DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 3/2/2026 has been entered.
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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 9-12 are apparatus claims which depend from a method claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP § 2173.05(p).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schafer (US 7,793,772) in view of Tokic (WO 2021099096 A1) [all citations to Tokic are directed toward U.S. equivalent US 2022/0397887] .
Regarding the independent claim 1 and dependent claims 9-11, Schafer discloses a process/system/computer program product/computer-readable medium for controlling a conveyor line for general cargo, wherein the conveyor line comprises a plurality of consecutive conveyor line portions (N+2, N+1, N, N-1, N-2), each of which is driven by a drive (12, 12’, 12”), and one or more sensors (10, 10’, 1”) for detecting general cargo are located on at least some of the consecutive conveyor line portions, the process comprising: controlling the drives by means of a computing unit repeatedly receiving input data comprising a vector of a fixed length (see col. 2, lines 29-30), each vector element being associated with a section of a conveyor line and indicating a current proportional occupancy of the respective section by an item of general cargo (see col. 3, lines 5-15), the conveyor line being split into a plurality of the sections of identical size (see col. 7, lines 20-25). Schafer discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not explicitly disclose that the computing unit uses a machine learning model. However, Tokic discloses a similar process which includes a computing unit which utilizes a machine learning model for the purpose of eliminating necessary sophistication for manual adjustment of control function (see U.S. equivalent US 2022/0397887, para 0014). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to utilize a machine learning model, as disclosed by Tokic, for the purpose of eliminating necessary sophistication for manual adjustment of control function.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Schafer discloses that the computing unit receives updated input data with a temporal clocking (see col. 7, lines 60-65), and with the same clocking outputs information about a speed to be set for each conveyor line portion (see col. 7, line 65 – col. 8, line 3). Schafer discloses all the limitations of the claims, but, as stated above, it does not explicitly disclose that the computing unit uses a machine learning model. However, Tokic discloses a similar process which includes a computing unit which utilizes a machine learning model for the purpose of eliminating necessary sophistication for manual adjustment of control function (see U.S. equivalent US 2022/0397887, para 0014). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to utilize a machine learning model, as disclosed by Tokic, for the purpose of eliminating necessary sophistication for manual adjustment of control function.
Regarding dependent claims 3, 4, and 6, Schafer discloses the current proportional occupancy is ascertained from measurement results from the one or more sensors and speeds of conveyor line portions (see col. 2, lines 29-45). The current proportional occupancy for a specified item of general cargo is ascertained over time by virtue of a sensor detecting the item of general cargo and assigning a measurement result to the respective section(s)containing an applicable position, computational ascertainment of the applicable position of the item of general cargo taking place up to a next sensor by using the speed of the respective conveyor line portion, and a computation result being assigned to the respective section(s) containing the applicable position, the next sensor detecting the item of general cargo and assigning the measurement result to the respective section(s) containing the applicable position (see col. 7, line 54 – col. 8, line 3). The input value comprises current measurement results from the one or more sensors (see col. 2, lines 45-55).
Regarding dependent claims 7 and 8, Schafer discloses employing a target function comprising the similarity of speeds of adjacent conveyor line portions (see col. 2, lines 29-45). Schafer discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose a machine learning model trained before the conveyor line is controlled or trained as reinforcement learning in which a reward or penalty is ascertained. However, Tokic discloses a similar process in which a machine learning model trained before the conveyor line is controlled (see U.S. equivalent US 2022/0397887, para 0040) and trained as reinforcement learning in which a reward or penalty is ascertained (see U.S. equivalent US 2022/0397887, paras 0041-0042) for the purpose of eliminating necessary sophistication for manual adjustment of control function (see U.S. equivalent US 2022/0397887, para 0014). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to utilize a a machine learning model trained before the conveyor line is controlled and trained as reinforcement learning in which a reward or penalty is ascertained, as disclosed by Tokic, for the purpose of eliminating necessary sophistication for manual adjustment of control function.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schafer (US 7,793,772) in view of Tokic (WO 2021099096 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schroader et al. (WO 2021011833 A1). The combination of Schafer and Tokic discloses all the limitations of the claim, but it does not disclose that each vector element indicates the current proportional occupancy using a non-binary value, using a numerical value between 0 and 1. However, Schroader discloses a similar process which includes using vector elements which indicate a current proportional occupancy of a conveyor line using a non-binary value, using a numerical value between 0 and 1 (see p. 18, lines 15-25) for the purpose of determining a percentage of occupancy. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to have each vector element indicate the current proportional occupancy using a non-binary value, using a numerical value between 0 and 1, as disclosed by Schroader, for the purpose of determining a percentage of occupancy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant states that Schafer does not disclose “repeatedly receiving input data comprising a vector of a fixed length, each vector element being associated with a section of a conveyor line and indicating a current proportional occupancy of the respective section by an item of general cargo” as recited in claim 1. The examiner disagrees with the applicant. At least in col. 2, lines 29-30 and col. 3, lines 5-15, Schafer discloses “repeatedly receiving input data comprising a vector of a fixed length (see col. 2, lines 29-30), each vector element being associated with a section of a conveyor line and indicating a current proportional occupancy of the respective section by an item of general cargo (see col. 3, lines 5-15)”. The applicant appears to state that Schafer is only ever concerned with one section or vector of the conveying line. However, Schafer, in at least Figure 2 and col. 7, line 15 – col. 8, line 60, discloses repeatedly receiving input data from each vector and conveying section.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653