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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 9, “that that the” is unclear. In claim 14, line 11, the phrase “jam recognized” is unclear. Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11 – 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huettner et al. (DE102010000596, hereinafter Huettner – See IDS dated 10/10/24) in view of Dorr (4,530,077 – See IDS dated 10/10/24).
Regarding claim 1, Huettner discloses an apparatus comprising a jam switch that identifies jamming of a container (16) and that includes a sensor 14 that is designed as a proximity switch (storage switch) 30 for transmitting a signal (See Fig. 1, See Pg. 3, Paras. 4 and 5). Huettner fails to disclose an ultrasonic sensor that emits a sound lobe that is sharply focused about a sensor axis, the ultrasonic sensor receiving an echo signal reflected back by the container present in a detection range of the jam switch; and a reflector with a sound-deflecting sound deflection surface arranged in front of an aperture of the ultrasonic sensor that emits the sound lobe, the sound deflection surface being shaped and arranged so that that the sound lobe emitted by the ultrasonic sensor is deflected at the sound deflection surface such that the sound lobe, in relation to the sensor axis, is spread with divergence angle of 90 degrees to 180 degrees in a first plane and is unchanged or even more sharply focused in a second plane oriented substantially perpendicularly with respect to the first plane. However, Dorr discloses an apparatus comprising an ultrasonic sensor (acoustic sensor) 15 that emits a sound beam that is sharply focused about a sensor axis, the ultrasonic sensor receiving an echo signal reflected back by a container present in a detection range of a jam switch; and a reflector 17 having a sound-deflecting sound deflection surface arranged in front of an aperture of the ultrasonic sensor that emits the sound beam, the sound deflection surface being shaped and arranged so that that the sound beam emitted by the ultrasonic sensor is deflected at the sound deflection surface such that the sound beam, in relation to the sensor axis, is spread with divergence angle of 90 degrees to 180 degrees in a first plane and is unchanged or even more sharply focused in a second plane oriented substantially perpendicularly with respect to the first plane (See Col. 2, lines 26 – 68, Col. 3, lines 1 – 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Huettner according to the teachings of Dorr for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device is a low-cost transducer device for ranging, guidance, and surveillance systems (See Dorr, Col. 1, lines 66 – 68). Regarding claim 2, Huettner fails to disclose that the sound deflection surface of the reflector is inclined by 45 degrees with respect to a central beam of the sound lobe that is emitted by the ultrasonic sensor, the central beam extending along the sensor axis. However, in Dorr, the sound deflection surface of the reflector 17 is inclined by 45 degrees with respect to a central beam of the sound beam that is emitted by the ultrasonic sensor, the central beam extending along the sensor axis (See Fig. 1, See Col. 2, lines 33 – 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Huettner according to the teachings of Dorr for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device is a low-cost transducer device for ranging, guidance, and surveillance systems (See Dorr, Col. 1, lines 66 – 68). Regarding claim 4, Huettner fails to disclose that the sound deflection surface and/or the surface regions of the sound deflection surface has/have the shape of a section of a circumferential surface of a solid of revolution and/or of a sphere and/or an ellipsoid and/or a paraboloid and/or a hyperboloid and/or a cone. However, in Dorr, the sound deflection surface has a shape of a cone (See Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Huettner according to the teachings of Dorr for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device is a low-cost transducer device for ranging, guidance, and surveillance systems (See Dorr, Col. 1, lines 66 – 68). Regarding claim 11, Huettner fails to disclose that the sound deflection surface of the reflector is made of a hard, smooth material or plastic. However, in Dorr, the sound deflection surface of the reflector is made of a hard, smooth material or plastic (See Figs. 1 and 4, See Col. 3, lines 31 – 50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Huettner according to the teachings of Dorr for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device is a low-cost transducer device for ranging, guidance, and surveillance systems (See Dorr, Col. 1, lines 66 – 68). Regarding claim 12, in Huettner, the conveyor system includes a conveying device (conveyor belt) 10 including a container (bottle) 16 that is transported on the conveying device in a conveying direction; and a jam switch 30 mounted at a railing of the conveying device, extending in parallel to the conveying direction, such that the sound beam emitted by the sensor of the jam switch is deflected (See Fig. 1, See Pg. 3, Paras. 4 and 5). Huettner fails to disclose that the sound beam emitted by the sensor of the jam switch is deflected from the sound deflection surface of the reflector for the emission, mounted in front of the aperture of the ultrasonic sensor onto the container being transported on the conveying device so that in a first plane, which defines an extension of a detection range of the ultrasonic sensor with regard to the conveying direction, the sound lobe is radially spread out at a dispersion angle of 90 degrees to 180 degrees, and in a second plane that is oriented substantially perpendicularly with respect to the first plane and that defines an extension of the detection range of the ultrasonic sensor with regard to a height range above the conveying device, is unchanged or even more sharply focused. However, Dorr discloses an apparatus comprising an ultrasonic sensor (acoustic sensor) 15 that emits a sound beam that is sharply focused about a sensor axis, the ultrasonic sensor receiving an echo signal reflected back by a container present in a detection range of a jam switch; and a reflector 17 having a sound-deflecting sound deflection surface arranged in front of an aperture of the ultrasonic sensor that emits the sound beam, the sound deflection surface being shaped and arranged so that that the sound beam emitted by the ultrasonic sensor is deflected at the sound deflection surface such that the sound beam, in relation to the sensor axis, is spread with divergence angle of 90 degrees to 180 degrees in a first plane and is unchanged or even more sharply focused in a second plane oriented substantially perpendicularly with respect to the first plane (See Col. 2, lines 26 – 68, Col. 3, lines 1 – 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Huettner according to the teachings of Dorr for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device is a low-cost transducer device for ranging, guidance, and surveillance systems (See Dorr, Col. 1, lines 66 – 68). Regarding claim 13, Huettner fails to disclose that the sensor axis of the ultrasonic sensor is oriented substantially perpendicularly with respect to the conveying direction. However, in Dorr, the sensor axis of the ultrasonic sensor 17 is oriented substantially perpendicularly with respect to the conveying direction (See Figs. 1 and 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Huettner according to the teachings of Dorr for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device is a low-cost transducer device for ranging, guidance, and surveillance systems (See Dorr, Col. 1, lines 66 – 68). Regarding claim 15, in Huettner, the container includes a bottle 16 (See Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5 – 10 and 14 are 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.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter is that the prior art does not anticipate or make obvious the provisions of “the sound deflection surface has two surface regions, a first surface region of the sound deflection surface being convexly shaped and a second surface region of the sound deflection surface being concavely shaped, the first surface region being situated at an axially greater distance, with respect to the sensor axis from the ultrasonic sensor than the second surface region” (referring to claim 3, ), “the surface regions of the sound deflection surface are formed by triangularly curved sections of a circumferential surface of a double cone made up of two cones with mutually opposed cone apexes, the double cone being formed by rotation by a rotational angle of a straight line, inclined by 45 degrees with respect to the sensor axis as the rotational axis, about the sensor axis” (referring to claim 5), “the surface regions of the sound deflection surface are formed by triangularly curved sections of a circumferential surface of a solid of revolution, the solid of revolution being formed by rotation by a rotational angle of a half parabola about the sensor axis as the rotational axis, the sensor axis extending through a focal point of a parabola formed from the half parabola, and at the focal point being oriented substantially perpendicularly with respect to an axis of symmetry of the parabola, and the sensor axis intersecting the parabola at a projection focal point that is projected from the focal point onto the parabola” (referring to claim 6), “a focal length of the parabola, which along the axis of symmetry of the parabola corresponds to a distance from a vertex to the focal point of the parabola, is greater than or equal to one-half the diameter of the ultrasonic sensor” (referring to claim 7), “a magnitude of the rotational angle is 90 degrees to 180 degrees or is 150 degrees” (referring to claim 8), “the triangularly curved surface regions of the sound deflection surface are joined together in the region of adjoining apexes arranged in alignment with the sensor axis” (referring to claim 9), “the sound deflection surface has lateral reinforcement walls, the reinforcement walls joining together side edges of the surface regions of the sound deflection surface that open into the adjoining apexes” (referring to claim 14) and “continuously ascertaining a propagation time between the emission of the ultrasonic signal by the ultrasonic sensor to a container to be detected and receipt of an echo signal that is reflected back from the container; determining a measured distance of the ultrasonic sensor from the container to be detected from the ascertained propagation time; determining if the measured distance falls below a preset switching distance and setting a tolerance band around a measuring signal for the measured distance; setting an output signal for a state jam recognized if the measuring signal for the measured distance remains within the tolerance band over a defined time interval” (referring to claim 14) in combination with the other limitations presented in claim 1. Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
9. Taylor (5,862,907) discloses a control system and method for an accumulation conveyor. Leistner et al. (DE4109555) disclose a method of checking the position of a test object on a carrier. Gelhard (4,500,977) discloses a method and apparatus for measuring a distance using ultrasonic echo signals, particularly for use on a motor vehicle. 10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 8/18/26
Prosecution Insights