Patent Publication Number: US-11655131-B2

Title: Dual laser closure scan and method of using the same

Description:
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED PATENT APPLICATION 
     This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 16/225,812, filed Dec. 19, 2018, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. 
    
    
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     The present disclosure relates generally to the field of closures. The present disclosure relates specifically to monitoring closures on bottles to confirm they are affixed tightly and correctly to containers. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     Described herein are systems and methods to determine whether closures are properly affixed to containers. In one or more embodiments the system uses multiple lasers to measure distances. The containers are moved, via a conveyer, under a laser platform and measurements of distances to the top of the closure are collected and analyzed. Based on analysis of the measurements, the system determines whether the closure is properly affixed to the container. 
     In one embodiment, the system comprises a conveyer for containers, such as bottles, and multiple distance measuring devices, such as lasers that include laser detectors. The conveyer moves the containers in a first direction past the lasers. The top surface of the closure is measured by the lasers along multiple paths, one path per detection device. In the situation in which the lasers are stationary, the detection paths on the closure are straight lines, but it is contemplated herein that the lasers may be adjustable. 
     Each path can be divided into multiple sets of measurements that are distinct from each other. For example, a path may include a leading set of measurements, which includes measurements that are generally centered around the front-third of the corresponding path, a middle set of measurements, which includes measurements that are generally centered on the corresponding path, and a trailing set of measurements, which includes measurements that are generally centered around the rear-third of the corresponding path. 
     The sets of measurements are analyzed to determine whether the closure is properly affixed to its container. One method of analysis averages one or more sets, and if each averaged set is below a threshold the closure is properly affixed. Another method of analysis averages two or more sets and subtracts the highest average from the lowest average. If the difference is less than a threshold, then the closure is properly affixed. Another method of analysis calculates a difference between the middle set and the average of one or both of the leading and trailing sets. If the difference or differences are less than a threshold, then the closure is properly affixed. Another method of analysis confirms that the leading and trailing sets have opposite slopes of near equal magnitudes. For example, if the leading set has an upward slope measurement of 8 (eight), then the trailing set should have a downward slope measurement at or near −8 (negative eight), assuming the closure to be properly affixed. 
     Another method of analysis involves summing differences between subsequent measurements, starting at the outer part of the closure moving inward, for one or more of the sets. The sums for multiple sets are compared to each other. Because a properly affixed closure is typically, although not necessarily, symmetrical, the sum for each set should be equal or nearly equal. 
     Various other methods of analysis consider pairs of measurements. For example, given an exemplary path that includes 40 measurements, one method pairs up the measurements (e.g., measurements 1 and 40, 2 and 39, 3 and 38, etc.). The differences between some (e.g., 5 pairs, 10 pairs) or all the pairs is calculated, and the differences are summed together. If the sum is below a threshold the closure is properly affixed. One or more of these methods involves summing differences from different paths and comparing that sum to the threshold. 
     In one or more embodiments the processor and other devices in the system generate signals that are representative of the measurements and calculations being performed. It is contemplated herein that the signals may be transmitted between devices (e.g., from the first laser to the processor) or they may be internal to a device (e.g., from the processor via one calculation to the processor for a second calculation). 
     Additional features and advantages will be set forth in the detailed description which follows, and, in part, will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art from the description or recognized by practicing the embodiments as described in the written description and claims hereof, as well as the appended drawings. It is to be understood that both the foregoing general description and the following detailed description are exemplar 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
       This application may be more fully understood from the following detailed description, taken in conjunction with the accompanying figures, wherein like reference numerals refer to like elements in which: 
         FIG.  1    depicts a system for determining whether closures are properly affixed to containers, according to an exemplary embodiment; 
         FIG.  2    depicts a top surface of a closure being analyzed by the system of  FIG.  1   , according to an exemplary embodiment; 
         FIG.  3    depicts a top surface of a closure being analyzed by the system of  FIG.  1   , according to an exemplary embodiment; 
         FIG.  4    depicts a top surface of a closure being analyzed by the system of  FIG.  1   , according to an exemplary embodiment; 
         FIG.  5    depicts a top surface of a closure being analyzed by the system of  FIG.  1   , according to an exemplary embodiment; 
         FIG.  6    depicts a top surface of a closure being analyzed by the system of  FIG.  1   , according to an exemplary embodiment; 
         FIG.  7    depicts two series of measurements, by two lasers, of a closure that has been properly affixed to a container, according to an embodiment; 
         FIG.  8    depicts two series of measurements, by two lasers, of a closure that has not been properly affixed to a container, according to an embodiment; 
         FIG.  9    depicts two series of measurements, by two lasers, of a closure that has not been properly affixed to a container, according to an embodiment; 
         FIG.  10    depicts a system for determining whether closures are properly affixed to containers, according to another embodiment; and 
         FIG.  11    depicts a series of steps to utilize one or more systems described in this disclosure, according to an exemplary system of use. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
     Many automated systems apply closures to containers via automated means. However, closures are not always properly affixed to the containers. To avoid spills and problems, it is useful to quickly identify which closures are not properly affixed to their respective containers. 
     In one embodiment, a system includes a conveyer belt, a laser platform and a discarding mechanism. When the system determines that a closure is not properly affixed the discarding mechanism redirects the offending closure and container to be separately addressed. The laser platform includes two or more lasers that measure distances to different paths on the top surface of the closures. The distances measured are analyzed to determine the status of closure (e.g., whether the closure is properly affixed to the container). Several different analysis methodologies can be used, many of which utilize two separate measurements of distances to a top surface of the closure. 
     Illustrated in  FIG.  1    is an exemplary system  100  for determining whether closures have been properly applied to containers, according to an exemplary embodiment. System  100  includes conveyer  102  that moves containers B in direction  136  past laser platform  110 . Laser platform  110  includes first detection device  106  and second detection device  108 , shown as first laser  106  and second laser  108 . It is contemplated herein that first and second detection devices  106 ,  108  may be any type of device that would detect distances to a closure C, such as a laser-emitting device with a laser receiver (e.g., first and second lasers  106 ,  108 ). 
     First and second lasers  106 ,  108  periodically emit lasers in a generally downward direction towards conveyer  102 , and when present top surface TS of closure C. The emitted laser is reflected back from the surface it strikes and first and second lasers  106 ,  108  include detectors that receive the reflected light and then calculate the distance to the surface that reflected the light. By these measurements, system  100  can determine whether closure C is properly affixed to containers B. 
     System  100  may be configured to work with all types of closures and containers. For exemplary purposes only and without limitation, system  100  may be configured to work with metal closures on glass containers where the contents are in a vacuum, and subsequently adjusted to work with plastic closures on plastic containers. 
     As containers B pass under laser platform  110 , first and second lasers  106 ,  108  measure the distance to closure C. First laser  106  measures the distance to closure C along first path  150 , and second laser  108  measures the distance to closure C along second path  180 . System  100  then analyzes the measured distances and determines whether closure C is properly affixed to container B. If system  100  determines closure C is properly affixed to container B, then redirector component  114  remains in position  140 , thus allowing container B to continue traveling along conveyer  102 . If system  100  determines closure C is not properly affixed to container B, then redirector component  114  pivots to position  142 , redirecting container B to conveyer  112  to a collection of rejected containers B. Rejected containers B may be discarded, manually examined, and/or closure C may be removed and reattached. 
     Turning now to  FIG.  2   , illustrated therein is a top surface TS of closure C that is passing under first and second lasers  106 ,  108 . Container B, and thus also closure C, are moving in direction  136  along conveyer  102 . As closure C passes under first and second lasers  106 ,  108 , they measure distances along first and second paths  150 ,  180 , respectively. 
     In one exemplary embodiment, first and second paths  150 ,  180  are equidistant from center line  120 , and first and second lasers  106 ,  108  are first and second peripheral distances  126 ,  128  from the lateral edge of closure C that is furthest from center point  118  as viewed from the perspective of direction  136 . In the exemplary embodiment in  FIG.  2   , central displacement distances  124  are approximately one-half of lateral displacement distances  126 ,  128 , and thus first and second paths  150 ,  180  are displaced from center line  120  by approximately one-third of the radius of top surface TS of closure C. 
     In another embodiment the location of first and second lasers  106 ,  108  are adjusted to larger or smaller distances  124  from center line  120 . In another embodiment, the location of first and second lasers  106 ,  108  may remain static but their aim may be adjusted such that first and second paths  150 ,  180  are larger or smaller distances  124  from center line  120 . In yet another embodiment, first and second paths  150 ,  180  are independently adjusted so that each has a different distance from center line  120 . 
     Turning to  FIG.  3   , as top surface TS of closure C passes under laser platform  110 , first and second lasers  106 ,  108  measure distances at various measurement locations  130  along first and second paths  150 ,  180 . In  FIG.  3   , first and second lasers  106 ,  108  measure forty location  130  along each of first and second paths  150 ,  180 . It is contemplated herein that any number of measurements per detection device  106 ,  108  may be used, such as a certain number of measurements per closure (e.g., 30, 40, 50, 100) or a certain number of measurements per distance (e.g., one measurement every millimeter, one measurement every 0.25 millimeter, etc.). 
     As will be discussed later in greater detail, for various methods of analysis measurements  130  on first path  150  are separated into different sets of measurements  130 . Generating these subsets of measurements  130  enables analysis of whether closure C is properly affixed to container B. 
     In one exemplary situation depicted in  FIG.  3   , first leading set  152  of measurements  130  is in direction  136  from center point  118  along first path  150 . First trailing set  154  of measurements  130  is in the rearward half of top surface TS along first path  150 . In one or more embodiments first leading set  152  and first trailing set  154  are symmetrical along first path  150  with respect to the center of first path  150 , although other non-symmetrical groupings of first leading set  152  and first trailing set  154  are contemplated. 
     Second leading set  182  of measurements  130  is in direction  136  from center point  118  along second path  180 . Second trailing set  184  of measurements  130  are opposite first leading set  182  along second path  180 . In one or more embodiments, second leading set  182  and second trailing set  184  are symmetrical along second path  180  with respect to its center, although other non-symmetrical groupings of second leading set  182  and second trailing set  184  are contemplated. 
     One system of analyzing whether closure C is properly affixed is based on whether averages of one or more of first leading set  152 , first trailing set  154 , second leading set  182  and second trailing set  184  are below a threshold. For example, averages are calculated for each of first leading set  152 , first trailing set  154 , second leading set  182  and second trailing set  184 . The averages are then compared to a threshold. If all of the averages are below a threshold, then closure C is determined to be properly affixed. If at least one of the averages is above a threshold, then closure C is determined to be improperly affixed, and should be discarded (e.g., by redirecting component  114  to second position  142  so that container B with improperly affixed closure C is redirected to secondary conveyer  112 ). 
     In another method, closure C is determined to be properly affixed if: Highest Average−Lowest Average&lt;Threshold. For example, the highest and lowest of at least two averages are selected. The lowest average is subtracted from the highest average to calculate a difference. Because the first leading set  152 , first trailing set  154 , second leading set  182  and second trailing set  184  are symmetrically arranged on closure C with respect to center point  118 , the difference between the measurements for each set should be very similar, if anything. Therefore, if the difference between the highest and lowest averages is less than a threshold, closure C is determined to be properly affixed, and if the difference between the highest and lowest averages is greater than a threshold, closure C is determined to not be properly affixed. 
     In another method, closure C is determined to be properly affixed if Middle Average−(Leading Average+Trailing Average)/2&gt;Threshold, or Middle Average−(Leading Average+Trailing Average)/2&lt;Threshold, depending on the nominal characteristics of the closure, for one or both of first and second paths  150 ,  180 . For example, first middle set  156  and second middle set  186  are also identified and an average for each is calculated. For at least one of the paths  150  or  180 , the average of the middle set  156  or  186  is compared to the average of both averages of the leading set  152  and the trailing set  154 , or the average of both averages of the leading set  182  and the trailing set  184 , and a difference is calculated. The difference is then compared to a threshold. For certain types of closure C, where the difference is greater than the threshold, then the closure C is determined to not be properly affixed. For other types of closure C, where the difference is less than the threshold, then the closure C is determined to not be properly affixed. 
     In yet another method, closure C is determined to be properly affixed if Middle Average−Leading Average&lt;Threshold and Middle Average−Trailing Average&lt;Threshold, for one or both of first and second paths  150 ,  180 . For example, first middle set  156  and second middle set  186  are also identified and an average for each is calculated. For at least one of paths  150  or  180 , the average of the middle set  156  or  186  is compared to the average of the leading set  152  or  182 , for the same path, and a first difference is calculated. Then the average of the middle set  156  or  186  is compared to the average of the trailing set  154  or  184  and a second difference is calculated. The first and second differences are compared to a threshold and if both differences are below a threshold then the closure C is determined to be properly affixed, whereas if one of the differences is greater than the threshold, then the closure C is determined to not be properly affixed. 
     Turning to  FIG.  4   , analysis of closure C may consider front measurement  158  and back measurement  160  of first leading set  152 . Analysis of closure C may also consider front measurement  162  and back measurement  164  of first trailing set  154 , front measurement  188  and back measurement  190  of second leading set  182 , and/or front measurement  192  and back measurement  194  of second trailing set  184 . 
     For closure C to be properly affixed, leading sets  152 ,  182  should have a symmetrical slope moving compared to trailing sets  154 ,  184 . For example, if first leading set  152  has an upward slope towards the center of closure C, then first trailing set  154  should have a downward slope of an equal or near equal magnitude, or closure C is determined to not be properly affixed. If second leading set  182  has an upward slope moving towards the center of closure C, then second trailing set  184  should have a downward slope of an equal or near equal magnitude, or closure C is determined to not be properly affixed. Slopes of the sets may be calculated by subtracting measurement  130  from the front of the set minus measurement  130  from the back of the set. For example, turning to  FIG.  4   , measurement  158  is the front measurement  130  of first leading set  152  and measurement  160  is the back measurement  130  of first leading set  152 . Measurement  162  is the front measurement  130  of first trailing set  154  and measurement  164  is the back measurement  130  of first trailing set  154 . For second path  180 , measurement  188  is the front measurement  130  of second leading set  182  and measurement  190  is the back measurement  130  of second leading set  182 , and measurement  192  is the front measurement  130  of second trailing set  184  and measurement  194  is the back measurement  130  of second trailing set  184 . The back measurement  130  is subtracted from the front measurement  130  to calculate a slope for the respective set. 
     Turning to  FIG.  5   , analysis of closure C may be focused on a presumed symmetry of closure C when properly affixed. Analysis of closure C considers first pair of measurements  166  on first path  150 . First pair  166  of measurements  130  on first path  150  includes front element  166 A and back element  166 B. Second pair  168  of measurements  130  includes front element  168 A and back element  168 B. 
     To analyze whether closure C is properly affixed, a first difference is calculated for first pair  166  between measurement  166 A and measurement  166 B, and second difference is calculated for second pair  168  between measurement  168 A and measurement  168 B. This calculation of differences continues for measurements  130  of first path  150  towards the center of first path  150 . Then the differences are summed together. If the sum of differences on first path  150  is less than a threshold, closure C is determined to be properly affixed, and if the sum of differences on first path  180  is greater than a threshold, closure C is determined to not be properly affixed. The same calculations are performed for second path  180 . 
     It is contemplated that any number of pairs on first path  150  may be analyzed to determine if closure C is properly affixed. For example, five sets of pairs may be selected from first path  150  (e.g., second measurement  130  through sixth measurement from the perimeter of top surface TS of closure C), or 19 pairs may be selected (e.g., all but the outer measurements  130 ), or any number of pairs (e.g., 5, 10, 15, 20) between multiple paths. 
     In this example both front and back element  166 A,  166 B are not the measurement  130  closest to the periphery of top surface TS but are instead the second-closest measurement  130  to the periphery of top surface TS. The motivation for this selection of the second-closest measurement is that occasionally the closest measurement to the periphery is not a reliable measurement  130  because the edge of closure C interferes with the accuracy of that measurement  130 . In other embodiments first pair  166  of measurements  130  used for the analysis are the closest measurements  130  to periphery of top surface TS. Similarly with respect to second path  180 , first pair  196  of measurements  130  includes front element  196 A and back element  196 B. Second pair  198  of measurements  130  includes front element  198 A and back element  198 B. 
     Turning to  FIG.  6   , the delta between successive measurements  130  in different sets  152 ,  154 ,  156  may be summed and compared as follows: 
     
       
         
           
             
               
                 
                   
                     ∑ 
                     
                       n 
                       = 
                       2 
                     
                     w 
                   
                   ⁢ 
                   
                       
                   
                   ⁢ 
                   
                     ( 
                     
                       
                         x 
                         n 
                       
                       - 
                       
                         x 
                         
                           ( 
                           
                             n 
                             - 
                             1 
                           
                           ) 
                         
                       
                     
                     ) 
                   
                 
               
               
                 
                   Eq 
                   . 
                   
                       
                   
                   ⁢ 
                   1 
                 
               
             
           
         
       
     
     In Equation 1, x n  represents a measurement  130  at a given location n, x (n-1)  represents a measurement  130  at a successive neighboring location, n represents the sample number and w represents the number of samples in a set. For illustrative purposes only, an application of this equation will be explained with reference to  FIG.  6   . 
     In first leading set  152  on first path  150 , the first measurement  170  in  FIG.  6    is measurement x 1  (“x sub one”) in Equation 1 and is at the leading end of first leading set  152  as defined by direction of travel  136 . Second measurement  171  in  FIG.  6    is measurement x 2  (“x sub two”) in Equation 1, third measurement  172  in  FIG.  6    is measurement x 3  (“x sub three”) in Equation 1, fourth measurement  173  in  FIG.  6    is measurement x 4  (“x sub five”) in Equation 1, fifth measurement  174  in  FIG.  6    is measurement x 5  in Equation 1, sixth measurement  175  in  FIG.  6    is measurement x 6  in Equation 1 and seventh measurement  176  in  FIG.  6    is measurement x 7  in Equation 1. The analysis of these measurements  130  using Equation 1 would start by calculating x 2 −x 1 , and summing with subsequent deltas. Individual measurements  130  for second leading set  182  can be similarly compared. Individual measurements  130  can also be similarly compared for each of first trailing set  154  and second trailing set  184 . 
     When analyzing trailing sets  154 ,  184 , the summation progression indicated in Equation 1 can be symmetrically applied to account for a negative slope as compared to leading sets  152 ,  182 . To put this another way, when analyzing first trailing set  154 , first measurement  130  in  FIG.  1   , which is x 1  in Equation 1, is closest to the trailing edge of top surface TS as defined by direction of travel  136 . Continuing with this example, second measurement  130  in  FIG.  1   , which is x 2  in Equation 1, is second-closest to the trailing edge of top surface TS as defined by direction of travel  136 . Thus, it will be understood that analysis of each of first leading edge  152  and first trailing edge  154  progresses from the periphery of top surface TS towards the center. In this way, the sign of the resultant summation (e.g., is the result of the summation positive or negative) for each of first leading set  152  and first trailing set  154  is consistent when closure C is properly affixed to container B. 
     Turning to  FIGS.  7 - 9   , exemplary graphical representations of the measurements  130  of each of first and second paths  150 ,  180  are depicted. For these examples,  FIG.  7    represents measurements  130  for closure C that is properly affixed to container B. As will be seen in  FIG.  7   , first and second paths  150 ,  180  are symmetrical with respect to each other, they are symmetrical with respect to themselves, and all of the measurements are between a lower threshold (e.g., 0.5) and an upper threshold (e.g., 0.65), each of these facts being indicative of closure C being properly affixed. 
       FIG.  8    represents a closure C that is not properly affixed, which can be recognized for several reasons. First, there is a lack of symmetry of first path  150  with respect to itself (i.e., samples 1-16 are substantially higher than samples 24-40). Second, there is a lack of symmetry between first path  150  and second path  180  (i.e., samples 1-16 in first path  150  are substantially higher than samples 1-16 of second path  180 ). Third, first path  150  includes measurements above upper threshold (e.g., 0.65). 
       FIG.  9    also represents a closure C that is not properly affixed, which can again be recognized for several reasons. First, there is a lack of symmetry of second path  180  with respect to itself (i.e., samples 1-19 are substantially higher than samples 21-40). Second, there is a lack of symmetry between first path  150  and second path  180  (i.e., samples 1-16 in first path  150  are substantially higher than samples 1-16 of second path  180 ). Third, both first path  150  and second path  180  include measurements above upper threshold (e.g., 0.65). 
     In the exemplary analysis above in regard to  FIGS.  7 - 9   , the Y-axis measurements are indicative of a properly affixed closure C when they are between measurements of 0.5 and 0.65. However, it will be understood that any thresholds may be used, and indeed the thresholds can be arbitrarily selected to correspond to the measurements being detected by system  100 . 
     In one or more embodiments first and second lasers  106 ,  108  periodically perform measurements without knowing whether container B and closure C are beneath or approaching being beneath laser platform  110 . Alternatively, system  100  may include a component to detect the presence of container B beneath laser platform  110 . 
     Turning now to  FIG.  10   , system  100  further includes presence detector  138 . Presence detector  138  may be a laser, motion detector, or other device that provides system  100  an indication regarding whether container B with closure C is beneath or approaching being beneath laser platform  110 . When presence detector  138  indicates that container B is beneath laser platform  110 , or approaching being beneath laser platform  110 , then first and second lasers  106 ,  108  begin performing distance measurements  130 . 
     Turning to  FIG.  11   , illustrated therein is an exemplary method of utilizing the concept(s) and system(s) in this disclosure. At step  501 , system  100  detects whether closure C is beneath laser platform  110 . In one example, system  100  may detect the presence of closure C by virtue of measurements  130  being within a detection range (e.g., between a lower threshold and an upper threshold to detect the presence of closure C). In another example, system  100  may include presence detector  138  to detect, or to aid system  110  in detecting, whether closure C is beneath laser platform  110 . 
     At step  502 , system  100  collects measurements  130  of closure C. Measurements  130  include one or more measurements along first path  150  and second path  180 . 
     At step  503 , system  100  analyzes measurements  130  to calculate a level of confidence closure C is affixed properly. In one embodiment, system  100  analyzes closure C using one of the above-described methodologies. In another embodiment, system  100  analyzes closure C using more than one of the above-described methodologies. 
     In still another embodiment, system  100  may be configured to use a given subset of methodologies in response to receiving information about the closure C and/or the container B. For example, if closure C is made of plastic and container B is made of a plastic, system  100  identifies a first set of analysis methodologies to use, whereas if instead closure C is made of metal and container B is made of glass, system  100  identifies a second set of analysis methodologies to use. 
     At step  504 , system  100  discards containers B for whom the chance of their closure C being properly affixed is lower than a threshold. In one embodiment, system  100  discards any containers B for which system  100  determines closure C may be not properly affixed (e.g., system  100  discards containers B for which any data or analysis suggests closure C is not properly affixed). 
     It should be understood that depending on one or more characteristics of the closure and container, the expected orientation of the closure may be reversed if a characteristic is changed. For example, if a properly affixed closure is expected to be under negative pressure and therefore be inwardly sloped, then the comparisons to the various thresholds will be predicated on that closure orientation. However, if a properly affixed closure is expected to be under positive pressure and therefore be outwardly sloped, then the comparisons to the various thresholds will be the opposite compared to if the expectation was for an inward slope, in one or more of the embodiments described herein. 
     It should be understood that the figures illustrate the exemplary embodiments in detail, and it should be understood that the present application is not limited to the details or methodology set forth in the description or illustrated in the figures. It should also be understood that the terminology is for the purpose of description only and should not be regarded as limiting. 
     Further modifications and alternative embodiments of various aspects of the disclosure will be apparent to those skilled in the art in view of this description. Accordingly, this description is to be construed as illustrative only. The construction and arrangements, shown in the various exemplary embodiments, are illustrative only. Although only a few embodiments have been described in detail in this disclosure, many modifications are possible (e.g., variations in sizes, dimensions, structures, shapes and proportions of the various elements, values of parameters, mounting arrangements, use of materials, colors, orientations, etc.) without materially departing from the novel teachings and advantages of the subject matter described herein. Some elements shown as integrally formed may be constructed of multiple parts or elements, the position of elements may be reversed or otherwise varied, and the nature or number of discrete elements or positions may be altered or varied. Other substitutions, modifications, changes and omissions may also be made in the design, operating conditions and arrangement of the various exemplary embodiments without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. 
     While the current application recites particular combinations of features in the claims appended hereto, various embodiments of the disclosure relate to any combination of any of the features described herein whether or not such combination is currently claimed, and any such combination of features may be claimed in this or future applications. Any of the features, elements, or components of any of the exemplary embodiments discussed above may be used alone or in combination with any of the features, elements, or components of any of the other embodiments discussed above. 
     In various exemplary embodiments, the relative dimensions, including angles, lengths and radii, as shown in the Figures are to scale. Actual measurements of the Figures will disclose relative dimensions, angles and proportions of the various exemplary embodiments. Various exemplary embodiments extend to various ranges around the absolute and relative dimensions, angles and proportions that may be determined from the Figures. Various exemplary embodiments include any combination of one or more relative dimensions or angles that may be determined from the Figures. Further, actual dimensions not expressly set out in this description can be determined by using the ratios of dimensions measured in the Figures in combination with the express dimensions set out in this description.