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 Status
Claims 1-15 are pending for examination in the Application No. 18/882,615 filed September 11th, 2024.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed as foreign Patent Application No. DE10 2023 124 451.5, filed on September 11th, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on October 23rd, 2024, and February 28th, 2025, is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) is/are being considered and attached by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12-13, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.71(a) for "full, clear, concise, and exact terms" (see MPEP § 608.01(m)):
In claim 1, the examiner respectfully suggests amending the term “this fitting” to recite “the fitting” to prevent confusion regarding the antecedent basis of the term within the claim(s);
In claim 1, the examiner respectfully suggests amending the term “this surface region” to recite “the at least one surface region” to maintain term consistency and prevent confusion regarding the antecedent basis of the term within the claim(s);
In claim 2, the examiner respectfully suggests amending the term “the property” to recite “the at least one property characteristic” as recited in claim 1 to maintain term consistency and prevent confusion regarding the antecedent basis of the term within the claim(s);
In claim 3, the examiner respectfully suggests amending the term “this minimum distance” to recite “the predetermined minimum distance” to maintain term consistency and prevent confusion regarding the antecedent basis of the term within the claim(s);
In claim 3, the term “mm” is an abbreviated form that has not been followed by the full explanation of the term, and hence needs to clarified and defined within the claim (e.g., the examiner respectfully suggests to include “millimeters” followed by “mm” in parentheses as known in the art;
In claim 5, the examiner respectfully suggests amending the term “the surface region” to recite “the at least one surface region” as recited in claim 1 to maintain term consistency and prevent confusion regarding the antecedent basis of the term within the claim(s);
In claims 5, 7, 9, 12, and 13, the examiner respectfully suggests amending the term “the characteristic value” to recite “the at least one characteristic value” as recited in claims 1 and 11 to maintain term consistency and prevent confusion regarding the antecedent basis of the term within the claim(s);
claim 8, the examiner respectfully suggests amending the term “the attachment of the fitting to the container” to recite “the attachment of the fitting to the at least one surface region of the outer wall of the container” as recited in claim 1 to maintain term consistency and prevent confusion regarding the antecedent basis of the term within the claim(s); and
In claim 15, the examiner respectfully suggests amending the term “this inspection device” to recite “the inspection device” to maintain term consistency and prevent confusion regarding the antecedent basis of the term within the claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier, as explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I (note that the list of generic placeholders below is not exhaustive, and other generic placeholders may invoke 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 Generic Placeholder (A Term That Is Simply A Substitute for "Means")
With respect to the first prong of this analysis, a claim element that does not include the term "means" or "step" triggers a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply. When the claim limitation does not use the term "means," examiners should determine whether the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply is overcome. The presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term "means"). The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Note that there is no fixed list of generic placeholders that always result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and likewise there is no fixed list of words that always avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Every case will turn on its own unique set of facts.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"image recording device which is configured to record a spatially resolved image…" in claim 4 implemented on hardware disclosed in para. [0162] and Fig. 3 (e.g., the “image recording device 4” in Fig. 3 symbolized as a camera);
"inspection device which is configured to inspect the surface region fitted with these fitting elements…" in claim 11, and thus, claim(s) 14 is/are similarly interpreted, and "inspection device is output at least one characteristic value…" in claim 15, described in para(s). [0162];
"control device… which is configured to control the fitting device…" in claim 12 implemented on hardware disclosed in para(s). [0042] (e.g., “…can be done, for example, via a servo control or similar”);
"ejecting device which is configured for ejecting individual containers…" in claim 13 described in para(s). [0165]; and
"transport device which transports…" in claim 14 implemented on hardware disclosed in para(s). [0144] (e.g., “…has at least one transport wheel and/or at least one transport starwheel”).
Regarding the claims reciting the generic placeholder (B) and (D) above: the claims, as per MPEP § 2181 recite the generic placeholder, modified by functional language, and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function invoking interpretation under § 112(f), and in light of the specification, do not have support under § 112 (a) or (b).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of subsection IV of MPEP § 2181:
IV. DETERMINING WHETHER 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH SUPPORT EXISTS
When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under section 112(a). See MPEP § 2163.03, subsection VI. Examiners should further consider whether the disclosure contains sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention in compliance with the enablement requirement of section 112(a). See MPEP § 2161.01, subsection III, and MPEP § 2164.08.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 11 and 15 and claim 13 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting the claim limitations “inspection device” and “ejecting device”, respectively (see analysis in § 112 (f) “Claim Interpretations” above). These claims are found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), based on failure of the specification to clearly link structure capable of performing the recited function (see analysis in § 112 (b) below). Claims that are found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), based on failure of the specification to describe and/or clearly link structure capable of performing the recited function, also lacks adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (see subsection IV of MPEP § 2181). Therefore, these claims lack an adequate written description and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Claim(s) 12-14, which is/are similarly interpreted, do not resolve or clarify this/these issue(s) is/are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same reasons as above in view of their dependency to claim 11.
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claim(s) 1, the claim recites the limitation “at least one carrier-free fitting element which are at least partially not connected to one another”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear to examiner what is being referred to as “another” within the claim limitation. For examination purposes, this limitation in the claim will be read similarly to the phrasing presented in similar claims 10, 11, and/or 15. Furthermore, claims 2-9 inherit this insufficient antecedent basis in view of their dependency to the claim.
Regarding claim(s) 1, the claim recites the limitation “this at least one fitting element or with these fitting elements”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear to examiner what and/or which “fitting element[s]” is/are being referred to in the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation in the claim will be read as “the at least one carrier-free fitting element” as previously recited in the claim. Furthermore, claims 2-9 inherit this insufficient antecedent basis in view of their dependency to the claim.
Regarding claim(s) 1, 2, and 15, each claim recites the limitation “the first fitting element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For examination purposes, this limitation in each claim will be read as “the at least one carrier-free fitting element” as previously recited in each claim. Furthermore, claims 3-9 inherit this insufficient antecedent basis in view of their dependency to claim 1.
Regarding claim(s) 3, the claim recites the limitation “at least one fitting element has a predetermined minimum distance from at least one further fitting element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “at least one fitting element” and “at least one further fitting element” in this limitation in the claim because it is unclear to examiner what and/or which “fitting element[s]” in claim 1 is/are being referred to for each of these terms. For examination purposes, the examiner will rely upon the wording in claims 10, 11, and 15 to interpret the term “at least one fitting element” as “the at least one carrier-free fitting element” as previously recited in claim 1 and the term “at least one further fitting element” will be read as a second fitting element from a “plurality of fitting elements”, such as recited in similar claims 10, 11, and/or 15.
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 8, each claim recites the limitation “the inspection”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear to examiner if the limitation is referring to the inspection of “containers” recited in the preamble of claim 1 or to the inspection “by an inspection device” recited in a latter limitation of claim 1. For examination purposes, this limitation in each claim will be read as “the inspection- performed by the inspection device” as recited in the latter limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim(s) 4, the claim recites the limitation “the surface region provided with the fitting elements”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1 only recites a singular “at least one surface region” with only a singular “at least one carrier-free fitting element”. For examination purposes, this limitation in the claim will be read as “the at least one surface region provided with the at least one carrier-free fitting element” as previously recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim(s) 5, the claim recites the phrase “the fitting element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this phrase in the claim because it is unclear to examiner what and/or which “fitting element[s]” in claim 1 is/are being referred to for this phrase. For examination purposes, the phrase “the fitting element” will be read as “the at least one carrier-free fitting element” as previously recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim(s) 5, the claim recites the phrase “the further fitting element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this phrase in the claim because it is unclear to examiner if the phrase is referring to the “further fitting element” recited in the claim 5 limitation “of a position of the fitting element relative to a further fitting element in a longitudinal direction of the container” or the “further fitting element” recited in the claim 5 limitation “of a position of the fitting element relative to a further fitting element in a circumferential direction of the container”. For examination purposes, the examiner will rely upon the wording in claims 10, 11, and 15 to interpret the phrase as a second fitting element from a “plurality of fitting elements”, such as recited in similar claims 10, 11, and/or 15.
Regarding claim(s) 6, the claim recites the limitation “the surface region fitted with the fitting elements”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1 only recites a singular “at least one surface region” with only a singular “at least one carrier-free fitting element”. For examination purposes, this limitation in the claim will be read as “the at least one surface region fitted with the at least one carrier-free fitting element” as previously recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim(s) 9, the claim recites the limitation “the fitting element(s)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear to examiner what and/or which “fitting element[s]” recited in claim 1 is/are being referred to in the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation in the claim will be read as “the at least one carrier-free fitting element” as previously recited in the claim.
Regarding claim(s) 10, the claim recites the limitation “at least one carrier-free fitting element and/or a plurality of fitting elements which are at least partially not connected to one another”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear to examiner if the limitation requires both the “at least one carrier-free element” and the “plurality of fitting elements” when referring to “at least partially not connected to one another” and/or if each individual fitting element in the “plurality of fitting elements” are also required to be “at least partially not connected to one another”.
Regarding claim(s) 10, the claim recites the limitation “this surface region fitted with these fitting elements”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear to examiner what and/or which “fitting element[s]” is/are being referred to in the claim (e.g., the “at least one carrier-free fitting element”, “plurality of fitting elements”, or both thereof). For examination purposes, this limitation in the claim will be read as “the at least one surface region fitted with the at least one carrier-free fitting element” as previously recited in the claim.
Regarding claim(s) 10 and 11, each claim recites the limitation “characteristic of the fitting element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each claim because it is unclear to examiner what and/or which “fitting element” is being referred to in each claim (e.g., the “at least one carrier-free fitting element”, “plurality of fitting elements”, or both thereof). For examination purposes, this limitation in each claim will be read as “characteristic of the at least one carrier-free fitting element” as previously recited in each claim.
Regarding claims 11, the phrase “suitable and intended to” in renders these claims indefinite because the functional limitations recited after this phrase in the claim are intended use and/or results and do not provide a clear cut indication of scope because it imposes no structural limits on performing the claimed function (see MPEP § 2173.05(g)). For examination purposes, the limitations following this phrase will be read as intended use and/or result phrases and will not be read as a functional structure or requirement of the claim (see MPEP § 2114, subsection II). Furthermore, claims 12-14 inherit this insufficient antecedent basis in view of their dependency to the claim. Applicant is respectfully encouraged to amend the claims to actively recite performing these limitations following this phrase to require these limitations as a functional structure or requirement of the claims.
Regarding claim(s) 11 and 15, each claim recites the limitation “at least one carrier-free fitting element and/or a plurality of fitting elements which are not connected to one another”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each claim because it is unclear to examiner if the limitation requires both the “at least one carrier-free element” and the “plurality of fitting elements” when referring to “not connected to one another” and/or if each individual fitting element in the “plurality of fitting elements” are required to be “not connected to one another”.
Regarding claim(s) 11, the claim recites the limitation “the surface region fitted with these fitting elements”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear to examiner what and/or which “fitting element[s]” is/are being referred to in the claim (e.g., the “at least one carrier-free fitting element”, “plurality of fitting elements”, or both thereof). For examination purposes, this limitation in the claim will be read as “the at least one surface region fitted with the at least one carrier-free fitting element” as previously recited in the claim.
Regarding claim(s) 11, 13, and 15, the claim recites the limitations “inspection device” or “ejecting device”, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see analysis in § 112(f) “Claim Interpretations” above). However, the written description fails to contain sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claim(s) as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention, the specification fails to set forth the corresponding structure, material, or acts in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, and the claim limitation(s) cannot "be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof” (see subsection II.A. of MPEP § 2181). As seen in the limitation(s) listed in § 112 (f) “Claim Interpretations” above, the disclosure merely describes the function(s) of this/these limitation(s). Claim(s) 12-14, which is/are similarly interpreted, do not resolve or clarify this/these issue(s) and, thus, is/are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons as above in view of their dependency to claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The claim(s) recite(s) methods, an apparatus, and a device configured to inspect containers fitted with fitting elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 10, 11, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES; claim(s) 1, 10, 11, and 15 is/are directed to methods (i.e., a process) and an apparatus/device).
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES; The claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claim 1 (and the method, apparatus and device in claims 10, 11, and 15, respectively) comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, and 15: the method recites the steps (functions) of:
this surface region fitted with this at least one fitting element or with these fitting elements is inspected …and at least one characteristic value is output which is characteristic of at least one property characteristic of the first fitting element (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind).
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, and 15 does/do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, and 15 recite(s) the further limitations of:
a fitting device which is suitable and intended to attach a fitting to at least one surface region of an outer wall of a container, wherein this fitting comprises at least one carrier-free fitting element and/or a plurality of fitting elements which are not connected to one another (insignificant pre-solution extra activity of generating data (i.e., a “container” fitted with “fitting elements”)) OR (generic computer(s) or component(s) (e.g., a “fitting device”) configured to perform the method); and
an inspection device… (generic computer(s) or component(s) configured to perform the method of “inspect[ing]” and “output[ting]”).
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere pre/post-solution actions, which is/are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, and 15 does/do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a computer and/or generic component(s) to “attach, inspect, output, etc…”, as claimed in Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, and 15 is/are a routine, well-understood and conventional process(es) that is/are performed by computers and machines.
Thus, since Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, and 15 is/are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, and 15 is/are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claims 2-9, and 12-14: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) recite either:
(1) a mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind (i.e., claim(s) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (and similar claim 12), and 13 recite(s) the mental process(es) of: selecting a characteristic value from a group of characteristic values comprising characteristic values regarding positions, distortion, deformation, presence, information content, and conditional agreement of the fitting element relative to a surface region of an outer wall of a container and/or a further fitting element; comparing an image with a reference image; comparing a characteristic value with a target value; performing attachment/inspection during a movement of a container; controlling a fitting device based on the characteristic value; and ejecting containers based on the characteristic value, respectively);;
(2) insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data (i.e., claim(s) 2, 3, and 4 recite(s) the activity/activities of generating/gathering: obtaining a characteristic property, obtaining fitting elements comprising of a minimum distance with one another, and recording a spatially resolved image, respectively); and/or
(3) generic computers or components configured to perform the method (i.e., claim(s) 4, 12, 13, and 14 recite(s) the generic computer(s) or component(s) of: an image recording device, a control device, an ejecting device, and a transport device, respectively).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mayer et al. (Mayer; DE 102018102055 A1, cited in Applicant’s IDS filed February 28th, 2025; the attached English language translation is used hereinafter as the Official English language translation of this DE document).
Regarding claim 1, Mayer discloses a method for inspecting containers, wherein a fitting is attached to at least one surface region of an outer wall of a container (para(s). [0001], [0006], and [0013], recite(s)
[0001] “The present invention relates to a device and a method for checking the accuracy of the fittings, in particular the labeling and/or printing accuracy on containers, especially bottles. …”
[0006] “An inventive device for checking the accuracy of the fittings, in particular the labeling and/or printing accuracy, on containers, especially bottles, comprises an inspection device having at least one image acquisition device for capturing spatially resolved images, wherein the inspection device is suitable and intended to capture at least one characteristic measured value for the fitting element, in particular for an arrangement and/or placement of the fitting element on the container, from at least one image of a container to be checked, provided with at least one fitting element, which is at least partially (and preferably completely) captured by the image acquisition device. ...”
[0013] “For the purposes of this description, "equipment" shall be understood to mean imprints (e.g., via direct printing), decorations, markings, labels and the like that are applied directly or indirectly to the surface of the container. …”
, where a “fitting element on the container” and/or “equipment” is/are fitting(s) attached to at least one surface region of an outer wall of a container (e.g., a body of the container)), wherein this fitting has at least one carrier-free fitting element which are at least partially not connected to one another (para(s). [0028-0029], recite(s)
[0028] “Preferably, a (measured) value characteristic of an arrangement and/or placement of the (respective) equipment element is determined from the at least one image taken by the image recording device.
This value is preferably characteristic of a skewed position of a fitting element and/or a relative arrangement of the fitting element to an embossing of the container and/or a relative arrangement of a fitting element to another fitting element on the container, for example a relative arrangement of a neck (ring) label to a front label (body label) and/or a relative arrangement of a front label (or Body labels) to a back label and/or a relative arrangement of a body label and a chest label, and/or product-related data (for example, the best before date to compare whether it is within the desired sales period) and/or product type.”
[0029] “By measuring imprint features (on labels) or features of a component, it is unnecessary to flip the labels over, as is done in the prior art, to determine their vertical center axis.
Furthermore, the method proposed in the present invention can be advantageously used for different types of labels, for example also for self-adhesive labels that are difficult to remove, as well as for direct printing. Thus, in principle, all commercially available labels and imprints can be advantageously checked in the same way using the method proposed in the present invention. This advantageously simplifies the handling of the verification of labeling accuracy or printing accuracy, as well as the standardization and quality control of production as a whole.”
, where a “self-adhesive label” is at least a carrier-free fitting element at least not partially connected to another fitting element (e.g., the “relative arrangement of a front label (or Body labels) to a back label”, etc.)),
wherein
this surface region fitted with this at least one fitting element or with these fitting elements is inspected by an inspection device and at least one characteristic value is output which is characteristic of at least one property characteristic of the first fitting element (para(s). [0006]—see citation in claim limitation “a method for…” above—, where para(s). [0027] further recite(s):
[0027] “Preferably, features on the respective equipment element and/or alignment feature(s) on the container are used to determine the (at least one) characteristic control value (preferably all characteristic control values) and/or characteristic measured values.
Preferably, a measurement of an equipment element or a determination of a positional offset of an equipment element is carried out based on the image of the container to be checked (equipped) or inspected (at least one) taken by the inspection device or the image acquisition device, in particular via the features of the equipment element depicted on the (at least one) image. …”
, where the “inspection device” is an inspection device inspecting fitting elements (e.g., an “equipment element[s]” comprises of the “fittings” recited in para. [0006]) and outputting at least one characteristic value (e.g., “measured valued characteristic” and/or “characteristic control value”) of at least one property characteristic (e.g., “positional offset”) of at least one of the fitting elements).
Regarding claim 2, Mayer discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein
the property is a property that is individually characteristic of the first fitting element (para(s). [0028]—see citation in claim 1 limitation “…wherein this fitting has at least one carrier-free fitting element…” above—, where a “position of a fitting element” and/or “arrangement of [the] fitting element” is a property individually characteristic of the at least one fitting element).
Regarding claim 3, Mayer discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein
at least one fitting element has a predetermined minimum distance from at least one further fitting element and this minimum distance is greater than 0.5 mm (para(s). [0036], recite(s)
[0036] “ Preferably, the storage device for individual equipment elements contains predefined tolerance ranges for an acceptable positional offset, preferably depending on the frequency of occurrence.
For example, a tolerance range of up to ±0.7° within a proportion of 68.3% and/or preferably up to ±1.4° within a proportion of 95.4% and/or preferably up to ±2.1° within a proportion of 99.7% of the production may be specified and stored. Preferably, a tolerance range for a relative arrangement between a torso label and a chest label and/or neck label can be specified and stored as a positional offset of up to ±1.0 mm within a proportion of 68.3% and/or preferably up to ±2.0 mm within a proportion of 95.4% and/or preferably up to ±3.0 mm within a proportion of 99.7% of the production. Preferably, a tolerance range for a relative arrangement between a body label and a back label can be specified and stored as a positional offset of up to ±1.5 mm within a proportion of 68.3% and/or preferably up to ±3.0 mm within a proportion of 95.4% and/or preferably up to ±4.5 mm within a proportion of 99.7% of the production.”
, where a “tolerance range for a relative arrangement between a body label and a back label” is at least a predetermined minimum distance between the at least one fitting element and an at least one further fitting element; wherein the predetermined minimum distance is at least greater than 0.5 millimeters (e.g., “up to ± 1.5 mm”, “up to ±3.0 mm”, “up to ±4.5 mm “, etc.)).
Regarding claim 4, Mayer discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein
the inspection is carried out by an image recording device which is configured to record a spatially resolved image of the surface region provided with the fitting elements (para(s). [0006]—see citation in claim 1 limitation “a method for…” above—, where the “image acquisition device for capturing spatially resolved images” is an image recording device configured to record a spatially resolved image of the surface region provided with the fitting elements (e.g., “fitting element on the container”)).
Regarding claim 6, Mayer discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein
an image of the surface region fitted with the fitting elements is recorded and this image is compared with at least one reference image (para(s). [0062], recite(s)
[0062] “…In the operating mode of the labeling device 80, the image of the labeled container 10 taken by the image acquisition device 18 is compared with another image taken by the image acquisition device 18, preferably of a previously or precedingly labeled container 10.
Preferably, two images of labeled containers 10 are compared to check the labeling process.”
, where the “image of the labeled container” is an image of the surface region fitted with fitting elements and the “another image taken… previously or precedingly” is at least a reference image).
Regarding claim 7, Mayer discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein
the characteristic value is compared with a target value (para(s). [0001], recite(s)
[0001] “…Checking the labeling or printing accuracy on containers is part of the acceptance testing during the commissioning of labeling or printing systems and/or is carried out as part of regular quality controls of production. Testing devices are known for checking a label on a label carrier, by means of which an actual state of a label applied to a container can be compared with a target state of the labeling. Based on this, quality control of the labeling is possible for plant acceptance and/or for individual product batches during ongoing operation. For this purpose, for example, several hundred labeled containers are removed from the product stream under normal production conditions and the position of the labels is compared with target values and/or the relative position of several labels attached to the containers to each other is compared with corresponding target values.”
, where the characteristic value (e.g., “position[s]” and/or “relative position[s]”) is compared with a target value (e.g., “corresponding target values”)).
Regarding claim 8, Mayer discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein
the attachment of the fitting to the container and/or the inspection of the container can take place during a movement of the container (para(s). [0007], recite(s)
[0007] “Preferably, the device has a transport device which feeds and/or removes the containers to be inspected from the inspection device and/or preferably, in a test mode of the device, the containers to be inspected are transported, in particular automatically, to at least one (preferably exactly one) (predetermined) test position (on the transport path). …”
, where “transport[ing]” is movement).
Regarding claim 9, Mayer discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein
the fitting of the container with the fitting element(s) is controlled taking the characteristic value into account (para(s). [0038], recite(s)
[0038] “…Preferably, the control unit transmits feedback to the equipment unit based on a result from the evaluation unit, in particular a characteristic control value, in order to, for example, make a change in settings and/or adjustment and/or troubleshooting. It is preferably conceivable that when checking printed images and/or labels on containers, any deviations are detected and possible corrections are transmitted and/or compared to the respective printing and/or labeling device, for example wirelessly via radio.”
, where changing “settings and/or adjustment and/or troubleshooting” based on at least the “characteristic control value” is controlling at least the fitting (e.g., “printing”) of the container with the fitting elements by taking the characteristic value into account).
Regarding claim 10, Mayer discloses the method for inspecting containers, wherein a container is provided, wherein a fitting is attached to at least one surface region of an outer wall of this container (para(s). [0001], [0006], and [0013]—see analysis in similar claim 1 limitation “a method for…” above), wherein this fitting has at least one carrier-free fitting element and/or a plurality of fitting elements which are at least partially not connected to one another (para(s). [0028-0029]—see analysis in similar claim 1 limitation “…wherein this fitting has…” above—, where the “fitting elements” are a plurality of fitting elements at least partially not connected to one another (e.g., “relative arrangement” between “a fitting element to another fitting element”) and includes at least one carrier-free fitting element (e.g., “self-adhesive labels”)),
wherein
this surface region fitted with these fitting elements is inspected by an inspection device and at least one characteristic value is output which is characteristic of at least one property that is characteristic of the fitting element (para(s). [0006] and [0027]—see analysis in similar claim 1 limitation “this surface region fitted with…” above).
Regarding claim 11, Mayer discloses an apparatus for inspecting containers, having a fitting device which is suitable and intended to attach a fitting to at least one surface region of an outer wall of a container (para(s). [0001], [0006], and [0013]—see citations in similar claim 1 limitation “a method for…” above—, wherein para(s). [0004] further recite(s):
[0004] “The present invention is based on the objective of overcoming the disadvantages known from the prior art and providing a device or method for checking the accuracy of a piece of equipment (such as a labeling and/or printing device), for example, the accuracy of a labeling and/or printing device, which is achieved through the most precise, fast and user-friendly check possible. …”
, where the “labeling and/or printing device” is a device suitable for performing the intended use/result of attaching (e.g., “printing”) a fitting to at least one surface region of an outer wall of a container (e.g., “labels attached to the containers”)), wherein this fitting comprises at least one carrier-free fitting element and/or a plurality of fitting elements which are not connected to one another (para(s). [0028-0029]—see analysis in similar claim 10 limitation “…wherein this fitting has…” above),
wherein
the apparatus has an inspection device which is configured to inspect the surface region fitted with these fitting elements and to output at least one characteristic value which is characteristic of at least one property that is characteristic of the fitting element (para(s). [0006] and [0027]—see analysis in similar claim 1 limitation “this surface region fitted with…” above).
Regarding claim 12, Mayer discloses the apparatus according to claim 11, having a control device for controlling the fitting device, which is configured to control the fitting device taking into account the characteristic value (para(s). [0038]—see citation in similar claim 9—, where the “control unit” is at least a control device for controlling the fitting device by taking into account the characteristic value (e.g., “characteristic control value”)).
Regarding claim 13, Mayer discloses the apparatus according to claim 11, having an ejecting device which is configured for ejecting individual containers taking into account the characteristic value (para(s). [0038], recite(s)
[0038] “In a further advantageous embodiment, the device has a control unit that is suitable and intended to trigger an image acquisition by the image acquisition device at predetermined times and/or to trigger and/or carry out the ejection of a (particularly defective) container by means of an ejection device.
Preferably, the control unit transmits feedback to the equipment unit based on a result from the evaluation unit, in particular a characteristic control value, in order to, for example, make a change in settings and/or adjustment and/or troubleshooting. It is preferably conceivable that when checking printed images and/or labels on containers, any deviations are detected and possible corrections are transmitted and/or compared to the respective printing and/or labeling device, for example wirelessly via radio.”
, where the “ejection device” is an ejection device for ejecting individual containers taking into account the characteristic value (e.g., “characteristic control value”)).
Regarding claim 14, Mayer discloses the apparatus according to claim 11,
wherein
the apparatus has a transport device which transports the containers from the fitting device to the inspection device (the “transport device” as recited in para(s). [0007] and [0050]:
[0007] “Preferably, the device has a transport device which feeds and/or removes the containers to be inspected from the inspection device and/or preferably, in a test mode of the device, the containers to be inspected are transported, in particular automatically, to at least one (preferably exactly one) (predetermined) test position (on the transport path). …”
[0050] “The present invention further relates to the use of an inspection device associated with an equipment device, in particular in a test mode of the equipment device, for determining at least one control value characteristic of the equipment accuracy of the equipment device, wherein the inspection device has at least one image acquisition device for capturing spatially resolved images, wherein the equipment device is suitable and intended for equipping a container with at least one equipment element, wherein the equipment device has at least sectionally a transport device for transporting the containers to be equipped along a transport path, and preferably the inspection device is arranged downstream in the transport direction of the containers with respect to this equipment device, wherein the inspection device is suitable and intended for performing an inspection of at least one equipment element attached by the equipment device in an operating mode of the equipment device. …”
).
Regarding claim 15, Mayer discloses an inspection device for inspecting a container, wherein a fitting is attached to at least one surface region of an outer wall of this container (para(s). [0001], [0006], and [0013]—see analysis in similar claim 1 limitation “a method for…” above), wherein this fitting has at least one carrier-free fitting element and/or a plurality of fitting elements which are not connected to one another, (para(s). [0028-0029]—see analysis in similar claim 10 limitation “…wherein this fitting has…” above)
wherein
this inspection device is configured to output at least one characteristic value which is characteristic of at least one property that is characteristic of the first fitting element (para(s). [0006] and [0027]—see analysis in similar claim 1 limitation “this surface region fitted with…” above).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer as applied to claim 1 above; and further in view of Gertlowski et al. (Gertlowski; EP 3858750 A1, cited in Applicant’s IDS filed February 28th, 2025; the attached English language translation is used hereinafter as the Official English language translation of this EP document), further more in view of Niedermeier et al. (Niedermeier-081; DE 102017114081 A1, cited in Applicant’s IDS filed October 23rd, 2024; the attached English language translation is used hereinafter as the Official English language translation of this DE document), and further more in view of Niedermeier (Niedermeier-960; US 2014/0015960 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Mayer discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein
the characteristic value is selected from a group of characteristic values (para(s). [0027], recite(s)
[0027] “Preferably, features on the respective equipment element and/or alignment feature(s) on the container are used to determine the (at least one) characteristic control value (preferably all characteristic control values) and/or characteristic measured values.
Preferably, a measurement of an equipment element or a determination of a positional offset of an equipment element is carried out based on the image of the container to be checked (equipped) or inspected (at least one) taken by the inspection device or the image acquisition device, in particular via the features of the equipment element depicted on the (at least one) image. Preferably, a vertical (and/or a horizontal) central axis of a piece of equipment is determined (in particular by the evaluation device) especially based on at least one and preferably several features (shown in the at least one image). Preferably, a positional offset of a piece of equipment is determined based on a comparison of the position of the central axis of a piece of equipment with a predetermined target position of this central axis.”
, where the characteristic value (e.g., “characteristic control value”) is selected from a group of characteristic values (e.g., “features on the respective equipment element and/or alignment feature(s) on the container”)) which comprises a characteristic value which is characteristic of a position of the fitting element relative to the surface region in a longitudinal direction(para(s). [0027]—see citation in current claim above—, where the “positional offset” of the fitting element relative to the “vertical… central axis” of the fitting element is at least a characteristic value characteristic of a position of the fitting element relative to the surface region in a longitudinal direction (e.g., “central axis”)), of a position of the fitting element relative to the surface region(para(s). [0027]—see citation in current claim above—, where the “positional offset” is a characteristic value characteristic of a position of the fitting element relative to the surface region of the container (e.g., “central axis”)), of a position of the fitting element relative to a further fitting element(para(s). [0028]—see citation in claim 1 limitation “…wherein this fitting…” above—, where the “skewed position” is at least a characteristic value characteristic of at least a position of the fitting element relative to a further fitting element of the container (e.g., “a relative arrangement of a fitting element to another fitting element on the container”)), of a position of the fitting element relative to a further fitting element(para(s). [0028]—see citation in claim 1 limitation “…wherein this fitting…” above—, where the “skewed position” is at least a characteristic value characteristic of at least a position of the fitting element relative to a further fitting element of the container (e.g., “a relative arrangement of a fitting element to another fitting element on the container”))(para(s). [0036]—see citation in claim 3—, where determining if the “positional offset” is an “acceptable positional offset” is an a characteristic value characteristic of an agreement of an actual condition of the fitting element (e.g., the measured “positional offset”) with a target condition of the fitting element (e.g., “tolerance range”)), and combinations thereof (para(s). [0027], [0028], and [0036]—see all citations cited in the current claim above—, where the group of characteristic values comprises the characteristic values detailed in the current claim above).
Where Mayer does not specifically disclose
…a characteristic value which is characteristic of a position of the fitting element relative to the surface region in a longitudinal direction of the container,
of a position of the fitting element relative to the surface region in a circumferential direction of the container,
of a position of the fitting element relative to a further fitting element in a longitudinal direction of the container,
of a position of the fitting element relative to a further fitting element in a circumferential direction of the container, and
of a rotational position of the fitting element relative to the surface region, of a rotational position of the fitting element relative to the further fitting element;
Gertlowski teaches in the same field of endeavor of an inspection device for inspecting containers with fitting elements and outputting a characteristic value
…a characteristic value which is characteristic of a position of the fitting element relative to the surface region in a longitudinal direction of the container (the “relative position with respect to an axial extension of the container” of a “marking element applied to a container” and/or “label” recited in para(s). [0017]:
[0017] “The position of a marking element applied to a container, as used here and in the following, refers to the relative position of the applied marking element with respect to a contour of the outer surface of the container.
For example, the position may include a relative arrangement of the identifying element, in particular a feature, such as an edge or rim, of the identifying element with respect to a feature, such as the bottom, mouth, recess, or the like, of the container. This allows for the recording of a relative position with respect to an axial extension of the container, hereinafter referred to as relative height. For example, the relative height of the bottom edge of a label or imprint above the bottom of the container can be measured. Alternatively or additionally, a relative position in the circumferential direction of the container with respect to a feature of the container, for example an edge of the container, a depression or a raised area of the outer surface of the container, a marking on the outer surface of the container or the like, can be recorded. The position may also include the relative arrangement with respect to one or more marking elements already applied to the container.
Finally, the two-dimensional orientation of the applied marking element with respect to the outer surface of the container, for example as a tilting of a label at an angle to the base surface, can also be recorded as part of the position.”
, where the “marking element” and/or “label” is a fitting element and the “axial extension” is a longitudinal direction),
of a position of the fitting element relative to the surface region in a circumferential direction of the container (the “relative position in the circumferential direction of the container” of a “marking element applied to a container” recited in para(s). [0017]—see citation immediately above—, where the “marking element” is a fitting element),
of a position of the fitting element relative to a further fitting element in a longitudinal direction of the container (para(s). [0036] and [0040], recite(s)
[0036] “The recorded actual values of the position of the second marking element for the large number of containers, for which the actual values of the position of the first marking element have already been recorded, are statistically evaluated according to this training, whereby the evaluation can be carried out in particular in relation to the recorded actual values of the position of the first marking element.
This can be done, on the one hand, by calculating a difference between the recorded actual values of the position of the first and second identification element to determine a relative position. …”
[0040] “According to further training, the statistical evaluation can include determining a deviation, in particular a mean deviation, of the recorded actual values from a target value of the position in a longitudinal direction of the containers, whereby the correction includes a vertical displacement of the containers and/or the first or second marking unit. …”
, where the “relative position” between the “first and second identification element” includes determining a “deviation” in a “longitudinal direction of the container[s]” is a characteristic value of a position of the fitting element (e.g., a ‘first’ “identification element”) to a further fitting element (e.g., a ‘second’ “identification element”) in a longitudinal direction of the container),
of a position of the fitting element relative to a further fitting element in a circumferential direction of the container (para(s). [0036]—see citation immediately above—, where the “relative position” between the “first and second identification element” is a characteristic value of a position of the fitting element (e.g., a ‘first’ “identification element”) to a further fitting element (e.g., a ‘second’ “identification element”); wherein the characteristic value further includes determining a “deviation” in a “circumferential direction of the container[s]” as recited in para(s). [0037]:
[0037] “According to further training, the statistical evaluation can include determining a deviation, in particular a mean deviation, of the recorded actual values from a target value of the position in a circumferential direction of the containers, whereby the correction includes rotating the containers around a container longitudinal axis before applying the first or the second marking element and/or adjusting a time of application of the first or the second marking element. …”
),
of a rotational position of the fitting element relative to the surface region (para(s). [0017]—see citation in claim limitation “a characteristic value…” above—, where the “position” of the “marking element with respect to the outer surface of the container” includes a “tilting of a label at an angle to the base surface” is a characteristic value characteristic of a rotational position (e.g., “tilting” and/or “angle”) of the fitting element (e.g., “marking element” and/or “label”) relative to the surface region (e.g., “outer surface”)) , and
of a rotational position of the fitting element relative to the further fitting element… (para(s). [0036]—see citation in claim limitation “of a position of the fitting element relative to a further fitting element…” above—, where the “relative position” determined by a “difference between the recorded actual values of the position of the first and second identification element” is a characteristic value of a position of the fitting element (e.g., a ‘first’ “identification element”) to a further fitting element (e.g., a ‘second’ “identification element”); wherein the “relative position” includes a rotational position as “angles” as para(s). [0038] below recites determining the “difference between the recorded actual values of the position of the first and second identification element” includes “angles” and para(s). [0039] below further recites the “angles” relates to a rotational position:
[0038] “…The actual and target values can be specified as distances or angles, depending on requirements.”
[0039] “…by what angle or distance and in which direction the containers must be rotated before applying the first or second marking element in order to correct the deviation. …”
).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently filed invention to modify the system of Mayer to incorporate a position of the fitting element relative to the surface region in both a longitudinal and circumferential direction of the container; a position of the fitting element relative to a further fitting element in both a longitudinal and circumferential direction of the container; and a rotational position of both a fitting element relative to the surface region and the fitting element relative to the further fitting element into the group of characteristic values to improve the inspection of containers by incorporating more specific positional errors present in the application of the fitting elements into the selection of the characteristic value as taught by Gertlowski above (e.g., see para(s). [0040], [0037], and [0039] above).
Where Mayer in view of Gertlowski does not specifically disclose
…a characteristic value which is characteristic…
of a distortion of the fitting element, …
of a presence of the fitting element, and
of an information content of the fitting element;
Niedermeier-081 teaches in the same field of endeavor of an inspection device for inspecting containers with fitting elements and outputting a characteristic value
…a characteristic value which is characteristic…
of a distortion of the fitting element (para(s). [0001], [0016-0017], and [0047], recite(s)
[0001] “The present invention relates to a device and a method for optical inspection, preferably for all-round inspection, of objects, in particular the outer surface of objects or Containers and preferably for examination or Checking the positioning of labels on containers. …”
[0016] “The two-dimensional imaging of the three-dimensional object by the image acquisition device preferably results in a distortion that depends on the spatial arrangement of the respective imaged surface area relative to the image acquisition device. …”
[0017] “…The evaluation unit preferably first corrects the distortion of the images captured by the image acquisition device(s). …”
[0047] “…wherein preferably the evaluation device takes into account a surface curvature of at least one section of the object and/or a compression or distortion caused by the image acquisition of an image acquisition device of at least one depicted area of the image in its evaluation. …”
, where “correct[ing] the distortion of images” capturing containers with “labels” includes determining a characteristic value (e.g., “distortion”) of at least a fitting element (e.g., “label[s]”)), …
of a presence of the fitting element (para(s). [0038], recite(s)
[0038] “…Preferably, the evaluation device performs an assessment or check for the presence and/or completeness and/or absence of labels or label parts…”
, where the “labels or label parts” are at least fitting elements), and
of an information content of the fitting element (para(s). [0038], recite(s)
[0038] “…Preferably, the evaluation device performs an assessment or check for… and/or an expiration date imprint check, as well as the check of an individual marking, for example a 2D code such as QR or Data Matrix.”
, where the “imprint[s]” and/or “marking[s]” are information content of fitting elements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently filed invention to modify the system of Mayer in view of Gertlowski to further incorporate a distortion, presence, and information content of the fitting element into the group of characteristic values to improve the inspection of containers by incorporating errors due to distortion, presence, and/or information content of the fitting elements as taught by Niedermeier-081 above.
Where Mayer, as modified by Gertlowski and Niedermeier-081, does not specifically disclose
…a characteristic value which is characteristic…
…of a deformation of the fitting element,
Niedermeier-960 teaches in the same field of endeavor of an inspection device for inspecting containers with fitting elements and outputting a characteristic value
…a characteristic value which is characteristic…
…of a deformation of the fitting element (para(s). [0015] and [0050], recite(s)
[0015] “In an also advantageous embodiment, the directional characteristic in step a) and b) differs in terms of the main direction of incidence of the illumination for casting differently directed shadows at bubbles and/or creases. Label prints can be displayed in camera images largely independently of the direction of incidence of directional illumination. In contrast, displaying elevations of the label, such as creases and/or bubbles, depends relatively largely on the direction of incidence of directional illumination. In particular, the location of brightened areas and cast shadows at bubbles and/or creases depends on the direction of incidence of directional illumination. Thereby, brightness differences between the first and the second camera image, due to differing main directions of incidence, can be used as a characteristic indicator for the presence of a bubble and/or a crease on the label.”
[0050] “For the evaluation, a threshold value can be set with which the calculation result, i.e. for example brightness values of the calculate camera image B3, is compared. A certain number of image points whose brightness value exceeds the threshold value could then be a characteristic indicator of the presence of a bubble 2 and/or crease. Geometric patterns, characters or symbols are also conceivable as the criterion for comparison of a group of image points whose brightness is given within a certain range. For this, almost any computing rules are generally conceivable which can be flexibly adapted to different types of labels, prints, container shapes and the like.”
, where the “characteristic indicator of the presence of a bubble 2 and/or crease” is a characteristic value characteristic of a deformation (e.g., “bubble” and/or “crease”) of a fitting element (e.g., “labels” and/or “prints”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently filed invention to modify the system of Mayer, as modified by Gertlowski and Niedermeier-081, to further incorporate a deformation of the fitting element into the group of characteristic values to improve the inspection of containers by incorporating errors due to deformations of the fitting elements as taught by Niedermeier-081 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA Z YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-2870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30AM - 5PM).
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571)270-3717. 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.
/J.Z.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/EMILY C TERRELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights