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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 August 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-23, 25-26, 29, and 35-40 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21: “a first, a second, and a tolerance region” in lines 8-9 should be “a first region, a second region, and a tolerance region” for further clarity in the claim language. Additionally, “the number” in line 19 should be “a number for further clarity.
Claim 22: “the first, the second, and the tolerance region” in line 3 should be “the first region, the second region, and the tolerance region” for further clarity in the claim language.
Claim 23: “the minimum size” in line 1 should be “a minimum size” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 25: “the first time duration” in line 1 should be “the predefined first period of time” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 26: “the first time duration” in line 1 should be “the predefined first period of time” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 29: “the time interval” in line 3 should be “the regular time interval” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 35: “the running direction” in line 2 should be “a running direction” and “the plane” in line 3 should be “the one plane” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 36: “the two strips” in line 5 should be “the two first and second strips”, “the first and second strips” in line 6 should be “the two first and second strips”, “a first, a second, and a tolerance region” in lines 12-13 should be “a first region, a second region, and a tolerance region”, “the first range” in lines 18 and 19 respectively should be “the first region”, “the light grid” in lines 19 and 22 respectively should be “the at least one light grid”, “the tolerance range” in line 20 should be “the tolerance region”, “the number” in line 22 should be “a number”, and “the second range” in lines 22 and 24-25 respectively should be “the second region” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 37: “the first, the second, and the tolerance region” in line 3 should be “the first region, the second region, and the tolerance region” for further clarity in the claim language.
Claim 38: “the first time duration” in line 1 should be “the first predefined period of time” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 39: “the second time duration” in line 1 should be “the predefined second time period” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 40: “the minimum size” in line 1 should be “a minimum size” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 for a combination may be 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 for a combination may be 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 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 is:
“a control unit” in claim 21: “A control and monitoring unit, which is preferably arranged in the strips of the light grid and is connected to the first and second strips, has a memory in which a program is stored which ensures that a switching signal is generated when an object enters the protective field” (page 9, lines 20-23).
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 21-40 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.
Regarding claim 21, “the receiving device” in lines 3-4, “the second range” in line 10, “the outermost light beams” in line 10, “the neighboring free light beams” in lines 12-13, “the remaining free light beams” in line 14, and “the first range” in line 14 are all unclear as these limitations all lack proper antecedent basis. Additionally, “the tolerance range” in lines 13 and 17 respectively are unclear as a tolerance region has been mentioned previously. Are these limitations referring to the tolerance region mentioned previously, or a new and different tolerance range? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations to be referring to the same tolerance region mentioned previously. “free neighboring light beams” in line 13 is unclear as neighboring free light beams have been mentioned previously in the same claim. Is this limitation referring to different free light beams or the same free light beams mentioned previously? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same free neighboring light beams mentioned previously. “a shutdown signal” in line 21 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in the same claim. Is this limitation referring to the same shutdown signal mentioned previously or a different shutdown signal? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same shutdown signal mentioned previously.
Claims 22-35 are rejected for their dependency on claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, “an object” in line 1 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in the claim 21, from which claim 22 depends. Is this limitation referring to the same object mentioned previously or a different object? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same object mentioned previously. “a light beam” in line 2 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 21, on which claim 22 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same light beam mentioned previously or a different light beam? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same light beam mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 27, “the second time period” in line 1 is unclear as this limitation lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 28, “the second time duration” in line 1 is unclear as this limitation lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 29, “an object” in line 1 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in the claim 21, from which claim 29 depends. Is this limitation referring to the same object mentioned previously or a different object? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same object mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 32, “one plane” in line 2 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 21, from which claim 32 depends. Is this limitation referring to the same plane mentioned previously or a different plane? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same plane mentioned previously.
Claim 33 is rejected for its dependency on claim 32.
Regarding claim 36, “the monitoring function” in line 9, “the outermost light beams” in line 14, “the neighboring free light beams” in lines 16-17, and “the remaining free light beams” in line 18 are all unclear as these limitations all lack proper antecedent basis. Additionally, “an object” in line 12 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in the same claim. Is this limitation referring to the same object mentioned previously or a different object? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same object mentioned previously. “free neighboring light beams” in line 17 is unclear as neighboring free light beams have been mentioned previously in the same claim. Is this limitation referring to different free light beams or the same free light beams mentioned previously? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same free neighboring light beams mentioned previously. “interrupted and free light beams in the tolerance range” in line 20 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in the same claim. Is this limitation referring to the same interrupted and free light beams mentioned previously or different interrupted and free light beams? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same interrupted and free light beams mentioned previously. “a shutdown signal” in line 24 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in the same claim. Is this limitation referring to the same shutdown signal mentioned previously or a different shutdown signal? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same shutdown signal mentioned previously.
Claims 37-40 are rejected for their dependency on claim 36.
Regarding claim 37, “an object” in line 1 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 36, on which claim 37 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same object mentioned previously or a different object? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same object mentioned previously.
Claims 39-40 are rejected for their dependency on claim 37.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-23, 31, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Stein et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9910186 B2).
Regarding claim 21, Stein teaches a method for monitoring a protective field on an installation, wherein the protective field is formed by a light grid (108), and the light grid (108) is produced by a plurality of light beams (106) which lie in one plane and are transmitted from a transmitting device (110) to the receiving device (112) arranged opposite (see figure 1, light grid made of light beams 106 produced by emitter elements 110 and received by receiver elements 112), light grid (108) has a control unit (502) for receiving and processing signals from the transmitting and/or receiving device (110/112) (see figure 5, light curtain controller 502; and see col. 8 for details), wherein when an object (1002) enters the protective field (108), the protective field (108) is divided into a first, a second and a tolerance region (see figure 10, the light grid divided into three regions), wherein the second range is defined by all but the outermost light beams interrupted by the object (1002) (see figure 10, the region labeled as “monitored muted beams” being the second region), the outermost light beams interrupted by the object (1002) together with the neighboring free light beams form the tolerance range if free neighboring light beams are present (see figure 10, beams labeled as Nth, (N-X)th, and (N+X)th being the tolerance region), and the remaining free light beams form the first range (see figure 10, the beams labeled as “non-muted beams” form the first region), wherein if a light beam (106) is interrupted in the first range, a shutdown signal is generated by the light grid (108) (col. 14, lines 35-50, The muting control component 506 continues to monitor the beams in order to determine if one or both of the two unsafe conditions has occurred. The first unsafe condition—interruption of a non-muted beam above the set muting height—suggests that a second object (e.g., a human operator) is riding on top of the product, or walking along side of the product, as the product traverses through the protective field. The second unsafe condition—non-interruption of a monitored muted beam below the set muting height—suggests that the object passing through the light curtain is not the expected box shape, and therefore is not a valid product. At time T7, the muting control component 506 determines that one or both of these two unsafe conditions have occurred. In response to detecting this condition, muting control component 506 instructs output component 510 to initiate safety mode), interrupted and free light beams in the tolerance range are ignored and no shutdown signal is generated (col. 14, lines 26-34, The band of unmonitored muted beams, corresponding to the tolerance range above and below the muting height, are allowed to fluctuate between interrupted and uninterrupted during the current partial muting cycle without causing the light curtain controller to report an unsafe state. As such, the unmonitored muted beams comprise a “don't care” range, whereby the light curtain controller disregards the states of the unmonitored muted beams when determining whether to initiate safe mode), the light grid (108) checks the number of interrupted light beams in the second range as long as the object (1002) is located in the protective field (108) and a shutdown signal is generated after release of an interrupted light beam in the second range if not all light beams (106) in the protective field (108) are free after a predefined first period of time (col. 14, lines 42-50, The second unsafe condition—non-interruption of a monitored muted beam below the set muting height—suggests that the object passing through the light curtain is not the expected box shape, and therefore is not a valid product. At time T7, the muting control component 506 determines that one or both of these two unsafe conditions have occurred. In response to detecting this condition, muting control component 506 instructs output component 510 to initiate safety mode; and see figure 8, time periods T1-T5).
Regarding claim 22, Stein teaches the method according to claim 21, wherein when an object (1002) enters the protective field (108) after interruption of a light beam and expiry of a predefined second time period, the protective field (108) is divided into the first, the second, and the tolerance region (see figure 8, light curtain interrupted at time T2 and the muting height (i.e. regions) are set just after time T3; and col. 13, lines 48-51, when the front edge of product 1002 first enters the protective field, the Nth beam from the lower most beam is detected as the highest interrupted beam. The tolerance value is configured to be ±X beams, where X is an integer).
Regarding claim 23, Stein teaches the method according to claim 21, wherein the minimum size of the second region is defined by at least three interrupted light beams (see figure 10, at least 4 beams interrupted by object 1002).
Regarding claim 31, Stein teaches the method according to claim 21, wherein the tolerance range is formed from a total of up to twelve light beams (see figure 10, at least 3 beams are part of the tolerance region; and col. 13, lines 49-53, the Nth beam from the lower most beam is detected as the highest interrupted beam. The tolerance value is configured to be ±X beams, where X is an integer. In some embodiments, the light curtain controller allows the user to set the tolerance value X as desired).
Regarding claim 35, Stein teaches the method according to claim 21, wherein the installation has a conveyor belt (114) and this is arranged relative to the light grid (108) in such a way that the running direction of the conveyor belt (114) is directed essentially perpendicular to the plane spanned by the light grid (108) (see figure 1, conveyor 114 arranged perpendicularly to the plane of light curtain 108).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 30, 32-34, 36-37, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein et al. (U,S, Patent No. 9910186 B2) in view of Rohbeck et al. (EP 3875993 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Stein teaches wherein the tolerance region is arranged on the edge of the second region (see figure 10, tolerance region set at the edge of object 1002; and col. 13, lines 40-45, In order to allow for such small height variations, some embodiments of the muting height configuration component 508 can set the muting height to include a small tolerance. This can ensure that these small height variations do not cause an improper transition to safety mode). However, Stein fails to explicitly teach two partial region arranged on opposite sides of the second region.
However, Rohbeck teaches two partial region arranged on opposite sides of the second region (see figure 2, unblocked beams existing on both sides of object 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stein to incorporate the teachings of Rohbeck to include tolerance regions on either side of the second region (i.e. interrupted light beams) in order to allow for small length variations in the object.
Regarding claim 32, Stein teaches a light grid (108) lying on a plane (see figure 10). However, Stein fails to explicitly teach wherein two light grids are used and their protective fields lie on one plane.
However, Rohbeck teaches wherein two light grids are used and their protective fields lie on one plane (see figure 4, two light grids arranged on a plane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stein to incorporate the teachings of Rohbeck to provide two light grids in order to monitor the objects passing along both the horizontal direction and vertical direction, allowing the controller to better evaluate the objects.
Regarding claim 33, Stein as modified by Rohbeck teaches the method according to claim 32, wherein the light beams (Stein 106 | Rohbeck 10) of the two light grids are perpendicular to one another (Rohbeck, see figure 4, two light grids arranged on a plane and perpendicular to one another).
Regarding claim 34, Stein teaches a light grid (108) lying on a plane (see figure 10). However, Stein fails to explicitly teach wherein two or more light grids are provided which are arranged parallel to one another.
However, Rohbeck teaches wherein two or more light grids are provided which are arranged parallel to one another (see figure 3, two light grids arranged parallel to one another).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stein to incorporate the teachings of Rohbeck to provide two light grids parallel to one another in order to provide an additional measurement with which to evaluate the object being conveyed.
Regarding claim 36, Stein teaches a sensor arrangement with at least one light grid (108) for monitoring a protective field (see figure 1, light grid made of light beams 106 produced by emitter elements 110 and received by receiver elements 112) comprising: first and second strips (102/104) which can be arranged opposite one another and are equipped with transmitters (110) and receivers (112), so that in operation a monitoring field is defined between the transmitters (110) and receivers (112) of the strips (102/104) (see figure 1, first strip 102 having emitters 110 arranged opposite the second strip 104 having receivers 112, the monitored region being between both strips), and a control and monitoring unit (502) which is connected to the first and second strips (102/104) and has stored in a memory a program which ensures that a switching signal is generated when an object (1002) enters the protective field (108), by means of which a safety function can be triggered (see figures 4-5, light curtain controller 502 connected to the first and second strips; and see col. 8-col. 9 for details), wherein the program - when an object (1002) enters the protective field (108), divides the protective field (108) into a first, a second, and a tolerance region (see figure 10, the light grid divided into three regions), wherein the second region is defined by all but the outermost light beams interrupted by the object (1002) (see figure 10, the region labeled as “monitored muted beams” being the second region), the outermost light beams interrupted by the object (1002) together with the neighboring free light beams form the tolerance range if free neighboring light beams are present (see figure 10, beams labeled as Nth, (N-X)th, and (N+X)th being the tolerance region), and the remaining free light beams form the first range (see figure 10, the beams labeled as “non-muted beams” form the first region), wherein a shutdown signal is generated by the light grid (108) if a light beam (106) in the first range is interrupted (col. 14, lines 35-50, The muting control component 506 continues to monitor the beams in order to determine if one or both of the two unsafe conditions has occurred. The first unsafe condition—interruption of a non-muted beam above the set muting height—suggests that a second object (e.g., a human operator) is riding on top of the product, or walking along side of the product, as the product traverses through the protective field. The second unsafe condition—non-interruption of a monitored muted beam below the set muting height—suggests that the object passing through the light curtain is not the expected box shape, and therefore is not a valid product. At time T7, the muting control component 506 determines that one or both of these two unsafe conditions have occurred. In response to detecting this condition, muting control component 506 instructs output component 510 to initiate safety mode), interrupted and free light beams in the tolerance range are ignored and no shutdown signal is generated (col. 14, lines 26-34, The band of unmonitored muted beams, corresponding to the tolerance range above and below the muting height, are allowed to fluctuate between interrupted and uninterrupted during the current partial muting cycle without causing the light curtain controller to report an unsafe state. As such, the unmonitored muted beams comprise a “don't care” range, whereby the light curtain controller disregards the states of the unmonitored muted beams when determining whether to initiate safe mode), the light grid (108) checks the number of interrupted light beams in the second range as long as the object (1002) is located in the protective field (108) and a shutdown signal is generated after release of an interrupted light beam in the second range if not all light beams in the protective field (108) are free after a first predefined period of time (col. 14, lines 42-50, The second unsafe condition—non-interruption of a monitored muted beam below the set muting height—suggests that the object passing through the light curtain is not the expected box shape, and therefore is not a valid product. At time T7, the muting control component 506 determines that one or both of these two unsafe conditions have occurred. In response to detecting this condition, muting control component 506 instructs output component 510 to initiate safety mode; and see figure 8, time periods T1-T5). However, Stein fails to explicitly teach two first and second strips, and wherein a muting function is provided by means of which the monitoring function can be at least partially bridged.
However, Rohbeck teaches two first and second strips (9/12) (see figure 4, two first strips 9 having emitters 11 and two second strips 12 having receivers 13), and wherein a muting function is provided by means of which the monitoring function can be at least partially bridged (¶8, the light curtain in the conveying direction of the conveying unit may be preceded by muting sensors with which permitted objects are detected. If this is the case, the monitoring function of the light curtain is mutated, i.e. bridged, for a predefined time, so that the admissible objects can pass through the light curtain without the latter generating a switching signal which initiates the safety function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stein to incorporate the teachings of Rohbeck to provide two light grids in order to monitor the objects passing along both the horizontal direction and vertical direction, allowing the controller to better evaluate the objects. Additionally, it would have been obvious to provide a bridging of the monitoring function so that the admissible objects can pass through the light curtain without the latter generating a switching signal which initiates the safety function (Rohbeck, ¶8).
Regarding claim 37, Stein as modified by Rohbeck teaches the sensor arrangement according to claim 36, wherein when an object (Stein 1002 | Rohbeck 5) enters the protective field (Stein 108) after interruption of a light beam (Stein 106 | Rohbeck 10) and expiry of a predefined second time period, the protective field (Stein 108) is divided into the first, the second, and the tolerance region (Stein, see figure 8, light curtain interrupted at time T2 and the muting height (i.e. regions) are set just after time T3; and col. 13, lines 48-51, when the front edge of product 1002 first enters the protective field, the Nth beam from the lower most beam is detected as the highest interrupted beam. The tolerance value is configured to be ±X beams, where X is an integer).
Regarding claim 40, Stein as modified by Rohbeck teaches the sensor arrangement according to claim 37, wherein the minimum size of the second region is defined by at least three interrupted light beams (Stein 106 | Rohbeck 10) (Stein, see figure 10, at least 4 beams interrupted by object 1002).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-29 and 38-39 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 24, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the method according to claim 21 as claimed, more specifically wherein the tolerance range is formed by an equal number of free and interrupted light beams.
Regarding claim 25, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the method according to claim 21 as claimed, more specifically in combination wherein the first time duration has a maximum length of 4 seconds.
Regarding claim 26, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the method according to claim 21 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the first time duration has a length of at least 5 ms.
Regarding claim 27, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the method according to claim 21 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the second time period has a maximum length of 4 seconds.
Regarding claim 28, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the method according to claim 21 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the second time duration has a length of at least 5 ms.
Regarding claim 29, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the method according to claim 21 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein as long as an object is located in the protective field, the light grid checks the number of interrupted light beams at a regular time interval, wherein the time interval is 0.5 to 30 ms.
Regarding claim 38, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the sensor arrangement according to claim 36 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the first time duration has a length of at least 5 ms, and a maximum of 4 seconds.
Regarding claim 39, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the sensor arrangement according to claims 37 and 36 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the second time duration has a length of at least 5 ms, and of at most 4 seconds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878