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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 4 includes mirrored reference numbers 28 and 29 on the right side of Fig. 4
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, 14, 16, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalaf et al. (US 20170030797; hereinafter “Khalaf”- already of record) in view of Sanz et al. (US 20230174256; hereinafter “Sanz”), Li et al. (US 20220214243; hereinafter “Li”), Carey et al. (WO 2023167984, see corresponding US 20250067660 for citations below ), and Hata (JP 2013-210245; hereinafter “Hata”).
Regarding claim 11, Khalaf teaches an apparatus for producing filled film bags, the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of processing stations including a first processing station, a second processing station, a third processing station and a fourth processing station;
a plurality of plate elements configured to be conveyed to various ones of the plurality of processing stations and each of the plurality of plate elements having a mold recess. Khalaf teaches a moving platen conveyor with a removable cavity-bearing surface and platen 10 containing mold cavities 100 (paragraphs 17. 27-28; Figure 1) and deep-drawing a base film into the mold recesses of the plurality of plate elements in order to form filling cavities in the base film;
Khalaf positions optical inspection downstream of sealing (paragraph 36; Figure 4) but does not expressly identify its moving platen as a plurality of conveyed plate elements.
Sanz teaches a conveyor with a plurality of platens bearing molds, including conveyor 12 and molds 121. The forming, filling and sealing operations provide the first three stations and filling and sealing stations (paragraphs 34, 77-80 and 114; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sanz's plurality of mold-bearing platens in Khalaf's moving film process to convey respective cavity bearing elements through the forming, filling, sealing and checking positions; mold format changes and cleaning provide the reasons for using multiple platens (Khalaf paragraph 27 and Sanz paragraphs 77-80). Because both Khalfa and Sanz form and seal film pouches on cavity bearing platens, a person of ordinary skill would reasonably have expected the formation, filling and sealing sequence to operate with Sanz's multiple platens.
Regarding the second processing station having a filling arrangement for filling the filling cavities with a filling substance; and
the third processing station having a sealing arrangement for sealing a cover film onto the base film while respectively forming a continuous circumferential seal edge around each of the filling cavities. Khalaf draws the first film into mold cavities using vacuum, fills open film pockets with composition, and seals a second water-soluble film or their open tops (paragraphs 18 and 20; Figure 1, cavities 100).
Sanz also provides vacuum formation, nozzles 151, first and second films 171/172, wetting mechanism 181 and sealing roller 182 (paragraphs 30, 34, 36-39 and 114; Figure 1). Sealing the second film to the first film around each open pocket forms the recited circumferential film-to-film seal edge
Khalaf teaches the fourth processing station having a testing device for optical acquisition and quality assessment of the continuous circumferential seal edge; and the testing device Including an optical camera, an illumination device, and an evaluation unit for Images recorded by the optical camera. Khalaf mounts apparatus 1000 after sealing; cameras 1100 acquire images, UV line light 1300 illuminates the moving platen, and the image processor issues a pass/fail result (paragraphs 32-39; Figure 4).
Khalaf tests fluorescent leaked composition on platen edges 12 but does not teach the testing the continuous film edge. Li expressly acquires images of a film package seal after sealing with a camera, polarized illumination, two polarizers and a vision engine that determines whether the seal has defects (paragraph 190; Figure 4, elements 31 and 43). Li's Figure 9 shows light traversing film seal 100 and polarizers 94-95 to camera 96; the response depends on seal strength and integrity (paragraphs 216-218). Its photographs distinguish an adequate seal and pleat defects (paragraphs 299-300; Figures 29-31).
It would have been obvious to direct an additional optical channel at the film to film seal edge around each cavity at Khalaf’s downstream station and assess seal quality. Li teaches detection of seal defects, and images of adequate and pleated seals give a person of ordinary skill a reasonable expectation that the added channel would distinguish defects in Khalaf's film seal.
Khalaf does not disclose that its UV cameras are polarization cameras.
Carey teaches the polarization camera, the testing device further including a contrast adjuster for increasing a contrast of images recorded by the camera; the contrast adjuster includes a polarization filter of the illumination device and a configuration of the camera as a polarization camera. Carey's external LED bars 111 carry linear filters 112, and camera sensor S has pixel array 200 with directional polarizers 212 at 0, 45, 90 and 135 degrees; processor 141 uses polarization image data to increase transparent-feature contrast and suppress glare (paragraphs 34, 37 and 39-42; Figures 1-2, elements 111, 112, 200, 212 and 141).
It would have been obvious to employ Carey's polarized LED filter and polarization camera for the additional seal inspection to increase contrast of the transparent seal region. Li discloses that polarized illumination and camera-side polarization of a film seal in a moving packaging process produce quality-assessable images (paragraphs 190, 216-218 and 299-300). Because the added optical channel occupies the downstream inspection position and Li demonstrates polarization-based film-seal assessment, a person of ordinary skill would reasonably have expected it to produce seal images suitable for evaluation;
wherein a polarization direction of the polarization filter is aligned at a polarization angle with respect to a movement direction of the plurality of plate elements; and the polarization angle lies in a range of 30° to 60°. Carey's selectable illumination polarization orientation and rotatable filter cover 932 are described in paragraphs 58-59 (Figure 9, elements 930, 932 and 934). but Carey does not expressly fix the filter axis at 30-60 degrees relative to platen travel. Hata sets moving film travel at 0 degrees and illumination polarizer 51b at 135 degrees, corresponding to an undirected transmission axis at an acute 45 degrees to travel (paragraphs 24-29; Figures 3-4). It would have been obvious to set Carey's adjustable illumination filter at that diagonal orientation relative to Khalaf/Sanz/Li platen travel. Hata uses the orientation to reveal polarization dependent film defects, giving a technical reason to try a diagonal axis on a moving film seal; Carey permits adjustment and imaging of alternatives; supporting a reasonable expectation that useful contrast can be selected. Hata supplies the recited angular relationship. Li's photoelastic images of adequate and defective package seals show that polarization imaging yields a seal-quality signal (paragraphs 216, 299-300; Figures 9 and 29-31).
Claim 14 is rejected on the basis of the combination applied to claim 11. Khalaf and Carey do not expressly teach the polarization angle is 45° relative to plate-element travel. Hata fixes transport at 0 degrees and illumination polarizer 51b at 135 degrees, the same undirected 45-degree acute angle (paragraphs 24-29; Figure 3). It would have been obvious to set Carey's adjustable filter cover 932 to that angle (Carey paragraphs 58-59; Figure 9); the contrasting film response in Hata supplies the reason and Carey's adjustment supplies a reasonable expectation of testing and selecting the setting.
Claim 16 is rejected on the basis of the combination applied to claim 11. Khalaf expressly uses the camera is a line scan camera in its cameras 1100; each single-row CCD is repeatedly captured in synchronization with converter motion (paragraphs 32 and 37; Figure 4, element 1100). It would have been obvious to employ a polarization-capable line-scan camera at Khalaf’s line-scan position while preserving its row timing. Carey discloses a polarization sensor array but does not expressly disclose that it is a line-scan camera and expressly identifies its polarization line-scan camera and describes polarization for detecting glare on plastic and other surfaces. Carey teaches a polarization line-scan camera was available and suitable for detecting polarization-dependent contrast on plastic surfaces.
Claim 20 is rejected on the basis of the combination applied to claim 11. Khalaf's described cameras are line-scan, not expressly the camera is an area scan camera. Carey's sensor S has a two-dimensional polarization pixel array 200 with directional filters 212 and images a whole object region (paragraphs 33-34,37 and 42; Figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to use Carey's area-array polarization camera at Khalaf's downstream inspection station to acquire a two-dimensional seal region in one frame. Carey's demonstrated transparent-feature images provide a reasonable expectation of obtaining evaluable images with suitable exposure and illumination.
Claim 21 is rejected on the basis of the combination applied to claim 11. Khalaf discloses UV LED line light 1300 aligned to the camera focal center lines and cross-machine line-scan cameras 1100, but does not expressly call the light a strip light arranged transversely with respect to the movement direction of the plurality of plate elements (paragraphs 37-38; Figure 4). Carey discloses LED bar lights 111 with filters 112 (paragraph 34; Figure 1). It would have been obvious to arrange Carey's filtered LED bar transversely at Khalaf's cross-machine scan line to provide illumination along the line of acquisition. That alignment follows Khalaf's stated camera geometry and Carey's filter/bar configuration; the known line illumination gives a reasonable expectation of a uniformly lit transverse image line. The combination therefore provides the transverse orientation recited in claim 21.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 11 above, in further view of Doan (US 2013/0154181).
