DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 3, 5 and 7 are cancelled. Claim 21 is new. Claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 8-21 are pending. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claim objection set forth in the office action of 3/25/2026. Therefore, the claim objection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that INOUE is not analogous art as to OTA and BILLINGS.
In response to applicant's argument that INOUE is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, INOUE is in the same field of endeavor of non-contact encoders.
The Applicant argues that the combined art does not teach or suggest the necessary modifications because it directs a person of skill to position the non-contact encoder as per OTA or INOUE which is different from what is recited in claim 1. A person of skill has no sound reason to modify the location of the non-contact recorder specifically to that which is recited in present claim 1.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to substitute the encoder in BILLINGS with the non-contact encoder of OTA, in order to measure the velocity of the object in the moving direction [0005]; or, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify BILLINGS and OTA, by having a processor and display device, as suggested by INOUE, in order to adjust the distance from the sample via the measurement system [Col. 10, lines 57-65].
The Applicant argues that the present claim 1 recites that the non-contact encoder recorder comprises “a display device and a process configured for executing a program stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium, said program processing the electric signals into frequency data points, computing and plotting the front long surface edge profile of the wallboard panel on the display device.” The cited art as combined does not disclose or suggest the system that computes and plots the edge profile as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. INOUE teaches an encoder that has a processing device (100) that includes a display (108) and a storage (110) and the processer executes one program or a plurality of programs stored in the storage by reading the same into the main memory (104) and the storage (110) is implemented by a non-volatile memory such as a hard disk or a flash memory and stores various programs and data [Col. 11, lines 18-67 – Col. 12, lines 1-15]. INOUE uses wavelengths from the encoder, which is interpreted as frequency data points [Col. 17, lines 20-27; Col. 18, lines 17-25]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify BILLINGS and OTA, by having a processor and display device, as suggested by INOUE, in order to adjust the distance from the sample via the measurement system [Col. 10, lines 57-65].
The recitation “said program processing the electrical signals into frequency data points, computing and plotting the front long surface edge profile of the wallboard panel on the display device” is merely an intended use. The Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner's position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that INOUE discloses a display device, a non-readable medium, a processor, storage and programs as presently claimed, it is clear that the system of INOUE would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. said program processing the electrical signals into frequency data points, computing and plotting the front long surface edge profile of the wallboard panel on the display device, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
The Applicant states that the claimed system is different from the cited art because the cited art as combined does not disclose or reasonably suggest: 1) the post-kiln conveyor sized as recited in claim 1, 2) the non-contact encoder mounted as recited in claim 1, relative to the conveyor surface and relative to the front long surface.
The Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. As written, the non-contact encoder does not require to be mounted a certain way nor does the conveyor need to be sized a certain way besides length. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., mounted a certain way or the conveyor size) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Applicant argues that BILLINGS, OTA nor INOUE do not teach “wherein the conveyor surface has a first portion, a second portion separated from the first portion by a gap . . . . wherein the non-contact encoder transmits the first laser beam and the second laser beam to the gap area”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. OTA shows a gap between two parts of the conveyor shown in Figure 5.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 11-13 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billings (U.S. PGPUB 2003/0033040), hereinafter BILLINGS, in view of Ota et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0128916), hereinafter OTA, and Inoue et al. (U.S. 10,309,767), hereinafter INOUE, or in the alternative, Lash et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0045399), hereinafter LASH.
Regarding claim 1, BILLINGS teaches: A system for processing a post-kiln wallboard panel having a length, a width and a thickness (BILLINGS teaches a system for processing a product [Abstract]. BILLINGS teaches the product is a panel (12) that has a length, width and a thickness [0011-0012; 0067; Fig. 4]), the length being longer than the width (BILLINGS shows the length is longer than the width [Figs. 4, 6].), the post-kiln wallboard panel having two long first long edge and a second long edge (BILLINGS teaches the panel has two long surfaces and two edges [Figs. 4, 6].), the system comprising: a post-kiln conveyor having a surface configured for receiving a post-kiln wallboard panel at a first location (BILLINGS teaches a conveyor after a heating press (14) [or dryer (48)] having a surface configured to receiving a board [0067; 0078; Figs. 4, 6].), the conveyor surface further configured for moving horizontally the post-kiln wallboard panel on the conveyor surface from the first location to a second location (BILLINGS teaches the board moves horizontally on the conveyor surface from a first location to a second location [Figs. 4, 6; 0067; 0078].), the conveyor surface being sized for moving the post-kiln wallboard panel with the wallboard long edges being moved in the machine direction and with the back long surface contacting the conveyor surface and the front long surface not contacting the conveyor surface (BILLINGS teaches the conveyor surface is sized for moving the board with one of the two long surfaces of the board contacting the conveyor surface and the other long surface not contacting the conveyor surface [Figs. 4, 6]. BILLINGS teaches the conveyor surface is sized for moving the wallboard panel with the long edges being moved in the machine direction and with the back long surface contacting the conveyor surface and the front long surface not contacting the conveyor surface [Figs. 4, 6; 0018].); and . . . ; and wherein the conveyor surface has a first portion (BILLINGS shows the conveyor surface has a first portion in one direction [Fig. 6].), a second portion separated from the first portion by a gap, wherein the gap is perpendicular to a direction of the movement from the first location to the second location (BILLINGS shows the conveyor surface has a second portion separated by gaps between each roller on the conveyor [Fig. 6]), and wherein the gap has a width which is smaller than the length or the width of the post-kiln wallboard panel (BILLINGS shows the gaps in between the rollers is smaller than the length of the board (44) [Fig. 6]), and wherein the gap is configured for the post-kiln wallboard panel to traverse the gap from the first portion to the second portion of the conveyor surface (BILLINGS shows the board can traverse the gaps from the first portion to the second portion of the conveyor surface [Fig. 6].), and . . . .
BILLINGS teaches non-contact encoders (transducers (58) or sensors [0068; 0080]), but is silent as to: a non-contact encoder configured for producing a laser beam, splitting the laser beam into at least a first laser beam and a second laser beam, and transmitting the first laser beam and the second laser beam to the conveyor surface, the non-contact encoder being mounted vertically above the post-kiln conveyor at a distance from the conveyor surface, the distance configured such that the first laser beam and the second laser beam intersect and overlap fully or substantially fully at the non-contacting long surface of the post-kiln wallboard panel when the post-kiln wallboard panel is passing under the non-contact encoder, and wherein the non- contact encoder transmits the first laser beam and the second laser beam to the gap area; and wherein the non-contact encoder comprises: a) a laser source configured for emitting the laser beam; b) a laser beam splitter configured for splitting the emitted laser beam into at least the first laser beam and the second laser beam and directing the second laser beam to intersect with the first laser beam at the distance; c) a sensor configured for detecting laser light reflected from the non-contacting long surface and converting the reflected light into electrical signals, and d) a display device and a processor configured for executing a program stored in a non-transitory computer readable mediums, said program processing the electrical signals into frequency data points, computing and plotting the front long surface edge profile of the wallboard panel on the display device.
In the same field of endeavor, encoders, OTA teaches: a non-contact encoder configured for producing a laser beam (OTA teaches a non-contact encoder (MA) [Fig. 6; 0062] for producing a laser beam (101) [Fig. 1; 0017].), splitting the laser beam into at least a first laser beam and a second laser beam (OTA teaches splitting the laser beam into at least a first laser beam (1031) and a second laser beam (1032) [Fig. 1; 0017].), and transmitting the first laser beam and the second laser beam to the conveyor surface (OTA teaches transmitting the first laser beam and the second laser beam to the conveyor surface [Figs. 1, 5; 0062].), the non-contact encoder being mounted vertically above the post-kiln conveyor at a distance from the conveyor surface (OTA shows the non-contact encoder being mounted vertically above the conveyor at a distance from the conveyor surface [Fig. 5].), the distance configured such that the first laser beam and the second laser beam intersect and overlap fully or substantially fully at the non-contacting long surface of the post-kiln wallboard panel when the post-kiln wallboard panel is passing under the non-contact encoder (OTA teaches the first laser beam and the second laser beam interest and overlap fully or substantially fully at the long surface of the board (208a, 208b) when the board is passing under the non-contact encoder [Figs. 1, 5; 0017].). OTA also teaches: wherein the non-contact encoder comprises: a) a laser source configured for emitting the laser beam (OTA teaches a laser source (101) for emitting a laser beam [Fig. 1; 0017].); b) a laser beam splitter configured for splitting the emitted laser beam into at least the first laser beam and the second laser beam and directing the second laser beam to intersect with the first laser beam at the distance (OTA teaches a laser beam splitter (102) for splitting the emitted laser beam into a first laser beam (1031) and a second laser beam (1032) and directing the beams to intersect [Fig. 1; 0017].); c) a sensor configured for detecting laser light reflected from the non-contacting long surface and converting the reflected light into electrical signals (OTA teaches a detection unit (212) for detecting laser light reflected by the surface of the board (208) [Fig. 7; 0036]. OTA teaches the laser light is converted into electrical signals [0030].), and d) a display device and a processor configured for executing a program stored in a non-transitory computer readable mediums, said program processing the electrical signals into frequency data points, computing and plotting the front long surface edge profile of the wallboard panel on the display device (OTA teaches a processing unit (211) [0025].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to substitute the encoder in BILLINGS with the non-contact encoder of OTA, in order to measure the velocity of the object in the moving direction [0005].
OTA is silent as to: and d) a display device and a processor configured for executing a program stored in a non-transitory computer readable mediums, said program processing the electrical signals into frequency data points, computing and plotting the front long surface edge profile of the wallboard panel on the display device. In the same field of endeavor, encoders, INOUE teaches the encoder has a processing device (100) that includes a display (108) and a storage (110) and the processer executes one program or a plurality of programs stored in the storage by reading the same into the main memory (104) and the storage (110) is implemented by a non-volatile memory such as a hard disk or a flash memory and stores various programs and data [Col. 11, lines 18-67 – Col. 12, lines 1-15]. INOUE uses wavelengths from the encoder, which is interpreted as frequency data points [Col. 17, lines 20-27; Col. 18, lines 17-25]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify BILLINGS and OTA, by having a processor and display device, as suggested by INOUE, in order to adjust the distance from the sample via the measurement system [Col. 10, lines 57-65].
The recitation “said program processing the electrical signals into frequency data points, computing and plotting the front long surface edge profile of the wallboard panel on the display device” is merely an intended use. The Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner's position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that INOUE discloses a display device, a non-readable medium, a processor, storage and programs as presently claimed, it is clear that the system of INOUE would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. said program processing the electrical signals into frequency data points, computing and plotting the front long surface edge profile of the wallboard panel on the display device, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor encoders, LASH teaches a thermal imaging device (34) that includes a display device and processor (38) [0078; 0075; 0070-0071]. LASH teaches the processor is adapted to execute programming stored upon a non-transitory computer readably medium [0079; 0062]. LASH teaches the view includes edges of the board (25) [0083]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify BILLINGS and OTA, by having a processor and display device, as suggested by LASH, in order to adjust corrections for inherent offset, gain drift, etc. [0063].
Regarding claim 2, OTA further teaches: wherein the non-contact encoder is configured for splitting the laser beam into 2, 3, or 4 laser beams (OTA teaches the laser beam is split into two beams [Fig. 1; 0017].).
Regarding claim 4, BILLINGS teaches: wherein the first portion of the conveyor surface comprises one or more rollers or a belt and the second portion of the conveyor surface comprises one or more rollers or a belt (BILLINGS teaches the first portion of the conveyor comprises one or more rollers and the second portion of the conveyor comprises one or more rollers [Fig. 6].).
Regarding claim 11, OTA further teaches: wherein the system further comprises one or more of the following: a production line, a kiln and/or one or more controllers (OTA further teaches control units [0067-0068].).
Regarding claim 12, OTA further teaches: wherein the first laser beam and the second laser beam intersect at 60 degrees or less than 60 degrees (OTA teaches the laser beams intersect at an irradiation angle of 7.5° [0032].).
Regarding claim 13, BILLINGS teaches: wherein the post-kiln conveyor surface contains a bend and/or rotating table at which a movement direction of wallboard panel long edges is changed from the machine direction to the cross-machine direction or vice versa (BILLINGS teaches the conveyor surface contains a bend at which a movement direction of wallboard panel long edges is changed from the machine direction to the cross-machine direction [Figs. 4, 6].), and a second non-contact encoder is positioned after the bend, but before the second location (BILLINGS teaches trim saws (28) are located after the bend [Fig. 4] and the bond measurement equipment (20), which includes acoustic transducers [0068], may be positioned after or around the trim saws, indicating that an acoustic transducer can be positioned after the bend, but before the second location (30) [Fig. 4; 0071]. BILLINGS also teaches a relay output is placed after the bend in order to indicate whether the board is a good panel or a reject panel [0072].).
Regarding claim 21, BILLINGS, OTA and INOUE do not explicitly teach: wherein the front long surface has a recess at each of the two machine-direction edges, the recess having a depth and a length, and wherein said program computing and plotting the depth and the length of the recess on the display device.
The limitation “wherein the front long surface has a recess at each of the two machine-direction edges, the recess having a depth and a length” is with respect to an article worked upon (intermediate section) and not a positively recited element of the system. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by the system being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP § 2115.
The recitation “wherein said program computing and plotting the depth and the length of the recess on the display device” is merely an intended use. The Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner's position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that INOUE discloses a display device, a non-readable medium, a processor, storage and programs as presently claimed, it is clear that the system of INOUE would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. said program processing the electrical signals into frequency data points, computing and plotting the front long surface edge profile of the wallboard panel on the display device, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billings (U.S. PGPUB 2003/0033040), hereinafter BILLINGS, Ota et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0128916), hereinafter OTA, Inoue et al. (U.S. 10,309,767), hereinafter INOUE, and Lash et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0045399), hereinafter LASH, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Long et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0029457), hereinafter LONG.
Regarding claim 6, BILLINGS, OTA, INOUE and LASH teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including: teaches: wherein the non-contact encoder is mounted perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the direction of wallboard panel movement (BILLINGS teaches the encoders would be mounted substantially perpendicular to the direction of the board [0067-0068; 0080]. OTA further shows the non-contact encoder is perpendicular to the direction of the board [Fig. 5].), but are silent as to: wherein the distance is in the range from about 8 inches to about 12 inches from the conveyor surface. In the same field of endeavor, boards, LONG teaches the sensor measurement equipment from the conveyor is 10 to about 16 inches [0017]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify BILLINGS, OTA, INOUE and LASH, by having the sensor equipment at a distance of 10 to about 16 inches, as suggested by LONG, in order for the light reflected can be detected by the light collection optics [0017].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billings (U.S. PGPUB 2003/0033040), hereinafter BILLINGS, Ota et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0128916), hereinafter OTA, Inoue et al. (U.S. 10,309,767), hereinafter INOUE, and Lash et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0045399), hereinafter LASH, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaneko et al. (U.S. 6,779,577), hereinafter KANEKO.
Regarding claim 8, BILLINGS, OTA, INOUE and LASH teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the system further includes a packaging station, the packaging station located at the second location. In the same field of endeavor, boards, KANEKO teaches a packaging station located at a second location [Fig. 1; Col. 1, lines 30-37]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify BILLING, OTA, INOUE and LASH, by having a packaging station, as suggested by KANEKO, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billings (U.S. PGPUB 2003/0033040), hereinafter BILLINGS, Ota et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0128916), hereinafter OTA, Inoue et al. (U.S. 10,309,767), hereinafter INOUE, and Lash et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0045399), hereinafter LASH, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ackley et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2011/0297590), hereinafter ACKLEY.
Regarding claim 9, BILLINGS, OTA, INOUE and LASH teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the system further includes a non-compliant product ramp positioned after the non-contact encoder, the non-compliant product ramp being configured for receiving the wallboard panel from the post-kiln conveyor. In the same field of endeavor, conveyor, ACKLEY teaches a non-compliant product ramp (92) after an encoder (60) [0080]. ACKLEY teaches the product is rejected onto the non-compliant product ramp after a drying section [0068]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify BILLINGS, OTA, INOUE and LASH, by having a non-compliant discharge chute, as suggested by ACKLEY, in order to remove defective products [0080].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billings (U.S. PGPUB 2003/0033040), hereinafter BILLINGS, Ota et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0128916), hereinafter OTA, Inoue et al. (U.S. 10,309,767), hereinafter INOUE, Lash et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0045399), hereinafter LASH, and Ackley et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2011/0297590), hereinafter ACKLEY, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sloat et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2014/0269815), hereinafter SLOAT.
Regarding claim 10, BILLINGS, OTA, INOUE, LASH and ACKLEY teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the non-compliant product ramp is separated from the post-kiln conveyor by a gate, the gate having an open position and a closed position, the non-compliant product ramp configured for receiving the wallboard panel from the post- kiln conveyor when the gate is in the open position and the gate blocking the non- compliant product ramp from receiving the wallboard panel when the gate is in the closed position. In the same field of endeavor, conveyors, SLOAT teaches a gate (33) that separates the non-compliant products onto a discard conveyor (132) [0024]. SLOAT teaches the gate (33) can be swung by a servo motor between a first opening position and a second closing position [0024]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify BILLINGS, OTA, INOUE and ACKLEY, by having a gate have an opening position and closing position, as suggested by SLOAT, to discord defective products and allow good products to pass [0038].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights