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 Amendment
The amendment filed 04/15/2026 was entered. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-10 were rejected in the Office Action. Claim 1 was amended. No new matter was added by the instant amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 10 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 § 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(s) 1 – 3, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeWitt et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0260008 A1) in view of Hong (10-2277872 B1).
With regard to claim 1, DeWitt teaches an apparatus for identifying/detecting an object on a conveyor or object support surface. DeWitt teaches an object sensing arrangement 500 adapted to sense when a boundary of an object crosses a detection plane or curtain 502 of light, and teaches that the object support surface may be a moving surface of a conveyor belt (DeWitt [0126]-[0129], Figs. 8-10A).
DeWitt teaches emitter 504 positioned on the first side of the object support surface/conveyor-belt arrangement and configured to project light across the detection plane toward the opposite side (DeWitt [0125]-[0128], Figs. 8-9A).
DeWitt teaches mirror 516 mounted on a second support opposite the emitter/detector assembly, with the mirror folding the optical path and reflecting light from emitter 504 back over detector array 508. (DeWitt [0132]-[0137], Figs. 8-10A).
DeWitt teaches photodetectors 506/array 508 on the same first-side support as emitter 504, and teaches that mirror-reflected light is projected over the detector array. (DeWitt [0126]-[0133], Figs. 8-9A.)
Claim 1 recites a pattern part provided in the identification target object and configured to form a pattern on the identification target object, through which the light reflected by the reflection part is configured to pass, along a first direction parallel to a moving direction of the identification target object moved by the conveyor belt. DeWitt does not teach this limitation by itself. Hong supplies it.
Hong teaches plate 100 attached to each moving cart/object and teaches identification areas is arranged in an optical-axis region so that light either passes through pass portion 110 or is blocked by blocking portion 120. (Hong claim 1; Hong claim 3; Hong [0028]-[0031], Figs. 2-5, machine-English). Hong's plate is arranged along the cart travel direction so the pass/block portions are read in time as the cart moves past the photosensor. (Hong [0036]-[0040], Figs. 4-5, machine-English).
In the proposed combination, Hong's plate is placed in DeWitt's return path after reflection by mirror 516, so the light reflected by the reflection part passes through or is blocked by the object-carried pattern before reaching the first-side receiver.
Hong teaches that the receiver side of the photosensor receives or does not receive light depending on the pass/block state of the plate dog. (Hong claim 1; Hong [0029]-[0034], Figs. 4-5, machine-English.)
Hong teaches that the combination of pass portions and blocking portions differs according to the cart to which the plate is attached. (Hong claim 3; Hong [0030]-[0040], Figs. 4-5, machine-English.)
Therefore, in view of the utility, to improve and enhance the identifying device with speed among other parameters, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify DeWitt with the teachings such as that taught by Hong.
With regards to claim 2, depends from claim 1 and recites that the pattern part comprises a first pattern blocking between the light emitter and the reflection part, and a second pattern forming a path for light movement between the reflection part and the light receiver on the identification target object, wherein the first pattern and the second pattern are alternately arranged along the first direction.
Hong teaches the first and second pattern functions. Hong teaches blocking portion 120 for blocking light from the light emitting part and pass portion 110 for allowing the emitted light to pass to the receiving part. (Hong claim 3; HONG [0029]-[0031], Figs. 4-5, machine-English.) When Hong’s plate dog is placed into DeWitt's folded optical path, the blocking portions form the claimed first pattern because they block the optical path associated with the emitter and reflector, and the pass portions form the claimed second pattern because they define the path through which mirror-reflected light moves to the receiver.
Hong further teaches that the pass/block positions form a combination that varies by cart. (Hong claim 3; Hong [0030]-[0040], Figs. 4-5, machine-English.) To the extent "alternately arranged" is read to require a strict alternating sequence, selecting alternating pass and block states is one of the finite predictable binary arrangements expressly contemplated by Hong’s pass/block identification-area teaching. Such selection would have been obvious to obtain a clear clocked light/dark code as the moving object feeds the code past the receiver.
In view of the utility, to improve and enhance the identifying device with speed among other parameters, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify DeWitt with the teachings such as that taught by Hong.
With regards to claim 3, Dewitt modified recites that the reflection part is configured to reflect light in a direction parallel to a direction in which the light emitted from the light emitter moves, and that the second pattern is formed through the identification target object along the direction in which the light emitted from the light emitter moves.
DeWitt teaches mirror 516 used to fold the optical path. The emitted light is reflected by mirror 516 and travels back across the detection region toward detector array 508. (DeWitt [0132]-[0137], Figs. 8-10A.) The reflected path is parallel to the emitted path in the sense required by the claim because Fig. 10A shows plural beams reflected across the same detection region between the first-side emitter/detector assembly and the opposite mirror.
Hong teaches that the pass-through portions of the plate dog are formed through the moving target and are arranged along the cart travel direction to be read sequentially as the cart moves. (Hong claim 1; Hong claim 3; Hong [0029]-[0040], Figs. 4-5, machine-English.)
In the combined DeWitt/HONG arrangement, those pass-through portions form the claimed second pattern through the target object along the direction of the light path.
With regards to claim 6, DeWitt teaches sensing logic 652 that detects a change in received light state from photodetectors and may be implemented by logic or a microprocessor. (DeWitt [0146]-[0149], Fig. 12.) Hong teaches an identification unit that identifies the cart based on sensing information from the photosensor. Hong also teaches a combination judging unit and an identification-number generating unit that generate an identification number based on the pass/block combination. (Hong claim 4; HONG claim 5; Hong [0033]-[0040], Fig. 5, machine-English.)
The combined system therefore includes a controller/identification unit configured to recognize the object type or identity based on the received-light pattern. Claim 6 would have been obvious over DeWitt in view of HONG.
With regards to claim 9, claim 9 is the independent method claim of claim 1. Refer to the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeWitt in view of Hong, and further in view of Mori.
With regards to claim 4, DeWitt modified teaches the claimed invention according to claim 1, but fails to expressly disclose an infrared sensor configured to emit an infrared ray with the light emitter and receive the infrared ray with the light receiver.
Mori teaches reflection photoelectric sensor 1 that accommodates a light emitting element for emitting detection light having a wavelength in the infrared region and a light receiving element for receiving light having a wavelength in the infrared region. (Mori [0050], Fig. 1.) Mori also teaches the reflection photoelectric sensors arranged along an optical window and driven/monitored by a controller. (Mori [0047], [0055]-[0063], Figs. 1 and 4.)
Substituting Mori's infrared emitter/receiver for DeWitt/HONG's optical emitter/receiver would have been a predictable substitution of one known photoelectric sensing wavelength for another.
It would have been obvious to use Mori's infrared reflection photoelectric sensor and retroreflective member in the DeWitt/HONG optical arrangement because Mori teaches a compact reflection photoelectric sensor with an infrared light-emitting element and an infrared light-receiving element, and teaches a retroreflective member that returns detection light toward the sensor. (Mori [0047], [0050]-[0051], [0072], Figs. 1 and 6A-6C.) Infrared photoelectric sensors and retroreflectors are standard industrial sensing components for robust conveyor/object detection.
With regards to claim 5, DeWitt modified discloses the claimed invention according to claim 4, and further teaches mirror 516 disposed on the second side of the optical path, reflecting light back toward the detector array. (DeWitt [0132]-[0137], Figs. 8-10A).
Dewitt fails to expressly teach the entirety of the reflection part comprises a reflector disposed on the second side of the conveyor belt and configured to reflect the infrared ray emitted by the infrared sensor toward the infrared sensor again.
Mori teaches a retroreflective member 2 for reflecting detection light from reflection photoelectric sensor 1, after passing through the optical window, back toward reflection photoelectric sensor 1. (Mori [0047], [0050]-[0051], [0072], Figs. 1 and 6A-6C.)
It would have been obvious to use Mori's retroreflective member as the second-side reflection part in the DeWitt/HONG arrangement so that the infrared ray is returned toward the infrared sensor. Therefore, claim 5 would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeWitt in view of Hong, and further in view of Onayama.
With regards to claim 7, DeWitt modified teaches the claimed invention according to claim 6, but fails to expressly disclose comprising a plurality of sensors spaced a preset distance apart from each other along a longitudinal direction of the conveyor belt.
DeWitt teaches emitter 504 and detector array 506/508. (DeWitt [0125]-[0128], Figs. 8-9A.) Hong teaches a photosensor having a light emitting part and a light receiving part. (HONG claim 1; Hong [0028]-[0034], Figs. 2-5, machine-English.)
Claim 7 further recites that the sensor Onayama teaches detection devices 62 provided on the moving route of detected plates 60 and detection devices provided for each branch/distributing location. (Onayama [0075]-[0077], Figs. 3 and 6.) Onayama also teaches that the detection device includes two light-emitting means 64 and two light-receiving means 66 aligned in the conveying direction at a fixed interval, so that time lag and moving direction can be detected. (Onayama [0079]-[0082], Figs. 5(a)-5(b).)
Claim 7 further recites that the controller is configured to determine the location of each type of the identification target object based on a pattern of light received by each of the plurality of sensors. Onayama teaches that detection devices count detected plates, send counted values, and allow the distributing means/computer to obtain the number/location of the slat reaching a distributing location. (Onayama [0077]-[0090].) Onayama further teaches using temporal changes in received light amount and timing of light blocking to determine positional relationships. (Onayama [0103]-[0106], Fig. 9.)
In the combined system, DeWitt/HONG identifies the object type from the received-light pass/block pattern, and Onayama supplies distributed sensor placement and location determination along the conveyor. Therefore, claim 7 would have been obvious.
It would have been obvious to add Onayama's distributed detection and timing/location teachings to the DeWitt/ Hong optical identification system to determine where an identified object is along a conveyor or branch path. Onayama teaches that detected plates and detection devices avoid reliance on pulse-encoder distance calculations and improve reliable branching despite chain extension. (Onayama [0010]-[0016], [0023]-[0026]). This is the same kind of conveyor-location problem addressed by claims 7 and 8.
Claim 8 depends from claim 6 and recites that the conveyor belt is branched into a plurality of paths, and that a movement path of an identification target object is determined by determining positions of sensors having received a specific pattern of light among the plurality of sensors disposed in the plurality of branched paths respectively.
Onayama teaches an article sorting system having branch guide portions 46, branch conveyor 48, forward guide rails 50, movement guide rail 52, and distributing means 54 for sorting articles to branch paths. (Onayama [0062]-[0067], Figs. 3 and 6.) Onayama teaches detection devices 62 for detecting detected plates 60 before distribution and determining slat positions using counted values, fixed distances, and computer/controller processing. (Onayama [0069]-[0077], [0087]-[0090], Figs. 3, 6 and 7.)
Onayama also teaches determining article/slat positional relationships and intervals by sending timing of light blocking to the computer. (Onayama [0103]-[0106], Fig. 9.) Using those distributed sensor positions with Hong ‘s object-specific pass/block pattern would determine which identified object type is present in which branch path. This is a predictable application of known sensor-position logic to the DeWitt/ Hong identification system.
Therefore, claim 8 would have been obvious over DeWitt in view of Hong and Onayama.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeWitt in view of Hong, and further in view of Onayama et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0031731 A1).
With regards to claim 10, Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and recites that determining the location of the identification target object comprises data-logging the signal of the light receiver based on time.
Onayama teaches a temporal change of receiving light amount at the time of detecting an article and detected plates, and teaches determining distances and positional relationships from timing when conveying speed and light receiving amounts change (Onayama [0103]-[0105], Fig. 9).
Onayama further teaches that positional relationships and article intervals are determined by sending timing of light blocking to the computer (Onayama [0106]).
Onayama also teaches computer processing and display of data based on sensor/determination-device data (Onayama [0139]-[0142], Figs. 13(a)-13(b)).
Applying Onayama's time-based light-signal logging to the DeWitt/HONG method would have provided the claimed data-logging step for determining target-object location. Therefore, claim 10 would have been obvious.
It would have been obvious to log the light-receiver signal based on time in the DeWitt/HONG identification method because Onayama teaches using temporal changes in received light amount and timing of light blocking to determine article position, slat position, article intervals, and branch decisions (Onayama [0103]-[0106], Fig. 9). Storing or logging the receiver signal as a function of time is the routine way to use such timing information in a controller.
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 DJURA MALEVIC whose telephone number is (571) 272-5975. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9-5).
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571.272.3995. 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 & 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.
/DJURA MALEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights