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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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, device, devices, or system, 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: the “plurality of transport devices” for transporting objects through the installation; the “sensor system” that is configured to monitor a plurality of monitoring regions that each extend along one of the several adjustable railings for person detection; and the “processing device” that is configured to operate the several transport devices for jointly adjusting the adjustable railings depending on the monitoring of the several monitoring regions via the sensor system in claim 1.
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 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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “plurality of transport devices” invokes 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. 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;
(b) 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
(c) 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:
(a) 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
(b) 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.
It appears that WO2008/052212 is discussed in the specification of the present application as an example of the type of “transport devices” that may be used, however, this is not made explicit by the specification. Furthermore, even if this intention had been made explicitly, it should be noted that incorporation by reference of claimed subject matter may not be made by referencing a foreign patent document. It is suggested that the specification should be amended to refer to US 7,721,876 which is equivalent to the above document, to explicitly incorporate the subject matter of that reference by incorporation, and to make clear that the “transport devices” discussed therein form the “transport devices” of the present application.
Claim 1 states that the processing device “is configured to operate the several transport devices for jointly adjusting the adjustable railings depending on the monitoring of the several monitoring regions via the sensor system”. However it appears from the specification that the railings the sensor system is used to stop the adjustment of the adjustable railings rather than to enable the adjustment of the adjustable railings as suggested by the claim language stating that the adjustment happens “via the sensor system”. This discrepancy between the claims and the specification renders the scope of the claims impossible to ascertain.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the transport width" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-7, 9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartness et al. (US 7,721,876) in view of Till et al. (US 2010/0082149).
In regard to claim 1, Hartness shows an installation with a plurality of transport devices 10 for transporting objects through the installation. The plurality of transport devices 10 are arranged distributed in the installation and each have at least one adjustable railing 22 for setting a transport width. The installation includes a processing device 50 that is configured to operate the several transport devices 10 for jointly adjusting the adjustable railings 22 as required by the claim. However, Hartness lacks a sensor system that is configured to monitor a plurality of monitoring regions that each extend along one of the several adjustable railings 22 for person detection so that the railings 22 can be adjusted depending on the monitoring of the several monitoring regions.
Till shows an installation with a plurality of transport devices 3 and a sensor system 5 that is configured to monitor a plurality of monitoring regions S that each extend along one of the transport devices 3 for person detection (see paragraph 0043). Till teaches that the sensor system can be used to shut down the installation via a processing device 6 when a person is detected in a monitoring region to increase the safety of the installation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide the installation of Hartness with a sensor system 5 a sensor system 5/6 that is configured to monitor a plurality of monitoring regions S that each extend along one of the transport devices 3 for person detection so that the installation can be shut down when a person is detected to increase the safety of the installation according to the teachings of Till. When, this is done, the sensor system 5 would cause the processing device 50 to stop any adjustment of the adjustable railings as the installation is shut down when a person is detected in a monitoring region. As such, the processing device may be loosely said to operate the several transport devices for jointly adjusting the adjustable railings depending on the monitoring of the several monitoring regions with the sensor system as required by the claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
842
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, the objects being transported are containers (see paragraph 0041).
In regard to claim 3, the processing device 50 is further configured to operate the adjustable railings for joint adjustment only when no person has been detected in the several monitoring regions by the sensor system because when a person is detected in a monitoring region, the installation may be shut down (see paragraph 0043).
In regard to claim 4, the processing device is further configured to operate only those adjustable railings for joint adjustment, in the monitoring regions of which no person was detected by the sensor system (see paragraph 0043).
In regard to claim 5, it should be noted that Till also teaches that detection of a person may also trigger an output device to outputting warning signals to the several monitoring regions (see paragraph 0043). When this is done, the processing device may be said to further be configured to output a warning signal before and/or during the joint adjustment of the adjustable railings when a person is detected in one of the several monitoring regions.
In regard to claim 6, the processing device is further configured to stop the joint adjustment of the adjustable railings when a person is detected in one of the several monitoring regions via the sensor system during the joint adjustment as it is configured to stop the operation of the entire installation any time a person is detected.
In regard to claim 7, the processing device is further configured to stop an adjustment during the joint adjustment of the adjustable railings as it is configured to stop the operation of the entire installation any time a person is detected.
In regard to claim 9, the processing device is further configured to operate the several transport devices for transporting the objects independently of the monitoring of the several monitoring regions via the sensor system such as when an operator is allowed to be in one of the monitoring regions (see paragraph 0015 and 0028).
In regard to claim 12, the sensor system has at least one camera sensor device (paragraph 0021) or at least one thermal imaging camera sensor device (paragraph 0024) for each monitoring region.
In regard to claim 13, the adjustable railings have adjustable outer rails (see figure 4A).
In regard to claim 14, it should be noted that the processing device is configured such that an adjustment of the adjustable railings does not result in a person detection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10-11, and 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A DEUBLE whose telephone number is (571)272-6912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday flex schedule.
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.
/MARK A DEUBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651