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 amendment filed May 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4 and 6-8 are amended. Claims 2-3 are cancelled. Claims 11-15 are new. Therefore, claims 1 and 4-15 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102016011711 in view of Monty et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0003636.
As per claims 1 and 8, DE102016011711 discloses a transmission belt arrangement (fig. 1) and method for determining the state of a transmission belt arrangement comprising:
at least one transmission belt (7),
at least one sensor (paras [0013, 0014, 0019]) configured to obtain data from which a surface mapping of the at least one transmission belt (7) can be determined, and
processing circuitry operatively connected to the at least one sensor, the processing circuitry being configured to a) determine a state of the at least one transmission belt based on the data or b) to determine the surface mapping and determine the state of the at least one transmission belt based on the surface mapping. DE102016011711 does not disclose the at least one sensor is a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) sensor.
However, Monty et al. in their Chain Monitoring Systems and Methods invention teach the use of a LIDAR sensor (48) (para [0053]) for use with transmission chains to monitor wear over time. One of the characteristics their monitoring system analyzes is chain elongation (para [0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a LIDAR sensor to monitor transmission component elongation, as taught by Monty et al., for the purpose of using a sensor that does not rely on ambient light, such as a camera, but rather a LIDAR sensor that emits its own pulses of laser light.
LIDAR generates many pulses to produce a dense point cloud to represent the shape and structure of the object. This is considered surface mapping.
As per claim 4, DE102016011711 and Monty et al. as set forth above, DE ‘711 as modified discloses the data is data from which a three-dimensional surface mapping can be determined.
As per claims 5 and 15, DE102016011711 and Monty et al. as set forth above, DE ‘711 as modified discloses the state is a degree of elongation (para [0009], DE ‘711) of the at least one transmission belt (7).
As per claim 6, DE102016011711 and Monty et al. as set forth above, DE ‘711 as modified discloses the LIDAR sensor (48) is configured to provide the data to the processing circuitry (44), and
wherein the processing circuitry (44) is configured to determine the surface mapping from the data (paras [0053, 0054]).
As per claim 7, DE102016011711 and Monty et al. as set forth above, DE ‘711 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for the at least one transmission belt comprises a plurality of transmission belts, and wherein a first one of the at least one sensor is configured to obtain the data from which the surface mapping of each of the plurality of transmission belts can be determined.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate at least one LIDAR sensor to include a field of view to include multiple transmission belts, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
As per claim 9, DE102016011711 and Monty et al. as set forth above, DE ‘711 as modified discloses processing the signal includes comparing the surface mapping with data indicative of a normative surface mapping (paras [0005, 0054], Monty). Monty et al. disclose analysis includes determining change in a characteristic of the transmission element along with information processed by the processing circuitry can be stored in the memory circuit for comparison purposes.
As per claim 10, DE102016011711 and Monty et al. as set forth above, DE ‘711 as modified discloses issuing a notification if the comparing indicates a deviation from the normative surface mapping (paras [0060, 0062, 0063], Monty).
As per claim 11, DE102016011711 and Monty et al. as set forth above, DE ‘711 as modified discloses the processing circuitry (44) is configured to determine the surface mapping and determine the state of the at least one transmission belt based on the surface mapping (paras [0005, 0054], Monty).
As per claim 12, DE102016011711 and Monty et al. as set forth above, DE ‘711 as modified discloses the data is data from which a three-dimensional surface mapping can be determined and the state is a degree of elongation of the at least one transmission belt (para [0005], Monty).
As per claim 13, DE102016011711 and Monty et al. as set forth above, DE ‘711 as modified discloses processing the signal includes comparing the surface mapping with second data representative of an initial surface mapping of the transmission belt (paras [0005, 0053, 0060, 0062, 0063]). Monitoring belt elongation requires initial belt length data so a second data set can determine the amount a belt has elongated.
As per claim 14, DE102016011711 and Monty et al. as set forth above, DE ‘711 as modified discloses the second data is data from which a three-dimensional surface mapping can be determined (paras [0005, 0053, 0060, 0062, 0063]). The second data set would be evaluated as the first data set, from surface mapping determined from a LIDAR sensor as explained in the rejection of claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8 and their dependents have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK KENNETH BUSE whose telephone number is (571)270-3139. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at 571 272-2097. 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.
/M.K.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights