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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings have reference characters 51, 54 and 55 all pointing to the same object using different reference lines. Additionally, 52 and 53 both point to the same object using different reference lines. This communicates that each of the reference characters are pointing to separate objects. However, a review of the Specification shows that these groupings are each referring to the same objects and subcomponents thereof. Where the reference characters are referring to the same object, they should use a comma between those characters and a single line (similar to how the characters 54 and 55 are depicted in fig. 5). If they are separate subcomponents, the subcomponents should be depicted in schematic in the appropriate boxes. The Office will interpret as best understood.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “Use” claims that do not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and thus fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101 (see MPEP 2173.05(q)).
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 8, 10-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites, “wherein the automated application is retrained”. However, the claim does not previously establish that the method has made any use of “training” so it is unclear how something that hasn’t been claimed to be “trained” can be “retrained”.
Regarding claims 10-12, attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claims are held to be indefinite because they merely recite a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced (see MPEP 2173.05(q)).
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites, “at least one packaging machine… at least one sensor device… at least one camera device” which are deemed to be the same already recited elements of parent claim 10.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Futase (US 2019/0259143 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Futase discloses a system (fig. 1) comprising:
at least one packaging machine (10; figs. 2 and 4a);
at least one control device (12); and
at least one monitoring device (20, 30, 40);
wherein the monitoring device comprises at least one sensor device (21; paragraph 0034) and at least one computing device (22, 23, 24, 30, 40; paragraph 0033; paragraph 0050 – “image processing unit made of a computer or the like”; paragraphs 0056-0065); and
wherein the packaging machine comprises at least one filling module (103) with at least one filling spout (103);
the sensor device comprises at least one camera device (21; paragraph 0034); and
that the computing device (22, 23, 24, 30, 40) is suitable and designed to check the image data recorded by the camera device by means of an evaluation based on at least one automated application on predetermined events (paragraph 0033 – “a judgement unit 22 for comparing an image data imaged by the imaging device 21 with a judging condition as a standard on the good or bad package body stored in a storage unit 23 to judge the good or bad package body W in such image data.”; paragraphs 0037-0043; paragraphs 0050 and 0056-0065);
wherein the automated application comprises at least one AI application and/or at least one computer vision application (22 and 42; paragraphs 0033, 0037-0043, 0050, 0056-0065).
Regarding claim 2, Futase discloses wherein the evaluation of the automated application (22, 42) is transferable (see arrow from 22 to 12 and 45 to 12 in fig. 1; paragraphs 0043 and 0063) to the control device (12).
Regarding claim 3, Futase discloses wherein the sensor device (21) is assigned (paragraph 0036; paragraph 0035 recites, “The imaging device 21 may be placed in any position of the filling and packaging machine 10 as far as it can image the given inspection site of the package body W. Also, plural inspection sites can be imaged by using a plurality of imaging devices 21”. “Any position” includes the area of the filling module; Additionally, in fig. 4a the camera is provided to the same package that is filled by the filling module and is therefore deemed to be “assigned” to the filling module;) to the filling module (103).
Regarding claim 4, Futase discloses wherein the control device (12) is suitable (paragraphs 0043 and 0063) and equipped to detect at least one of a leakage (paragraphs 0039, 0041, 0045-0048, 0051-0055) of a bag (F, F’, W) during filling, whether a to be filled is correctly attached to the filling spout, whether a filled bag (W) has been correctly closed (paragraphs 0039, 0041, 0045-0048, 0051-0055), which type of bag is used for filling and whether the bag is correctly opened for attachment.
Regarding claim 5, Futase discloses a method (figs. 1 and 6) of operating a system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), characterised in that:
based on the evaluation of the image data from the camera device (21; paragraph 0034) of the sensor device (21; paragraph 0034) with the aid of the automated application (22 and 42), the monitoring device (20, 30, 40) determines (via 22 and/or 43, 44) that there is a specific event (paragraphs 0043, 0062 and 0063 – “bad product” event) and a correspondingly predetermined action is then initiated (paragraphs 0043 and 0063 – “discharged” and/or “change production conditions”), wherein the automated application includes at least one of at least one AI application and at least one computer vision application (22 and 42; paragraphs 0033, 0037-0043, 0050, 0056-0065).
Regarding claim 6, Futase discloses wherein the automated application (22 and 42) checks the data online (paragraph 0031 – “The filling and packaging machine 10, the image data judgement system 20, the storage device 30 and the image data analysis system 40 are connected to each other through communication means such as LAN, the Internet and so on”; paragraphs 0057 and 0064).
Regarding claim 7, Futase discloses wherein the automated application is trained (paragraphs 0056, 0059, 0062-0063; The automated application is provided with examples of image data of “good product” and “bad product” which it uses to constantly re-evaluate conditions and also makes use of “patterns of defects”. This is deemed to constitute training) and/or operates offline (paragraph 0031 – “The filling and packaging machine 10, the image data judgement system 20, the storage device 30 and the image data analysis system 40 are connected to each other through communication means such as LAN”; A local area network (LAN) is deemed to broadly read on “offline” as it does not require use of an internet connection) on the computing device (22, 23, 24, 30, 40).
Regarding claim 9, Futase discloses wherein at least one of the leakage (paragraphs 0039, 0041, 0045-0048, 0051-0055) of a bag (F, F’, W) is detected during filling, wherein it is detected whether a bag to be filled is correctly attached to the filling spout, wherein it is detected whether a filled bag (W) has been correctly closed (paragraphs 0039, 0041, 0045-0048, 0051-0055), wherein it is detected which type of bag is used for filling and whether the bag is correctly opened for attachment.
Regarding claim 10, Futase discloses a use of an automated application (figs. 1 and 6) comprising at least one of at least one AI application and at least one computer vision application (22 and 42; paragraphs 0033, 0037-0043, 0050, 0056-0065), in the monitoring of events on a packaging machine (10; figs. 2 and 4a) based on image data from at least one camera device (21; paragraph 0034) of at least one sensor device (21; paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 11, Futase discloses utilizing a system (figs. 1 and 6) comprising: at least one packaging machine (10; figs. 2 and 4a); at least one control device (12); and at least one monitoring device (20, 30, 40); wherein the monitoring device comprises at least one sensor device (21; paragraph 0034) and at least one computing device (22, 23, 24, 30, 40; paragraph 0033; paragraph 0050 – “image processing unit made of a computer or the like”; paragraphs 0056-0065); and wherein the packaging machine comprises at least one filling module (103) with at least one filling spout (103); the sensor device comprises at least one camera device (21; paragraph 0034); and the computing device (22, 23, 24, 30, 40) is suitable and designed to check the image data recorded by the camera device by means of an evaluation based on at least one automated application on predetermined events (paragraph 0033 – “a judgement unit 22 for comparing an image data imaged by the imaging device 21 with a judging condition as a standard on the good or bad package body stored in a storage unit 23 to judge the good or bad package body W in such image data.”; paragraphs 0037-0043; paragraphs 0050 and 0056-0065); wherein the automated application comprises at least one of at least one AI application and at least one computer vision application (22 and 42; paragraphs 0033, 0037-0043, 0050, 0056-0065).
Regarding claim 12, Futase discloses wherein at least one of the leakage (paragraphs 0039, 0041, 0045-0048, 0051-0055) of a bag (F, F’, W) during filling is detected as an event, wherein it is detected whether a bag to be filled is correctly attached to the filling spout, wherein it is detected whether a filled bag (W) has been correctly closed (paragraphs 0039, 0041, 0045-0048, 0051-0055), wherein it is detected which type of bag is used for filling and whether the bag is correctly opened for attachment.
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(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futase (US 2019/0259143 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Futase discloses wherein the automated application (22 and 42) is retrained (paragraphs 0056, 0059, 0062-0063; The automated application is provided with examples of image data of “good product” and “bad product” which it uses to constantly re-evaluate conditions and also makes use of “patterns of defects”. This updating of information is deemed to constitute retraining).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that Futase does not disclose training/retraining, the Office alternatively takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the automated application of Futase be trained and retrained. Futase is clearly concerned with using comparative images to determine whether the seals on the packages are properly performed and that the product is either a “good” or “bad” product. Providing training and retraining of the program so that it can make better evaluations and detect newly discovered error types would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill for the purposes of improving performance and accuracy of the monitoring device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited. The art not relied upon generally pertains to computer vision applications for evaluating productions lines. An example of such art is Evans et al. (US Patent 12,455,248 B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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 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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights