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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 12th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 have been amended. Claims 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 have been canceled. Claims 11-17 have been added. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11-17 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 16th, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the combined shape of the net product and the packaging box ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “closer to a diagram center position side of a projection plane shape as viewed in the discharge bias direction than a center of an article length”, wherein it is unclear what the diagram center position side of a projection plane shape as viewed in the discharge bias direction is.
Claim 14 is rejected as it is dependent upon claim 5.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Makino et al. (JP 2017176896).
Regarding claim 1, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches a rejection device (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-4) including a transport unit (Fig. 1 #10) that transports an article (Paragraph 0028 lines 1-3) and includes a rejection transport passage (Fig. 1 section of #10 adjacent #40), and a discharge mechanism unit (Fig. 1 #40) that responds to an input of a rejection command signal and discharges the article (Paragraph 0028 lines 8-9), which enters a specific discharge bias section (Fig. 1 #41a-41c) in the rejection transport passage (Fig. 1 #41a-41c in section of #10 adjacent #40), to an outside of the rejection transport passage by compressed air (Paragraph 0051 lines 3-6), the rejection device comprising:
a rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 #43) that is disposed on an entrance side of the rejection transport passage (Fig. 1 #43 on entrance side of section of #10 adjacent #40) and detects the article (Paragraph 0088 lines 1-8, Paragraph 0098 lines 1-4); and
one or more processors (Fig. 4 #33e, 53) collectively configured to:
set an essential pressurization point of the article (Paragraph 0073 lines 1-12, Paragraph 0078 liens 1-3) when a discharge force (Fig. 6 ‘F’) to the outside of the rejection transport passage is applied from the discharge mechanism unit by the compressed air (Paragraph 0073 lines 7-12), based on a transport time corresponding to a distance and a transport speed from any one end of the article in a transport direction for each type of the article (Paragraph 0081 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0102 lines 5-16);
manage a rejection delay time that is set by using a delay time from a detection time point when the one end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 one end of ‘P’ detected by #43) to a time when the essential pressurization point of the article (Fig. 6 point ‘G’ of ‘P’) enters the discharge bias section (Paragraph 0102 lines 1-16); and
input the rejection command signal to the discharge mechanism unit (Fig. 1 #40) for a predetermined command time from a time-up time point of the rejection delay time (Paragraph 0106 lines 1-4),
wherein the one end of the article in the transport direction is a rear end of the article in the transport direction (Paragraph 0078 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0080 lines 1-12),
wherein the one or more processors (Fig. 4 #33e, 53) are further collectively configured to manage a rejection delay time set by using a delay time from a detection time point when the rear end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 rear end of ‘P’ detected by #43) to a time when the essential pressurization point of the article enters the discharge bias section (Fig. 6 point ‘G’ of ‘P’ enters #41a-41c) in the rejection transport passage (Paragraph 0102 lines 5-12), and
wherein the one or more processors (Fig. 4 #33e, 53) are further collectively configured to control the command time of the rejection command signal (Paragraph 0104 lines 1-8) in accordance with an article length corresponding time from a first detection time point when a front end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor to a second detection time point when the rear end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor (Paragraph 0073 lines 3-12, Paragraph 0088 lines 6-8, Paragraph 0098 lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 3, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches the rejection device according to claim 1, wherein
the article stores a predetermined-shaped net product (Fig. 15 net product formed by each ‘P’) in a predetermined-shaped packaging box or other containers (Fig. 15 ‘A’), the net product having a weight greater than a weight of the container (Paragraph 0215 lines 1-9), and a centroid of the net product is deviated from a center position of the article in the transport direction (Paragraph 0215 lines 6-9), and
the one or more processors (Fig. 4 #33e, 53) are collectively configured to set the essential pressurization point (Fig. 15 ‘F’’’) of the article to be closer to a centroid position side of the net product in an article length than a center of the article length in the transport direction (Fig. 15 ‘F’’’ is set closer to a centroid of net product formed by combination of ‘P’ than a center position of length of ‘A’ in direction ‘D’, Paragraph 0078 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches the rejection device according to claim 1, wherein
a centroid of the combined shape of the net product and the packaging box (Fig. 15 centroid of ‘A’) as seen from the discharge mechanism unit (Fig. 1 view of ‘P’ from #40, Paragraph 0079 lines 5-10) is deviated from a center position of the article in the transport direction (Fig. 15 centroid of ‘A’ is deviated from a center position of ‘A’ in direction ‘D’ due to orientation of the irregular shape), and
the one or more processors (Fig. 4 #33e, 53) are collectively configured to set the essential pressurization point of the article to be closer to a diagram center position side of a projection plane shape as viewed in the discharge bias direction than a center of an article length in the transport direction (Fig. 15 ‘F’’’ set closer to centroid of ‘A’ than center of length of ‘A’ in direction ‘D’ due to orientation of irregular shape of ‘A’).
Regarding claim 7, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches the rejection device according to claim 1, wherein
the one or more processors (Fig. 4 #33e, 53) have an encoder (Fig. 4 #13) that is configured to detect a rotational angle displacement of a transport driving motor (Fig. 4 #12, Paragraph 0091 lines 3-7) driving the transport unit (Fig. 1 #10) in a predetermined angle unit and output a detection pulse for each predetermined angle (Paragraph 0091 lines 5-6), and a count circuit that is configured to count an output pulse of the encoder (Paragraph 0091 lines 5-7) and input a detection signal of the rejection article detection sensor (Paragraph 0102 lines 5-12), and
the rejection delay time is determined based on a count value of the output pulse of the encoder after the detection time point when the one end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor (Paragraph 0091 lines 3-7, Paragraph 0102 lines 5-12).
Regarding claim 9, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches an article inspection device (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-4) comprising:
a transport unit (Fig. 1 #10) that transports an article (Paragraph 0028 lines 1-3) and includes a predetermined transport passage (Fig. 1 section of #10 adjacent #20 and #40);
an inspection unit (Fig. 1 #20) that inspects a predetermined quality state of the article being transported in a predetermined inspection section (Fig. 1 section of #10 adjacent #20) in the transport passage (Paragraph 0069 lines 1-8);
an air jet type discharge mechanism unit (Fig. 1 #40) that responds to an input of a rejection command signal and discharges an article (Paragraph 0028 lines 8-9) which is inspected in a predetermined rejection section (Fig. 1 section of #10 adjacent #40) in the transport passage to an outside of the transport passage in accordance with an inspection result in the inspection unit (Paragraph 0070 lines 1-3); and
a control unit (Fig. 4 #30, 50) that includes an inspection control unit (Fig. 4 #30) controlling the inspection unit (Paragraph 0046 lines 1-2) and a rejection control unit (Fig. 4 #50) controlling the discharge mechanism unit (Paragraph 0047 lines 8-10), wherein
the discharge mechanism unit (Fig. 1 #40) includes:
a rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 #43) that is disposed on an entrance side of the predetermined rejection section (Fig. 1 #43 on entrance side of section of #10 adjacent #40),
one or more processors (Fig. 4 #33e, 53) collectively configured to:
set an essential pressurization point of the article (Paragraph 0073 lines 1-12, Paragraph 0078 liens 1-3) when a discharge force (Fig. 6 ‘F’) to the outside of the transport passage is applied from the discharge mechanism unit by compressed air (Paragraph 0073 lines 7-12), based on a transport time corresponding to a distance and a transport speed from any one end of the article in a transport direction for each type of the article (Paragraph 0081 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0102 lines 5-16),
manage a rejection delay time that is set by using a delay time from a detection time point when the one end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 one end of ‘P’ detected by #43) to a time when the essential pressurization point of the article (Fig. 6 point ‘G’ of ‘P’) enters a discharge bias section (Fig. 1 #41a-41c, Paragraph 0102 lines 1-16), and,
input the rejection command signal to the discharge mechanism unit (Fig. 1 #40) for a predetermined command time from a time-up time point of the delay time in accordance with an inspection result in the inspection unit (Paragraph 0101 lines 1-8, Paragraph 0106 lines 1-4),
wherein the one end of the article in the transport direction is a rear end of the article in the transport direction (Paragraph 0078 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0080 lines 1-12),
wherein the one or more processors (Fig. 4 #33e, 53) are further collectively configured to manage a rejection delay time set by using a delay time from a detection time point when the rear end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 rear end of ‘P’ detected by #43) to a time when the essential pressurization point of the article enters the discharge bias section (Fig. 6 point ‘G’ of ‘P’ enters #41a-41c) in the transport passage (Paragraph 0102 lines 5-12), and
wherein the one or more processors (Fig. 4 #33e, 53) are further collectively configured to control the command time of the rejection command signal (Paragraph 0104 lines 1-8) in accordance with an article length corresponding time from a first detection time point when a front end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor to a second detection time point when the rear end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor (Paragraph 0073 lines 3-12, Paragraph 0088 lines 6-8, Paragraph 0098 lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 12, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches a rejection device according to claim 1, wherein the rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 #43) is an optical sensor comprising a light emitting element (Fig. 1 #43a) and a light receiving element (Fig. 1 #43b), the rejection article detection sensor configured to detect the article when a light between the light emitting element and the light receiving element is shielded by the article (Paragraph 0088 lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 13, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches a rejection device according to claim 3, wherein the rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 #43) is an optical sensor comprising a light emitting element (Fig. 1 #43a) and a light receiving element (Fig. 1 #43b), the rejection article detection sensor configured to detect the article when a light between the light emitting element and the light receiving element is shielded by the article (Paragraph 0088 lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 14, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches a rejection device according to claim 5, wherein the rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 #43) is an optical sensor comprising a light emitting element (Fig. 1 #43a) and a light receiving element (Fig. 1 #43b), the rejection article detection sensor configured to detect the article when a light between the light emitting element and the light receiving element is shielded by the article (Paragraph 0088 lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 15, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches a rejection device according to claim 7, wherein the rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 #43) is an optical sensor comprising a light emitting element (Fig. 1 #43a) and a light receiving element (Fig. 1 #43b), the rejection article detection sensor configured to detect the article when a light between the light emitting element and the light receiving element is shielded by the article (Paragraph 0088 lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 16, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches an article inspection device according to claim 9, wherein the rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 #43) is an optical sensor comprising a light emitting element (Fig. 1 #43a) and a light receiving element (Fig. 1 #43b), the rejection article detection sensor configured to detect the article when a light between the light emitting element and the light receiving element is shielded by the article (Paragraph 0088 lines 4-8).
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.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinsen (US 11173522) in view of Houghton et al. (US 11308689).
Regarding claim 11, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches an article inspection device according to claim 9, wherein the inspection unit (Fig. 1 #20) includes a weighing unit (Paragraph 0035 lines 1-6), and the inspection unit is configured to inspect an adequacy of a net weight of the article being transported in the predetermined inspection section (Paragraph 0069 lines 1-8).
Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) lacks teaching a weighing unit that measures a load applied by a scale.
Houghton et al. (US 11308689) teaches an article inspection device (Col. 1 lines 16-23) wherein the inspection unit (Fig. 1 #110) includes a weighing unit (Fig. 1 #122) that measures a load applied by a scale (Col. 5 lines 42-43).
Houghton et al. (US 11308689) explains that automation tools can use the weight and estimated center of gravity of products to determine how to manipulate products before beginning to manipulate those objects (Col. 15 lines 18-24).
Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) discloses the claimed invention except that the weighing unit includes an x-ray unit instead of a scale. Houghton et al. (US 11308689) shows that a scale is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two weighing units were art-recognized- equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a weighing unit that measures a load applied by a scale for the x-ray weighing unit in order to use the weight and estimated center of gravity to determine how to manipulate products.
Regarding claim 17, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches an article inspection device according to claim 11, wherein the rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 #43) is an optical sensor comprising a light emitting element (Fig. 1 #43a) and a light receiving element (Fig. 1 #43b), the rejection article detection sensor configured to detect the article when a light between the light emitting element and the light receiving element is shielded by the article (Paragraph 0088 lines 4-8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 12th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Makino (JP 2017176896) does not teach “using a delay time from a detection time point when the rear end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor to a time when the essential pressurization point of the article enters the discharge bias section in the rejection transport passage” as claimed, the Examiner would like to clarify the following. Makino explains that the reference position determination unit #33e sets a coordinate system in the X-ray image of the object P with the transport direction D of the object P as the X-axis direction and the direction perpendicular to the transport direction of the object P (the width of the conveyor belt) as the Y-axis direction, and identifies the coordinates of each pixel in the coordinate system (Paragraph 0075 lines 1-8), and explains that the reference position determination unit #33e determines the center of gravity (center of mass) taking into consideration the outer shape of the figure and the weight of each pixel (Paragraph 0078 lines 1-3). Therefore, the front end and rear end coordinates are identified along with the coordinates of the center of gravity of the object, and a reference position F for the distribution mechanism to exert a force on the test object toward the center of gravity is determined (Paragraph 0079 lines 1-14). Makino explains that the reference position determination unit #33e generates information regarding the reference position F, which is the distance L in the transport direction from the downstream end E of the object in the transport direction D to the reference position F (Paragraph 0102). Makino states that the distance between the detection position of the photoelectric sensor #43 and the first to third nozzles #42a, 42b, 42c in the conveying direction D are stored (Paragraph 0096 lines 1-4), and based on the detection result of the photoelectric sensor #43, the sorting mechanism control unit #53 determines the timing at which the reference position F passes in front of the nozzles #42a, 42b, 42c based on information regarding the reference position F, information regarding the distance in the conveying direction from the detection position to the nozzles, and the conveying speed of the conveying device based on data transmitted from the encoder (Paragraph 0102 lines 1-12).
Since Makino identified the coordinates of each pixel and takes the outer shape of the object into consideration when determining the center of gravity, the determination of ‘L’ from the downstream end ‘E’ to the reference position ‘F’ additionally provides the distance from the reference position ‘F’ to the upstream end (rear end) of the object, as all of the coordinates are known and do not change relative to one another. The distance between the photoelectric sensor #43 and the nozzles and the speed of the conveyor are also known. Therefore, a ‘delay time’ which passes between a first point on the object passing the photoelectric sensor and second point on the object passing the nozzle is determined using the same calculation, regardless of which end the first point is located on. The formula for calculating the timing is time = (distance traveled by the reference point between the photoelectric sensor and the nozzle)/speed. To simplify this, if the front end is point ‘A’, the rear end is point ‘B’, the center of gravity is point ‘C’, and the distance between the photoelectric sensor and the nozzle is ‘D’, there is no difference between using a delay time from which the point A passes the photoelectric sensor, time=(D+(A-C))/speed, and using a delay time from which the point B passes the photoelectric sensor, time=(D-(C-B))/speed. Both calculations determine the time it would take for point ‘C’ to travel from the photoelectric sensor to the nozzle (i.e. time to travel distance D), adjusted for the time it would take between either end point ‘A’ or ‘B’ passing the sensor and point ‘C’ passing the sensor. The time between point A (front end) passing the sensor and point C passing the sensor may be added to the time required to travel distance D to determine the delay time after point A passes the sensor, or alternatively, the time between point C passing the sensor and point B (rear end) passing the sensor may be subtracted from the time required to travel distance D to determine the delay time after point B passes the sensor. Either approach is simply adjusting for the time it takes point ‘C’ to pass the sensor relative to the activation of the sensor. Since all coordinates A, B, C, D, and speed, are known, and the entire length of the object may be determined by the equation Length = A-B or = (C-B)+(A-C), all relative distances are known, and there is no fundamental difference between determining the delay time from a detection time point when the rear end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor and when the front end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor.
Further, Makino teaches controlling a timing of the rejection command signal in accordance with an article length from a front end of the article to the rear end of the article as claimed, as the timing of the rejection command signal is calculated to coordinate the rejection command signal at the time which reference position F of the object to be inspected passes in front of the nozzle to be controlled (Paragraph 0102 lines 1-4). Makino explains that the reference position determination unit #33e sets a coordinate system in the X-ray image of the object P with the transport direction D of the object P as the X-axis direction and the direction perpendicular to the transport direction of the object P (the width of the conveyor belt) as the Y-axis direction, and identifies the coordinates of each pixel in the coordinate system (Paragraph 0075 lines 1-8), and explains that the reference position determination unit #33e determines the center of gravity (center of mass) taking into consideration the outer shape of the figure and the weight of each pixel (Paragraph 0078 lines 1-3). Therefore, the reference position F is determined according to the outer shape of the figure, including the length of the article.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Makino fails to teach setting an essential pressurization point based on a centroid of a net product, the Examiner would like to clarify that the essential pressurization point (Fig. 15 ‘F’’’) of the net product (see Fig. 15, net product formed by combination of each ‘P’) is set closer to a centroid of the net product than a center of the article length (see Fig. 15, ‘F’’’ is set closer to a centroid of net product formed by combination of ‘P’ than a center position of length of ‘A’ in direction ‘D’), since the center of gravity of the combination of objects ‘P’ is closer to a centroid of the combination of objects ‘P’ due to their weight, than the overall center of the container ‘A’ in the length direction, since the container ‘A’ may be a plastic bag or net which weighs much less than the multiple test objects (Paragraph 0215 lines 1-11).
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., determining a centroid of the object) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights