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 .
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on October 28, 2024 has been entered and made of record. Currently, claims 34-53 are pending
Claim Interpretation
Claims 45-53 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they are all method claims.
Claims 41-44 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the recitations of “an imaging thermal detector” and “processor” provide sufficient structure to perform all claimed limitations.
Claims 34-40 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the recitations of “a sealing station” and “a thermal detector” provide sufficient structure to perform all claimed limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “the detector” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 pre-AIA 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(s) 34-36, 45, 47 and 51-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jo et al. (U. S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2019/195724 A1, Art of record IDS filed on 12/1/2024, and referred as Jo hereinafter).
Regarding claim 34 as a representative claim, Jo teaches a packaging line (see, for example, 100 of figures 1-2; para. [0040]) comprising:
a sealing station for induction sealing of containers (see 110 of figure 1; paras. [0002] (induction sealing) and [0043]); and
a thermal detector positioned at the sealing station, operative at a wavelength in the range of about 0.3 μm - about 14 μm and configured to image the containers after sealing thereof (see paras. [0004] – [0005] and [0048] – [0049] (IR camera is the so-called thermal detector; wavelength range about 1 μm – to about 5μm and about 7 μm – to about 13μm (these wavelength ranges are within claim range); IR camera 122 of figures 1-2 and para. [0040]; as can be seen from figures 1-2, after sealing at sealing station 110, bottle/container is transfer to the inspection station 120 for inspecting cap sealing, wherein the inspection station 120 comprises an IR camera 122 for generating the thermal image of the bottle/container as further described in para. [0041], for example), wherein the thermal detector is configured to image the induction seal of the sealed containers, through a cap of the containers (see figure 5 and paras. [0052] – [0053] (thermal image data 500 obtained by photographing cap sealing of the container 1)), such that the induction seal is imaged at an angle to a longitudinal or transverse axis of the container or cap (see figures 2-3 and para. [0044]: IR camera 120 captures cap sealing of the container at an angle to a moving direction of the container).
Regarding claim 35, Jo further teaches claim limitations “comprising a second thermal detector, wherein the first and second thermal detectors are positioned such that the induction seal of the sealed containers are imaged at an angle to the longitudinal or transverse axis of the container or cap from opposite sides thereof (see figures 2-3 and paras. [0045] – [0047] (temperature sensor 210 is the so-called second thermal detector)).
Regarding claim 36, Jo further teaches claim limitations “the thermal detector is positioned above an upper cap of the containers (see figures 2-3 and para. [0044]: IR camera 120 captures cap sealing of the container from above the cap and at an angle to a moving direction of the container), and wherein the packaging line further comprises one or more optical elements positioned such that the induction seal is imaged at an angle to the longitudinal or transverse axis of the container or cap from opposite sides thereof (see figures 2-3 and para. [0044]: IR camera 120 captures cap sealing of the container from above the cap and at an angle to a moving direction of the container; camera 120 inherently includes optical element).
Regarding claim 45, it is noted that it recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 34 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 47, Joe further teaches claim limitations “wherein the imaging comprises imaging the induction seal of the container from both sides of the induction seal” (see figures 2-3 and para. [0044]: IR camera 120 captures cap sealing of the container from above the cap and at an angle to a moving direction of the container; thus, both sides of the induction seal are imaged).
Regarding claim 51, Joe further teaches claim limitations “wherein the container is selected from the group consisting of: a canister, a blister package, a tube, a heat seal bag, a pouch, a sachet, a bottle, or any combination thereof” (see para. [0001] (plastic and glass container).
Regarding claim 52, Joe further teaches claim limitations “wherein the thermal detector is a bolometer or a semiconductor” (see IR camera 122 of figures 1-2).
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) 37-40, 46, 48-50 and 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo.
The advanced statements as applied to claims 34-36, 45, 47 and 51-52 above are incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding claim 37, Jo does not teach claim limitations “wherein the optical element comprises a movable IR mirror”.
However, such claim limitations are well known and wide used in the art (Official Notice).
The motivation for doing so is to accurately capture image of the cap of the container.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations in combination for that reasons. It would also have been obvious to incorporate such claim limitations into Jo because doing so would merely combine prior art elements according known method to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 38, Jo does not teach claim limitations “wherein the packaging line comprises a mechanism configured to rotate the sealed container and/or the detector, such that the induction seal is imaged at an angle to the longitudinal or transverse axis of the container or cap from opposite sides thereof”.
However, such claim limitations are well known and wide used in the art (Official Notice).
The motivation for doing so is to allow camera to capture image of the cap of the container more accurate thereby it would improve image quality of the cap of the container so the inspection would be more accurate.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations in combination for that reasons. It would also have been obvious to incorporate such claim limitations into Jo because doing so would merely combine prior art elements according known method to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 39, Jo does not teach claim limitations “wherein the thermal detector comprises a Indium Gallium Arsenide (InGaAs) detector, Indium Antimonide (InSb) detector, Mercury Cadmium Telluride (MCT) detector, Strained Layer Superlattice (SLS) detector, an amorphous silicon (a-Si) bolometer, Vanadium Oxide, Vox bolometer, microbolometer and/or any combination thereof. or any combination thereof”.
However, such claim limitations are well known and wide used in the art (Official Notice).
The motivation for doing so is to allow camera to penetrate the cap to capture image of the cap for sealing inspection..
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations in combination for that reasons. It would also have been obvious to incorporate such claim limitations into Jo because doing so would merely combine prior art elements according known method to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 40, Jo does not teach claim limitations “wherein the induction seal comprises a backing layer, a foil and a heat seal layer”.
However, such claim limitations are well known and wide used in the art (Official Notice).
The motivation for doing so is to provide a better seal so that container would not be opened during the transportation and/or moving along the inspection line.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations in combination for that reasons. It would also have been obvious to incorporate such claim limitations into Jo because doing so would merely combine prior art elements according known method to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 46, Jo does not further teach claim limitations “comprising determining a sealing integrity of the container and/or to identifying an operational defect responsible for a reduced sealing efficiency by applying big data analysis on one or more images obtained from the imaging of the container”.
However, such claim limitations are well known and wide used in the art (Official Notice).
The motivation for doing so is to allow inspection system to be reconfigured/adjusted in order to improve results of the inspection and also reduce false alarm of inspection results.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations in combination for that reasons. It would also have been obvious to incorporate such claim limitations into Jo because doing so would merely combine prior art elements according known method to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 48, Jo does not further teaches claim limitations “wherein the imaging from both sides of the induction seal comprises utilizing at least two thermal detectors”.
However, such claim limitations are well known and wide used in the art (Official Notice).
The motivation for doing so is to speed up the image capturing so that faster inspection would be achieved.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations in combination for that reasons. It would also have been obvious to incorporate such claim limitations into Jo because doing so would merely combine prior art elements according known method to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 49, Jo does not further teaches claim limitations “wherein the imaging from both sides of the induction seal comprises utilizing an optical element”.
However, such claim limitations are well known and wide used in the art (Official Notice).
The motivation for doing so is to speed up the image capturing so that faster inspection would be achieved.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations in combination for that reasons. It would also have been obvious to incorporate such claim limitations into Jo because doing so would merely combine prior art elements according known method to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 50, Jo does not teach claim limitations “wherein the imaging from both sides of the induction seal comprises rotating the thermal detector or the container during imaging thereof”.
However, such claim limitations are well known and wide used in the art (Official Notice).
The motivation for doing so is to allow camera to capture image of the cap of the container more accurate thereby it would improve image quality of the cap of the container so the inspection would be more accurate.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations in combination for that reasons. It would also have been obvious to incorporate such claim limitations into Jo because doing so would merely combine prior art elements according known method to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 53, it is noted that it recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 39 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 41-44 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 41, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations “a processor configured to: apply big data analysis on one or more images obtained from the imaging of the container to determine a trend in the induction sealing performance, wherein the applying of the big data analysis comprises applying a machine learning algorithm, trained on a data set comprising a large plurality of images and a large plurality of labels associated with the large plurality of images, the large plurality of labels indicating an integrity of the induction seal of the sealed containers, and wherein the data set further comprises an indication regarding the cause of a reduced sealing efficiency associated with each of the large plurality of images having a compromised induction seal; and provide an indication regarding a detected and/or predicted induction sealing deficiency based thereon”.
Claims 42-44 depend on claim 41 and thus are allowed for the same reasons.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KALRA et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2022/0044441 A1) teaches capturing images of surfaces under inspection with variety of incident angles (para. [0189]) by using a plurality of cameras (para. [0088]) and cap of the container to be imaged (para. [0076]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 571-272-3382. 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.
DMD
8/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights