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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/23/23, 04/19/23, 08/22/23, 06/19/25, have been entered in previous office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings/Specification
3. The drawings filed on 11/23/22 are objected because some elements in the specification are not described clearly in drawings. The amended claims filed on 12/23/25 disclosed the limitation “the predetermined measurement path being a complete line length of the second optoelectronic sensor oriented in the conveying direction”, and “a length of the predetermined measurement path”. However, no drawing discloses “complete line length of the second optoelectronic sensor”, and “a length of the predetermined measurement path”. Where/what is “a complete line length of the second optoelectronic sensor”? Where/what is “a length of the predetermined measurement path? In the other words, “complete line length of the second optoelectronic sensor”, and “a length of the predetermined measurement path” must be disclosed clearly in the drawings.
Further, the drawings must disclose clearly the following elements: the first object edge, the second second object edge of the conveyed object 13, the first optoelectronic sensor, the second optoelectronic sensor, the first measurement position, a second measurement position.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-19 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.
The current specification and current amended claims do not explain/disclose appropriately how to determine a transit time, and how to determine an object speed based on the transit time and a length of the predetermined measurement path.
According to basic physic law, if an object moving with a predetermined constant speed (Speed), then the length of the object (Length) is equal the time difference (Time Difference) multiply with the speed (Speed): Length = Time Difference * Speed.
Wherein, according to current specification, the Time Difference must be the time detected between the detection of the first object edge and the detection the second object edge, and it must be detected at the same measurement position of the same sensor.
For example, the following figure, Time Difference is the time detected between the detection of the first edge and the second edge, and detected by the same measurement position of the same sensor 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
238
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the claims 1, 15, 16, disclosed: (iii) determining a time difference between the detection of the first object edge at the first measurement position and the detection of the first or second object edge … (vi) determining a length of the object is determined based on the determined time difference and the determined object speed. This limitation is unclear. In the other words, determining a time difference cannot be detected between the detection of the first object edge at the first measurement position and the detection of the same first object edge.
Appropriate correction is required.
Moreover, according to basic physic law, if an object moving with a predetermined constant speed, the moving speed of the object (Speed) is equal length of the predetermined measurement path (Path Length) divided by Transit Time of the object (Transit Time): Speed = Path Length / Transit Time.
Wherein, the Transit Time is the time in which the same object edge of the conveyed object, passing through the first measurement position of the first sensor and the second measurement position of the second sensor, through a predetermined measurement Path Length. And the first sensor is space apart from the second sensor, and both sensors are in conveying direction.
For example, the following figure, the Transit Time must be the time in which the same First Edge of the conveyed object passing through the first measurement position of the first sensor 22, and the same First Edge of the conveyed object passing through the second measurement position of the second sensor 23, through a predetermined measurement Path Length, with a predetermined constant speed.
PNG
media_image2.png
290
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, current claims 1, 15, 16, disclosed (iv) determining a transit time in which the object edge detected in step (ii) moves through a predetermined measurement path of the second optoelectronic sensor extending in the conveying direction, the predetermined measurement path being a complete line length of the second optoelectronic sensor oriented in the conveying direction. This limitation is unclear. Determining a transit time can be done only by detected the same object edge, and the object edge must be moved through a length of the predetermined measurement path of positions of two different sensors located at different positions, (a length of the predetermined measurement path of positions between the first sensor and the second sensor).
Moreover, according to above Claim/Specification Objection, limitations “complete line length of the second optoelectronic sensor”, and “a length of the predetermined measurement path” (Length Path), have not been defined in the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieffenbacher (DE 102019100661 A1). Hereafter “Dieffenbacher”. (Please see the Foreign Reference files submitted by Applicant’s IDS for Dieffenbacher’s reference).
Regarding claim 1, Dieffenbacher discloses a method of measuring objects that are conveyed in a conveying direction by means of an object conveyor (system/method includes a conveyor and at least one measurement device, paragraph [0001]), comprising
(i). detecting a first object edge of a conveyed object at a first measurement position by means of a first optoelectronic sensor, (figures 2-4, detecting a first object edge 36 of a conveyed object 12 at a first measurement position of a first detection unit 26a. Detecting first object edge 36 has the Entry signal 44a detected by the first detection unit 26a. Note: the first Registration unit 26a comprising of first sender 28 and first Recipient 30, the first Registration unit 26a is not different from an optoelectronic sensor),
(ii). detecting the first object edge or a second object edge of the conveyed object at a second measurement position by means of a second optoelectronic sensor that is spatially resolving at least in the conveying direction, the second measurement position being spaced apart from the first measurement position in the conveying direction, (the figures 2-4, detecting a first object edge 36 or a second object edge 38 of a conveyed object 12 at a second measurement position of a second Registration unit 26b. Detecting first object edge 36 has the Entry signal 44b, and second object edge 38 has the Exit signal 46b, by the second Registration unit 26b. Note: the second Registration unit 26b comprising of second Sender 28 and second Recipient 30, the second Registration unit 26b is not different from an optoelectronic sensor),
(iii). determining a time difference between the detection of the first object edge at the first measurement position and the detection of the first or second object edge detected in step (ii) at the second measurement position, ([0083-0089]; figures 3, 4, it is inherent that Time Difference is the time difference between t(ein, a) and t(aus, a), Time Difference = t(aus, a) - t(ein, a). Please see Claim Objection and 112 Rejection in paragraphs 3-5 above),
(iv). determining a transit time in which the object edge detected in step (ii) moves through a predetermined measurement path of the second optoelectronic sensor extending in the conveying direction, the predetermined measurement path being a complete line length of the second optoelectronic sensor oriented in the conveying direction, ([0083-0089]; figures 3, 4, a transit time is the time difference between t(ein, a) and t(ein, b), Transit Time = t(ein, b) - t(ein, a), Please see Claim Objection and 112 Rejection in paragraphs 3-5 above),
(v). determining an object speed at which the conveyed object moves in the conveying direction based on the transit time and a length of the predetermined measurement path ([0049- 0051; 0083-0089]; Figures 2-4. Note: it is inherent that the formular Speed = Path Length / Transit Time is just a basic physic formular to calculate the speed of an object moving in a constant speed with Path length and Transit Time. Please see Claim Objection and 112 Rejection in paragraphs 3-5 above), and
(vi). determining a length of the object based on the determined time difference and the determined object speed ([0045; 0083-0089], Time Difference is the time interval between exit signal, t(aus, a), and entry signal, t(ein, a); Figures 2-4, it is inherent that Time Difference is equal to t(aus, a) - t(ein, a). Note: it is inherent that the formular Length = Time Difference * Speed is just a basic physic formular to calculate the length of an object moving in a constant speed with Time Difference and Speed. Please see Claim Objection and 112 Rejection in paragraphs 3-5 above).
Regarding claim 2, Dieffenbacher discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for detecting a rear edge of the conveyed object is detected at the first measurement position and/or, detecting a front edge of the conveyed object is detected at the second measurement position. Dieffenbacher further discloses for detecting a rear edge of the conveyed object is detected at the first measurement position, and/or, detecting a front edge of the conveyed object is detected at the second measurement position, (figures 2-4, signal 46a at time t(aus, a) is detected at a rear edge 38 of the conveyed object 12).
Regarding claim 5, Dieffenbacher discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for determining the length of the object is further determined based on the distance between the first measurement position and the second measurement position. Dieffenbacher further discloses determining the length of the object is further determined based on the distance between the first measurement position and the second measurement position (figures 2-4, length of the object 12 is further determined based on the distance between the first measurement position registration unit 26a and the second measurement position of the second registration unit 26b).
Regarding claim 7, Dieffenbacher discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the first object edge is detected at the first measurement position by means of a light barrier. Dieffenbacher further discloses the first object edge is detected at the first measurement position by means of a light barrier, (figures 2-4, the first object edge 36 is detected at the first registration unit 26a by means of a first Registration unit 26a. Figures 3-4 indicate that entry signal 44a from sender 28 of Registration unit 26a is blocked. Registration unit 26a is not different from light barrier. Further, if light barrier contains a specific meaning, a definition of light barrier must be disclosed clearly in the claims in order to be considered).
Regarding claim 8, Dieffenbacher discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the object edge to be detected in step (ii) is detected at the second measurement position by means of a line sensor. Dieffenbacher further discloses the object edge is detected at the second measurement position by means of a line sensor (figures 2-4, the object edge 36, 38, is detected at the second measurement position by means of Registration unit 26b. Registration unit 26b is not different from a line sensor at the second measurement position. Further, if line sensor contains a specific meaning, a definition of line sensor must be disclosed clearly in the claims in order to be considered).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
11. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
12. Claims 12, 15, 16, 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieffenbacher (DE 102019100661 A1) in view of Sirkett (US 20180250810 A1). Hereafter, “Dieffenbacher”, “Sirkett”.
Regarding claim 12, Dieffenbacher discloses a method of measuring objects that are conveyed in a conveying direction by means of an object conveyor (system/method includes a conveyor and at least one measurement device, paragraph [0001]), comprising
(a) detecting an object edge of a conveyed object at an inspection position by means of an optoelectronic sensor, (figures 2-4, detecting an object edge 36 of a conveyed object 12 at an inspection position of a Registration unit 26a. Note: Registration unit 26a comprising of first sender 28 and first Recipient 30, the Registration unit 26a is not different from an optoelectronic sensor),
(b) on the detection of the object edge at the inspection position, outputting a signal to at least two further optoelectronic sensors that are spatially resolving at least in the conveying direction and that are arranged spaced apart from one another at least transversely to the conveying direction, (figures 2-4, on the detection of the object edge 36 of Registration unit 26a, outputting signal 44a to at least two further Registration units 26b, 26c. The Registration unit 26b, 26c are not different from optoelectronic sensors),
(c) on or after the reception of the signal, reading out sensor data of the optoelectronic sensors that are spatially resolving at least in the conveying direction, (figures 2-4, signal 44a is not different from the reception of the signal, Registration units 26a, 26b, 26c are not different from optoelectronic sensors, conveying direction 22),
(d) determining respective positions of the object edge based on the read-out sensor data, (figures 2-4, positions of the object edge 36, 38, based on the read-out sensor data 44a, 46a), and
(e) determining an orientation of the object edge relative to the conveying direction based on the determined positions of the object edge, (figures 2-4, orientation of the object edge 36, 38, relative to the conveying direction 22 based on the determined positions of the object edges 36, 38),
(Note: orientation is not different from position, situation, location. www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/orientation),
wherein, in step (b), the signal is further output to an optoelectronic sensor that is spatially resolving at least transversely to the conveying direction and that is arranged in the region of a side edge of the conveyed object, wherein the position of the side edge is determined by means of the optoelectronic sensor that is spatially resolving at least transversely to the conveying direction and an orientation and a shape of the object are determined based on the position of the side edge, ([0009-0010, 0054]; figures 2-4, three Registration Units 26a-c and evaluation device 34 spatially resolve at least transversely to the conveying direction 22 and that is arranged in the region of a side edge of the conveyed object 12, and the position of the side edge 36, 38, is determined by means of the optoelectronic sensor, Registration Units 26a-c).
However, Dieffenbacher does not teach trigger signal. Sirkett teaches trigger signal ([0014]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Dieffenbacher by having trigger signal in order to inform components are placed on the inspection position, ([0014]).
Regarding claim 15, Dieffenbacher and Sirkett disclose all the limitations of claim 12 as stated above except for steps (i) to (vi). Dieffenbacher further discloses steps (i) to (vi) as in claim 1, (please see rejection of claim 1 in paragraph 7 above).
Regarding claims 16, Dieffenbacher discloses an apparatus for measuring objects that are conveyed in a conveying direction by means of an object conveyor (figures 1, 2, measuring device 16, object 12, object conveyor 18), said apparatus comprising a first optoelectronic sensor, a second optoelectronic sensor that is spatially resolving at least in the conveying direction (figure 2, Registration unit 26a is not different from a first optoelectronic sensor, Registration unit 26b, is not different from a second optoelectronic sensor), and an electronic control device that is in signal connection with the first optoelectronic sensor and the second optoelectronic sensor (figure 2, evaluation device 34 is not different from an electronic control device that is in signal connection with the first optoelectronic sensor 26a and the second optoelectronic sensor 26b).
Dieffenbacher also discloses a method of measuring objects that are conveyed in a conveying direction by means of an object conveyor including steps (i) to step (vi) as in claim 1, (please see the rejection of claim 1 in paragraph 7 above).
However, Dieffenbacher does not teach trigger signal. Sirkett teaches trigger signal ([0014]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Dieffenbacher by having trigger signal in order to inform components are placed on the inspection position, ([0014]).
Moreover, the term “and/or wherein” could be interpreted as “[and/]or wherein”. In OR conditional sentence, if the first condition is TRUE, the second condition after OR could be ignored, and the whole sentence is still TRUE. Therefore, after the conditional term “[and/]or wherein” all conditions (a) to (e) could be ignored, and the whole sentence is still TRUE.
Regarding claim 19, Dieffenbacher and Sirkett disclose all the limitations of claim 16 as stated above except for at least one further optoelectronic sensor that is spatially resolving at least in the conveying direction and that is spaced apart from the second optoelectronic sensor in the conveying direction, and - at least two optoelectronic sensors that are spatially resolving at least transversely to the conveying direction and that are spaced apart from one another transversely to the conveying direction. Dieffenbacher also teaches at least one further optoelectronic sensor that is spatially resolving at least in the conveying direction and that is spaced apart from the second optoelectronic sensor in the conveying direction, (figure 2, Registration Unit 26a is not different from one further optoelectronic sensor spaced apart from the second optoelectronic sensor 26b), and at least two optoelectronic sensors that are spatially resolving at least transversely to the conveying direction and that are spaced apart from one another transversely to the conveying direction, (figure 2, Registration Unit 26a, 26c are not different from two further optoelectronic sensors spaced apart from the second optoelectronic sensor 26b).
13. Claims 3, 4, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieffenbacher (DE 102019100661 A1) in view of Sirkett (US 20180250810 A1), further in view of Brown (US 5563392 A). Hereafter, “Dieffenbacher”, “Sirkett”, “Brown”.
Regarding claim 3, Dieffenbacher discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for a trigger signal being output by the first optoelectronic sensor to the second optoelectronic sensor on the detection of the first object edge at the first measurement position, said trigger signal initiating an internal clock of the second optoelectronic sensor. Dieffenbacher also discloses signal being output by the first optoelectronic sensor to the second optoelectronic sensor on the detection of the first object edge at the first measurement position (figures 2-4, signals 44a-c, and 46a-c output from Registration Units 26a-c).
However, Dieffenbacher does not teach trigger signal. Sirkett teaches trigger signal ([0014]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Dieffenbacher by having trigger signal in order to inform components are placed on the inspection position, ([0014]).
Dieffenbacher in view of Sirkett discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for an internal clock. Brown teaches an internal clock (column 5, lines 33-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Dieffenbacher and Sirkett with the use of a clock to measure a time interval of Brown. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of understanding that a clock could be used to measure the amount of time between events and that the use of a clock would have resulted in nothing more than the predictable result of determining a time interval between the events (see MPEP 2143 (I) (B)).
Regarding claim 4, Dieffenbacher, Sirkett, Brown discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 3, as stated above except for the time difference is determined based on the cycles of the internal clock that have elapsed until the detection of the object edge detected in step (ii) at the second measurement position. Brown, in the field of monitoring a moving chain in a conveyor system, teaches a method for measuring the distance between successive links in a chain using a first and second sensor spaced at a predetermined distance wherein the time difference is determined based on the cycles of the clock that have elapsed (clock pulse counters for each sensor begins to increment or count based on the state of the sensor, column 5, lines 33-40, 63-65, these count values are used to determine a time interval).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Dieffenbacher, Sirkett, with the time difference determined based on the cycles of the clock of Brown. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of understanding that a clock could be used to measure the amount of time between events and that the use of a clock would have resulted in nothing more than the predictable result of determining a time interval between the events (see MPEP 2143 (I) (B)).
14. Claim 6, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieffenbacher (DE 102019100661 A1) in view of Wolf (US 20220307817). Hereafter, “Dieffenbacher”, “Wolf”.
Regarding claim 6, Dieffenbacher discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 5, as stated above except for the calibration, an object of a known length is conveyed and the distance between the first measurement position and the second measurement position is determined or adapted based on the known length. Wolf, in the field of measuring links in a moving chain to monitor wear, teaches a method for setting up a two sensor monitoring system wherein, for the calibration, an object of known length is used and the distance between the first measurement position and the second measurement position is determined or adapted based on the known length (the first sensor system is positioned relative to a calibration object, the second sensor system is positioned relative to a calibration object, both sensor systems are thus aligned and positioned using a calibration object in such a way that they are at a defined distance from one another, paragraph [0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Dieffenbacher with the use of an object of known length to adapt the distance between the first and second measurement positions of Wolf for the benefit of providing a reproducible distance between the two sensor systems (paragraph [0010], Wolf).
While Wolf does not specifically teach the calibration object being conveyed, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Dieffenbacher in view of Wolf with the calibration object being conveyed into the measurement and that this conveying would be automating the manual activity of placing the calibration object within the device (see MPEP 2144.04 (III)).
15. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieffenbacher (DE 102019100661 A1) in view of Ikemoto (US 20190238702). Hereafter, “Dieffenbacher”, “Ikemoto”.
Regarding claim 9, Dieffenbacher discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for position markings of a reference scale, which is separate from the base frame, are detected by means of at least one further optoelectronic sensor, which is fastened together with the first and the second optoelectronic sensor to a base frame of the object conveyor, and are considered in the determination of the length of the object. Dieffenbacher further discloses optoelectronic sensor (laser distance measurement, paragraph [0072]), which is fastened together with the first and the second optoelectronic sensor to a base frame of the object conveyor (the spatial distance S1 can be measured using a laser distance measurement, paragraph [0072], S1 is the distance between the two measurement regions, figure 2, for a laser distance to measure the distance between the two measurement regions it would have to be connected to at least one of the regions), and the measurement made by the sensor being used in the determination of the length of the object (at least one dimension of the plate is determined based from a time interval between two detection signals and a spatial distance between the detection areas, paragraph [0043], the dimension can be the length of the plate, paragraph [0007]) (Dieffenbacher also discloses that alternative methods of determining the distance S1 can be used, paragraph [0072]).
Ikemoto, in the same field of determining the position of a conveyed object, teaches a method of determining the position of an object in a conveying system (the reading device reads the conveyance position of a medium, paragraph [0057]), wherein position markings of a reference scale (reference member 202, figure 1, reference member contains marks M which are reference lines, figure 2 ), which is separate from the base frame (figure 1 shows reference member 202 as a separate element), are detected by means of at least one further optoelectronic sensor (reading device 201, can be an image sensor, reads the position of reference member 202, paragraph [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Dieffenbacher with use of the reference member and reading device of Ikemoto to determine the distance S1 for the benefit of the correcting the position of the reading device (paragraph [0067], Ikemoto).
Regarding claim 10, Dieffenbacher in view of Ikemoto disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 9, as stated above except for the reference scale comprises a bar which extends in the conveying direction, which is composed of a material having a low coefficient of expansion, and to which the position markings are applied. Ikemoto, in the same field of determining the position of a conveyed object, teaches a method of determining the position of an object in a conveying system (the reading device reads the conveyance position of a medium, paragraph [0057]), wherein the reference scale comprises a bar which extends in the conveying direction (figure 1 shows reference member 202 extending in the direction of the conveyor), which is composed of a material having a low coefficient of expansion (the position reference member is made of a material that has a lower expansion coefficient than the substrate of the reading device, paragraph [0068]), and to which the position markings are applied (reference member 202 has marks M on it, figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Dieffenbacher with use of the reference member and reading device of Ikemoto to determine the distance S1 for the benefit of the correcting the position of the reading device (paragraph [0067], Ikemoto).
16. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieffenbacher (DE 102019100661 A1) in view of Ikemoto (US 20190238702), further view of Dempsey (US 5019111 A). Hereafter, “Dieffenbacher”, “Ikemoto”, “Dempsey”.
Regarding claim 11, Dieffenbacher in view of Ikemoto disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 9, as stated above except for the reference scale is floatingly supported. Dempsey, in the field of support structures for floating panels, teaches a floating support (panels are free-floating on their support structure, abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Deiffenbacher in view of Ikemoto with the reference scale being floatingly supported for the benefit of avoiding distortion with changes in temperature (abstract, Dempsey).
17. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieffenbacher (DE 102019100661 A1) in view of Sirkett (US 20180250810 A1), further view of Dekel (US 20040002642). Hereafter, “Dieffenbacher”, “Sirkett”, “Dekel”.
Regarding claim 13, Dieffenbacher in view of Sirkett disclose all the limitations of claim 12 as stated above except for the orientation of the object edge relative to the conveying direction is determined by means of a linear regression. Dieffenbacher does disclose the orientation of the object edge relative to the conveying direction being determined (an orientation of the front edge or rear edge of the plate relative to the conveying direction can be determined, paragraph [0092], angle Y is found using the two measured entry points 48d and 48e using trigonometric methods, figure 5 paragraphs [0092-0093]). Dekel, in the field of tracking the orientation of an object with optical sensors, teaches a pose tracking method wherein the orientation of an object is determined by means of linear regression (linear regression is performed on the set of edge locations, paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Dieffenbacher with the use of linear regression of Dekel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of substituting the trigonometric method of determining an angle of a line with the use of linear regression to find the line as described by Dekel, and that this substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of producing a line equation (see MPEP 2143 (I) (B)).
18. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieffenbacher (DE 102019100661 A1) in view of Sirkett (US 20180250810 A1), further in view of Send (US 20210302617). Hereafter, “Dieffenbacher”, “Sirkett”, “Send”.
Regarding claim 17, Dieffenbacher in view of Sirkett disclose all the limitations of claim 16 as stated above except for at least one reflector is, with respect to the conveyed object, arranged opposite the first optoelectronic sensor and/or the second optoelectronic sensor at the object conveyor. Dieffenbacher does disclose a receiver opposite a transmitter with respect to the conveyed object (transmitter 28 and receiver 30, figure 2). Send, in the field of using light curtains to monitor a detection area, teaches a light barrier with a sender and a receiver wherein a reflector is used to reflect the light beam back to the receiver unit (reflective target 159, figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Dieffenbacher, Sirkett, with the reflector of Send for the benefit of allowing the sender unit and receiving unit to be arranged at the same location (paragraph [0014], Send).
19. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieffenbacher (DE 102019100661 A1) in view of Sirkett (US 20180250810 A1), further in view of Wincor (DE 202011052022). Hereafter, “Dieffenbacher”, “Sirkett”, “Wincor”.
Regarding claim 18, Dieffenbacher in view of Sirkett disclose all the limitations of claim 16 as stated above except for the first optoelectronic sensor and the second optoelectronic sensor have respective optical axes that are oriented obliquely upwardly or obliquely downwardly. Dieffenbacher does disclose the optical axis of the sensors being oriented vertically (figure 2). Wincor, in the field of using light barriers with a conveyor unit, teaches an apparatus for measuring objects on a conveyor wherein an optoelectronic sensor has an optical axis that is oriented obliquely upwardly or downwardly (light barrier 62 has an optical axis that is obliquely upward or downward, figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Dieffenbacher with the optical sensors being oriented obliquely upwardly or downwardly of Wincor for the benefit of aiding in the determination of the thickness of the object (paragraph [0009], Wincor).
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. 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.
July 30, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights