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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 5 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.
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 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida KR 101697905.
Claim 1, Yoshida teaches a method for determining a vibration amplitude via CL11, CL12of a vibrating part 120 of a vibration conveyor 10 P0081, wherein the vibrating part 120 oscillates via CL11, CL12 with a vibration frequency and the vibration amplitude in a vibration direction F P0062, and wherein the vibrating part 120 completes a full oscillation in an oscillation time, which is the reciprocal of the vibration frequency P0052, and wherein the method further comprises operating an imaging unit CM1, CM2 to image a reference part CA of the vibrating part 120 with an exposure frequency while the vibrating part 120 oscillates in the vibration direction (F), in order to take at least one image of the reference part CA in different positions ME1,ME2 during at least one full oscillation with an exposure time Ts, and wherein opposite extreme positions ME1,ME2 of the reference part CA in vibration direction (F) are determined from the at least one image P0039, wherein the full oscillation describes a vibrating motion of the reference part CA in the vibration direction F is determined as a distance between the determined opposite extreme positions ME1,ME2, and wherein the vibration amplitude of the vibrating part 120 in the vibration direction (F) is determined as a distance between the determined opposite extreme positions ME1,ME2 P0040.
Claim 5, Yoshida teaches a system 10 for determining a vibration amplitude of a vibrating part 120 of a vibration conveyor 10 Abstract, wherein the vibrating part 120 oscillates with a vibration frequency and a vibration amplitude in a vibration direction (F) P0062, wherein a vision system DTU with an imaging unit CM1,CM2 is provided and configured to take at least one image of a reference part CA of the vibrating part 120 with an exposure frequency and an exposure time while the vibrating part 120 oscillates in the vibration direction (DF), the vision system DTU, comprising a processing unit MPU of the vision system DTU, and is configured to determine opposite extreme positions ME1,ME2 of the reference part CA in vibration direction (F) from the at least one image GPX and therefrom determine the vibration amplitude of the vibrating part 120 as a distance between the opposite extreme positions ME1,ME2, wherein a full oscillation of the vibrating part 120 describes a vibrating motion of the reference part CA in the vibration direction F between the opposite extreme positions ME1,ME2 P0039-0040.
Claim 6, Yoshida teaches a control unit CL11,CL12 for controlling the oscillation of the vibrating part 120 of a vibration conveyor 10, the control unit CL11,CL12 configured to receive the determined vibration amplitude from the vision system DTU and the control unit CL11,CL12 is configured to use the received vibration amplitude to control the oscillation of the vibrating part 120 P0062.
Claim 7, Yoshida teaches the control unit CL11,CL12 is configured to receive a setpoint vibration amplitude and the control unit CL11,CL12 is configured to control the oscillation of the vibrating part 120 such that the vibration amplitude follows the setpoint vibration amplitude pages P0062.
Claim 8, Yoshida teaches the reference part CA is a part of the vibrating part 120 itself or the reference part CA is a part added onto the vibrating part 120 Abstract.
Claim 9, Yoshida teaches the reference CA is a part of the vibrating part 120 itself or the reference part CA is a part added onto the vibrating part Abstract.
Claim 10, Yoshida teaches the reference part CA is a part of the vibrating part 120 itself or the reference part 120 is a part added onto the vibrating part Abstract.
Claims 11 and 12, Yoshida teaches the opposite extreme positions ME1,ME2 and the vibration amplitude via CL11,CL12 are determined based on the vibrating motion being analyzed as a linear motion via CM1,CM2.
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) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida KR 101697905 in view of Shimasaki Kohei et al Wide-area Operation Monitoring of Conveyors Using a Panoramic Vibration Camera ISIJ International 2021; 61 (10):2587-2596.
Claim 2, Yoshida teaches multiple consecutive images are taken with the exposure frequency and the multiple images GPX are analyzed to determine the vibration amplitude of the vibrating part 120 Abstract, but does not teach as Shimasaki Kohei et al teaches the exposure time is shorter than the oscillation time, and Fig. 8 pages 2591-2595 paragraph 3.3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Yoshida with the control configuration taught in Shimasaki Kohei et al with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 3, Yoshida does not teach as 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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Yoshida with the control configuration taught in Shimasaki Kohei et al with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 4, Yoshida does not teach as 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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Yoshida with the control configuration taught in Shimasaki Kohei et al 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
Prosecution Insights