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 . 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.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response and amendments, filed 12/15/2025, has been entered. Claims 1-24 are pending with claims 16-22 withdrawn upon entry of this Amendment. Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections of claims have been fully considered :
On page 11-12 of Remarks, Applicant is arguing that citation of Stander used in rejection does not expressly teach that the sensors contain the same elastomeric material of the outer cylindrical roller layer, and desirability of having matching elasticity inside and outside of the sensors must be interpreted as expressly teaching away from using same material within and outside of the sensor.
Response:
According to the MPEP § 2145, and MPEP § 2143.01 "teaching away" occurs when a prior art reference suggests that the developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce the objective of the applicant's invention, thereby discouraging a person of ordinary skill from pursuing that path.
In this case, Examiner holds:
(1): STANDER expressly teaches that the sensors contain the same elastomeric material of the outer cylindrical roller layer. The cited part of Slander used in rejection is ¶0035 of STANDER recited here:
“ According to a further aspect of the present invention, the elastic layer of the sensor has at least substantially the same elasticity as the elastomer layer.
This allows the sensor to be positioned in the force flow in such a way that the force can be recorded as representatively as possible, because due to the same elasticity of the elastomer layer and the sensor, the same force can flow through the sensor as through the elastomer layer. This can increase the quality of the recorded sensor signal and simplify the evaluation.”[emphasis added]
(2) Applicant has not provided any evidence that why the combination of the cited prior art does not result in the same claimed function. as best understood, Applicant conclude that adding pillars makes different or less modulus of elasticity and therefore, teaching away of STRANDER. However, the Kustermann’s roller modified with STANDER’s sensor array that contain the same elastomeric material of the outer cylindrical roller layer has the same function of detecting force even when modified with Bao or Sakakura system and just because STANDER’s citing one of the benefits is increasing the quality of signal does not mean that the modification is teaching away or preventing of a sensor having the same function of detecting the force from the roller to the belt surface. There is no evidence that if STRANDER modified with Bao or Sakakura’s plurality of pillars STRANDER’s sensors do not have the same function of detecting force or unlikely to produce the objective of the applicant's roller. The motivation to add pillars has been provided in the actions and none of them suggests that the developments flowing from its disclosures are not resulting the objective of detecting force of roller on convey surface.
Therefore the argument is not persuasive.
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 1-3, 5-6, 9,11-12, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Kustermann”, US 6387214 B1 in view of STANDER”, DE102017223196A1 and further in view of “Sakakura”, US20230009475A1.
Claim 1
Kustermann in figs.1-3 teaches:
A roller (shown with roll surface 12/ 512 and sensors/control units 28/24) for measuring properties of a region of contact (nip 15/515) between the roller (512) and a target surface (516), the roller comprising:
an exterior annular cylinder portion 552, the exterior annular cylinder portion 552 comprising an elastomeric material (protective layer of rubber, rubber-type material, Synthetic material, or other similar material as cited e.g., in col.9 lines 26-27), the exterior annular cylinder portion 552 having an exterior cylindrical surface 512;
a sensor array 554 / 556/558 extending in an axial direction Q and in a circumferential direction P/U, the array 554 /556/558 comprising a plurality of independently sampleable sensor elements 554/558/556, each sensor element 554/558/556 located for measurement at a corresponding axial Q and circumferential P/U sensor location (e.g., col.9 lines-15-17/40-43);
a rigid interior portion (550 col.9 line 25), at least a portion of the rigid interior portion 550 disposed in a bore of the exterior annular cylinder portion 552, the rigid interior portion 550 connected to the exterior annular cylinder portion 552 for unitary rotational movement therewith (at least shown in the figure); and
readout electronics (evaluation device 562) operably connected to the sensor array 554 / 556/558 and configurable to independently sample sensor output from each of the sensor elements (e.g., col.9 lines 50-52 / also fig.1 unit 24 from sensors 28).
Kustermann does not specifically teach a sensor array extending in an axial direction and in a circumferential direction of the exterior annular cylinder portion, the array comprising a plurality of independently sampleable sensor elements, each sensor element comprising, within and as part of the sensor element, the elastomeric material of the exterior annular cylinder portion separating, in a radial direction normal to the axial and circumferential directions at a location of the sensor element, an outer electrode and an inner electrode, the elastomeric material within each sensor element formed into a plurality of pillars extending in the radial direction, the plurality of pillars spaced apart from each other in the axial and circumferential directions.
In the similar field of endeavor STRANDER in figs.6,9,10 teaches a sensor array (sensors 2 in fig.10) extending in an axial direction (L) and in a circumferential direction (see with R) of the exterior annular cylinder portion (elastomeric layer 12 ¶0047) , the array comprising a plurality of independently sampleable sensor elements (independently sampleable sensors 2 with sensor elements 22,20,21), each sensor element (22,20,21) comprising, within and as part of the sensor element (20 is elastomeric material e.g., ¶0048¶0035), the elastomeric material of the exterior annular cylinder portion (e.g.,¶0035), separating (20 inside 12 separating electrodes 2 and 22 in direction R) , in a radial direction (radial direction R inside 12,20) normal to the axial and circumferential directions (radial direction is normal to L and circumferential direction) at a location of the sensor element 2,20, an outer electrode 22 and an inner electrode 21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use STRANDER‘s sensor array for Kustermann‘s roller extending in an axial direction and in a circumferential direction of the modified Kustermann’s exterior annular cylinder portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would know this method for detecting and measuring force and have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect a force between roller and convey surface (e.g., Abstract of STRANDER).
Kustermann modified with STRANDER does not specifically teach the elastomeric material within each sensor element formed into a plurality of pillars extending in the radial direction, the plurality of pillars spaced apart from each other in the axial and circumferential directions.
In the similar field of endeavor, Sakakura in e.g., figs.1 and 5 teaches a sensor 20 comprising the elastomeric material (element 31,32 in fig.5D) separating, at a location of the sensor element 20, the elastomeric material (31,32) within each sensor element 20 formed into a plurality of pillars (pillars formed by gaps 33), the plurality of pillars (pillars formed by gaps 33) spaced apart from each other (33 are and make pillars spaced from each other).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sakakura‘s sensor elements for the modified Kustermann’s roller with STRANDER ‘sensor array and the modified Kustermann‘s elastomeric material of the exterior annular cylinder portion separating, in a radial direction normal to the modified Kustermann‘s axial and circumferential directions at a location of the modified Kustermann‘s sensor element, the modified Kustermann‘s elastomeric material within each sensor element formed into a plurality of pillars extending in the modified Kustermann‘s radial direction, the modified Kustermann‘s plurality of pillars spaced apart from each other in the modified Kustermann‘s axial and circumferential directions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make the detection sensitivity of the shear force uniform and irrespective of the position of the shear force in the in-plane direction of the sensor (e.g., Sakakura ¶0009).
Claim 2
Kustermann combined with STRANDER and Sakakura teaches the smart roller of claim 1 Kustermann further teaches wherein at least some of the sensor elements generate sensor output that varies with force applied to the exterior cylindrical surface in a radial direction normal to the exterior cylindrical surface at their corresponding sensor locations (e.g., sensor signals shown by 28 in fig.1/besides sensors are for detecting vibrations that can be variable with force applied in any direction).
Claim 3
Kustermann combined with STRANDER and Sakakura teaches the smart roller according to claim 1 Kustermann further teaches wherein at least some of the sensor elements generate sensor output that varies with force applied to the exterior cylindrical surface in at least one of axial (sensors are distributed in directions Q that is axial direction col.9 l.23-25) and circumferential directions (sensors are distributed in circumferential directions U col.9 L.32) tangential to the exterior cylindrical surface at their corresponding sensor locations (sensors with axial Q and circumferential P sensor location measure Mechanical stress from exterior influences caused by, for example, a web break and it is not limited in direction, pressure in the nip 515 must be influenced through one or more power units in order to ensure an essentially uniform pressure or force distribution in the nip 515. the evaluating device 562 additionally determines the location and the magnitude of the influence over the line pressure and provides a corresponding signal to an appropriate power unit).
Claim 5
Kustermann combined with STRANDER and Sakakura teaches the smart roller of claim 1 but Kustermann further teaches does not specifically teach wherein each of the at least some of the sensor elements comprises a flexible capacitive sensor for which the sensor output is a capacitance.
STANDER teaches in figs. 1-2 wherein each of the at least some of the sensor elements (2) comprises a flexible capacitive sensor (2) for which the sensor output is a capacitance (e.g., Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use STANDER’s capacitance sensor for the modified Kustermann’s roller wherein each of the at least some of the sensor elements comprises a flexible capacitive sensor for which the sensor output is a capacitance as taught by STANDER. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use a well-known technology to achieve predictable results for determining force from roller to the conveyor belt (e.g., Abstract of STANDER).
Claim 6
Kustermann in view of STANDER and Sakakura teaches the smart roller according to claim 5, Kustermann teaches sensor array and combined with STANDER further teaches wherein the sensor array comprises an array of inner electrodes (21) and an array of outer electrodes (22), the array of inner electrodes 21 and the array of outer electrodes 22 at least partially overlapping one another and at least some regions of the array of inner electrodes 21 and the array of outer electrodes 22 separated from one another in the radial direction by elastic dielectric material (20) , the elastic dielectric material made up of the elastomeric material of the exterior annular portion (e.g., ¶0035) for the same reason and motivation cited above in claims 5 and 1.
Claim 9
Kustermann in view of STANDER and Sakakura teaches the smart roller according to claim 6, also the modified Kustermann as cited in claim 6 teaches the inner electrodes and outer electrodes corresponding to sensor elements, Kustermann teaches wherein the readout electronics are configured to selectively sample signals (all the sensors are selected therefore broadly is interpreted as readout electronics are configured to selectively sample signals i.e. the claim language permits a selection of all sample signals) corresponding to sensor elements with corresponding circumferential sensor locations (e.g., 554) within a threshold circumferential range in or around the region of contact (the only relevant region for the measurements by Kustermann’s roller is the region of contact and the claim is broadly citing threshold without defining or limiting what it is and even all region or contact region can be interpreted as within a threshold circumferential range in or around the region of contact therefore Kustermann broadly reads on the limitation including for inner electrodes and outer electrodes i.e. there is no actual determination of a threshold recited by the claim, as such Examiner interprets the threshold as some area around the region of contact and since all sample signals have been selected, those within that threshold are inherently as well).
Claim 11
Kustermann in view of Weber teaches the smart roller according to claim 1, Sakakura in fig.5D further teaches plurality of pillars ( elastic pillars formed between gaps 33) are shaped to define gaps 33 on the circumferential and or axial sides of each pillar which provide volumes into which the plurality of pillars deform in response to force applied to the exterior cylindrical surface (function met by elastic material 31,32) based on obviousness for the same motivation as cited above for claim 1.
Claim 12
Kustermann in view of STANDER and Sakakura teaches the smart roller according to claim 11, Sakakura further teaches wherein when a force is applied to the exterior cylindrical surface, the pillars (between gaps 33) and gaps 33 are shaped for the pillars to deform into the gaps without adjacent pillars contacting one another (function met by pillars and gaps of fig.5D) based on obviousness for the same motivation as cited above.
Claim 23
Kustermann in view of STANDER and Sakakura teaches the roller according to claim 1 and combined with STRANDER teaches wherein the sensor array 2 is imbedded in a volume of the exterior annular cylinder portion 12 for the same reason and motivation as cited above for claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Kustermann”, US 6387214 B1 and STANDER”, DE102017223196A1 and Sakakura, S 20230009475 A1 in view of “MOORE”, BR PI0904633 A2.
Claim 4
Kustermann combined with STRANDER and Sakakura teaches the smart roller according to claim 1, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein at least some of the sensor elements generate sensor output that varies with proximity of the target surface to their corresponding sensor locations.
In the similar field of endeavor, MOORE teaches the sensor elements (30/30’) generate sensor output that varies with proximity of the target surface to their corresponding sensor locations (sensor 30 is a proximity sensor using capacitance: See underlined portions on English translation by the office on page 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Moore’ proximity sensor for at least some of Kustermann‘s sensor elements to generate sensor output that varies with proximity of the target surface to their corresponding sensor locations as taught by Moore. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine pressure of roller in different locations(MOORE/ see underlined portion on the English translation).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Kustermann”, US 6387214 B1 in view of “STANDER”, DE102017223196A1 and Sakakura, US 20230009475 A1 and “Weber”, US 20150260871 A1.
Claim 7
Kustermann in view of STANDER and Sakakura teaches the smart roller according to claim 6, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein at least one of the array of inner electrodes and the array of outer electrodes extend around substantially a circumference of a cylindrical axis of the exterior annular cylinder portion.
In the similar field of endeavor, Weber in figs.1-5 teaches wherein at least one of the array of inner electrodes (22) and the array of outer electrodes (18) extend around substantially a circumference of a cylindrical axis 14 of the exterior annular cylinder portion (roller 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Weber’s electrodes for the modified Kustermann’s smart roller wherein at least one of the array of inner electrodes and the array of outer electrodes extend around substantially a circumference of a cylindrical axis of the exterior annular cylinder portion as taught by Weber. One of ordinary skill in the art would know different configuration for electrodes of capacitance sensor and roller and have been motivated to make this modification in order to recognizing an object in roller track (e.g., ¶0010 of Weber).
Claim 8
Kustermann in view of STANDER and Sakakura teaches the smart roller according to claim 6, the combination as cited above does not teach wherein one or more of the inner electrodes and one or more of the outer electrodes extend around substantially a circumference of a cylindrical axis of the exterior annular cylinder portion, Weber teaches wherein one or more of the inner electrodes 22 and one or more of the outer electrodes 18 extend around substantially a circumference of a cylindrical axis 14 of the exterior annular cylinder portion 12.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Weber’s electrodes for the modified Kustermann’s smart roller. One of ordinary skill in the art would know different configuration for electrodes of capacitance sensor and roller and have been motivated to make this modification in order to recognizing an object in roller track (e.g., ¶0010 of Weber).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Kustermann”, US 6387214 B1 in view of “STANDER”, DE102017223196A1 , Sakakura, US 20230009475 A1 further in view of “Breed”, US 20080236275 A1.
Claim 10
Kustermann in view of STANDER and Sakakura teaches the smart roller according to claim 9, Kustermann further teaches wherein the readout electronics are configured to selectively sample inner electrodes and outer electrodes corresponding to sensor elements with corresponding circumferential sensor locations within the threshold circumferential range (as cited above in claim 9 the modified Kustermann broadly reads the limitation), but the combination does not teach by dynamically selecting a subset of inner electrodes and outer electrodes based on at least one of a measurement of the region of contact or an estimation of a location of the region of contact.
In the similar field of endeavor, Breed in e.g., ¶0834/¶0303 teaches by dynamically selecting a subset of (selecting only driver side’s airbag sensor as ON while collision is detected) based on at least one of a measurement of the region or an estimation of a location of the region (location is passenger or driver location, based on measurement of body weight if no passenger exist, in case of collision airbag is OFF for passenger side, only or driver side selected to be ON e.g., ¶0201 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dynamically selecting a subset of inner electrodes and outer electrodes of the modified Kustermann based on at least an estimation of a location of the region of contact which is the only important area for Kustermann’s roller as taught by Breed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to save power and selecting sensor data according to what is determined to be relevant while ignoring other sensor data.
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Kustermann”, US 6387214 B1 in view of STANDER”, DE102017223196A1 and Sakakura , and “Weber”, US 20150260871 A1.
Claim 13
Kustermann combined with STANDER, and Sakakura teaches the smart roller according to claim 1 but the combination does not specifically teach wherein the rigid interior portion comprises a surface defining at least a portion of a compartment and wherein the readout electronics are housed within the compartment.
Weber teaches wherein the rigid interior portion comprises a surface defining at least a portion of a compartment and wherein the readout electronics (30/28) are housed within the compartment (10 ¶0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ’s method of ‘s method. One of ordinary skill in the art would know it can be housed both internally and externally to the roller (¶0034) and have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a more compact device or faster/better data transfer between sensor and processor.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Kustermann”, US 6387214 B1 in view of STANDER”, Sakakura, and DE102017223196A1 and “Gao”, US20140260680A1.
Claim 14
Kustermann combined with STRANDER and Sakakura teaches the smart roller according to claim 1 but the combination does not specifically teach comprising a shaft housing rigidly connectable to or defined by the rigid inner portion to enable a rotary connection to an external shaft.
In the similar field of endeavor, Gao in fig. teaches comprising a shaft housing (not labeled but shown in fig.4) rigidly connectable to or defined by the rigid inner portion to enable a rotary connection to an external shaft (functional language met by the shaft housing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Gao’s shaft housing for Kustermann’s smart roller rigidly connectable to or defined by the rigid inner portion to enable a rotary connection to an external shaft. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to connect the roller to external device depends on the application or for example providing the driving the power to rotate roller.
Claim 15
Kustermann combined with STRANDER and Sakakura teaches the smart roller according to claim 1 Kustermann further teaches wherein the sensor array (554 / 556/558) spans a circumference around cylindrical axis (A) of the exterior annular cylinder portion (552) and an axial dimension of the exterior annular cylinder portion 552 to thereby provide a sensor (554/556/564) over the exterior cylindrical surface of the exterior annular cylinder portion 552, but the combination does not specifically teach, the pressure sensor having a spatial resolution corresponding to a size of the sensor elements.
Gao teaches to thereby provide a spatial pressure sensor (capacitance sensors in fig.5A/2B with electrodes 206/212 and dielectric 208) over the exterior cylindrical surface of the exterior annular cylinder portion 202, the pressure sensor having a spatial resolution corresponding to a size of the sensor elements (e.g., ¶0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Gao’s spatial pressure sensors for Kustermann’s sensor array spans a circumference around cylindrical axis of Kustermann’s exterior annular cylinder portion and an axial dimension of Kustermann’s exterior annular cylinder portion to thereby provide a spatial pressure sensor over the exterior cylindrical surface of the exterior annular cylinder portion, the pressure sensor having a spatial resolution corresponding to a size of the sensor elements. One of ordinary skill in the art would know a higher number of electrodes produces lower capacitance values on each capacitor, resulting in a lower signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio in the measurement and have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the number of electrodes thus may be optimized according to at least these two factors a higher number of electrodes produces lower capacitance values on each capacitor, resulting in a lower signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio in the measurement (Gao e.g., ¶0049).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Kustermann”, US 6387214 B1 in view of STANDER”, DE102017223196A1 and further in view of “Sakakura”, US20230009475A1 and Bao, US 20210278300 A1.
Claim 24
Kustermann in view of STANDER and Sakakura teaches the roller according to claim 1 wherein Sakakura teaches the sensor array comprises an array of inner electrodes 22b,28b and an array of outer electrodes 22a,28a, the array of inner electrodes 22b,28band the array of outer electrodes 22a,28a at least partially overlapping one another (better shown in fig.2) and at least some regions of the array of inner electrodes 22b,28b and the array of outer electrodes 22a,28a separated from one another in the radial direction by the dielectric elastomeric material 31,32 of the sensing annular portion, for the same reason and motivation as cited above the modification with Sakakura does not specifically teach wherein at least one electrode of the array of outer electrodes radially overlaps multiple electrodes of the array of inner electrodes 28b, however, this is obvious over Bao which in Fig.1B teaches at least one electrode 101 of the array of outer electrodes radially overlaps multiple electrodes )107-1, 107-2,107-3, 107-4 of the array of inner electrodes (107 on 104). And It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bao‘s overlapping electrodes for the modified Kustermann‘s roller. One of ordinary skill in the art knows when pressure is applied only capacitor near the pressure point changes would have been motivated to make this modification in order to position of force not only total force, and based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (detecting position of force), is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855