The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to application filed on 6/11/24, in which Claims 1-15 are presented for examination of which Claims 1, 14 and 15 are in independent form.
Specification
Please include “optical unit” and “alarm” or “stop” into the title.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination.-An element in a claim fora combination maybe expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim fora combination maybe expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Claims 1-15 claim: “an optical unit” and “control unit”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundquist (US 5215264 A) in view of Petersen et al. (Petersen; US 20010020663 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lundquist discloses a product or container-inlet station for an operating machine (Abstract), comprising:
a conveyor (16 of Fig 2 conveyor belt) for advancing products or containers along a feed direction (18 of Fig 2 conveyor belt travel);
an inlet to be traversed by the products or containers advancing on the conveyor along the feed direction (13 of Figs 2, 7 feed area);
a device for controlling the inlet comprising:
at least one barrier member which is movable as a result of the products or containers passing through the inlet (including door 29 of Figs 2, 7-8, and crash bar 83 of Figs 7-8);
at least one detector for detecting a position of the at least one barrier member (Col 9 Lines 24-40 (31) Figs 7-8 crash bar safety switch 86 or a door safety switch 87);
a control unit crash bar 83 or the door 29 may be independently pushed against the two return spring 85 areas. This motion, in conjunction with a crash bar safety switch 86 or a door safety switch 87 can be used as an emergency stop), but does NOT specify an optical unit for detecting an anomaly.
In the same field of endeavor, Petersen discloses a system for monitoring the spooling area of a rotatable reel for winding or unwinding an elongated material, for example, a cable. The monitoring system has a detector for sensing the presence and position of a cable surface or object or operator positioned between the detector and the reel. The detector can control rotation of the reel directly, or send a position signal to a computer where the position signal indicates the detected presence and/or position. The computer can have a memory and/or a processor for respectively storing and analyzing the position signal. The computer is operative to compare the position signal to previously received position signals to determine a condition, for example, the amount of cable on the reel, the presence of any object, and/or the existence of a safety-threatening condition. The computer can generate an output signal for use in, for example, controlling the reel speed and/or torque, or the application of brakes.
Petersen discloses an optical unit for sensing an anomaly object in the area ([0032] detector 26 can be operative to emit and/or receive wave energy, for example, in the form of light or sonic energy for sensing the presence of an object generally in the spooling area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lundquist with Petersen using an optical unit in order to use readily available components to determine safety-threatening conditions and provide security measures to protect operators, as suggested by Petersen ([0026]).
Regarding Claim 2, Lundquist discloses the at least one barrier member is movable starting from a rest position and along a control tract comprising a first position, in which the at least one barrier member is in contact with the products or containers passing through the inlet, and a second position beyond the first position along the control tract, in which the at least one barrier member is not in contact with the products or containers, and wherein the control unit is configured to generate the alarm signal and/or the stop signal if the at least one barrier member is in the second position (see Col 9 lines 24-40 in general products are moving through opening 13 when the crash bar and door are in an open, first position, but in a scenario where an operator, instead of products, is being dragged into the conveyor belt, the crash bar 83 and/or the door 29 may be independently pushed against the two return spring 85 areas (into a second position). This motion, in conjunction with a crash bar safety switch 86 or a door safety switch 87 can be used as an emergency stop).
Regarding Claim 3, Lundquist discloses the at least one barrier member comprises a series of barrier members, which are movable independently of each other and are set side-by-side along a main axis of the inlet which is transversal to the feed direction (Col 9 Lines 24-40, Col 11 Lines 9-20; Figs 7-8 crash bar 83 or the door 29 may be independently pushed against the two return spring 85 areas).
Regarding Claim 4, Lundquist discloses the at least one barrier member is rotatable about a rotation axis which is transversal to the feed direction (See Figs 2, 7-8 door/crash bar rotatable axis versus the feed direction).
Regarding Claim 9, Lundquist discloses the at least one barrier member is set at a vertical distance from the conveyor and can be raised as a result of the products or containers passing through the inlet (Col 9 Lines 25-40, Figs 7-8 both the door and the crash bar can be raised as containers pass through; 30 of Fig 3).
9>Regarding Claim 10, Lundquist discloses the at least one barrier member is rotatable about a rotation axis, which is substantially horizontal and is oriented transversally to the feed direction (see Figs 3, 7-8).
10>Regarding Claim 11, Lundquist discloses the at least one barrier member comprises a series of barrier members, which are rotatable about the rotation axis independently of each other and are set side-by-side along the same axis (Col 9 Lines 25-40, Figs 7-8 both the door and the crash bar are side-by-side along the same axis).
11>Regarding Claim 12, Lundquist discloses the series of barrier members have doesn’t specify that the distal portions are enlarged.
Lundquist discloses the claimed invention except for enlarged distal portions.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to enlarge the distal ends, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
12>Regarding Claim 13, Lundquist discloses a sum of the widths of the distal portions of the series of barrier members is substantially equal to a width of the inlet (see Fig 7).
Regarding Claim 14, Lundquist discloses an operating machine for executing an operating process on products or containers, comprising a product-inlet station according to claim 1 (Abstract, Col 1 Lines 30-40).
Regarding Claim 15, Lundquist discloses a method for controlling an inlet for products or containers in an operating machine by means of an inlet station according to claim 1 (Abstract), comprising the steps of:
advancing the products or containers along the feed direction (18 of Fig 2);
making the products or containers advancing on the conveyor along the feed direction pass through the inlet (30 of Fig 2);
wherein the products or containers hit the at least one barrier member as a result of their passage through the inlet (products come into contact with the door 29 and the crash bar 83 as loaded);
by means of the at least one detection unit , detecting the position of the at least one barrier member (Col 9 Lines 24-40 Figs 7-8 crash bar safety switch 86 or a door safety switch 87); and
generating the alarm signal and/or the stop signal for the operating machine, as the function of the signal coming from the at least one optical unit (Col 9 Lines 24-40 (31) Figs 7-8 crash bar 83 or the door 29 may be independently pushed against the two return spring 85 areas. This motion, in conjunction with a crash bar safety switch 86 or a door safety switch 87 can be used as an emergency stop), but doesn’t specify an optical unit for detecting an anomaly.
Petersen discloses an optical unit for sensing an anomaly object in the area ([0032] detector 26 can be operative to emit and/or receive wave energy, for example, in the form of light or sonic energy for sensing the presence of an object generally in the spooling area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lundquist with Petersen using an optical unit in order to use readily available components to determine safety-threatening conditions and provide security measures to protect operators, as suggested by Petersen ([0026]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundquist and Petersen, further in view of Pirkl et al. (Pirkl; US 20060067579 A1).
4>Regarding Claim 5, Petersen doesn’t disclose the at least one optical unit comprises an emitter module, in the form of a laser, for emitting a beam of electromagnetic waves and a receiver module for receiving the beam of electromagnetic waves emitted by the emitter module.
In the same field of endeavor, Pirkl discloses a method for the control of a monitored zone, in particular at transport devices for objects, wherein the monitored zone is scanned by means of at least one spatially resolving sensor, in particular a laser scanner and/or a camera system, the positions of object points in the monitored zone are determined.
Pirkl discloses an optical unit comprises an emitter module, in the form of a laser, for emitting a beam of electromagnetic waves and a receiver module for receiving the beam of electromagnetic waves emitted by the emitter module ([0030] The sensor in accordance with the invention is preferably a laser scanner of a generally known construction with a transmitter device, e.g. in the form of a laser diode, for the transmission of pulsed scanning radiation, for example in the IR range. The transmission of the transmitted radiation pulses in particular takes place via a deflection device, e.g. in the form of a rotating mirror, so that the laser scanner transmits transmitted radiation pulses sequentially in different directions within a scan plane. The laser scanner furthermore includes a receiver device, in particular in the form of one or more radiation-sensitive receiver diodes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lundquist with Pirkl using a laser emitter and receiver in order to provide flexibility and to ensure maximum safety for persons in this process, as suggested by Pirkl ([0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Sullivan (US 3695462 A) discloses a baggage handling system utilizing four-sided open top containers each carrying only one owner's set of baggage from the check-in to the enplaning dispensing station, and from the deplaning loading station to a baggage claim area. Means can be included to temporarily halt the conveyor for a prescribed period of time upon the opening of the retractable door, and an alarm can be utilized to sound when that time is drawing to a close so that the system will automatically continue the movement of the conveyor and yet not injure the person attempting a withdrawal of baggage.
b. Wallace et al. (Wallace; US 20080133051 A1) discloses a remote conveyor belt monitoring system for monitoring an operation of a conveyor belt at a first geographic location. A local HMI is operable to acquire and store data representing conveyor belt conditions and operating characteristics. First and second computers at different geographic locations acquire the data via an internet. Thus, data relating to the operating conditions of the conveyor belt can be remotely consolidated and monitored by computers at different global locations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK S RUSHING whose telephone number is (571)270-5876. The examiner can normally be reached on 10-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK S RUSHING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689