DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is responsive to amendments filed 12/01/2025.
Claims 13, 15-17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 29-31 have been amended and new claims 32 and 33 have been added. Claims 1-22, 24, 25, and 27-33 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 with respect to claim 29 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amended claim 29 to include the new limitation requiring “the method being implemented by a detection apparatus”. The Applicant argues that, by amending claim 29 to specify the method is implemented by a detection apparatus, the claim as now presented embodies statutory subject matter. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that “a detection apparatus” is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to no more than at best a generic computer. The courts have held claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer or performed using a computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2); Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699; Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPW2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
Further, as applicant further amended claim 29 to remove recitation of “wherein the object is detected when a detected volume exceeds a predefined first limit value and a detected pitch exceeds a predefined second limit value, a new rejection has been made in view of CALVARESE.
Amendments to claims 13, 15-17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30, and 31 address the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). As such, the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Statutory Category: Claim 29 is directed to a process, which is a statutory class of invention.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Claim 29 recites the abstract idea of identifying an object.
Claim 29 recites the following limitations which fall under metal processes:
Wherein the object is detected acoustically and an identification process for identifying the object is only initiated when the object is detected.
The recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performing the limitations in the mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(111)). For example, the “detecting” and “identifying” amount to analytical actions recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional elements of “a conveying device” and “detection apparatus” are recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, there elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea in a particular environment (i.e., conveying device) is not a particular application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to be significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also know as “inventive concept”) to the except. As discussed above, the additional elements of “a conveying device” and “detection apparatus” merely provides a general link to a particular field of use and cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CALVARESE, US 2008/0136623.
Re claim 29:
CALVARESE discloses a method for identifying an object transported by a conveying device, the method being implemented by a detection apparatus (100), wherein the object is detected acoustically and an identification process for identifying the object is only initiated when the object is detected (i.e., audio trigger device 100 comprises a microphone and RFID reader, wherein the microphone detects an object acoustically when a worker picks up the object and an audio driver triggers an RFID read event after the object is acoustically detected [0014] [0019] [0023] [Figures 1 and 2]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-22, 24, 25, 27, 28, and 30-33 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1:
The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest, either singularly or in combination thereof, a detection apparatus, comprising an identification unit for identifying an object transported by a conveying device,
Wherein the detection apparatus has at least a first microphone and is configured to detect the object acoustically, in particular during transport, by means of at least the first microphone, and to initiate an identification process of the object by means of the identification unit only when the object is detected,
And wherein the detection apparatus is configured to detect the object when a detected volume exceeds a predefined first limit value and a detected pitch exceeds a predefined second limit value.
Regarding independent claim 30:
The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest, either singularly or in combination thereof, a detection apparatus, comprising an identification unit for identifying an object transported by a conveying device,
Wherein the detection apparatus has at least a first microphone and is configured to detect the object acoustically, in particular during transport, by means of at least the first microphone, and to initiate an identification process of the object by means of the identification unit only when the object is detected,
Wherein the detection apparatus if configured to record and evaluate a volume and a pitch of a sound influenced by the object by means of at least the first microphone in order to detect the object, and
Wherein limit values are predefined such that the limit values have a correlation to one another, which correlation take into account a relationship based on the Doppler effect between the volume and the pitch of the sound influenced by the object when passing the detection apparatus.
Regarding independent claim 31:
The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest, either singularly or in combination thereof, a detection apparatus, comprising an identification unit for identifying an object transported by a conveying device,
Wherein the detection apparatus has at least a first microphone and is configured to detect the object acoustically, in particular during transport, by means of at least the first microphone, and to initiate an identification process of the object by means of the identification unit only when the object is detected,
Wherein the detection apparatus is configured to record and evaluate a volume and a pitch of a sound influenced by the object by means of at least the first microphone in order to detect the object,
Wherein the detection apparatus comprises a memory module on which memory module the volume and the pitch are recorded and/or limit values, a waiting time, a switch-off time, a distance value, and a second distance value, and/or a position value, and/or wherein the detection apparatus is configured so that the limit values, a waiting time, a switch-off time, a distance value, and/pr a position value are defined during an installation process of the detection apparatus, and
Wherein the detection apparatus is configured, during the installation process in which the object passes the detection apparatus at least once, to store, for each passing of the object, the volume of the sound influenced by the object as a first reference pattern and the pitch of the sound influenced by the object as a second reference pattern in the memory module by means of at least the first microphone, and to determine the first limit value via the first reference pattern and to determine the second limit value via the second reference pattern.
Claims 2-22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 32, and 33 depend from claim 1 and are therefore allowed.
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.”
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 LAURA A GUDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7607. If the Examiner cannot be reached by telephone, she can be reached through the following e-mail address: laura.gudorf@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 6:00-4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and e-mail are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Lee can be reached on (571)272-2398. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/LAURA A GUDORF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876