D on 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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/30/2026 has been entered. Claim 1, and 14 have been amended. Claim 5 has been canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 10-19 remains pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because new limitations have been added to independent claims therefore a new interpretation has been used and the arguments are moot.
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, 6-7, and 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter (US 20160075523) in view of Jens (US 20040262131).
Applicant is reminded a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (MPEP 07-37-09). The reference in the preamble to “a processing machine having a processing unit for processing a workpiece (2) and a conveyor device for transporting the workpiece” amounts to an intended use recitation of the conveyor claimed and the prior art disclosed below includes all the claimed conveyor structure as outlined below.
Regarding claim-1, Peter discloses a processing machine (Fig.1) having a processing unit for processing a workpiece and a conveyor device (1, Fig.1) for transporting workpiece (Abstract; Fig.1) comprising:
a revolving conveyor element (1, Fig.5) which is guided by one or more rollers (23, 24, Fig.2) and
a top pressure (70, Fig.5) which comprises a belt revolving around a drive roller, and a deflection roller (Fig.5).
But Peter does not disclose a sensor device for monitoring the operation of the conveyor element, the sensor device comprises at least one of a microphone, a temperature sensor, a strain sensor, an acceleration sensor, a torque sensor or an optical sensor.
Jens also discloses a conveying system and also, teaches a sensor device for monitoring the operation of the conveyor element ([0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to provide Peter conveying device with sensor as taught by Jens for purpose of detecting any wear and tear in conveying components i.e., rollers so components can be replaced when needed on timely manner.
Regarding claim-2, Peter as modified discloses wherein the sensor device (wear and tear value of components as taught by Jens) is configured to detect measurement values for evaluating a condition of the one or more rollers (Abstract, [0016], Fig.7)
Regarding claim-3, Peter as modified discloses wherein the sensor device (wear and tear value of components as taught by Jens) is arranged in a deflection area of the conveyor device (wear and tear value of components as taught by Jens).
Regarding claim-6, Peter as modified discloses wherein the conveyor element (1) is a conveyor chain which comprises a plurality of chain links (Alternative Option/Design well known in the art for conveyor element [0003]).
Regarding claim-10, Peter as modified discloses further comprising a control device (controller as taught by Jens) which is configured to monitor an operation (wear V) of the conveyor element based on measurement values (wear and tear value of components as taught by Jens) detected by the sensor device (wear and tear value of components as taught by Jens)
Regarding claim-11, Peter as modified discloses wherein the control device is configured to monitor the wear condition (wear and tear value of components as taught by Jens) of the one or more roller (23, 24).
Regarding claim-12, Peter as modified discloses wherein the control device is configured to monitor an operation of the conveyor element for adjusting a position of the one or more rollers for removal to facilitate maintenance of the one or more rollers (wear and tear value of components as taught by Jens).
Regarding claim-13, Peter as modified discloses further comprising a central memory device for storing or evaluating the measurement values detected by the sensor device (wear and tear value are evaluated by sensor and computer system as taught by Jens).
Regarding claim-14, Peter as modified discloses a method for operating a processing machine (1, Fig.1) having a processing unit for processing a workpiece (Items or wooden panel as taught by Jens) (as taught by Jens) and a conveyor device (1) wherein the conveyor device comprises a revolving conveyor element (1) guided by one or more rollers (23, 24) and a sensor device (as taught by Jens), the method comprising detecting measurement values (wear and tear value as taught by Jens) for monitoring an operation of the conveyor element, wherein the sensor device comprises at least one of a microphone, a temperature sensor, a strain sensor, an acceleration sensor, a torque sensor or an optical sensor. (as taught by Jens).
Regarding claim-15, Peter as modified discloses wherein the step of detecting measurement values further comprises evaluating the wear condition of the one or more rollers (23, 24) (wear and tear value of components as taught by Jens).
Regarding claim-16, Peter as modified discloses wherein one or more of the rollers comprise running rollers (23).
Regarding claim-17, Peter as modified discloses wherein one or more of the rollers comprise guide rollers (24).
Regarding claim-19, Peter as modified discloses wherein the control device is configured to perform frequency analysis to monitor the wear condition of the one or more rollers (wear and tear value of components as taught by Jens).
Regarding claim 4, 7, 18, Peter as modified does not teach wherein the sensor device (wear and tear value of components as taught by Jens) is formed on or attached to a deflection plate, wherein the chain links comprise a ferromagnetic material, wherein the deflection plate is supported by an actuator. However, it is just a mere of design and constructional detail of an apparatus in which skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to place the sensor at desired location of an apparatus according to desired specification. Also, chain links structure and material are well known in the art and can be made of any required material i.e., iron, nickel, cobalt or alloys.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MUHAMMAD AWAIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4955. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4 pm (EST).
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571)272-6911. 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.
/MA/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights