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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 07/22/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Additionally, it appears that there submitted non-patent literature that were not correctly listed on either IDS mailed 07/22/2025.
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.
At least claims 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 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.
The claims listed above as well as others not listed are replete with antecedent basis issues that render each claim indefinite and unclear to the Examiner. The Examiner will briefly list corrections for some of the claims however it is kindly asked for the Applicant to thoroughly proof-read the next set of claims to ensure that proper antecedent basis is maintained through-out the claim set. It does appear that the prior claim dependencies were amended to abide by USPTO standards (see 02/16/2024) however the claim language within each dependent claim appears to have been missed when correcting the dependencies/proper antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the measuring unit is configured to detect the elongation based on a cylinder position” which should be “wherein the measuring unit is configured to detect [[the]] an elongation based on a cylinder position”.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the operating parameter comprises at least one of [[the]] a torque, [[the]] an elongation, [[the]] a friction, [[the]] a temperature of the conveyor system, and the at least one individual element, wherein the controller, when recording [[the]] a deviation”.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the controller is further configured to determine a lubricant quantity for lubricating the conveyor system and/or [[the]] an at least one individual element based on at least [[the]] a deviation, and [[the]] a lubrication command characterizes [[the]] a specified lubricant quantity”.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the measuring unit is configured to determine [[the]] a load on the conveyor unit based on oscillations of the conveyor unit”.
As a note, these are just examples of the numerous antecedent basis errors within the claim set and Applicant is asked to recheck the entire claim set for proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/006878 (Domenicucci hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Domenicucci teaches an oven conveyor unit that discloses at least one measuring unit configured to detect at least one operating parameter of the conveyor system (¶ 16-19 details the use of monitoring power and ¶ 66 details other various measurements methods to measure chain length); and a controller configured to compare the operating parameter to a target operating parameter (PLC disclosed would have the control methods of ¶ 16-19 and 66), determine a deviation of the operating parameter from the target operating parameter at a detection time (¶ 16-19 and 65-66), and output a warning signal if the deviation is greater than or equal to a predetermined value after a predetermined duration, wherein the duration begins with the detection time (¶ 16-19 and 65-66, 69).
Regarding claim 2, Domenicucci’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Domenicucci further discloses that the operating parameter comprises at least one of a friction, a damage, an elongation, a load, a temperature, a torque of drive unit driving the conveyor system, an ambient temperature, a lubrication cycle, a lubrication of the conveyor system, a fan speed of a fan unit of the oven, and a lubrication of at least one individual element of the conveyor system (¶ 65-66 and 69 details the detection of chain elongation and ¶ 16-19 detail the detection of power of the driver).
Regarding claim 3, the controller is further configured to determine an appointed maintenance time based on the deviation if the deviation is greater than or equal to the predetermined value during and/or after the predetermined duration (¶ 16-19 and ¶ 65-69 where the chain life is estimated based on sensed parameters), and wherein the warning signal further characterizes the appointed maintenance time (¶ 19 and 69).
Regarding claim 4, Domenicucci’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Domenicucci further discloses that the measuring unit is configured to detect the elongation based on a cylinder position of a conveyor unit tension controller of the conveyor unit of the conveyor system (¶ 16-19), [[and/or wherein the predetermined value is greater than or equal to 5%]] (Not treated due to the “or” clause).
Regarding claim 5, Domenicucci’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Domenicucci further discloses that the target operating parameter, the predetermined value, and the duration are selected based on the operating parameter to be detected (Evident of the parameters used by Domenicucci in ¶ 16-19 and 65-69).
Regarding claim 7, Domenicucci’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Domenicucci further discloses that the controller is further configured to determine a lubricant quantity for lubricating the conveyor system and/or the at least one individual element based on at least the deviation, and the lubrication command characterizes the specified lubricant quantity (¶ 16-19), and wherein the lubricant quantity is further determined based on at least one of a predetermined minimum lubricant limit, a predetermined maximum lubricant limit, and an actual lubricant quantity (¶ 69).
Regarding claim 11, Domenicucci’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Domenicucci further discloses that the controller is configured to control the drive unit and/or a conveyor unit tension of a conveyor unit tension controller of the conveyor system based on at least one of an age of the conveyor unit, the at least one individual element, a conveyor speed of the conveyor unit, the at least one operating parameter, and a container unit loss upstream, along, and/or downstream of a section of the oven (Drive unit is controlled based on the at least one operating parameter per ¶ 16-19 and 65-66).
Regarding claim 15, Domenicucci’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Domenicucci further discloses that the measuring unit is configured to detect the friction of the conveyor unit based on a control temperature of the conveyor unit and/or of the at least one individual element upstream and/or downstream of a guide unit of the conveyor unit, (¶ 16-19) and wherein the controller is configured to determine an adjustment error of the guide unit based on the friction determined upstream and/or downstream of the guide unit of the conveyor unit and/or of the at least one individual element and to output and/or determine a correction signal for correcting the guide unit and to output a correction signal together with the warning signal (¶ 16-19, 66, 67 where the issue is notified and addressed by the system/engineer).
Regarding claim 16, Domenicucci’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Domenicucci further discloses that the measuring unit is configured to determine the load based on a torque of the drive unit, and wherein the controller is configured to determine at least one defective bearing and/or an insufficient lubrication of the conveyor unit if the deviation is greater than or equal to the predetermined value after the predetermined duration (¶ 16-19 where the load is monitored on the VFD which is based on torque).
Regarding claim 18, Domenicucci teaches an oven conveyor unit that discloses at least one measuring unit configured to detect at least one operating parameter of the conveyor system that has an influence on a service life of a conveyor unit of the conveyor system (¶ 16-19 details the use of monitoring power and ¶ 66 details other various measurements methods to measure chain length); and a controller configured to determine an expected service life of the conveyor unit based on the at least one operating parameter (PLC with ¶ 16-19 and 69), and output a maintenance signal based on the expected service life of the conveyor unit that characterizes an expected appointed maintenance time of the conveyor unit (¶ 16-19 and 65-66 with 69).
Regarding claim 20, Domenicucci teaches an oven conveyor unit and method of operation that discloses detecting at least one operating parameter of the conveyor system; comparing the operating parameter to a target operating parameter (¶ 16-19 details the use of monitoring power and ¶ 66 details other various measurements methods to measure chain length); determining a deviation of the operating parameter from the target operating parameter at a detection time (¶ 16-19 and 65-66); and outputting a warning signal if the deviation is greater than or equal to a predetermined value after a predetermined duration, wherein the duration begins with the detection time (¶ 16-19 and 65-66 with 69).
Regarding claim 21, Domenicucci teaches an oven conveyor unit and method of operation that discloses detecting at least one operating parameter of the conveyor system that has an influence on a service life of a conveyor unit of the conveyor system (¶ 16-19 details the use of monitoring power and ¶ 66 details other various measurements methods to measure chain length); determining an expected service life of the conveyor unit based on the at least one operating parameter (PLC with ¶ 16-19 and 69); and outputting a maintenance signal based on the expected service life of the conveyor unit that characterizes an expected appointed maintenance time of the conveyor unit (¶ 16-19 and 65-66 with 69).
Regarding claim 22, Domenicucci teaches an oven conveyor unit with a controller being programmed to monitor the conveyor unit that discloses comprising commands that cause a processor to execute a method according to claim 20 when the program is executed by the processor (Inherent of PLC controller of Domenicucci as disclosed in the rejection of claim 20 above).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0006878 (Domenicucci) in view of US 5186280 (Mattcheck hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Domenicucci’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Domenicucci further discloses that the operating parameter comprises at least one of the torque, the elongation, the friction, the temperature of the conveyor system, and the at least one individual element (Resultant friction causing the higher load per ¶ 16-19 and elongation per ¶ 66 of Domenicucci), wherein the controller, when recording the deviation, is further configured to output a lubrication command to a lubrication unit for lubricating the conveyor system and/or the at least one individual element with a lubricant at least within the predetermined duration (¶ 16-19 and 69 of Domenicucci).
Domenicucci is silent with respect that the controller is configured to output the lubrication command at the detection time and/or at a lubrication time that represents a predetermined time interval to the detection time and is within the predetermined duration.
However, Mattcheck teaches a conveyor chain assembly that discloses a controller is configured to output the lubrication command at the detection time and/or at a lubrication time that represents a predetermined time interval to the detection time and is within the predetermined duration (Column 5 Lines 32-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lubrication system of Domenicucci with the lubrication system of Mattcheck to ensure that the chain is continuously lubricated and preventing excessive friction.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0006878 (Domenicucci) in view of US 11008178 (Saurber hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Domenicucci’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the measuring unit is configured to determine a position information of the at least one individual element if the deviation is greater than or equal to the predetermined value after the predetermined duration, wherein the position information includes at least one of an actual position and an expected position of the at least one individual element, and wherein the warning signal comprises the position information.
However, Saurber teaches a chain conveyor monitoring system that discloses a measuring unit is configured to determine a position information of the at least one individual element if the deviation is greater than or equal to the predetermined value after the predetermined duration (Column 15 Line 58 through Column 16 Line 10), wherein the position information includes at least one of an actual position and an expected position of the at least one individual element, and wherein the warning signal comprises the position information (Column 15 Line 58 through Column 16 Line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensing capabilities of Domenicucci with the sensing of Saurber to ensure that the links in the chain conveyor are prevented from operation when damaged.
Regarding claim 17, Domenicucci’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Domenicucci but are silent with respect that the measuring unit is configured to determine the damage to the conveyor unit based on a breakage and/or an absence of at least one transport pin of the transport pins of the conveyor unit.
However, Saurber teaches a chain conveyor monitoring system that discloses a measuring unit is configured to determine the damage to the conveyor unit based on a breakage and/or an absence of at least one transport pin of the transport pins of the conveyor unit (Column 15 Line 58 through Column 16 Line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensing capabilities of Domenicucci with the sensing of Saurber to ensure that the links in the chain conveyor are prevented from operation when damaged.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0006878 (Domenicucci) in view of US 2014/0330430 (Waller hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Domenicucci’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the measuring unit is configured to determine the load on the conveyor unit based on oscillations of the conveyor unit, and/or wherein the controller is configured to determine a risk for the container units based on the detected oscillations, and wherein the controller is configured to control the drive unit based on the detected oscillations.
However, Waller teaches a conveyor chain system that discloses a measuring unit that is configured to determine the load on the conveyor unit based on oscillations of the conveyor unit, and/or wherein the controller is configured to determine a risk for the container units based on the detected oscillations, and wherein the controller is configured to control the drive unit based on the detected oscillations (¶ 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conveyor chain of Domenicucci with the control unit of Waller to monitor excessive oscillations.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0006878 (Domenicucci) in view of US 2014/0330430 (Waller) in view of US 5353520 (Gouge hereinafter) and further in view of US 2007/0114110 (Frost hereinafter).
Regarding claim 10, Domenicucci’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the controller is configured to control the drive unit such that the detected oscillations are reduced and/or compensated, and wherein the conveyor unit comprises transport pins for conveying the container units through the oven.
However, Waller teaches a conveyor chain system that discloses a controller that is configured to control the drive unit such that the detected oscillations are reduced and/or compensated (¶ 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conveyor chain of Domenicucci with the control unit of Waller to monitor excessive oscillations.
Domenicucci is silent with respect that the conveyor unit comprises transport pins for conveying the container units through the oven.
However, Gouge teaches a conveyor chain system that discloses a conveyor unit that comprises transport pins for conveying the container units through the oven.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conveyor chain system of Domenicucci with the pins of Gouge to maintain spacing of the components carried on the conveyor.
Domenicucci is silent with respect that the controller is configured to control the drive unit based on distances between the transport pins such that the detected oscillations are reduced and/or compensated.
However, Frost teaches a conveyor chain measuring system that discloses a controller is configured to control the drive unit based on distances between the transport pins such that the detected oscillations are reduced and/or compensated (¶ 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conveyor system of Domenicucci/Gouge with the teachings of Frost to maintain proper conveyor spacing.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0006878 (Domenicucci) in view of US 2020/0182712 (Kleczewski hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, Domenicucci’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Domenicucci further discloses that the measuring unit is configured to determine the friction of the conveyor unit and/or the friction of the at least one individual element based on a power consumption parameter of the drive unit (¶ 16-19 of Domenicucci), wherein the power consumption parameter comprises at least one of an actual value of a power consumption, a power consumption versus time, and a change of the power consumption (¶ 16-19).
Domenicucci is silent with respect that the measuring unit is configured to additionally determine an ambient temperature of the conveyor unit and/or of the at least one individual element to determine the power consumption parameter.
However, Kleczewski teaches a sensory system for conveyor belts that discloses a measuring unit is configured to additionally determine an ambient temperature of the conveyor unit and/or of the at least one individual element to determine the power consumption parameter (¶ 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensory array of Domenicucci with the teachings of Kleczewski to ensure that the temperature of the conveyor belt is within operable limits.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0006878 (Domenicucci) in view of US 9950873 (Staab hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Domenicucci’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Domenicucci but are silent with respect that the measuring unit is adapted to determine the friction of the conveyor unit based on the detected temperature of the conveyor unit and/or the friction of the at least one individual element based on the detected temperature of the at least one individual element.
However, Staab teaches a conveyor belt system that discloses a measuring unit that is adapted to determine the friction of the conveyor unit based on the detected temperature of the conveyor unit and/or the friction of the at least one individual element based on the detected temperature of the at least one individual element (Column 8 Lines 34-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conveyor belt monitoring system of Domenicucci with the monitoring of Staab to ensure that failures are prevented.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0006878 (Domenicucci) in view of US 2018/0162651 (McCally hereinafter).
Regarding claim 14, Domenicucci’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Domenicucci but are silent with respect that the measuring unit is configured to determine a bearing state of one or more bearings of the conveyor unit as the friction, damage, and/or load on the conveyor unit and/or of the one or more bearings of the conveyor unit, and wherein the controller is configured to control the lubrication unit based on the friction, the damage and/or the load of the conveyor unit, and/or of the one or more bearings of the conveyor unit.
However, McCally teaches a chain monitoring system that discloses a measuring unit that is configured to determine a bearing state of one or more bearings of the conveyor unit as the friction, damage, and/or load on the conveyor unit and/or of the one or more bearings of the conveyor unit (¶ 45), and wherein the controller is configured to control the lubrication unit based on the friction, the damage and/or the load of the conveyor unit, and/or of the one or more bearings of the conveyor unit (¶ 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chain system of Domenicucci with the bearings and lubrication monitoring system of McCally to further minimize friction during operation.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0006878 (Domenicucci) in view of US 11008178 (Saurber).
Regarding claim 17, Domenicucci’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Domenicucci but are silent with respect that the measuring unit is configured to determine the damage to the conveyor unit based on a breakage and/or an absence of at least one transport pin of the transport pins of the conveyor unit.
However, Saurber teaches a chain conveyor monitoring system that discloses a measuring unit is configured to determine the damage to the conveyor unit based on a breakage and/or an absence of at least one transport pin of the transport pins of the conveyor unit (Column 15 Line 58 through Column 16 Line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensing capabilities of Domenicucci with the sensing of Saurber to ensure that the links in the chain conveyor are prevented from operation when damaged.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5353520 (Gouge) in view of US 2017/0006878 (Domenicucci).
Regarding claim 19, Gouge teaches a pin oven () but is silent with respect to the system of claim 1.
However, Domenicucci teaches the control system of claim 1 (See claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pin oven of Gouge with the system of Domenicucci to ensure the conveyor is properly operated over the life of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights