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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 12, the phrase “wherein the load sensor is disposed with a scanner of the POS system to perform dual scanner and scale functions to enable an object positioned on a surface of the scanner scale to be contemporaneously scanned and weighed”, it is not understood how the scanner and scale operate together, as well as if the load sensor is a separate element from the scale or the scanner, or whether the scale and scanner are one device that also includes the load sensor within it. Applicant mentions this feature at paragraph 55, for example, but still it is unclear as to how the load cell and the scanner and scale operate and what the structure is that defines their relationship with each other. Nowhere in Applicant’s specification and disclosure does it mention or illustrate these features expressed as recited in Claim 12. For example, figure 1a shows conveyor (110a) separate from scanner (114). Figure 1b shows a conveyor (107b, 110b) with load sensor (119) connected to load receiver plate (121), but does not illustrate a scanner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al (US 2016/0355352 A1) in view of Fourney (US 2014/0216894 A1), further in view of Keraly et al (US 2020/0306986 A1) and further in view of Hayzen et al (US 2021/0124345 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jones teaches
a point of sale system, i.e., POS terminal system (100, 150) as mentioned at paragraph 20 and as illustrated at figures 1a and 1b, having a conveyor apparatus that includes a conveyor belt, i.e., endless belt (105), having a conveying surface, a conveyor motor, i.e., drive motor (130), as illustrated in figures 1a and 1b and as mentioned at paragraph 20, operable to advance the conveyor belt (105) so that an object, i.e., item (125), placed on the conveying surface is conveyed along a path from a first end to a second end of the conveying surface, as illustrated in figures 1a and 1b, for example.
Regarding Claim 1, Jones does not expressly teach
a method, comprising:
by a point of sale (POS) system having a conveyor apparatus that includes a conveyor belt having a conveying surface, a conveyor motor operable to advance the conveyor belt so that an object placed on the conveying surface is conveyed along a path from a first end to a second end of the conveying surface, and a load sensor disposed in the POS system and operable to measure a load, with the POS system also having processing circuitry operationally coupled to the conveyor motor and the load sensor,
receiving, by the processing circuitry, from the load sensor, a load measurement signal that includes a mechanical noise signal associated with operation of the conveyor apparatus while the conveyor motor is activated to advance the conveyor belt so as to determine that the conveyor apparatus is operable or inoperable based on the mechanical noise signal.
Regarding Claim 1, Jones does not expressly teach, but Fourney teaches
a method, comprising:
by a point of sale (POS) system having a conveyor apparatus that includes a conveyor belt (10), as illustrated in figure 2, having a conveying surface, a conveyor motor, i.e., drive motor (40), as illustrated in figures 1-4 and as mentioned at paragraph 12, operable to advance the conveyor belt (10) so that an object, i.e., item (82), placed on the conveying surface is conveyed along a path from a first end to a second end of the conveying surface, as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, and a load sensor, i.e., load cell (20), as mentioned at paragraph 11, disposed in the POS system and operable to measure a load, as illustrated in figures 1-4, with the POS system also having processing circuitry, i.e., remote controller (60), as mentioned at paragraphs 13-15, operationally coupled to the conveyor motor (40) and the load sensor (20).
Regarding Claim 1, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a method, comprising:
by a point of sale (POS) system having a conveyor apparatus that includes a conveyor belt, having a conveying surface, a conveyor motor operable to advance the conveyor belt so that an object placed on the conveying surface is conveyed along a path from a first end to a second end of the conveying surface, and a load sensor disposed in the POS system and operable to measure a load, with the POS system also having processing circuitry and the load sensor, as taught by Fourney, in Jones’ POS system for the purpose of measuring a load from articles on the conveyor of the POS system.
Regarding Claim 1, Fourney does not expressly teach a load cell/sensor that senses both static forces and dynamic vibration forces.
Regarding Claim 1, Fourney does not expressly teach, but Keraly teaches a load cell/sensor, i.e., pressure/load sensors (125-1 to 125-6) that senses both static forces, interpreted as pressure forces, and dynamic vibration forces, i.e., interpreted as vibration force values, as mentioned at paragraph 47, which states as follows.
[0047] Sensor board 120B and processing board 130B also differ somewhat from corresponding circuits of apparatus 100A to facilitate detection/measurement of high/low pressure wave fronts generated by encapsulating layer 150B. Sensor board 120B is similar to sensor board 120A in that pressure sensors 125-1 to 125-6 of pressure sensor array 124B are configured to measure static pressure sensor data values as described above, but differs in that pressure sensors 125-1 to 125-6 are also configured to measure vibration force values in accordance with the generation of high/low pressure wave fronts by encapsulating layer 150B in response to slipping-type displacement of target object 90. Similarly, processing circuit 130B differs from processing circuit 130A in that it is configured to generate tactile information TI using both the static pressure force values and the vibration force values (collectively referred to as pressure/vibration PV values). For brevity and to simplify the following description, both the static pressure sensor data values and the vibration force values are described using binary-one and binary-zero values. For example, as indicated in FIG. 5A, pressure/vibration value PV-1, which is generated by ADC circuit 126B based on corresponding analog data values generated by pressure sensor 125-1, is indicated by “00”, where the first binary-zero value is the pressure sensor data value and the second binary-zero value is the vibration force value. Those skilled in the art will recognize that, in practical applications, the static pressure and vibration force values can be represented by other numeric scales and can be time variant.
Emphasis provided.
Regarding Claim 1, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a load cell/sensor that senses both static forces and dynamic vibration forces, as taught by Keraly, in Jones’ POS system for the purpose of measuring both static loads from articles on the conveyor of the POS system as well as dynamic vibratory forces.
Regarding Claim 1, Jones does not expressly teach
receiving, by the processing circuitry, from the load sensor, a load measurement signal that includes a mechanical noise signal associated with operation of the conveyor apparatus while the conveyor motor is activated to advance the conveyor belt so as to determine that the conveyor apparatus is operable or inoperable based on the mechanical noise signal.
Regarding Claim 1, Jones does not expressly teach, but Hayzen teaches
receiving, by the processing circuitry, i.e., central analyzer (42), as mentioned at paragraph 20, from the load sensor, i.e., sensors (20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 102), as mentioned at paragraph 17, a load measurement signal, as mentioned at paragraph 18, i.e., “”[t]he sensors described above could be analog sensors, but preferably all of the sensors are smart sensors including analog sensors, analog signal preprocessing, amplification, filtering and analog-to-digital conversion” and “[t]hus, each of the smart sensors transmits a digital sensor signal while pure analog sensors transmit analog signals”, that includes a mechanical noise signal, i.e., interpreted as a static force data signal, associated with operation of the conveyor apparatus, i.e., machine (12), as illustrated in figure 1, while the conveyor motor (12) is activated to advance the conveyor belt, as taught by Fourney, so as to determine that the conveyor apparatus is operable or inoperable based on the mechanical noise signal, i.e., interpreted as the static force data signal, noting that paragraphs 9, 25 and 26, which mention as follows.
[0009] The analyzer may also run an analysis cycle during which the measured machine values are evaluated against the stored measurement configurations, and one or more current operating conditions of each machine is determined by this evaluating step. The analyzer issues signals as to the operating condition of the machines based upon the current operating conditions as determined above. For example, the analyzer may determine the maximum amplitude of vibration within a specified frequency band, and it will compare it to a stored alert level in the predictive maintenance database for that particular frequency band. If the determined maximum amplitude exceeds the alert level, the analyzer will issue an alert signal indicating that the operating condition of the machine is one of “alert”.
[0025] One function of the central analyzer 42 is the creation and maintenance of a predictive maintenance database that stores data indicating the performance and operating characteristics of the machines. This data is continuously analyzed to predict future faults so that maintenance can be performed hopefully before a catastrophic fault occurs. Thus, the central analyzer 42 will issue alert signals to indicate that certain operating conditions are unusual and may need attention, and it may also issue alert signals indicating that an operating condition is unusual and needs urgent attention.
[0026] In addition to performing its usual functions, the central analyzer 42 continuously improves both the machine information and the measurement configurations as data is collected. This continuous improvement begins when data is either stored periodically from the portable analyzer as analyzer 44 or is continuously provided from wired and wireless devices as sensors 20, 21, 22, 24 and 26. How the data should be acquired is dependent on the characteristics of the machines being monitored and specified by the machine information. This machine information is provided to the portable analyzer 44, the data collector 34 and to the sensors by the central analyzer 42, and the user initially creates the machine information. Likewise, the user initially provides the machine information to the central analyzer.
Emphasis provided.
Regarding Claim 1, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided receiving, by the processing circuitry, from the load sensor, a load measurement signal that includes a mechanical noise signal associated with operation of the conveyor apparatus while the conveyor motor is activated to advance the conveyor belt so as to determine that the conveyor apparatus is operable or inoperable based on the mechanical noise signal, as taught by Hayzen, in Jones’ POS system for the purpose of using sensor data from the load sensors as taught by Fourney, including both static forces and dynamic vibratory forces as taught by Keraly, to determine and predict if the conveyor of the POS system is inoperable or not.
Regarding Claim 2, Jones does not expressly teach further comprising:
determining that the conveyor apparatus is inoperable based on the mechanical noise signal.
Regarding Claim 2, Jones does not expressly teach, but Hayzen teaches further comprising:
determining that the conveyor apparatus is inoperable based on the mechanical noise signal, as mentioned at paragraphs 9, 25 and 26.
Regarding Claim 3, Jones does not expressly teach further comprising:
deactivating the conveyor motor responsive to determining that the conveyor apparatus is inoperable.
Regarding Claim 3, Jones does not expressly teach, but Hayzen teaches further comprising:
deactivating the conveyor motor responsive to determining that the conveyor apparatus is inoperable, as mentioned at paragraph 39, which states as follows.
[0039] Returning to box 118, the analyzer performs two operations in parallel after it calculates the measured machine values. In addition to evaluating machine information and measurement configurations, it performs the normal tasks of analyzing the data (measured machine values) for alerts as indicated at box 132. As indicated box 134, the analyzer also detects machine faults using various analysis rules or by using a software analysis assistant. The types of faults that may be detected depend upon the initial measurement configuration and include faults in bearings, motors, gears, pumps, fans, belts, lubrication, TSI and similar equipment components. Likewise, the analyzer 42 detects misalignment and unbalance. When faults are detected, they are posted to the user as indicated at box 136 and the user may act upon the faults as desired. Alternatively, rules may be utilized at box 136 to automatically issue commands depending on the type and severity of the fault. For example, in the case of a severe fault indicating imminent failure of the machine, a shutdown command could be issue. In the case of a severe but lesser fault, an automatic alert could be issued. The processes represented by boxes 132-136 represent an analysis cycle, and the processes represented by boxes 120-130 represent an improvement cycle. These two cycles occur in parallel, meaning that they are independent and neither will interfere with the other. In this embodiment both cycles run each time data is received from sensors on a machine, and thus they occur concurrently at the approximately the same time with neither cycle waiting on the other. In other embodiments either cycle could be delayed. For example, the improvement cycle may be delayed to allow the analysis cycle to complete as fast as possible and then the improvement cycle may be run immediately after the analysis cycle. In other embodiments, the improvement cycles for a group of machines could be further delayed to allow analysis cycles for the group of machines to run before the improvement cycles are allowed to run.
Emphasis provided.
Regarding Claim 4, Jones does not expressly teach, further comprising:
outputting, for display, a visual representation that indicates that the conveyor apparatus is inoperable.
Regarding Claim 4, Jones does not expressly teach, but Hayzen teaches, further comprising:
outputting, for display, a visual representation that indicates that the conveyor apparatus is inoperable, noting that paragraphs 20, third sentence mentions central analyzer (42) outputs data to a display screen, as well as at paragraph 4, mentioning in the last sentence that “[i]n some instances, however, certain recommendations are automatically accepted and acted upon, and information is displayed on the updated dashboard 142 that identifies the type and severity of the fault and the action that was taken”.
Regarding Claim 6, Jones does not expressly teach further comprising:
processing the load measurement signal to obtain the mechanical noise signal associated with the operation of the conveyor apparatus.
Regarding Claim 6, Jones does not expressly teach, but Hayzen teaches further comprising:
processing the load measurement signal, i.e., via “collection information filters that will be imposed on the measurements” and “band pass filters” as mentioned at paragraph 7, last sentence and paragraph 22, third sentence, to obtain the mechanical noise signal associated with the operation of the conveyor apparatus.
Regarding Claim 7, Jones does not expressly teach wherein the processing step further includes:
filtering, by a filter, the load measurement signal to obtain the mechanical noise signal.
Regarding Claim 7, Jones does not expressly teach, but Hayzen teaches wherein the processing step further includes:
filtering, by a filter, the load measurement signal to obtain the mechanical noise signal, i.e., via “collection information filters that will be imposed on the measurements” and “band pass filters” as mentioned at paragraph 7, last sentence and paragraph 22, third sentence.
Regarding Claim 11, Jones does not expressly teach wherein the load sensor is disposed below a certain region of the conveying surface of the conveyor belt at a position that enables the load sensor to measure a force applied normal to the certain region of the conveying surface such as caused by an object conveyed into that certain region; and
wherein the load measurement signal includes a signal associated with a force applied normal to the certain region of the conveying surface while the conveyor motor is activated to advance the conveyor belt.
Regarding Claim 11, Jones does not expressly teach, but Fourney teaches wherein the load sensor (20) is disposed below a certain region of the conveying surface (24) of the conveyor belt (10) at a position that enables the load sensor (20) to measure a force applied normal to the certain region of the conveying surface (24) such as caused by an object, i.e., item/article marked with identifying indicia/bar code (82), as mentioned at paragraph 15, conveyed into that certain region; and
wherein the load measurement signal (47) includes a signal associated with a force applied normal to the certain region of the conveying surface (24) while the conveyor motor (40) is activated to advance the conveyor belt (10), as mentioned at abstract, second sentence, i.e., “[a] conveyor belt includes an array of load cells embedded in belt modules to measure forces normal to the belt's conveying surface”, as well as mentioned at paragraphs 3-5 and 11.
Regarding Claim 12, Jones does not expressly teach wherein the load sensor is disposed with a scanner of the POS system to perform dual scanner and scale functions to enable an object positioned on a surface of the scanner scale to be contemporaneously scanned and weighed, with the load sensor being operable to measure a force applied normal to the surface of the scanner scale such as caused by an object positioned on that surface.
Regarding Claim 12, Jones does not expressly teach, but Fourney teaches wherein the load sensor (20) is disposed with a scanner, i.e., camera (76) and barcode reader (84), as illustrated in figures 2 and 4, of the POS system (30) to perform dual scanner and scale functions, interpreted to mean dual, but separate scanner and scale functions performed by two separate and distinct scales and scanner devices, to enable an object, i.e,. the object/item/article (A) having barcode (82), as illustrated in figure 2, positioned on a surface of the scanner scale, i.e., interpreted to be the surface of the conveyor (24), to be contemporaneously scanned, i.e., via camera (76), and weighed, i.e., via the load sensors (20), with the load sensor (20) being operable to measure a force applied normal to the surface (24) of the scanner scale (30) such as caused by an object (A) positioned on that surface (24), as mentioned at abstract, second sentence, i.e., “[a] conveyor belt includes an array of load cells embedded in belt modules to measure forces normal to the belt's conveying surface”, as well as mentioned at paragraphs 3-5 and 11, for example.
Regarding Claim 15, see the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 16, see the rejection of Claims 2 and 3, above.
Regarding Claim 17, see the rejection of Claim 11, above.
Regarding Claim 18, see the rejection of Claim 12, above.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al (US 2016/0355352 A1) in view of Fourney (US 2014/0216894 A1), further in view of Keraly et al (US 2020/0306986 A1) further in view of Hayzen et al (US 2021/0124345 A1) and further in view of Crews et al (US 2014/0107836 A1).
Regarding Claims 5, Jones teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 5, Jones does not expressly teach further comprising:
obtaining an email or text message that indicates that the conveyor apparatus is
inoperable; and
sending the email or text message to a predetermined email address or a predetermined phone number.
Regarding Claim 5, Jones does not expressly teach, but Crews teaches further comprising:
obtaining an email or text message that indicates that the conveyor apparatus is inoperable; and
sending the email or text message to a predetermined email address or a predetermined phone number, as mentioned at paragraphs 72, 73, 88, 104, 122, 145, 157, 159, 179-181, 184, 186, 189, 190, 197, 215, 216, 227-235, 237-239, 241, 242, 244, 246, 288-289 and 296, for example.
Regarding Claim 5, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided further comprising:
obtaining an email or text message that indicates that the conveyor apparatus is inoperable; and
sending the email or text message to a predetermined email address or a predetermined phone number, as taught by Crews, in Jones’ POS system for the purpose of communicating sensor data and determinations based upon said sensor data using sensor data from the load sensors as to whether or not it is determined that the POS system is inoperable or not.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al (US 2016/0355352 A1) in view of Fourney (US 2014/0216894 A1), further in view of Keraly et al (US 2020/0306986 A1) further in view of Hayzen et al (US 2021/0124345 A1) and further in view of Miyake et al (US 10,257,000 B2).
Regarding Claims 8-10, Jones teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 8, Jones does not expressly teach wherein the filter includes a low pass filter operable to suppress frequency components above a certain frequency.
Regarding Claim 8, Jones does not expressly teach, but Miyake teaches wherein the filter includes a low pass filter, i.e., low pass filter (LPF) (121), as illustrated in figures 1 and 2 and as mentioned at col. 5, lines 6-32, operable to suppress frequency components above a certain frequency, as illustrated in figures 4-6, for example.
Regarding Claim 8, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the filter includes a low pass filter operable to suppress frequency components above a certain frequency, as taught by Miyake, in Jones’ POS system for the purpose of processing sensor data signals from load sensor (80) so as to elicit the desired measurement data without excess noise.
Regarding Claim 9, Jones does not expressly teach wherein the filter includes a notch filter operable to suppress frequency components outside a primary frequency component of the mechanical noise signal.
Regarding Claim 9, Jones does not expressly teach, but Miyake teaches wherein the filter (12, 122, 13) includes a notch filter operable to suppress frequency components outside a primary frequency component of the mechanical noise signal, as illustrated in figures 1 and 2 and as mentioned at col. 5, lines 6-32 and 50-61, for example.
Regarding Claim 10, Jones does not expressly teach wherein the filter includes a bandpass filter operable to suppress frequency components outside primary and secondary frequency components of the mechanical noise signal.
Regarding Claim 10, Jones does not expressly teach, but Miyake teaches wherein the filter (12, 121, 122, 13) includes a bandpass filter operable to suppress frequency components outside primary and secondary frequency components of the mechanical noise signal, as illustrated in figures 1 and 2 and as mentioned at col. 5, lines 6-32 and 50-61, for example.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al (US 2016/0355352 A1) in view of Fourney (US 2014/0216894 A1), further in view of Keraly et al (US 2020/0306986 A1) further in view of Hayzen et al (US 2021/0124345 A1), further in view of Miyake et al (US 10,257,000 B2) and further in view of Cella et al (US 11,243,528 B2).
Regarding Claims 13, 14, 19 and 20, Jones teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 13, Jones does not expressly teach, further comprising:
processing the load measurement signal to obtain the mechanical noise signal;
verifying that the conveyor apparatus is operable based on the mechanical noise signal;
extracting a property of the mechanical noise signal; and
sending, to neural network circuitry, the extracted property of the mechanical noise signal so that the neural network is enabled to further train the neural network on the extracted property when the conveyor belt is verified to be operable.
Regarding Claim 13, Jones does not expressly teach, but Cella teaches, further comprising:
processing the load measurement signal, i.e., from force sensor as mentioned at col. 157, line 62-col. 158, line 11, col. 162, lines 24-46, col. 162, line 47-col. 163, line 4, to obtain the mechanical noise signal, noting the mention of noise patterns and a library/database of noise patterns, as mentioned at col. 156, lines 19-50;
verifying that the conveyor apparatus, as mentioned in col. 100, line 41-col. 101, line 4, col. 108, lines 35-45, col. 135, line 38-col. 136, line 3, is operable based on the mechanical noise signal, as mentioned at col. 156, lines 19-50;
extracting a property of the mechanical noise signal, i.e., via data collection circuit (10808) having one or more filters such as low, high and band pass filters, which implies a property such as frequency and amplitude, as mentioned at col. 158, line 64-col. 159, line 25; and
sending, to neural network circuitry (10808), as mentioned at col. 118, line 52-col. 119, line 39, the extracted property of the mechanical noise signal so that the neural network is enabled to further train the neural network on the extracted property when the conveyor belt is verified to be operable, as mentioned at col. 158, line 64-col. 159, line 39, and noting extreme learning machine neural network (10292) “that may connect to, integrate with, or interface with the expert system 10080” as mentioned at col. 121, line 62-col. 122, line 9, for example.
Regarding Claim 14, see the rejection of Claim 13, above.
Regarding Claim 19, see the rejection of Claim 13, above.
Regarding Claim 20, see the rejection of Claim 13, above.
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner should there be any questions about this rejection or in an endeavor to explore potential amendments or potential allowable subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Kurtz ‘176 is cited as teaching another example of a POS system as seen in figure 2.
McQueen ‘310 is cited as teaching an example of a POS system (100) as illustrated in figures 1-7.
Itoh ‘682 is cited as teaching an example of a fault diagnosis method for a roller conveyor with a controller, as illustrated in figures 1-18.
Bonner ‘083 is cited as teaching an example of a product identification system with conveyor (32) for analyzing products (20), as illustrated in figures 1-15.
Olmstead ‘196 is cited as teaching an example of a POS system as illustrated in figures 1-9.
Lilliestrale ‘150 is cited as teaching an example of an electric motor with associated details.
Laird ‘387 is cited as teaching a conveyor (32) with load cell arrays in the form of a plate (140) beneath the belt (34), as illustrated in figures 1a-15b.
Kleczewski ‘236 is cited as teaching another POS conveyor with load sensors (20), as illustrated in figures 1-40.
Kleczewski ‘001 is cited as teaching another POS conveyor with load sensors (20), as illustrated in figures 1-39b.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY ALAN SHAPIRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday generally between 8:30AM and 6:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/JEFFREY A SHAPIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
April 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights