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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2023 and 09/24/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-13, 9-10, 19-20 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim(s) 3-13, Applicant's claim(s) encompass an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. More specifically, Applicant recites specific load density features with respect to the claim, as best understood within the context of Applicant's claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art.
Regarding claim(s) 9-10, 19-20, Applicant's claim(s) encompass an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. More specifically, Applicant recites specific elevation angle with respect to a bottom vertex coordinate, and uncertainty features with respect to the claim, as best understood within the context of Applicant's claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art.
Accordingly, claim(s) 3-13, 9-10, 19-20 is/are deemed allowable over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. An explanation is provided below.
Applicant alleges on p.4:
Xing fails to teach or suggest a single radar device determining timing/frequency variations between transmitted and received electromagnetic waves (Xing uses multiple LiDARs ); generating a point cloud using those radar timing/frequency variations; using such a radar derived point cloud to determine dimensions, distance, and speed of two objects on a conveyor section; determining a gap between two objects using those per object dimensions/distances/speeds; and controlling operating parameters of the conveyor section using that gap. Instead, Xing teaches multi LiDAR point cloud fusion, 3D reconstruction, and AI classification of ore.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not provided detailed explanation regarding the above list of allegations. The claimed limitation ‘a radar device’ does not require the use of ‘a single radar’. Allgaier and Xing teach using a radar detailed within the rejection below.
Applicant alleges Xing fails to teach ‘generating a point cloud using those radar timing/frequency variations; using such a radar derived point cloud to determine dimensions, distance, and speed of two objects on a conveyor section’; however, that is not how the claim is written. The specific section regarding Applicant’s allegation is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
134
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Only one of the items within the list is required to be taught, as demonstrated with the rejection below.
As such, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant alleges on p.4:
Further, the present application's specification explains that LiDARs (and other line of sight proximity/optical detectors) can have blind spots and misdetections (e.g., occlusion and close object scenarios), and explains that radar addresses these limitations by detecting object distance, dimensions, gaps, and speed and providing a three dimensional view with larger field of view (see Present Application iJiJ[005 l ]-[0055] and Table I).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Allgaier uses both radars and lidar and Xing uses radars. Furthermore, the table within the instant Specification as noted by the Applicant merely compares the overall scores of radars, lidars, and other sensors. Regardless, Allgaier in view of Xing use radars, therefore, the alleged deficiencies of lidars are resolved.
Applicant alleges on p.5:
However, Pressler fails to teach or suggest a conveyor control system comprising a radar device that determines timing/frequency variations between transmitted and received electromagnetic waves; generating a point cloud using those timing/frequency variations; using that point cloud to determine per object dimensions, distance, and speed for two objects; determining a gap between two objects using those per object dimensions/distances/speeds; and controlling conveyor operating parameters using that gap. Instead, Pressler teaches controlling package gaps with retractable stops and rollers based on optical length measurement and stop selection according to a predetermined spacing scheme. Pressler is silent regarding radar sensing, point cloud generation, and per object distance/speed computation from reflected electromagnetic waves. Accordingly, Pressler is not directed to, and does not teach, radar point cloud based gap computation and operating parameter control as recited in Claims 1 and 11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees due to the above responses. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Pressler teaches finding a gap between 2 objects as shown in fig. 4 and gap calculations in 3:65-67 and 4:1-10. And furthermore, the conveyor system is controlled using these calculations claim 1 “a controller selectively actuating the actuator in response to the length signal to move selected stops to the blocking position according to the length of the conveyed article and a predetermined spacing between consecutive articles.”
Applicant alleges on p.5:
Even assuming arguendo that (i) Allgaier teaches radar monitoring, (ii) Xing teaches point cloud generation using LiDAR for ore recognition, and (iii) Pressler teaches mechanical stop based package spacing, the rejection still fails to establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references in the specific manner required by Claims 1 and 11-namely, to generate a radar derived point cloud using timing/frequency variations, determine per object dimensions/distance/speed of two objects, compute an inter object gap from those metrics, and control operating parameters of the conveyor section using that gap.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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, both Allgaier and Xing are related to the need and problem solving activity of identifying objects on a conveyor belt using radars.
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 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) 1-2, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allgaier et al. (US 20220197269 hereinafter Allgaier) in view of Xing et al. (CN 112733877 hereinafter Xing) and further in view of Pressler et al (US PAT 8109384 hereinafter Pressler).
Regarding claim 1, Allgaier teaches A conveyor control system comprising: a radar device configured to (Abstract “A radar measuring device for process automation in an industrial environment with integrated safety area monitoring having a controller which is set up to adjust the direction of the radar transmission signal emitted in such a way that the safety area around the object is completely irradiated even if the object moves.”): send a first electromagnetic wave to a first object (0007 “The radar measuring device comprises a radar signal source arranged to generate and radiate a radar transmission signal in the direction of an object to be monitored”) and
a second electromagnetic wave to a second object on a first conveyor section (0039 “FIG. 2A shows a radar measuring device 100 with a pivotable planar antenna that can be rotated about the mechanical axis 109. In this embodiment, the radar measuring device 100 is set up for monitoring objects on a conveyor belt 110, for example. The objects are, for example, bottles, other consumer goods, or manufactured goods in a factory, an open field, or a warehouse.”);
receive a reflection of the first electromagnetic wave from the first object and a reflection of the second electromagnetic field from the second object (0044 “The reflected signal is received by the measuring device in step 503 and evaluated in step 504. Based on this evaluation, the direction and/or aperture angle of the radar transmission signal emitted are adjusted (step 505) in such a way that the safety area around the object to be monitored is completely irradiated, but an area beyond this is not irradiated.”); and
determine first and second timing or frequency variations between the sent and received first and second electromagnetic waves respectively (0013 “Sensors based on optical measurement methods using lasers, LEDs, 2D cameras or 3D cameras that measure distances according to the time-of-flight (ToF) principle can be used for this purpose.”); and
a controller electronically coupled to the one or more radar devices (0021 “According to a further embodiment, the controller is set up to adjust the direction and/or the aperture angle of the radar transmit signal as a function of a speed of the object to be monitored.”),
determine any of first dimensions, a first distance, and a first speed of movement of the first object and second dimensions, a second distance, and a second speed of movement of the second object on the first conveyor section using the point cloud;
determine a first gap between the first object and the second object using any of the first and second dimensions, the first and second distances, and the first and second speeds of movement (0021 “According to a further embodiment, the controller is set up to adjust the direction and/or the aperture angle of the radar transmit signal as a function of a speed of the object to be monitored.”); and
Allgaier does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Xing teaches
the controller configured to: generate a point cloud using any of the first and second timing or frequency variations (claim 2 “laser radar is a two-dimensional laser radar; the ore is placed on a conveyor belt moving at a constant speed; the multi-laser radar respectively different mounting angles is used for emitting the laser signal; and the respectively D point cloud data information of the ore is obtained according to the signal returned by the ore”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Xing with the teachings of Allgaier. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the system’s algorithm (Xing p.8). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Xing merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular point cloud features. Since both Allgaier and Xing disclose similar conveyor belt technology, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Pressler teaches
control one or more first operating parameters of the first conveyor section using the first gap (Abstract “A spacing conveyor having article-accelerating rollers and selectively retractable stops to control the gaps between consecutive conveyed packages.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Pressler with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve throughput (Pressler 1:10-20). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Pressler merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular spacing features. Since both the cited prior art and Pressler disclose similar conveyor belt technology, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teaches The conveyor control system of claim 1, wherein: the radar device is configured to: send a third electromagnetic wave to a third object and a fourth electromagnetic wave to a fourth object (Allgaier 0039 “FIG. 2A shows a radar measuring device 100 with a pivotable planar antenna that can be rotated about the mechanical axis 109. In this embodiment, the radar measuring device 100 is set up for monitoring objects on a conveyor belt 110, for example. The objects are, for example, bottles, other consumer goods, or manufactured goods in a factory, an open field, or a warehouse.” [Allgaier teaches transmitting radar signals and receiving reflections from multiple objects corresponding to a third electromagnetic wave to a third object and a fourth electromagnetic wave to a fourth object]) on a second conveyor section (Pressler fig 1 [conveyers 10 and 12]); receive a reflection of the third electromagnetic wave from the third object and a reflection of the fourth electromagnetic field from the fourth object; and determine third and fourth timing or frequency variations between the sent and received third and fourth electromagnetic waves respectively; and the controller is configured to: generate the point cloud using any of the third and fourth timing or frequency variations; determine any of third dimensions, a third distance, and a third speed of movement of the third object and fourth dimensions, a fourth distance, and a fourth speed of movement of the fourth object on the second conveyor section using the point cloud; determine a second gap between the third object and the fourth object using any of the third and fourth dimensions, the third and fourth distances, and the third and fourth speeds of movement; and control any of the one or more first operating parameters of the first conveyor section and one or more second operating parameters of the second conveyor section using any of the first gap and the second gap ([see claim 1. Allgaier in view of Xing and Pressler teach the following limitations for a first and second object which similarly corresponds to claim 2 as the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 B. Here, Allgaier teaches using a second conveyor and thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to determine timing/frequency variations, generate a point cloud, determine the speed of other objects on a conveyor belt, and associated gaps similar to the first and second objects).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Pressler with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve throughput (Pressler 1:10-20). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Pressler merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular spacing features. Since both the cited prior art and Pressler disclose similar conveyor belt technology, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim(s) 4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allgaier et al. (US 20220197269 hereinafter Allgaier) in view of Xing et al. (CN 112733877 hereinafter Xing) and further in view of Pressler et al (US PAT 8109384 hereinafter Pressler) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Albonetti (US 20160130094).
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The conveyor control system of claim 2,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Albonetti teaches
wherein the controller is configured to control any of the one or more first operating parameters of the first conveyor section and the one or more second operating parameters of the second conveyor section such that the first gap is about the same as the second gap (0028 “The conveyor belt 3 may be provided with pneumatic suction means (of a known type, and not illustrated) to hold the objects 2 mutually spaced apart (at the same mutual distance) on the belt 3.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Albonetti with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce damaging the items (Albonetti 0007). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Albonetti merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular spacing features. Since both the cited prior art and Albonetti disclose similar conveyor belt technology, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allgaier et al. (US 20220197269 hereinafter Allgaier) in view of Xing et al. (CN 112733877 hereinafter Xing) and further in view of Pressler et al (US PAT 8109384 hereinafter Pressler) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nord (US PAT 4863012 hereinafter Nord).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The conveyor control system of claim 2,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Nord teaches
wherein the first conveyor section is an accumulation conveyor, and the second conveyor section is a main conveyor connected to the accumulation conveyor (Abstract “a primary conveyor belt (11) which moves within a transport channel (30) having horizontal rest rails (31). The primary conveyor belt (11) is preferably displaced in the vertical direction by means of an underlying accumulating conveyor belt (23) which includes a plurality of low plates (38) and high plates (39)”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Nord with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce damaging the items (Nord 2:30-45). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Nord merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular conveyor features. Since both the cited prior art and Nord disclose similar conveyor belt technology, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15 claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim(s) 6-7, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allgaier et al. (US 20220197269 hereinafter Allgaier) in view of Xing et al. (CN 112733877 hereinafter Xing), Pressler et al (US PAT 8109384 hereinafter Pressler), and further in view of Nord (US PAT 4863012 hereinafter Nord) as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Reznik (US 20070246328).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teaches The conveyor control system of claim 5,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Reznik teaches
wherein the controller is configured to: determine if the second object can be interleaved between the third and fourth objects by comparing the second dimensions (0061 “The basic goal of the algorithm in FIG. 12 is to insert parcels which enter either slat conveyor completely only at moments where there isn't a "blocking" parcel on the middle takeaway (see X block function). Such opportune moments are guaranteed to exist since the mid takeaway flows at twice the speed of either slat conveyor, allowing for blocking articles to overtake the lateral ones over a period of time inversely proportional to the speed ratios and related to the articles' relative lengths.”) with the second gap (0065 “In phase 3, Merge determines if a valid topMax (resp. botMax) is blocked by a parcel currently flowing through the middle. Blocking, computed by the list method XBlock, shown at the bottom of the inset, makes use of a global constant, GAP_MIN which is the fixed gaps to allow between outgoing packages”); and control any of the one or more first operating parameters of the first conveyor section and the one or more second operating parameters of the second conveyor section to interleave the second object between the third and fourth objects if determined that the second object can be interleaved between the third and fourth objects (0066 “Phase 4 acts as following: if topMax (resp. botMax) is not blocked, than the Divert( ) method is called. This method presupposes that the narrowest adjacent set of lateral pushers (or shoes, or other divert embodiment) is activated causing a fast-as-practical motion of that item towards the center or take-away conveyor. The divert must occur at the current position of the item.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Reznik with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce costs and improve efficiency (Reznik 0041). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Reznik merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular conveyor features. Since both the cited prior art and Reznik disclose similar conveyor belt technology, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teaches The conveyor control system of claim 6, wherein the one or more first or second operating parameters comprise any of a first or second conveyor section speed, acceleration, and operation pause time or duration, respectively (Reznik 0045 “The diverts by the lateral pushers and the speed of take-away conveyor 36 is controlled by controller 30 using a sensor based algorithm”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Reznik with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce costs and improve efficiency (Reznik 0041). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Reznik merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular conveyor features. Since both the cited prior art and Reznik disclose similar conveyor belt technology, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16 claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claim 17 claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 7.
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allgaier et al. (US 20220197269 hereinafter Allgaier) in view of Xing et al. (CN 112733877 hereinafter Xing) and further in view of Pressler et al (US PAT 8109384 hereinafter Pressler) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Winkel et al. (US PAT 10604352 hereinafter Winkel).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teaches The conveyor control system of claim 1, wherein: (Xing p.9 “multi-laser radar collecting point cloud data of the 3 D calibration object to fit the edge straight line equation of the 3 D calibration object; the same edge corresponding to two linear equations in two laser radar coordinate system”); assign a first identification to the first object using the coordinates; determine a first destination for the first object using the first identification; and control the one or more first operating parameters of the first conveyor section so that the first object reaches the first destination (Xing Abstract “3D shape feature and echo intensity feature. using the pre-trained convolution neural network model to identify the key features to obtain the ore identification result”).
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Winkel teaches
the radar device comprises a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar device (Claim 1 “transmitting frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW radar) radar beams and periodically receiving a reflection of the transmitted radar beams by the surface of the conveyor belt”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Winkel with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve accuracy (Winkel 2:30-35). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Winkel merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular conveyor features. Since both the cited prior art and Winkel disclose similar conveyor belt technology, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18 claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 8.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Ganapathy et al. (US 20120286948) discloses “A method includes transmitting first wireless signals towards a conveyor belt having multiple layers of material. The first wireless signals penetrate one or more layers in the conveyor belt (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights