DETAILED ACTION
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat no. 9096390 to Ackley in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11649117 to Durtschi.
With respect to claims 1 and 26, Ackley discloses a conveyer apparatus for inspecting and processing pellet-shaped articles, each of the pellet-shaped articles including a first side with a first characteristic and a second side opposite the first side and having a second characteristic that is different from the first characteristic, the conveyer apparatus comprising:
a conveyer including a plurality of carrier links configured to circulate along a conveyer path to convey a plurality of pellet-shaped articles along a portion of the conveyer path, each carrier link having a pocket configured to receive a pellet-shaped article in an orientation with the first side or the second side of the pellet-shaped article facing a first lateral side of the conveyer path and the other of the first side or the second side of the pellet-shaped article facing a second lateral side of the conveyer path
a first pre-processing camera located on the first lateral side of the conveyer path, the first pre-processing camera being configured to generate a first pre-processing image of whichever of the first side or the second side of each of the pellet-shaped articles is facing the first lateral side of the conveyer path as the pellet-shaped articles are conveyed past the first pre-processing camera (see numerals 152 and 154 in Fig. 3, and col. 5, lines 57-58)
a controller configured to receive the first pre-processing image of each of the pellet-shaped articles from the first pre-processing camera and determine whether the first side or the second side of each of the pellet-shaped articles is facing the first lateral side of the conveyer path based on whether the first pre-processing image contains the first characteristic or the second characteristic (see numeral 200 in Fig. 6 and col. 8, lines 5-12)
a first processing device located on the first lateral side of the conveyer path and a second processing device located on the second lateral side of the conveyer path, (see numerals 162, 164 in Fig. 3 and col. 5, lines 27-31)
each of the first processing device and the second processing device being configured to process the first side of each of the pellet-shaped articles to produce a third characteristic on the first side of each of the pellet-shaped articles as the pellet-shaped articles are conveyed past the first processing device and the second processing device (col. 2, lines 13-15 and, col. 6, lines 22-40)
in response to a first instruction from the controller that is based on a determination by the controller that the first side of each of the pellet-shaped articles faces the first lateral side or the second lateral side of the conveyer path; (col. 6, lines 23-24)
a first post-processing camera located on the first lateral side of the conveyer path and a second post-processing camera located on the second lateral side of the conveyer path; (see numerals 172 and 174 in Fig. 2 and see S108)
an ejection unit configured to eject individual ones of the pellet-shaped articles from a corresponding one of the carrier links, (see numeral 90 in Fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 40-45)
wherein the first post-processing camera is configured to generate a first post-processing image of whichever of the first side or the second side of each of the pellet-shaped articles is facing the first lateral side of the conveyer path and illuminated with UV light and the second post-processing camera is configured to generate a second post-processing image of whichever of the first side or the second side of each of the pellet-shaped articles is facing the second lateral side of the conveyer path and illuminated with UV light (172, 174),
wherein the controller is configured to receive the first post-processing image and the second post-processing image of each of the pellet-shaped articles from the first post- processing camera and the second post-processing camera, respectively, and detect presence or absence of the third characteristic on the first side of each of the pellet-shaped articles in the first post-processing image or the second post-processing image, and (see numeral 200 in Fig. 6 and col. 8, lines 20-24)
wherein the ejection unit is configured to eject individual ones of the pellet-shaped articles from a corresponding one of the carrier links in response to a second instruction from the controller that is based on the controller detecting that the third characteristic is absent from the first side of an individual one of the pellet-shaped articles (col. 8, lines 20-24).
Ackley does not disclose a post-processing light source configured to illuminate the pellet-shaped articles with ultraviolet (UV) light as the pellet-shaped articles are conveyed past the first post-processing camera and the second post-processing camera.
Durtschi teaches a post-processing light source configured to illuminate the pellet-shaped articles with ultraviolet (UV) light as the pellet-shaped articles are conveyed past the first post-processing camera and the second post-processing camera (col. 4, lines 45-48). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time filing to combine the teachings of Durtschi with the disclosure of Ackley because in an inspection system, depending on the characteristic being inspected for, different types of light would reveal different information depending on the characteristics of the wavelength.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat no. 9096390 to Ackley in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11649117 to Durtschi and further in view of WO 2022261615 to Thakur.
With respect to claim 2, Ackley and Durtschi disclose all the claim language but does not disclose wherein the first characteristic is a first color and the second characteristic is a second color that is different from the first color.
Thakur teaches wherein the first characteristic is a first color and the second characteristic is a second color that is different from the first color (([0024] second sentence). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Yi with the disclosures of Ackley and Durtschi to denote each sorting attribute.
With respect to claim 3, Ackley and Durtschi disclose all the claim language but does not disclose wherein the first color is lighter than the second color.
Thakur teaches wherein the first color is lighter than the second color (([0024] second sentence). It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Thakur with the disclosures of Ackley and Durtschi to denote each sorting attribute.
With respect to claim 4, Ackley discloses wherein the first processing device is a first laser configured to drill a hole into each of the pellet-shaped articles and the second processing device is a second laser configured to drill a hole into each of the pellet-shaped articles.
Ackley teaches wherein the first processing device is a first laser configured to drill a hole into each of the pellet-shaped articles and the second processing device is a second laser configured to drill a hole into each of the pellet-shaped articles (and see col. 6, lines 59-63 and see annotated figure below).
With respect to claim 5, Ackley discloses wherein the first laser and the second laser are configured to drill the hole at a centroid of the first side of each of the pellet-shaped articles and coaxial to an axis perpendicular to a plane between the first side and the second side of each of the pellet-shaped articles (see annotated
Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
992
1604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackley, and Durtschi and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5894801 to Ackley ‘801.
With respect to claim 6, Ackley and Durtschi disclose all the claim language but do not teach wherein the hole is a blind hole.
Ackley ‘801 teaches the hole is a blind hole (see col. 7, lines 38-45). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Ackley ‘801 with the disclosures of Ackley and Durtschi because blind bores provide a mechanical time-release mechanism.
With respect to claim 7, Ackley, Durtschi and Ackley ‘801 disclose all the claim language but not yet discussed is wherein the third characteristic comprises at least one of the size, the shape, the depth, and the position of the hole drilled into the first side of each of the pellet-shaped articles.
Ackley teaches wherein the third characteristic comprises at least one of the size, the shape, the depth, and the position of the hole drilled into the first side of each of the pellet-shaped articles (col. 6, lines 38-46).
With respect to claim 8, Ackley, Durtschi and Ackley ‘801 disclose all the claim language but not yet discussed is wherein the controller is configured to compare at least one of the size, the shape, the depth, and the position of the hole to a hole specification and determine whether the hole drilled into the first side of each of the pellet-shaped articles is within the hole specification.
Ackley teaches wherein the controller is configured to compare at least one of the size, the shape, the depth, and the position of the hole to a hole specification and determine whether the hole drilled into the first side of each of the pellet-shaped articles is within the hole specification (col. 8, lines 5-12).
With respect to claim 9, Ackley, Durtschi and Ackley ‘801 disclose all the claim language but not yet discussed is wherein the controller is configured to instruct the ejection unit to eject an individual one of the pellet-shaped articles if the controller determines that at least one of the size, the shape, the depth, and the position of the hole is not within the hole specification.
Ackley teaches the controller is configured to instruct the ejection unit to eject an individual one of the pellet-shaped articles if the controller determines that at least one of the size, the shape, the depth, and the position of the hole is not within the hole specification (col. 8, lines 20-25).
With respect to claims 10 and 28, these claims both involve aspects of the invention claimed in Ackley. The particular invention can be found in Ackley, Durtschi and Ackley ‘801 as set out above. The claims involve design considerations for the particular arrangement. For example to “not” provide an instruction is a design choice based on the goal of the inventor in that particular field.
Similarly, as to claims 12-14 how one determines the orientation and/or color of a pellet in a structural device is a design choice the goal is well known in the art and there are many ways it can be accomplished, many of the same are found in U.S. Pat. No. 9096390. It is a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
With respect to claims 11 and 15 these too are design choices in that process for ascertaining the pellets to be rejected are discussed in col. 3, lines 3-57 which outline various ways to identify and or mark a pellet for later recognition based on the markings in making a determination as to ejection of a pellet.
With respect to claims 16-20, they claim the color illumination used for imaging a pellet and as shown earlier in this office action the use of UV light is not novel and neither is the use of white light.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackley, Durtschi and Ackley ‘801 and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0131198 to Morrison et al.
With respect to claims 21-22, Ackley, Durtschi and Ackley ‘801 include all the claim language but do not disclose the use of a shield to block ambient light
Morrison teaches the use of a shield to block ambient light (see [0091]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the disclosures of Ackley, Durtschi and Ackley ‘801 with the teachings of Morrison to reduce variance in images being produced.
With respect to claim 23, Ackley, Durtschi and Ackley ‘801 include all the claim language but not yet discussed is a feeder.
Ackley teaches a feeder (see numeral 120 in Fig.1).
With respect to claim 27, Ackley teaches wherein the first post-processing image and the second post-processing image depicts each of the pellet-shaped articles illuminated with ultraviolet light from a post-processing light source (see numerals 172, 174 in Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 28, Ackley teaches wherein the processing system is configured to analyze one or more of each pre-processing image and each post-processing image of each of the pellet-shaped articles by:
Assigning a number to each pixel in each pre-processing image and each post-processing image based on the color or light intensity detected by the controller,
Replacing pixels with a number above a threshold with a pixel of a first color, and replacing pixels with a number below the threshold with a pixel of a second color that is different from the first color.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER RUSHIN, III whose telephone number is (313)446-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4p.
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, GENE CRAWFORD can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/LESTER RUSHIN, III/
Examiner
Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651