The combination does not expressly teach the contrast adjuster includes a reflection-reducing surface of the plurality of plate elements. Doan applies a black anodized or other nonreflective finish to image-facing side 107 of document platen 100 (paragraph 33; Figures 1A-C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to finish the optically exposed surfaces of Khalaf/Sanz's cavity plates around the seal region as taught by Doan. Suppression of background reflections at an imaged platen is Doan's directly transferable optical purpose; applying a surface finish without obscuring the cavities or seal provides a reasonable expectation of preserving pouch manufacture while improving image segmentation.
Regarding claim 13, Doan teaches identifies black anodizing on platen 100 as a nonreflective finish ( blackening the plate surface for contrast adjusting background), paragraph 33; Figures 1A-1C). A person of ordinary skill would reasonably have expected the blackened plate surface to reduce stray reflection during imaging, as expressly taught by Doan.
Claim 15 is rejected over the combination as applied to claim 11 above in further in view of Corrigan (US 2009/0039553).
Khalaf's image reference regions 200 identify platen-edge locations but do not expressly put a marking for identifying a placement of the continuous circumferential seal edge on each plate (Khalaf paragraph 40; Figure 5). Corrigan puts visible fiducials 47 on mold sheet 46A and uses vision system 66 to compare their positions (paragraph 28; Figure 4, elements 47, 46A and 66). It would have been obvious to mark each pouch plate at a known offset from its cavities and register the seal-edge region from that mark. Corrigan's optical registration of mold sheets addresses image alignment; a fixed mark-to-cavity offset gives a reasonable expectation of locating the corresponding seal perimeter.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected over the combination of claim 16 discussed above in further in view of Wolff (US 8,687,060).
Khalaf synchronizes line captures with converter motion but does not expressly disclose an encoder for acquisition of a movement of the plurality of plate elements arranged In a region of the line scan camera (Khalaf paragraph 37; Figure 4). Wolff measures movement of a surface with optical motion sensor 520 and uses encoder-like pulses-to trigger line-scan sensor 510; both sensors may share the same optics (column 9, lines 1-16; column 11, lines 24-44; Figures 2 and 5; claims 9, 20 and 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange Wolff's local optical motion sensor adjacent to the line-scan camera and use its movement pulses to synchronize imaging of the moving plate elements. Wolff explains why local direct surface measurement avoids drive slippage and improves line timing (column 4, lines 29-39; column 11, lines 24-44); its co-located sensor and camera give a reasonable expectation of image synchronization. The sensor may read an exposed plate surface to obtain plate-element movement.
Claim 18 is rejected on the basis of the combination applied to claim 17, Khalaf does not expressly use the encoder Is provided with a contactless sensor. Wolff's motion sensor optically tracks surface features and supplies encoder-like pulses without contacting the surface (column 9, lines 1-16; Figure 2, sensor 260; column 11, lines 24-44; Figure 5, sensor 520; claims 20 and 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have includes Wolff's noncontact sensor to the combination of moving plate elements to avoid rolling-contact slip and wear. Wolff's line-trigger arrangement provides a reasonable expectation of synchronized image acquisition.
Claim 19 is rejected over the combination above with respect to claim 18 in further in view of Smeets et al. (WO 2023/046733; hereinafter “Smeets”).
The combination including Wolff provides the local noncontact encoder but does not expressly make the contactless sensor is a laser sensor for acquisition of the movement of the plurality of plate elements. Smeets identifies a laser surface velocimeter as an alternative to a rotational encoder for obtaining transport velocity in a packaging machine (paragraph 15; Figures 1-3 concern the film processing line, but the velocimeter is not separately numbered). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing of the claimed invention to substitute Smeets's laser surface-velocity measurement for Wolff's local optical measurement and aim it at an exposed surface moving with the cavity plate to acquire plate-element motion. Both techniques generate surface-motion information for transport-dependent timing; eliminating contact slip and using Wolff's pulse scheduling give a reason and a reasonable expectation of generating line triggers.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is (571)272-2374. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:30am-7pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached on 571-270-3638. 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.
/P. Kathryn Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
