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 .
The preliminary amendment filed on November 14, 2023 has been considered.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The specification is not arranged as recommended above.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract contains less than 50 words.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “11” has been used to designate both “module” (specification, page 3, line 19) and “belt” (specification, page 3, line 20).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "11" (specification, page 3, line 20) and "110" (specification, page 3, lines 22-23) have both been used to designate “belt”.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “space” (claim 2), “supporting surface (200)” (claim 2), “a motor-driven belt (11) closed in a loop” (claim 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for detecting the bottom base” (claim 1), “transport module” (claim 2, “detection means” (claim 2), “module(s) …” (claims 5, 7-18), “upper acquisition means” (claims 6, 7).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites a single mean “means for detecting the base” where the means recitation does not appear in combination with another recited element of means, and the means for detecting the base covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated purpose (see MPEP 2164.08(a)).
Claim 2, “… the object (2) transported whilst it passes from one module to the other” is not enabled by the specification. The specification discloses that each of the object 2 is carried rested on the belts 11 (page 3, lines 20-21). Fig. 2 shows that an object 2 is resting between two 11’s. However, neither Fig. 2 nor the specification discloses an explanation of how the object 2 is passed from one 11 to another 11 (e.g., an actuator to pass the object 2 from one 11 to another 11).
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 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 7-18, claim limitations “module(s) …” (claims 5, 7-18) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no corresponding structure for the means and modules that are discussed or shown. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Examiner interprets the means for detecting to be detectors and modules to be software executable instructions.
Claim 1, “the base” (line 2) lacks antecedent basis. “[T]he base should be -- a base --.
Claim 2, “said detection means” lacks antecedent basis. “[S]aid detection means” should be – means for detecting the based --. “[I]t”(line 5) lacks antecedent basis. “[I]t” should be changed to – the object --.
Claim 6, “the entire transported object” (line 2) lacks antecedent basis. “[T]he entire transported object” should be -- “the
Claim 7, an upper shape module which represents the outline, seen from below of the entire object is indefinite since it is unclear that the upper portion can be seen from below, examiner interprets the upper shape module is the above portion of the object seen from below; “the entire object” (line 4) lacks antecedent basis. “[T]he entire object” should be -- “the
Claim 10, “the overall surface” (line 4) lacks antecedent basis. , “[T]he overall surface” should be – the overall flat surface --.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 5 and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claim 1-4 and 6 do not recite an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-4 and 6 are patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under step 2A, prong 1, dependent claims 5 and 7-18 are directed to an abstract idea (e.g., defining, determining, calculating, identifying, classifying).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (processing unit comprises modules) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are significantly more. Transporting an object via a transporting system comprising a conveyor belt and the object resting on the conveyor and means for detecting the base, a shape of the bottom of the object is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meskanen (US 2013/0229670).
Regarding claim 1, Meskanen discloses a system (Fig. 1) for recognising unstable objects (timber 1’s) transported resting on a conveyor (2, 3, 4), comprising means (5, 6, top and side scanners, paragraph 0036, lines 5-7) for detecting the base (bottom of 1’s) designed for detecting a shape of a bottom of an object (1’s, Fig. 1) transported (paragraphs 0036, 0037, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 2, Meskanen discloses said conveyor (2, 3, 4) includes two transport modules (portions of 2, 3, 4) on which the object (1) is moved (portions of 2, 3, 4 on which 1 is moved, Fig. 1) and between which is defined a separating space (14), said detection means (5, 6) being positioned beneath the conveyor (2, 3, 4) (Fig. 1) and facing towards the separating space (14) so as to detect the three-dimensional configuration of the supporting surface (200) of the object (2) (surface of objects 1’s are three-dimensionally scanned from the top, sides, and bottom, paragraph 0036, 0037; Abstract, lines 1-3) transported whilst it passes from one module to the other (the object 1 is passed from 2, 3, and 4, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Meskanen discloses one or more of the transport modules comprise a motor-driven belt (implied by chain conveyors 2, 3, 4) closed in a loop (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Meskanen discloses upper acquisition means (top, side, bottom scanners, paragraphs 0036, 0037) set up for detecting parameters relative to a shape of the entire transported object (paragraphs 0036, 0037; Abstract, lines 1-3).
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.
Claims 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meskanen in view of Baldwin (US 5,280,170).
Regarding claim 4, Meskanen does not disclose one or more of the transport modules comprise a series of motor-driven rollers.
Baldwin discloses one or more of the transport modules comprise a series of motor-driven rollers (22’s).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Meskanen with one or more of the transport modules comprise a series of motor-driven rollers as disclosed by Baldwin for the purpose of conveying an object.
Regarding claim 5, Meskanen discloses a processing unit (Abstract, lines 1-2) connected to said means for detecting the base (claim 6, lines 1-3, 7) and comprising a module with a lower shape (means for measuring bottom side of timber, paragraph 0037, lines 4-7) representing the base detected by an upper acquisition means (determining apparatus comprising the detection means, paragraph 0037, lines 4-7).
Meskanen does not disclose defining one or more flat base surfaces representing the base detected by an upper acquisition means.
Baldwin discloses defining one or more flat base surfaces (detecting a flat surface of container 12) representing the base detected by an upper acquisition means (the base is detected by camera 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Meskanen with defining one or more flat base surfaces as disclosed by Baldwin for the purpose of inspecting the outer surface of a container.
Regarding claim 7, Meskanen discloses the processing unit (Abstract, lines 1-2) is connected to said upper acquisition means (determining apparatus comprising the detection means, paragraph 0037, lines 4-7) and comprises an upper shape module (means for measuring shape of timber above, paragraph 0037, lines 4-7) which represents the outline, seen from below or from above, of the entire object detected by the upper acquisition means (determining apparatus comprising the detection means, paragraph 0037, lines 4-7).
It is noted that an upper shape module seen from above is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Meskanen does not disclose defining an overall flat surface which represents the outline, seen from below or from above of the entire object detected by the upper acquisition means.
Baldwin discloses defining an overall flat surface (detecting a flat surface of container 12) which represents the outline, seen from below of the entire object detected by the upper acquisition means (the surface above is detected by camera 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Meskanen with defining an overall flat surface as disclosed by Baldwin for the purpose of inspecting the outer surface of a container.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meskanen in view of Baldwin as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Grundmann et al. (US 2010/0191367).
Regarding claim 8, Meskanen as modified by Baldwin discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above.
Baldwin further discloses the processing unit (32) is configured for obtaining shape parameters starting at least from the flat base surface (Abstract, lines 1-2; camera 30 scans flat surface of container 12, Fig. 1).
Meskanen as modified by Baldwin does not disclose a classification module configured for determining whether an object detected is stable or unstable as a function of the fact that one or more of the respective shape parameters is greater than or less than a relative predetermined discrimination threshold.
Grundmann et al. discloses a classification module (image processing system, paragraph 0014, line 7) configured for determining whether an object detected is stable or unstable as a function of the fact that one or more of the respective shape parameters is greater than or less than a relative predetermined discrimination threshold (image processing system determines whether object is dimensionally stable, paragraph 0014, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Meskanen as modified with a classification module as disclosed by Grundmann et al. for the purpose of determining whether an object detected is stable or unstable.
Prior Art Note
Claims 9-18 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a system for recognising unstable objects transported resting on a conveyor, comprising calculating a first shape parameter relative to a ratio between the area of the flat base surface and that of the overall flat surface (claims 9, 17) or defining a minimum circumscribed rectangle of the flat base surface and a minimum circumscribed rectangle of the overall surface (claim 10) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koster (US 2023/0168080) discloses an optical measuring device for determining the three-dimensional shape of an object (3) on a conveyor belt (2) (Abstract; Fig. 1).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 February 2, 2026