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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 28th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended. Claims 1-13 and 16-19 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 29th, 2025.
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 1-5, 7-13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satake et al. (US 5669511) in view of Sherwin (US 6731867).
Regarding claim 1, Satake et al. (US 5669511) teaches a sorting device (Col. 1 lines 4-8) having a detection zone (Fig. 1 ‘F’) for detecting irregularities in a product flow moving in free flight (Col. 5 lines 1-8, Col. 6 lines 60-63) through this detection zone in a direction of travel (Fig. 1 direction of path ‘J’), with a detection device (Fig. 1 #15) provided for detecting irregular products in the product flow (Col. 7 lines 12-26), wherein the detection device (Fig. 1 #15) is separated from the product flow by a closed wall (Fig. 1 #17 separates #15 from flow along ‘J’) having at least one window (Fig. 1 surface of #17 facing ‘F’ is transparent, see Satake (US 4371081) incorporated by reference, Col. 2 lines 27-29) so that the product flow can be detected through said window by the detection device (Col. 6 lines 54-63).
Satake et al. (US 5669511) lacks teaching wherein said window is shielded from the product flow by a disc-shaped element which is transparent to the detection device and which can be driven around a rotational axis in order to remove contaminants from said element, wherein said axis of rotation extends perpendicular to the surface of the disc-shaped element and wherein the disc-shaped element works in conjunction with a drive motor adapted to drive the disc-shaped element around the central axis of rotation at a speed higher than 2,000 revolutions per minute.
Sherwin (US 6731867) teaches a detection device (Col. 1 lines 9-16) having at least one window (Fig. 1A #112 “lens”), wherein said window is shielded from the product flow by a disc-shaped element (Fig. 1B #122 “disc”, Col. 4 lines 8-10, 27-32) which is transparent to the detection device (Col. 4 lines 31-32) and which can be driven around a rotational axis (Fig. 2 see #122 driven around central rotational axis) in order to remove contaminants from said element (Col. 1 lines 17-22, 48-55), wherein said axis of rotation extends perpendicular to the surface of the disc-shaped element (Fig. 2 axis of rotation of #122 extends perpendicular to the surface of #122) and wherein the disc-shaped element works in conjunction with a drive motor (Col. 4 lines 43-50) adapted to drive the disc-shaped element around the central axis of rotation at a speed higher than 2,000 revolutions per minute (Col. 5 lines 23-30).
Sherwin (US 6731867) explains that cameras are required to operate under many adverse conditions including flying particles, such as rain and slow, which may adhere to the camera lens and reduce image quality (Col. 1 lines 14-16). Sherwin (US 6731867) states that the use of a spinning glass disc placed before the lens is a well-known solution as it throws the particles towards the circumference of the disc where they are removed and stop interfering with the image (Col. 1 lines 18-23), and teaches a rotating transparent disc which is easily removable for cleaning without taking apart the lens protector (Col. 2 lines 37-61). Sherwin (US 6731867) states that it is expected that the features provided by Sherwin (US 6731867) may be used in the design of lens protectors with higher rotational speeds, such as 2000-4000 RPM (Col. 5 lines 23-30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Satake et al. (US 5669511) to include wherein said window is shielded from the product flow by a disc-shaped element which is transparent to the detection device and which can be driven around a rotational axis in order to remove contaminants from said element, wherein said axis of rotation extends perpendicular to the surface of the disc-shaped element and wherein the disc-shaped element works in conjunction with a drive motor adapted to drive the disc-shaped element around the central axis of rotation at a speed higher than 2,000 revolutions per minute as taught by Sherwin (US 6731867) in order to remove particles which may otherwise adhere to the window and interfere with the detection device.
Regarding claim 2, Satake et al. (US 5669511) teaches the sorting device according to claim 1, wherein said window is provided opposite said detection zone (Fig. 1 transparent surface of #17 facing and opposite of ‘F’) and opposite the bottom side of the product flow in order to observe this bottom side (Fig. 1 transparent surface of #17 observes and is opposite of the bottom side of material flowing along ‘L’).
Regarding claim 3, Satake et al. (US 5669511) teaches the sorting device according to claim 1, wherein said window is provided at a level situated below the level of said detection zone in order to observe the bottom side of the product flow (Fig. 1 transparent surface of #17 below level of ‘L’ and observes bottom side of material flowing along ‘L’).
Regarding claim 4, Satake et al. (US 5669511) lacks teaching the sorting device according to claim 1, wherein said axis of axis extends transverse to the plane of said window.
Sherwin (US 6731867) teaches a detection device (Col. 1 lines 9-16) wherein said axis of axis extends transverse to the plane of said window (Fig. 1A-1B axis of rotation of #122 extends transverse to the plane of #112).
Sherwin (US 6731867) explains that the centrifugal force generated by the disc as it rotates throws the particles towards the circumference of the disc, where they fall off and stop interfering with the image (Col. 1 lines 17-22), and states that it is expected that the features provided by Sherwin (US 6731867) may be used in the design of lens protectors with higher rotational speeds, such as 2000-4000 RPM (Col. 5 lines 23-30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Satake et al. (US 5669511) to include wherein said axis of axis extends transverse to the plane of said window as taught by Sherwin (US 6731867) in order to remove particles from the disc shaped element and therefore prevent particles from interfering with the results of the detection device.
Regarding claim 5, Satake et al. (US 5669511) teaches the sorting device according to claim 1, wherein said detection device (Fig. 1 #15) comprises at least one camera (Fig. 1 #19) whose field of view extends through said window at least over a part of the detection zone (Fig. 1 field of view of #19 extends through transparent surface of #17 over ‘F’) such that products moving through this part of the detection zone can be detected by the camera (Col. 6 lines 58-63).
Regarding claim 7, Satake et al. (US 5669511) teaches the sorting device according to claim 1, wherein it comprises a conveying device (Fig. 1 #9) with a conveyor surface (Fig. 1 #8a) for the products (Fig. 1 #10) of said product flow extending upstream of said detection zone and connecting thereto (Fig. 1 #8a extending upstream ‘F’ and connecting thereto) so that products, upon leaving said surface, move through the detection zone (Fig. 1 products #10 leaving surface #8a move through ‘F’).
Regarding claim 8, Satake et al. (US 5669511) teaches the sorting device according to claim 7, wherein said conveyor surface (Fig. 1 #8a) is formed by a conveyor belt (Fig. 1 #8) driven in a direction transverse to said detection zone (Fig. 1 #8 driven in direction ‘B’ transverse to ‘F’) so that said products, upon leaving this conveyor belt, move in free flight through the detection zone according to said direction of travel (Fig. 1 products #10 move along trajectory ‘J’ upon leaving #8 through ‘F’).
Regarding claim 9, Satake et al. (US 5669511) teaches the sorting device according to claim 8, wherein said conveyor surface extends according to a horizontal plane (Fig. 6 #124 “conveying surface” extends along horizontal plane).
Regarding claim 10, Satake et al. (US 5669511) teaches the sorting device according to claim 7, wherein said conveyor surface (Fig. 1 #8a) comprises an inclined plate (Fig. 1 #11).
Regarding claim 11, Satake et al. (US 5669511) teaches the sorting device according to claim 1, further comprising a removal device (Fig. 1 #26) cooperating with the detection device to remove irregular products from the product flow during said free flight (Col. 7 lines 31-36).
Regarding claim 12, Satake et al. (US 5669511) teaches the sorting device according to claim 1, further comprising at least one light source (Fig. 1 #21) extending below said detection zone (Fig. 1 #21 below ‘F’) and making it possible to illuminate products which move through the detection zone (Col. 6 line 66-Col. 7 line 3).
Regarding claim 13, Satake et al. (US 5669511) teaches the sorting device according to claim 12, wherein said light source (Fig. 1 #21) is linear (see Satake (US 4371081); Col. 2 lines 23-26) and extends parallel to the detection zone (Fig. 1 #21 extends parallel to ‘F’).
Regarding claim 16, Satake et al. (US 5669511) teaches the sorting device according to claim 1, wherein a collecting device (Fig. 1 #27) is provided extending downstream behind said detection zone (Fig. 1 #27 provided downstream behind ‘F’) to collect said product flow (Fig. 1 #27 collects products #10a along path ‘J1’).
Regarding claim 17, Satake et al. (US 5669511) teaches a method for detecting irregularities in a product flow (Col. 1 lines 4-8), wherein products of said product flow are moved in free flight (Col. 5 lines 1-8, Col. 6 lines 60-63) through a detection zone (Fig. 1 ‘F’) while being inspected with the aid of a detection device (Fig. 1 #15) wherein irregular products are identified and these irregular products are removed from the product flow during said free flight (Col. 7 lines 12-26), wherein the detection device (Fig. 1 #15) is shielded from the product flow by a closed wall (Fig. 1 #17 separates #15 from flow along ‘J’) in which at least one window is provided (Fig. 1 surface of #17 facing ‘F’ is transparent, see Satake (US 4371081) Col. 2 lines 27-29) so that the detection device can observe said product flow through said window (Col. 6 lines 54-63).
Satake et al. (US 5669511) lacks teaching wherein said window is shielded from the product flow by placing a disc-shaped element, which is transparent to the detection device, between the window and the product flow, wherein said disc-shaped element is driven around a central axis of rotation extending perpendicularly to the surface of the disc-shaped element in order to remove contaminants from this element, wherein the disc-shaped element is driven around the central axis of rotation at a speed higher than 2,000 revolutions per minute.
Sherwin (US 6731867) teaches a method wherein a detection device (Col. 1 lines 9-16) wherein said window (Fig. 1A #112 “lens”) is shielded from the product flow by placing a disc-shaped element (Fig. 1B #122 “disc”, Col. 4 lines 8-10, 27-32), which is transparent to the detection device (Col. 4 lines 31-32), between the window and the product flow (Figs. 1A-1B #122 between #112 and external material), wherein said disc-shaped element is driven around a central axis of rotation (Fig. 2 see #122 driven around central axis of rotation) extending perpendicularly to the surface of the disc-shaped element (Fig. 2 axis of rotation of #122 extending perpendicularly to the surface of #122) in order to remove contaminants from this element (Col. 1 lines 17-22, 48-55), wherein the disc-shaped element is driven around the central axis of rotation at a speed higher than 2,000 revolutions per minute (Col. 5 lines 23-30).
Sherwin (US 6731867) explains that cameras are required to operate under many adverse conditions including flying particles, such as rain and slow, which may adhere to the camera lens and reduce image quality (Col. 1 lines 14-16). Sherwin (US 6731867) states that the use of a spinning glass disc placed before the lens is a well-known solution as it throws the particles towards the circumference of the disc where they are removed and stop interfering with the image (Col. 1 lines 18-23), and teaches a rotating transparent disc which is easily removable for cleaning without taking apart the lens protector (Col. 2 lines 37-61). Sherwin (US 6731867) states that it is expected that the features provided by Sherwin (US 6731867) may be used in the design of lens protectors with higher rotational speeds, such as 2000-4000 RPM (Col. 5 lines 23-30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Satake et al. (US 5669511) to include wherein said window is shielded from the product flow by placing a disc-shaped element, which is transparent to the detection device, between the window and the product flow, wherein said disc-shaped element is driven around a central axis of rotation extending perpendicularly to the surface of the disc-shaped element in order to remove contaminants from this element, wherein the disc-shaped element is driven around the central axis of rotation at a speed higher than 2,000 revolutions per minute as taught by Sherwin (US 6731867) in order to remove particles which may otherwise adhere to the window and interfere with the detection device.
Regarding claim 18, Satake et al. (US 5669511) teaches the method according to claim 17, wherein a free flight is imposed on said product flow through said detection zone at a level above the level of said window (Fig. 1 #10 travels along path ‘J’ through ‘F’ at level above level of transparent surface of #17), wherein the bottom side of the product flow is observed by the detection device (Fig. 1 bottom side of material flowing along ‘L’ observed through transparent surface of #17).
Regarding claim 19, Satake et al. (US 5669511) teaches the method according to claim 17, wherein the bottom side of the product flow is illuminated while the products move in free flight through said detection zone (Fig. 1 #21 illuminates bottom side of #10 flowing along ‘J’ through ‘F’).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satake et al. (US 5669511) in view of Sherwin (US 6731867) and further in view of Blanc et al. (US 2010/0121484).
Regarding claim 6, Satake et al. (US 5669511) lacks teaching the sorting device according to claim 1, wherein said detection device includes a camera on each lateral side of the product flow provided with an associated window wherein the field of view of said combined cameras extends across the width of said detection zone.
Blanc et al. (US 2010/0121484) teaches a sorting device (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-5) wherein said detection device (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-12) includes a camera on each lateral side of the product flow (Fig. 3 see #7’ on each lateral side of flow of ‘P’) provided with an associated window (Paragraph 0039 lines 1-9, Fig. 3 see window through which field of view of #7’ extends through) wherein the field of view of said combined cameras extends across the width of said detection zone (Paragraph 0052 lines 4-15).
Blanc et al. (US 2010/0121484) explains that the use of two cameras located on either side of the detection zone assures that the products can be observed in an amount of surface much larger than can be seen with a single camera, therefore making a complete image of each product and preventing ‘dead’ spots which may lead to unwanted errors (Paragraph 0052 lines 1-28).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Satake et al. (US 5669511) to include wherein said detection device includes a camera on each lateral side of the product flow provided with an associated window wherein the field of view of said combined cameras extends across the width of said detection zone as taught by Blanc et al. (US 2010/0121484) in order to provide a more complete image of the articles and prevent errors resulting from ‘dead’ spots in a single camera.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed May 28th, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Sherwin is nonanalogous art as it is directed to a different technical field and addresses a different problem, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Examiner would like to clarify that Sherwin explains that cameras are required to operate under many adverse conditions including flying particles, such as rain and slow, which may adhere to the camera lens and reduce image quality (Col. 1 lines 14-16). Sherwin states that the use of a spinning glass disc placed before the lens is a well-known solution as it throws the particles towards the circumference of the disc where they are removed and stop interfering with the image (Col. 1 lines 18-23), and teaches a rotating transparent disc which is easily removable for cleaning without taking apart the lens protector (Col. 2 lines 37-61). Sherwin further explains that the lens protector is mainly described for hand-held cameras, however it may be provided for other types of cameras such as industrial or surveillance cameras (Col. 8 lines 6-9), or used in a medical application for protecting an endoscope lens (Col. 8 lines 46-47). Therefore, the use of a lens protector as taught by Sherwin would be relevant to industrial systems which include an imaging device operating in adverse conditions (i.e. including flying particles), such as the industrial agricultural sorting system.
In response to applicant's argument that the disc as taught by Sherwin cannot be simply transplanted into Satake’s sorting device, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the case #17 as taught by Satake would include a window through which the detectors may view the material, wherein the window is comparable to the camera lens as taught by Sherwin, wherein the camera lens allows the internal sensors to view the subject(s) thereof.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Sherwin (US 6731867) explains that cameras are required to operate under many adverse conditions including flying particles, such as rain and slow, which may adhere to the camera lens and reduce image quality (Col. 1 lines 14-16). Sherwin (US 6731867) states that the use of a spinning glass disc placed before the lens is a well-known solution as it throws the particles towards the circumference of the disc where they are removed and stop interfering with the image (Col. 1 lines 18-23), and teaches a rotating transparent disc which is easily removable for cleaning without taking apart the lens protector (Col. 2 lines 37-61). Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide this modification in order to remove particles which may otherwise adhere to the window and interfere with the detection device.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Sherwin lacks teaching operation at a speed higher than 2000 revolutions per minute, the Examiner would like to clarify that Sherwin teaches a system which reduces vibration and gyroscopic effects (Col. 1 lines 48-55, Col. 1 line 64-Col. 2 line 1), and therefore allows the lens protectors to rotate with the higher rotational speeds (above 2000 RPM) (Col. 5 lines 23-30).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). It would have been obvious to provide this modification in order to remove particles which may otherwise adhere to the window and interfere with the detection device in an industrial environment with flying particles.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights