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 § 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.
Claims 1 – 19 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.
“in particular” recited in independent claims 1 and 13 (and dependent claims 5 – 6) is determined to be interpreted as “for example”. Regarding claims 1 and 13, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 4, 7, 10, 12, and 14 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.
“preferably” is determined to be indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1 – 6, 8 – 9, 11, 13 – 15 and 16 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by King (EP 2435344 B1; cited in the IDS filed on 1/15/25).
With respect to independent claim 1, King teaches in Figs. 1 – 2 an apparatus for inspecting containers, with a transport device which is configured to transport the containers along a predefined transport direction, with at least one first radiation device which is configured to emit high-energy radiation R and in particular X-ray radiation R; see paragraph [0002] onto the containers to be inspected, and with a first sensor device which is configured for receiving the radiation emitted onto the containers by the radiation device, wherein the transport device forms a support surface which is configured to be movable in the transport direction and which supports to support the containers at their container bottoms,
wherein the support surface has a plurality of carrier elements 12 made of a plastic material rein or polypropylene; see paragraph [0004] and moreover at least one guide device 19 which is configured for guiding these carrier elements, wherein this guide device has a metal see paragraph [0014].
With respect to dependent claim 2, King teaches wherein the carrier elements are constructed in the form of webs or strips and preferably have a rectangular see Fig. 2 or parallelogram-like cross-section.
With respect to dependent claim 3, King teaches in Fig. 3 wherein the carrier elements have a first end portion and a second end portion, and the guide elements are arranged at these end portions.
With respect to dependent claim 4, King teaches in paragraph [0004] wherein the carrier elements are made of a plastic material which does not absorb X-ray radiation or absorbs it only to a small extent, wherein the plastic material is preferably selected from a group of plastic materials which includes PEEK, Teflon, and PET.
With respect to dependent claim 5, King teaches in Fig. 4 wherein the transport device is a circulating transport device and in particular a conveyor belt or a transport chain.
With respect to dependent claim 6, King teaches in Fig. 4 wherein the guide device is a belt see paragraph [0001] and in particular a toothed belt.
With respect to dependent claim 8, King teaches in paragraph [0020] wherein the apparatus has at least one second radiation device and/or at least one second sensor device.
With respect to dependent claim 9, King teaches in Fig. 1 wherein at least one X-ray radiation device and the sensor device, which receives the radiation R radiated onto the containers by the X-ray radiation device, are arranged such that a beam path of the X-ray radiation runs obliquely with respect to a longitudinal direction of the containers to be inspected.
With respect to dependent claim 11, King teaches in Fig. 1 wherein this transfer device is configured such that it transports to transport the containers obliquely to the transport direction.
With respect to independent claim 13, as discussed above in the rejection justification to claim 1 above King teaches a method for inspecting containers, wherein the containers are transported along a predefined transport direction using a transport device, and at least one first radiation device which emits high-energy radiation and in particular X-ray radiation onto the containers to be inspected, and a first sensor device detects radiation emitted onto the containers by the radiation device, wherein the transport device forms a support surface which is movable in the transport direction and which supports the containers at their container bases,
wherein the support surface has a plurality of carrier elements made of a plastic material and moreover at least one guide device for guiding these carrier elements, wherein this guide device has a metal.
With respect to dependent claim 14, King teaches in paragraph [0002] wherein the containers are filled canned food and beverage products and preferably also labeled and/or printed containers.
With respect to dependent claim 15, King teaches in Fig. 1 wherein the containers are transported in a straight line during their inspection and/or are transported at least perpendicular to the transport direction after their inspection.
With respect to dependent claims 16 – 19, King teaches a guide device made of metal and therefore inherently teaches wherein the guide device is formed at least in part of a material which absorbs X-ray radiation and wherein the material which absorbs X- ray radiation comprises a metal or a metal-reinforced plastic selected from the group consisting of iron, steel and aluminum.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King.
The teaching of King has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 7, King is silent with wherein the carrier elements have a thickness that is greater than 2 mm and preferably than 3 mm, and/or the carrier elements have a thickness that is less than 10 mm, preferably less than 8 mm, and particularly preferably less than 6 mm. However, the limitation of claim 7 would be obvious in order to improve detection efficiencies through optimization process readily available within the ordinary skilled art. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King, and further in view of Pipino (CN 108283010 A)
The teaching of King has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 10, King is silent with wherein the apparatus has a discharge device which is configured to discharge the inspected containers from the transport device, wherein preferably a transfer device is provided which transfers which is configured to transfer the containers from the transport device to the discharge device.
Pipino, a pertinent art, teaches a discharge device 55. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of King in order to move desired object to desired location. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 12, Pipino teaches wherein the apparatus has a feed device input belt 41 which conveys is configured to convey the containers to the transport device, wherein this feed device preferably has a transport wheel conveying which is configured to convey the containers or a transport wheel conveying the containers or a transport screw conveying the containers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 EST.
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, David Makiya can be reached at (571)272-2273. 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.
KIHO KIM, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights