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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaoka et al. (US6474141) in view of Bennett (US6941796) further in view of Mally et al. (US5226316).
Claim 1: Takaoka teaches a seal-checker (Seal inspecting machine 1) that performs a seal check on a product (product G), the seal-checker comprising: a transport conveyor (intermediate transport conveyor 2) that transports the tray; a contact component (presser unit 3) that is disposed above the transport conveyor and that contacts the tray transported by the transport conveyor (See Fig. 4); a raising/lowering unit (servo motor 32) that changes the height position of the contact component; a detection unit (control device 6 including CPU 6b) that detects an amount of displacement in the height position of the contact component when the tray is touching the contact component (the initial position is HO, Fig. 6); an inspection unit that inspects the sealed state of the film by comparing a preset threshold with the amount of displacement detected by the detection unit (control device 6, see flowchart of Fig. 6); and a control unit (CPU 6b) that controls the raising/lowering unit (col. 10, lines 40-44), wherein the control unit causes the contact component to stand by in a first height (S1: initial position HO) position higher than the height of the product G, and, when the product is transported thereto, changes the force that the raising/lowering unit applies to the contact component to thereby lower the contact component from the first height position toward a predetermined second height position (Descend presser unit S3; predetermined height H4, col. 11, lines 32-39); wherein the force applied by the presser unit 3 is limited by the product G (col. 13, lines 32-42).
Takaoka fails to teach when the contact component touches the product, changes a first force that the raising/lowering unit had been applying to the contact component before the contact component touched the product to a second force different from the first force to thereby cause pressure to be exerted from the contact component to the product.
However, Bennett teaches a test head 50 controlled by a servo 80 and used to detect package 40 leaks. Bennett teaches a destruction test (col. 4, lines 60-end) wherein a torque at which bursting of the package occurs, a fraction of the torque (40%) is used as an applied value for testing similar packages. The torque is controlled by a computer 43 which controls the torque applied by the servo 80 (col. 5, lines 15-25). Therefore, it is known that a servo can be operated at different torques and a non-destructive torque is applied for the package 40 test.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to control the force applied to the packages (Second force) by the servo and pressing unit in order to prevent destruction of the package under test, and obvious to have a first force for moving the presser unit to an initial position to potentially save time by moving through known positions which do not affect the product or test more quickly.
Takaoka in view of Bennett fails to teach wherein the product is a tray in which an opening defined by a rim has been sealed by a film,
However, Mally teaches a package 22 including a tray and package cover film 33 (col. 4, lines 47-53).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the device of Takaoka in view of Bennett with the device of Mally for the obvious benefit of monitoring leaks in packages with a flexible film cover.
Claim 2: Takaoka in view of Bennett further in view of Mally teaches the seal-checker of claim 1. Takaoka teaches wherein a downward force caused by gravity and an upward force caused by the raising/lowering unit (servo motor 32 and associated linkages are holding the presser unit 3 in position, therefore the servo 32 and linkages are holding the presser unit 3 at a position above the product G and above the conveyor 2 while gravity inherently acts on the presser unit 3) act on the contact component (the presser unit 3), and the first force and the second force are upward forces caused by the raising/lowering unit (The servo 32 controls the pressure unit 3 to move toward and away from the product G).
Claim 3: Takaoka in view of Bennett further in view of Mally teaches the seal-checker of claim 1.
Takaoka teaches wherein the control unit (control device 6; col. 12, lines 37-45) changes the second height position in accordance with the type of the tray (specifying means, col. 3, lines 50-65; characteristic detecting means col. 12, line 46- col. 13, line 28).
Claim 4: Takaoka in view of Bennett further in view of Mally teaches the seal-checker of claim 1. Takaoka teaches wherein the control unit changes the second force in accordance with the type of the tray (specifying means, col. 3, lines 50-65; characteristic detecting means col. 12, line 46- col. 13, line 28).
Claim 5: Takaoka in view of Bennett further in view of Mally teaches the seal-checker of claim 2, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the control unit changes the force that the raising/lowering unit applies to the contact component when it is lowering the contact component from the first height position to thereby increase, in a predetermined height range before the contact component touches the film of the tray, the upward force caused by the raising/lowering unit that acts on the contact component.
However, as discussed with respect to claim 1, the force exerted by the presser 3 and servo 32 of Takaoka is limited. Further, Bennett that a servo can be operated at different torques and a non-destructive torque is applied for the package 40 test. Bennett further teaches lowering the test head 50 in a controlled fashion with a controlled torque (col. 4, lines 38-44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the control device 6 of Takaoka to control the servo 32 in order to have a controlled descent of the presser so as to not exceed the established margin (Takaoka, col. 13, lines 32-43) and not exceed the standard applied value (Bennett end col. 4).
Claim 6: Takaoka in view of Bennett further in view of Mally teaches the seal-checker of claim 1. Takaoka in view of Bennett fails to teach wherein the contact component contacts a part of the film that does not coincide with the rim of the tray.
However, Mally teaches that the closure plate 55 engages the film 33 while leaving a peripheral gap between the vertical wall of the package and the plate 55 (Col. 9, lines 9-15; claim 5).
It would have been oblivious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a contact component that contacts a part of the film that does not coincide with the rim of the tray, as taught by Malley, with the device of Takaoka in view of Bennett in order to control the position where the positive pressure differential can act (Mally, col. 9, lines 14-17).
Claim 7: Takaoka in view of Bennett further in view of Mally teaches the seal-checker of claim 6 but fails to explicitly teach wherein the contact component is attachable to and detachable from the raising/lowering unit and is replaced in accordance with the type of the tray.
However, Mally teaches different sized closure plates 55, Fig. 3 (col. 5, lines 20-41) because the closure plates 55 conform to the size and shape of the tray under test.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the closure plate attachable and detachable in order to monitor different sized single-cavity packages with a single pressure-monitoring assembly (Mally, col. 4, lines 47-50 and col. 5, lines 20-30).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaoka in view of Bennett further in view of Mally further in view of Vine et al. (US2014/0007545).
Claim 8: Takaoka in view of Bennett further in view of Mally teaches the seal checker of claim 1.
Takaoka teaches conveyors C1 and C2 which work to transport the products G to and from the conveyor 2 of the inspecting machine 1, as well as a conveyor drive motor 25 to control the transport speed of the products G (col. 8, lines 31-38).
Bennett teaches that the speed of the conveyor belt 10 is a parameter used by the computer 43 of the testing station 30, and that the speed is accurately controlled to maximize measurement stability and repeatability (col. 5, lines 46-50).
Mally teaches a conveyor assembly 25 to transport packages from assembly to a testing machine (Fig. 1).
Takaoka in view of Bennett further in view of Mally fails to teach a top-sealer that seals the opening by adhering the film to the rim of the tray into which a product has been put; a first transport unit that transports the tray in which the opening has been sealed by the top-sealer.
However, Vine teaches a top-sealer (Fig. 3) that seals the opening by adhering the film (film [0041]) to the rim of the tray (tray 1) into which a product has been put; a first transport unit (output tray feed lane 7 is a conveyor [0040]) that transports the tray in which the opening has been sealed by the top-sealer.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the device of claim 1 with the device of Vine in order to check the integrity of the seal created by the high-speed sealing apparatus (Vine [0002]).
Takaoka in view of Bennett further in view of Mally further in view of Vine fails to teach wherein the transport speed of the second transport unit is faster than the transport speed of the first transport unit.
However, the teachings of Takaoka, Bennett, and Mally illustrate that the conveyor speed is a result-effective variable and that conveyors are used to transport packages to and from testing machines. Further, Vine teaches conveyors used to transport trays to and from the sealing machine. Therefore, the speed of the conveyor would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize.
Takaoka in view of Bennett further in view of Mally further in view of Vine fails to explicitly teach a second transport unit that is disposed between the first transport unit and the seal-checker, that receives the tray from the first transport unit, and that transports the tray to the transport conveyor of the seal-checker.
The use of transport units or conveyors in order to move the products/packages under test would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in order to transport a package to and from a sealing machine as well as to and from a seal-checking machine with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 6/23/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights