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 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murphy AU 669461-B2.
Claim 1, Murphy teaches a conveyor belt monitoring system 10 for synchronizing belt condition via E,C, conveyor system condition and process conditions via E,C 18,22, the system 10 comprising: a plurality of sensors 18,22 to measure belt conditions, process conditions and conveyor structure conditions and provide as workflow data via E,18,22,C; one or more location sensors E,22 of the plurality of sensors 18,22 to provide belt position data P7 L1-11; a memory storage; an interface; circuitry comprising one or more processors (of C) P5 L12-19 configured to: synchronize process data, belt condition data, and conveyor system data and location data into a synchronization data set; detect an event based on the synchronization data and the operating process tolerances P6 L12-30; correlate the detected event with the synchronization data as correlated data; and analyze the correlated data P7 L24-32.
Claim 2, Murphy teaches the circuitry (of C and known in conveyor systems) further configured to develop one or more causes for the detected event based on the correlated data P7 L24-32; P8 L1-6.
Claim 3, Murphy teaches the circuitry (of C and known in conveyor systems) further configured to relate the event to one or more of process conditions, conveyor conditions, and/or belt conditions P7 L24-32; P8 L1-6.
Claim 4, Murphy teaches the synchronization data of C includes a spatial reference of the belt location P7 L24-32; P8 L1-6.
Claim 5, Murphy teaches a synchronization signal is provided by at least one of the sensors 22 P11 L10-25.
Claim 6, Murphy teaches the one or more sensors E,22 positioned along the conveyor system 10 determine the transverse belt position relative to the centerline of conveyor structure P11 L10-32.
Claim 7, Murphy teaches the circuitry of C further configured to detect reference locations based on the belt location data P11 L10-32.
Claim 8, Murphy teaches the memory storage stores operating process tolerances P7 L24-32; P8 L1-6.
Claim 9, Murphy teaches the system 10 is further configured to capture corrective action events to monitor for the overall impact of these actions to the belt, process or system P11 L5-32.
Claim 15, Murphy teaches a conveyor belt monitoring system 10 for synchronizing belt condition via E,C, conveyor system condition and process conditions via E,C 18,22, the system 10 comprising: a plurality of sensors 18,22 to measure belt conditions, process conditions and conveyor structure conditions and provide as workflow data via E,18,22,C; one or more location sensors E,22 of the plurality of sensors 18,22 to provide belt position data P7 L1-11; a memory storage; an interface; circuitry comprising one or more processors (of C) P5 L12-19 configured to: synchronize process data, belt condition data, and conveyor system data and location data into a synchronization data set; detect an event based on the synchronization data and the operating process tolerances P6 L12-30; correlate the detected event with the synchronization data as correlated data; and analyze the correlated data P7 L24-32; analyze the correlated data via C,CC,DC; develop one or more causes for the detected event based on the correlated data via C,CC,DC; relate the event to one or more of process conditions, conveyor conditions, and/or belt conditions; and wherein the synchronization data set includes a spatial reference of the belt location P11 L10-32.
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) 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy AU 669461-B2 in view of Polak U.S. Patent No. 11,401,113.
Claim 10, Murphy does not teach as Polak teaches the system 100 is further configured to capture the confirmation feedback of the correlated output to enhance machine learning algorithms C6 L25-40. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Murphy with the control system taught in Polak with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 11, Murphy does not teach as Polak teaches the system 100 is further configured to utilize digital twin models to further generate, evaluate, prioritize and validate the recommended corrective actions C6 L25-40; C8 L50-67; C9 L1-10. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Murphy with the control system taught in Polak with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 12, Murphy does not teach as Polak teaches the digital twin model is used to predict trends and proactive maintenance actions to optimize conveyance processes C6 L25-40; C8 L50-67; C9 L1-10. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Murphy with the control system taught in Polak with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 13, Murphy does not teach as Polak teaches the system 100 is further configured to provide real world data as feedback to improve the digital twin model C6 L25-40; C8 L50-67; C9 L1-10. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Murphy with the control system taught in Polak with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy AU 669461-B2 in view of DeVries U.S. Patent No. 10,836,585.
Claim 14, Murphy does not teach as DeVries teaches a cloud server 10 coupled to the interface Fig. 4 C8 L60-67; C9 L1-12. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Murphy with the control system taught in DeVries with a reasonable expectation of success because
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-2362. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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.
/KAVEL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
KS