DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP 22184905.2 filed on July 14th 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 12th 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the references cited therein are considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…visible to human eye..” should be replaced with “…visible to a human eye…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…visible to human eye..” should be replaced with “…visible to the human eye…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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.
6. 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.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “electronic computing resources”.
Claim 2 recites the phrase “electronic computing resources”.
Claim 3 recites the phrase “electronic computing resources”.
Claim 4 recites the phrase “electronic computing resources”.
Claim 5 recites the phrase “electronic computing resources”.
Claim 6 recites the phrase “electronic computing resources”.
Claim 7 recites the phrase “electronic computing resources”.
Claim 9 recites the phrase “electronic computing resources”.
Claim 10 recites the phrase “electronic computing resources”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 1 -12 are 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 1 recites the phrase “…designed to communicate with the sensory system to receive and process the output thereof…” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether there of what is it an output of the sensory system or electronic resources?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the electromagnetic spectrum" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the phrase “…compute an actual heat pattern...” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the other computations are actual or not.
Claim 6 recites the phrase “…compute an actual sealing strip overlap...” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the other computations are actual or not.
Claim 7 recites the phrase “…marks similar to fishbones...” This claim is deemed indefinite because it fails to positively recite whether the marks look like fishbones or not.
Claim 8 recites the phrase “…identify an area of the thermal digital image with predefined characteristics, in particular a predefined brightness pattern…” This claim is deemed indefinite because it unclear whether the predefined characteristics are a brightness pattern or not.
Claim 8 recites the phrase “…also based on the identified underheating or cold seal, if any.” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the evaluating is based on this or not.
Claim 9 recites the phrase “...to capture digital images of one and the same area of one and same face…” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear which images are being captured.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the space domain” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 1-12 are allowed.
Regarding claim 1, the most relevant prior art is Ansaioni et al. (EP 2 186 624 A1; “Ansaioni”).
Ansaioni discloses an automatic heat-sealing quality control system (180) to automatically control a quality of a heat-sealing of a sealing strip (155) to a longitudinal edge of a packaging web (112) at a heat-sealing station (110) in a packaging machine (80; Fig. 4) where sealed packages containing pourable food products (para. [0003]) are continuously produced from a continuous vertical tube (85) filled with the pourable food product and formed by longitudinally folding the packaging web (112) to overlap longitudinal edges thereof (59) and then heat-sealing the overlapping longitudinal edges (para. [0025]);
the system (180) comprises:
- a sensory system (para. [0036]) arranged at the heat-sealing station (110) to output an output that allows the quality of the heat-sealing of the sealing strip (115) to the longitudinal edge of the packaging web (112) to be evaluated (para. [0036]-[0040]).
Ansaioni fails to disclose the electronic computing resources designed to communicate with the sensory system (13) to receive and process the output thereof to automatically evaluate the quality of the heat-sealing of the sealing strip to the longitudinal edge (3); of the packaging web (3);
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYAMINDAE JALLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1927. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30am-5:00pm and alternating Fridays from 7:30am-4:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHELLEY SELF, can be reached on (571)272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
11. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/EYAMINDAE C JALLOW/
Primary Examiner, AU 3731