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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 55, line 1, “lighting device 11” should be changed to
--lighting device 10--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 5-6, 13, 15 and 17 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 claims 5-6, 13, 15 and 17, these claims recites the phrases “for example”, “such as” and “in particular” which renders the intended scope of these claims unclear. It is unclear whether or not the claimed narrower feature is a limitation. Clarification is required. In addition, regarding claim 5, the phrase “the protective window” in lines 2-3 lacks a proper antecedent basis.
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) 11-12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasebe et al (JP H09243574 A).
Regarding claim 11, Hasebe et al shows in Fig.1 a method for optically inspecting a pulp container (1; paragraph 1) comprising: illuminating a part of an inner wall of the pulp container through the mouth of said container using a lighting device (paragraphs 2, 8-9), and taking an image through the mouth of the pulp container with a camera (16; paragraph 10) by capturing the light scattered from the interior of the pulp container using the camera.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraph 13 of Hasebe et al (Fig.4).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 10 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al (JP H09243574 A) in view of Hasimoto et al (JP 2548196 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Hasebe et al shows in Fig.1 an apparatus for optically inspecting a pulp container (1; paragraph 1), comprising: a lighting device (paragraphs 2, 8-9; Fig.1) having an opening, wherein a mouth of the pulp container can be arranged below the opening of the lighting device (Fig.1); and a camera (16; paragraph 10) which is configured to take an image of at least a part of an inner wall of the pulp container through the opening of the lighting device or from the opening of the lighting device (Fig.1), wherein the pulp container can be arranged such that the part of the inner wall of the pulp container is illuminated by the lighting device (paragraph 8). Although Hasebe et al doesn’t specifically mention the inspection of a pulp bottle, Hashimoto et al discloses (page 3, 2nd col. line 47-page 4, 1st col. line 4) that the use of an inspection container device for inspecting various types of containers such as bottles, cups, cans, etc. is well known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Hashimoto et al in the device of Hasebe et al in view of achieving the particular desired performance (i.e. inspecting a pulp bottle).
Regarding claims 2-3, the limitations therein are shown in Figs.1 and 4 of Hasebe et al.
Regarding claim 6, as far as the claim is understood, the limitations therein are shown in Figs.1-2 of Hasebe et al.
Regarding claim 7, the specific optical element utilized and the specific configuration utilized for the light source would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of particular application and involving only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, this dependent claim merely include well known features of a system for producing and inspecting pulp bottle that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of meeting different design requirement and performing no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraph 13 of Hasebe et al (Fig.4).
Regarding claim 17, as far as the claim is understood, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.1 of Hasebe et al.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al (JP H09243574 A) in view of Lindner (DE 19920007 C1).
Regarding claims 4-5, as far as the claim is understood, although Hasebe et al doesn’t specifically mention the use of a protective window for its opening, Lindner discloses a bottle inspection device utilizing a protective window for its opening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Lindner in the device of Hasebe et al in view of the desire to protect the optical system from the external influence. Furthermore, the specific element and configuration utilized for protecting the optical system would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of meeting different design requirements and achieving the particular desired performance.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al (JP H09243574 A).
Regarding claim 18, the specific type of a container being inspected would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of particular application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 8-9, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious, an apparatus for optically inspecting a pulp bottle comprising, in addition to the other recited features of the claim, the details and functions of a beam splitter and a pattern projector in the manner recited in claim 8. Regarding claims 13-15, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious a method for optically inspecting a pulp container comprising, in addition to the other recited features of the claim 11, the features of illuminating a part of an inner wall of the pulp container with an optical pattern generated by a pattern projector and taking another image by capturing the light scattered from inside the pulp container using the camera.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN K PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-2445. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30 PM.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/KEVIN K PYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878