Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 10/10/2024 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-7 are canceled. Claims 8-14 remain pending.
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 there is only a single drawing in the disclosure. Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear [see MPEP 608.02V and CFR 1.84(u)(1)].
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: selection means and transceiver means in claims 8 and 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over MAYER (WO-2019149429-A, of record, English translation provided by the Examiner), hereinafter MAYER. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 8, MAYER discloses A container labeling system {[abstract], [0001], [0003]}, comprising:
a labeling machine which comprises at least one conveyor for conveying containers to be labeled along an advancement path {[FIG. 4] 52/50, [0060]-[0062]}
and at least one labeling assembly which is configured to apply a respective label to each one of said containers that transit on said conveyor {[FIG. 4] 60/62, [0060]-[0062]},
and at least one optical sensor configured to detect the presence of said respective label on each one of said containers and therefore to recognize said containers on which said respective labels are actually applied {[FIG. 4] 18, [0011]-[0012], [0017], [0062] note the teaching on the situation where the treatment or labeling device are not putting labels on the container and the images are taken thus the image taken recognizes those containers that have a label on them and those who don’t}.
The Examiner points out that instant claim 1 is an apparatus claim. The above limitations recite what the disclosed apparatus is configured to do. The Examiner has shown an apparatus with similar components. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. “configured”) does not differentiate claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” {see MPEP 2114 (II)}.
MAYER discloses sampling from the container labeling line and detecting the presence of said label and its orientation and the number of samples can be increased if needed {[0022]}. It is, therefore, the Examiner’s position that MAYER’s apparatus is capable of being configured to image all the containers in the line of labeling (corresponding to the limitation “each one of said containers”).
In the alternative, and at the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and for certain cases of production, to take the images of all the containers in the line of labeling.
As disclosed by MAYER, number of sampling depends on the machine performance {[0022]}, therefore there may be cases where the need arises to sample all the containers.
Regarding the remainder limitations of claim 1, MAYER discloses said optical sensor being arranged downstream of said labeling assembly along a direction of advancement of said containers on said conveyor {[FIG. 4] note the two 18 are downstream of 60 and 62},
wherein said system further comprises a configuration device which is functionally connected to said optical sensor {[0017] note PC or mobile device or smartphone is the configuration device, [0018] note the evaluation unit is also the configuration device}, said configuration device comprising:
at least one memory, in which multiple operating configurations of said optical sensor are stored, each one of said multiple operating configurations being adapted to configure said optical sensor so as to detect the presence of a respective format of labels on said containers {[0033] note storage device or memory, note arrangement and placement are the multiple operating configurations that are captured by the optical device, [0011] note different capture modality that is used to configure the optical sensor based on the stored memory, [0035] note adjustability of the image capturing device or optical sensor indicating that it can be configured to detect labels at various locations on the container, [0036] note configuring the optical sensor to trigger at certain times which is a parameter, [0037] note controller can configure image acquisition unit or the optical sensor in different spatial orientation which can be considered a parameter, [0040] note configuration of the optical sensor for acquiring different numbers of images which can be considered a parameter},
selection means configured for a selection of one of said operating configurations by an operator {[0032] note display device and touchscreen are the selection means that the operator can make setting and/or enter parameters with},
and transceiver means configured to send said one operating configuration, chosen by means of said selection means, to said optical sensor, said optical sensor being configurable according to said one operating configuration {[0008] note transmission device and as discussed above the operator can choose or select input, thus this information is sent to the optical device, [0036]}.
Regarding claim 9-10, MAYER discloses wherein each one of said multiple operating configurations comprises at least one respective parameter for detection of the presence of said label of said respective format on each one of said containers by said optical sensor (claim 9), wherein each one of said multiple operating configurations comprises at least one respective image of a container on which a label of said respective format is applied {[0008]}.
Regarding claim 11, MAYER discloses wherein each one of said multiple operating configurations comprises at least one respective image of a container without a label of said respective format {[0062] note the teaching on the situation where the treatment or labeling device are not putting labels on the container and the image are taken}.
Regarding claim 12, MAYER discloses wherein said configuration device comprises a computer {[0017] note PC or personal computer}.
Regarding claims 13-14, MAYER discloses wherein said selection means of said configuration device comprise at least one user interface device (claim 13), wherein said user interface device comprises at least one touchscreen installed on said labeling machine {[0032] note touchscreen}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
