the first clamping device and the second clamping device (FIG. 5 shows a sample clamped between 11 and 12.); an actuation device (drive motor 24 in FIG. 1 in connection with the intervening structures [21, 22, 23, 13, 14] that connect the motor to the clamps) configured to actuate a relative movement of the first clamping device and the second clamping device (page 4 lines 28-32) so as to cause a delamination of the sealing band (The effect of the movement is not within the scope of the claim. Also, FIG. 5 shows test piece 3 being delaminated.); and a vision system (camera on page 1 lines 54-57) configured to capture images of the sealing band during the delamination (page 4 lines 42-46).
Regarding claim 4: As best understood, URUGA discloses: the actuation device is configured to modify the relative position of the first clamping device and the second clamping device in a direction transversal, in particular perpendicular, to the sealing band (This is the orientation shown in FIG. 5.).
Regarding claim 5: URUGA discloses: a first carriage (13b in FIG. 1) carrying the first clamping device (11); a second carriage (14b) carrying the second clamping device (12); and an actuator (24) operatively coupled to the first carriage (through 23 and 13) and the second carriage (through 23 and 14) and configured to control the relative position of the first carriage and the second carriage for controlling the relative position of the first clamping device and the second clamping device (page 4 lines 22-32).
Regarding claim 6: URUGA discloses: a force detection device (16 in FIG. 1) configured to determine a time-dependent curve and/or a position-dependent curve of forces acting on the sealing band during its delamination (signal output to control section to be recorded and displayed as discussed on page 4 lines 17-20).
Regarding claim 7: URUGA discloses: the first clamping device (11 in FIG. 1) and the second clamping device (12), each comprises a respective first clamping surface and a respective second clamping surface so as to clamp a portion of the sample between the respective first clamping surface and the respective second clamping surface (This is inherent in the fact that the clamps are gripping “sheet-like test specimens” as discussed on page 3 lines 43-47).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over URUGA in view of ALBRECHT (US 6763728).
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 9: URUGA discloses: the sealing quality testing apparatus further comprises an analysis unit (control section on page 4 lines 17-20).
URUGA only teaches the control section interfaced with the force sensor and not operatively connected to the vision system and configured to analyze one or more images acquired by means of the vision system and to determine the quality of the sealing band as a function of the one or more images.
ALBRECHT however does teach that the camera (col. 6 line 59-col. 7 line 10) on his seal tester (abstract) can be interfaced with a vision system that uses image analysis (col. 6 line 59-col. 7 line 10). ALBRECHT also teaches lighting and polarization filters in col. 6 line 59-col. 7 line 10, thus meeting the limitations of claims 8 and 9.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the vision system with image analysis of ALBRECHT as the camera of URUGA because the processing unit can “use more complicated algorithms to ‘see’ fine contrast levels, faint lines, and other difficult to detect features” (col. 6 line 59-col. 7 line 10 of ALBRECHT).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over URUGA and ALBRECHT in view of SOLANKI et al. (US 20200166442).
Regarding claim 3: The analysis unit of URUGA as modified by ALBRECHT does not specify that the image analysis includes detecting defects.
SOLANKI however does teach using image analysis (para. 63-64) on their apparatus that holds and tears film samples (abstract).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the vision system with image analysis of URUGA as modified by ALBRECHT to detect defects as taught by SOLANKI, so that the user knows whether the force data collected is for a sound piece of material or a defective one.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over URUGA in view of STEWART et al. (US 20070204701).
Regarding claims 10 and 11: URUGA does not disclose that the “sheet-like test specimens” (page 3 lines 43-47) tested by the apparatus are from a packaging plant.
STEWART however does teach flexible packaging materials (para. 2) that can be formed into a pouch (para. 3) and can hold foodstuffs and other products (para. 3), meaning that they must be poured into the pouch. STEWART then teaches that the seals on those packages undergo testing as taught by URUGA (para. 3). STEWART also teaches using a die to seal layers together under controlled conditions of pressure, temperature, and duration (para. 52), and that these variables are what define if the seal is suitable or even optimal (para. 3), meaning that those would be the conditions used in the manufacturing and packaging of foodstuffs (para. 3), thus meeting the limitations of claim 11.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the test of URUGA in a food packaging plant as taught by STEWART so that users can be assured that food is packaged properly.
Claim(s) 12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEWART in view of ALBECHT.
Regarding claim 12: STEWART discloses: A method for determining the quality of a sealing band of a sealed composite package filled with a pourable product (food packaging in a pouch or bag in para. 3), in particular a pourable food product, the sealing band being formed from a first band portion, a second band portion and a layer of heat seal material interposed between the first band portion and the second band portion (sides heat-sealed together in para. 3); the method comprises the steps of: clamping a sample having the sealing band by means of a first clamping device and a second clamping device and such that the sealing band is interposed between the first clamping device and the second clamping device (positioning clamps 14 along the top and bottom of FIG. 2 with the sealing bands 30 in between.) ; delaminating the sealing band by actuating a relative movement of the first clamping device and the second clamping device (para. 77-78).
STEWART does not disclose capturing images during delamination.
ALBRECHT however does teach that a camera (col. 6 line 59-col. 7 line 10) on his seal tester (abstract) that can be interfaced with a vision system that uses image analysis (col. 6 line 59-col. 7 line 10). ALBRECHT also teaches lighting and polarization filters in col. 6 line 59-col. 7 line 10.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the vision system and image analysis of ALBRECHT so that the processing unit can “use more complicated algorithms to ‘see’ fine contrast levels, faint lines, and other difficult to detect features” (col. 6 line 59-col. 7 line 10 of ALBRECHT), thus giving more information about the sealing band being tested.
Regarding claims 14 and 15: STEWART does not disclose using identification codes to track samples, however the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known to keep track of manufactured products (such as the packaged food products that STEWART discusses in para. 3) with identification codes, and that it is known to destructively test a small subset of a manufactured product to ensure that the manufacturing process is operating correctly. Therefore it would be obvious to one skilled in the art, when performing such a test, to keep track of the identification code of the sampled product because it contains information as to when and how the product was created, which aids in troubleshooting if the product is found to be defective.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEWART and ALBECHT in view of SOLANKI.
Regarding claim 13: The analysis unit of STEWART as modified by ALBRECHT does not specify that the image analysis includes detecting defects.
SOLANKI however does teach using image analysis (para. 63-64) on their apparatus that holds and tears film samples (abstract).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the vision system with image analysis of STEWART as modified by ALBRECHT to detect defects as taught by SOLANKI, so that the user knows whether the force data collected is for a sound piece of material or a defective one.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. MOTOYASU (JP 2013210295) teaches a machine for pulling apart layered samples that are connected with an adhesive.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights