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 .
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.
Claim(s) 16-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moh (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0291382) in view of Duke (U.S. Pat. No. 7,665,400).
Regarding claim 16: Moh discloses a production system for packaging elements for aerosol-generating articles, wherein a packaging element is formed by a region of a packaging material, the production system comprising:
a printing station (Fig. 2; via printer 210 and/or Fig. 3; via printer 310) configured to print onto each of the packaging elements an identifier marking that is readable as packaging element identification information of the corresponding packaging element (intended use limitations of the printing station; while paragraph 0012 points out to; “printing static or fixed information on a sheet of material, e.g. paperboard (block 210)”);
a quality assessment station (Fig. 2; via inspect 218 and/or feed-error detector 314 and Vision system 318) configured to carry out a quality assessment of each packaging element (intended use limitations of the assessment station; noting paragraph 0015 refers to; “variable information printouts (block 218), i.e. to carry out static information inspection and variable information inspection at the same time”);
a transport system (Fig. 3; via conveyor 315) configured to transport the packaging elements along a production direction at least through the printing station and the quality assessment station (intended use limitations of the claimed transport system; paragraph 0022);
a data memory (paragraph 0015; “The inspection step may also include verifying each printout of the variable information against a database containing the variable information”);
a sorting station (Fig. 2; via vision system 318 & divert 220 and/or Fig. 3; via diverter 320); and
a controller (paragraph 0020; “inspection of the above method 20 may be automated and therefore replaces labor-intensive inspection”) configured to store in the data memory a dataset that allows retrieving a result of the quality assessment for any one of the packaging elements based on the packaging element identification information of the particular packaging element (intended use limitations of the controller; while paragraph 0015 refers to; “The inspection step may also include verifying each printout of the variable information against a database containing the variable information”),
wherein the sorting station is configured to read the identifier marking of at least one packaging element, thereby obtaining the packaging element identification information of the at least one packaging element, and to retrieve the result of the quality assessment for the at least one packaging element from the stored dataset based on the obtained packaging element identification information (intended use limitations of the sorting station; while paragraph 0022 suggests; “A vision system 318 is provided to inspect the static and variable information on the printable…it is diverted away by a diverter 320”).
Moh does not disclose the amended claims referring to a use of a printing station with a digital printer nor having a quality assessment station with an optical quality inspection system cooperating with a memory and sorting station to retrieve results. However, Duke discloses similar production system with the use of digital printer and optical quality inspection system (Fig. 6; via printer 166 linked to image capture devices 72, 79, 76 and controller 80/CPU) cooperating with a memory and sorting stations, see for example (Fig. 6; via memory bus 102 and “controller 80 compares the at least one validation symbol”; inherently “compares” to stored and retrieved data). Further, such storing of data in memory to be sorted and retrieved is very old and well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Moh’s production system, with the use of digital printer and optical quality inspection system linked to a memory and sorting station, as suggested by Duke, in order to come up with more desirable printing system able to identify printing error during the printing process (column 1, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 17: Moh discloses that the printing station is further configured to print onto each of the packaging elements a package decoration element in addition to the identifier marking (intended use of the printing station; (paragraph 0012; “producing printed packaging according to one embodiment of the invention”). While as set forth above Duke discloses the claimed “digital printer”.
Regarding claim 18: Moh discloses that the quality assessment comprises determining as a result of the quality assessment a degree to which the packaging element complies with a quality requirement specification (intended use limitations of the quality assessment; paragraph 0015; “information inspection and variable information inspection”).
Regarding claim 19: Moh discloses that the quality requirement specification comprises at least one of the following: a target color range, a target shape, a target brightness range, a target image, and a defect catalogue (paragraph 0016; “inspecting printable substrates containing static and variable information printouts”).
Regarding claim 20: Moh further comprising a feeding station (paragraph 0022 & Fig 3; via feeder 313) configured to supply the packaging material upstream of one or both of the printing station and the quality assessment station (intended use of the feeding station; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 21: Moh discloses the feeding station (via 313) is further configured to supply the packaging material in a form of a web comprising a plurality of regions forming packaging elements (intended use of the feeding station; noting feeder 313 capable of feeding webs).
Regarding claim 22: Moh discloses that the transport system (via 315) is further configured to provide the packaging material to the quality assessment station in a form of a web comprising a plurality of regions forming packaging elements (intended use of the transport system, noting that the 315 conveys the material through the quality assessment station 318/320).
Regarding claim 23: Moh further comprising a severing station (Fig. 3; via cutter 312) configured to sever the packaging elements from a remainder of the packaging material (intended use of the severing station; noting paragraph 0002; “the paperboard containing the variable and static information may be die cut into individual packages”).
Regarding claim 24: Moh discloses the sorting station (via 318/320) is further configured to deviate the at least one packaging element from a production path based on the retrieved result of the quality assessment (intended use limitations of the sorting statin; noting that paragraph 320 is a diverter).
Regarding claim 25: Moh further comprising a batch marking device (paragraph 0001; “producing and inspecting printed packaging with printings/markings/labels”) configured to generate a batch marker that is readable as unique batch identification information of a specific batch of packaging elements (intended use limitations of the batch markings, noting that paragraph 0020 refers to “an instruction is received from customer/user to supply packages with printing/markings/labels being both the static and variable information”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely sole on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant mainly argues that the applied art of Moh does not indicate any storing of results out of an inspection step in a data memory for future use, nor discloses any retrieving such stored information.
The Office as set forth above, believes that such argued upon issue in light of the amended claims referring to the use of digital printer, optical quality inspection system along with a storing result in a data memory to be retrieved for further use, is very old and well known to those skilled in the art, basic technology matters.
Being that said, the Office provided multiple new arts supporting such argued upon matters and modified the rejection above applying one of those new arts.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights