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 .
Response to Arguments
The rejection under 112, second paragraph to claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 and 5, Applicant argues that Shimasaki Kohei et al. does not teach “A method for determining a vibration amplitude of a vibrating part of a vibration conveyor wherein opposite extreme positions of the reference part in the vibration direction are determined from the at least one image, and wherein the vibration amplitude of the vibrating part in the vibration direction is determined as a distance between the determined opposite extreme positions” and as shown in Figure 1 of the current application shows opposite extreme positions 7. Shimasaki teaches “we developed a panoramic vibration camera that enables long-term vibration analysis based on pixel-level vibration viewpoints over a wide range with high-magnification imaging” Paragraph 1 P2587-2588 therefore meeting the limitation of extreme opposite positions which are not defined by the Applicant. If the “extreme opposite positions 7” as shown in Figure 1 of the current Application, then the imaging as shown in Figure 6 in Shimasaki can be interpreted as “extreme opposite positions”. Applicant then argues that Shimasaki does not teach “a vibrating part of a vibration conveyor”. Shimasaki teaches “a novel non-contact vision sensing method for wide-area monitoring of the
operation of conveyors in ironworks by using a panoramic vibration camera in real time”. This method can capture magnified images, including vibrations from a single camera with mirror-driven viewpoint switching. The rotation of multiple rollers with conveyor belts was detected using a function of full-pixel vibration spectrum imaging, which can calculate peak frequencies from time frequency responses. Through experiments in different situations, such as loading and unloading, we evaluated the efficiency of this method, which can monitor the operation of multiple rollers and conveyors, when the camera is located 15 m away, or more, from the conveyors to be monitored” Abstract. Shimasaki teaches the use of the control system for material handling conveyor which includes vibration conveyors, “it is difficult to inspect all infrastructures simply by executing visual equipment diagnosis and maintenance, and the risk of major accidents due to overlooking is also considered as an incident issue. In a material handling conveyor composed of rollers and belts, if a condition in which the rollers continue to be non-rotating owing to some trouble, there is a fear that the friction between a belt moving at a high speed and a stationary roller may lead not only to a decrease in productivity, due to a decrease in transportation volume, but also to a serious incident such as fires and explosions due to a crack/damage of the belt or an overload on the drive system. Various examples of these incidents have been reported” P1 (introduction of the prior art). An accurate vibration measurement is crucial for maintaining the performance, reliability, and safety of automated manufacturing environments. Abnormal vibrations caused by faults in gears or bearings can degrade positional accuracy, reduce productivity, and, over time, significantly impair production efficiency and product quality. Shimasaki teaches the use of conveyors which include the use of vibration conveyors having rollers. Applicant points to vibration conveyors are machines with a solid conveying unit that oscillates linearly or rotary, but that claim language is not present in the claims or the use of the conveyance to distinguish itself from the cited prior art. Applicant has not provided distinct claim language to overcome the cited prior art and for the foregoing reasons, the claims stand rejected.
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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimasaki Kohei et al Wide-area Operation Monitoring of Conveyors Using a Panoramic Vibration Camera ISIJ International 2021; 61 (10):2587-2596.
Claim 1, Shimasaki Kohei et al teaches a method for determining a vibration amplitude (A) of a vibrating part of a vibration conveyor Abstract, wherein the vibrating part Fig. 3 oscillates with a vibration frequency (fA) and the vibration amplitude A in a vibration direction R, and wherein the vibrating part Fig. 3 completes a full oscillation (O) in an oscillation time, which is the reciprocal of the vibration frequency (fA) page 2588 paragraph 2.2, and wherein the method further comprises operating an imaging unit Fig. 1 to image a reference part of the vibrating part with an exposure frequency while the vibrating part Fig. 3 oscillates in the vibration direction (R), in order to take at least one image of the reference part in different positions during at least one full oscillation with an exposure time, and wherein opposite extreme positions of the reference part in vibration direction (R) are determined from the at least one image via Fig. 1, and wherein the vibration amplitude (A) of the vibrating part in the vibration direction (R) is determined as a distance D between the determined opposite extreme positions Fig. 5 page 2596 paragraph 4 Fig. 8.
Claim 2, Shimasaki Kohei et al teaches the exposure time is shorter than the oscillation time, and multiple consecutive images are taken with the exposure frequency and the multiple images are analyzed to determine the vibration amplitude of the vibrating part Fig. 8 pages 2591-2595 paragraph 3.3.
Claim 3, Shimasaki Kohei et al teaches the exposure time is chosen to be equal to or longer than the oscillation time, and wherein one image is taken and analyzed to determine the vibration amplitude of the vibrating part Fig. 8 pages 2591-2595 paragraph 3.3.
Claim 4, Shimasaki Kohei et al teaches the exposure time is chosen to be a factor between 0.8 and 0.99 shorter in duration than the oscillation time and the exposure frequency is chosen to be equal to or less than the vibration frequency (fA), and wherein one image is taken and analyzed to determine the vibration amplitude of the vibrating part Fig. 8 pages 2591-2595 paragraph 3.3.
Claim 5 Fig. 8 pages 2591-2595 paragraph 3.3 a system Fig. 4 for determining a vibration amplitude of a vibrating part of a vibration conveyor Abstract, wherein the vibrating part Fig. 3 oscillates with a vibration frequency (fA) and a vibration amplitude (A) in a vibration direction (D), wherein a vision system Fig. 1 with an imaging unit is provided and configured to take at least one image of a reference part of the vibrating part Fig. 3 with an exposure frequency and an exposure time while the vibrating part oscillates in the vibration direction (D), the vision system Fig. 1, comprising a processing unit of the vision system Fig. 1, and is configured to determine opposite extreme positions of the reference part in vibration direction (R) from the at least one image and therefrom determine the vibration amplitude (A) of the vibrating part Fig. 3 as a distance (D) between the opposite extreme positions Fig. 8 pages 2591-2595 paragraph 3.3.
Claim 6, Shimasaki Kohei et al teaches the arrangement system further comprises a control unit for controlling the oscillation of the vibrating part of a vibration conveyor, the control unit configured to receive the determined vibration amplitude from the vision system and the control unit is configured to use the received vibration amplitude to control the oscillation of the vibrating part pages 2588-2589 paragraph 2.2.
Claim 7, Shimasaki Kohei et al teaches the control unit is configured to receive a setpoint vibration amplitude and the control unit is configured to control the oscillation of the vibrating part such that the vibration amplitude follows the setpoint vibration amplitude pages 2588-2589 paragraph 2.2.
Claim 8, Shimasaki Kohei et al teaches the reference part Fig. 3 is a part of the vibrating part itself or the reference part is a part added onto the vibrating part pages 2588-2589 paragraph 2.2.
Claim 9, Shimasaki Kohei et al teaches the reference part Fig. 3 is a part of the vibrating part itself or the reference part is a part added onto the vibrating part pages 2588-2589 paragraph 2.2.
Claim 10, Shimasaki Kohei et al teaches the reference part Fig. 3 is a part of the vibrating part itself or the reference part is a part added onto the vibrating part pages 2588-2589 paragraph 2
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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