DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Sheet
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC §112f
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 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.
The following elements are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Regarding claim 1, “analysis unit” (because A – “unit” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “configured to determine the test region in a captured image” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “analysis unit” is understood as equivalent to “means for determining the test region in a captured image”). A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure is a suitable computing unit with processor memory (see ¶ [0014] of specification) or equivalent.
If the 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(b)
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.
Claims 3, 11, and 12, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “the analysis device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The preceding claims 1 and 2 recite an “analysis unit,” not an “analysis device.”
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites that a diffuser or a filter is “assigned to” the light-emitting element. The term “assigned to” lacks a clear structural, physical, or spatial relationship between the components, rendering the physical configuration of the claimed invention indefinite.
Regarding claim 12, the claim relies on the phrase “in particular.” This language is indefinite because it fails to clearly specify whether the marking of the corner points is a required limitation of the claim or merely an optional feature.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kraus (US 2009/0091761 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kraus discloses a corrugated cardboard production unit (Described in ¶ [0010] and figure 1) comprising:
at least one conveyor device extending in a longitudinal direction (Figure 1, 2) for conveying sheets made of corrugated cardboard (Shown in figure 1);
a defined region of the conveyor device (Figure 1, 2) is specified as a test region (Region of the measuring line 20);
a plurality of markers (Figure 1; 30, 31) attached in a fixed position to the conveyor device (Shown in figure 1) and correlated to the test region (Described in ¶ [0023]);
a camera system comprising at least one camera (Figure 1, 18) for capturing images, wherein the camera is oriented in the direction of the test region such that the test region is imaged in the image captured in each case, wherein the camera system is also designed for detecting the position of the markers (Figure 1; 30, 31; and further described in ¶'s [0019] - [0023]); and
an analysis unit (Figure 1, 28) configured to determine the test region in the captured image on the basis of the detected position of the markers (Described in ¶'s [0019] - [0023]).
Regarding claim 4, Kraus further discloses wherein a capture region of the at least one camera is selected such that both the test region and the markers are simultaneously contained in a particular captured image (Shown in figure 1 and described in ¶ [0023]).
Regarding claim 5, Kraus further discloses wherein the markers have defined optical properties and in that a filter is provided, which is sensitive with regard to these optical properties (Described in ¶'s [0018] - [0023]).
Regarding claim 6, Kraus further discloses wherein the various markers differ in terms of their optical properties and the analysis unit is designed for distinguishing the markers based on different optical properties (Described in ¶'s [0018] - [0023]).
Regarding claim 12, Kraus further discloses wherein the markers are in each case placed on the edge side next to a conveyor belt of the conveyor device and in particular mark corner points of the test region (Shown in figure 1 and described in ¶'s [0018] - [0023]).
Regarding claim 14, Kraus further discloses wherein the analysis unit is configured to make statements about a flatness of the sheets, on the basis of the captured images (Described in ¶'s [0022] - [0023]).
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraus in view of Smith (US 2019/0069961 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kraus does not specifically teach wherein the markers are reflective elements and/or luminescent elements.
Smith teaches wherein the markers are reflective elements and/or luminescent elements (Described in claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kraus to incorporate the teachings of Smith to include light-emitting elements picked up via a camera with the motivation of providing a system by which specific locations can be identified and used to control a broader operation, as described by Smith in ¶’s [0044] & [0129] – [0132].
Regarding claim 8, Kraus does not specifically teach wherein the markers are active markers comprising at least one light-emitting element.
Smith teaches wherein the markers are active markers comprising at least one light-emitting element (Described in claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kraus to incorporate the teachings of Smith to include light-emitting elements picked up via a camera with the motivation of providing a system by which specific locations can be identified and used to control a broader operation, as described by Smith in ¶’s [0044] & [0129] – [0132].
Claims 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraus in view of Ishibuchi (US 2008/0300825 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kraus does not specifically teach wherein the at least one camera is provided above the conveyor belt and at a distance from the test region opposite the longitudinal direction.
Ishibuchi teaches wherein the at least one camera is provided above the conveyor belt and at a distance from the test region opposite the longitudinal direction (Described in ¶'s [0298] - [0301] & [0305] - [0309]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kraus to incorporate the teachings of Ishibuchi to include a camera inside an enclosure placed at a distance from the conveyor with the motivation of providing a structure to make folding determinations during operation, as provided in ¶’s [0298] – [0301].
Regarding claim 15, Kraus does not specifically teach an enclosure covering the conveyor device is and attached in the region of the test region, and a lighting element which illuminates at least part of the test region.
Ishibuchi teaches an enclosure covering the conveyor device is and attached in the region of the test region, and a lighting element which illuminates at least part of the test region (Figure 2 illustrates that the camera and the conveying system is placed within an enclosure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kraus to incorporate the teachings of Ishibuchi to include a camera inside an enclosure placed at a distance from the conveyor with the motivation of providing a structure to make folding determinations during operation, as provided in ¶’s [0298] – [0301].
Regarding claim 17, Kraus does not specifically teach a defined region of a conveyor device of the corrugated cardboard production unit is specified as a test region, a camera system comprising at least one camera is provided, by means of which images are captured and which is oriented in the direction of the test region, such that the test region is imaged in the captured image, wherein the position of the markers is detected using the camera system and the test region in the captured image is determined on the basis of the detected position.
Ishibuchi teaches a defined region of a conveyor device of the corrugated cardboard production unit is specified as a test region (Described in ¶'s [0298] - [0301] & [0305] - [0309]), a camera system comprising at least one camera is provided, by means of which images are captured and which is oriented in the direction of the test region, such that the test region is imaged in the captured image (Shown in figures 25 and 27 and described in ¶'s [0298] - [0301] & [0305] - [0309]), wherein the position of the markers is detected using the camera system and the test region in the captured image is determined on the basis of the detected position (Described in ¶'s [0298] - [0301] & [0305] - [0309]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kraus to incorporate the teachings of Ishibuchi to include a camera inside an enclosure placed at a distance from the conveyor with the motivation of providing a structure to make folding determinations during operation, as provided in ¶’s [0298] – [0301].
Allowable Subject Matter
If the above rejections are overcome, claims 2-3, 9-11, and 16 would be 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
