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
1. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “distance measurement apparatus” (claim 1), “infrared, sound, sonar and/or laser and/or a mechanical distance measurement, such as one or more accumulation swtiches” (claim 2”, “deflector plates” (claims 5,6,18,20), “lane guides” (claims 5,18,20), “central computer unit” (claims 8,9), “control apparatus” (claims 1,15), and “one or more cameras” (claim 19) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 7-14,20 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.
Claim 7 recites detection of current occupancy… with one or more position measurement apparatuses; however, claim 1 recites the use of a distance measurement apparatus to detect distance data, which appears to be similar. The Specification discloses detection of current occupancy with one or more position measurement apparatuses; therefore, it is not clear if the position measurement apparatuses are the same as the distance measurement apparatus or are different element. For the purposes of this Action, in accordance with the Specification, they will be interpreted to be the same element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1,2,4,15,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brixius et al. USP 6,897,625
Brixius discloses, regarding claim 1, A method for automatically regulating a container transport apparatus having one or more transport belts (Conveyors 1-6) for adapting a container density of containers which are transported on the one or more transport belts, wherein the method comprises:
in each case at different times:
Detection of distance data relating to containers (i+1,i+2,i+3,i+4) on the one or more transport belts (Conveyors 1-6) by a distance measurement apparatus (U1-U6) (see at least C3/L62-C4/L8),
Transmission of the distance data to a control apparatus (“Separation Control” fig.2) by the distance measurement apparatus (see at least C4/L4-8,20-29),
Processing of the distance data to give control data in the control apparatus (see at least C4/L4-8,20-29),
Non-linear regulation of belt speeds of the one or more transport belts (17-28) by the control data (see at least C4/L22-38).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the detection of the distance data by the distance measurement apparatus comprises infrared, sound, sonar and/or laser and/or a mechanical distance measurement, such as one or more accumulation switches (see at least C1/L16-20).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the non-linear regulation comprises:
Setting a speed gradient across the plurality of transport belts (acceleration and deceleration is controlled, as shown in at least C4/L20-38).
Regarding claim 15, A container transport apparatus comprising one or more transport belts (Conveyors 1-6) and a control apparatus (“Separation Control” fig.2), wherein the container transport apparatus is configured to carry out a method according to claim 1 (see at least C3/L62-C4/L38).
Regarding claim 17, wherein the speed gradient increases in the event of an accumulation in the container transport apparatus, wherein the speed gradient decreases at distances exceeding a given distance value (see at least C4/L6-38).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 3,16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brixius et al. USP 6,897,625 in view of Dwivedi USP 11,851,288.
Brixius discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶7 above), but does not expressly disclose the limitations of claims 3,16.
Dwivedi teaches [regarding claim 3] wherein the detection of distance data is carried out continuously or in cycles (C5/L37-39), [regarding claim 16] wherein a distance of a container to at least one adjacent container is detected or the distances of a plurality of containers to one another are detected (C5/L12-15,39-45).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the detection of distance data carried out continuously or in cycles, wherein a distance of a container to at least one adjacent container is detected or the distances of a plurality of containers to one another are detected, as taught by Dwivedi, in the method of Brixius, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of covering a whole surface, i.e. length and width of the conveyor to detect locations/positions of spacings at all times (C4/L48-52) and to control gaps and voids between articles (C5/L19-23) for effecting properly timed processing steps (C1/L22-27).
10. Claims 7-9, as best understood by the Examiner (see ¶3,4 above), are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brixius et al. USP 6,897,625 in view of Schroader et al. USP 11,459,188.
Brixius discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶7 above), but does not expressly disclose the limitations of claims 7-9.
Schroader teaches [regarding claim 7] detection of current occupancy data of an occupancy of the one or more transport belts with containers by one or more position measurement apparatuses (see at least C10/L15-22.43-45), [regarding claim 8] transmission of the current occupancy data to a central computer unit (500; fig.8), processing of the current occupancy data with an algorithm (algorithm to calculated “measured occupancy”; C13/L4) available on the central computer unit to produce processed occupancy data, use of processed occupancy data for regulating drives of one or more transport belts (see at least C13/L4-26, C10/L43-48, C2/L64-C3/L3, C4/L18-24, C16/L51-56,60-62,66-C17/L2), and [regarding claim 9] further comprising processing of the current occupancy data with the algorithm available on the central computer unit and therefrom calculation of a speed for the one or more transport belts (see at least C13/L4-26, C10/L43-48, C2/L64-C3/L3, C4/L18-24, C16/L51-56,60-62,66-C17/L2).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to detect current occupancy data of an occupancy of the one or more transport belts with containers by one or more position measurement apparatuses, transmission of the current occupancy data to a central computer unit, processing of the current occupancy data with an algorithm available on the central computer unit to produce processed occupancy data, use of processed occupancy data for regulating drives of one or more transport belts, and processing of the current occupancy data with the algorithm available on the central computer unit and therefrom calculation of a speed for the one or more transport belts, as taught by Schroader, in the method of Brixius, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of optimizing spacing in the most efficient manner maximizing the density of containers on a conveyor and throughput of the system (C10/L27-35).
Though Brixius, as modified by Schroader, does not expressly teach processing of the current occupancy data with a further algorithm available on the central computer unit and therefrom calculation of a speed for the one or more transport belts (emphasis added by Examiner), before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use two separate algorithms rather than one single algorithm to perform the method since separating a single algorithm into two algorithms would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 V C) for at least the reason that the use a single algorithm rather than two to would improve processing speed and thus result in a more efficient method.
11. Claim 19, as best understood by the Examiner (see ¶3,4 above), are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brixius et al. USP 6,897,625 in view of Schroader et al. USP 11,459,188 further in view of Dwivedi USP 11,851,288.
Brixius discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶7,10 above), but does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 19.
Dwivedi teaches detection comprising recording images with one or more cameras (222; see at least C4/L46-57).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide detection comprising recording images with one or more cameras, as taught by Dwivedi, in the method of Brixius, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of covering a whole surface, i.e. length and width of the conveyor to detect locations/positions of spacings at all times (C4/L48-52) and to control gaps and voids between articles (C5/L19-23) for effecting properly timed processing steps (C1/L22-27).
12. Claims 5,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brixius et al. USP 6,897,625 in view of Axmann USP 10,196,213.
Brixius discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶7 above), but does not expressly disclose the limitations of claims 5,18.
Axmann teaches the use of [regarding claim 5] an adjustment of electrically adjustable railings and/or deflector plates and/or lane guides (25,31) and/or an adjustment of an inclination of the one or more transport belts relative to a horizontal
[regarding claim 18] wherein in the case of electrically adjustable railings and/or deflector plates and/or lane guides divided into sections, the adjustment comprises
a section-by-section adjustment (see at least fig.2,7).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide adjustment of electrically adjustable railings and/or deflector plates and/or lane guides and/or an adjustment of an inclination of the one or more transport belts relative to a horizontal, wherein in the case of electrically adjustable railings and/or deflector plates and/or lane guides divided into sections, the adjustment comprises a section-by-section adjustment, as taught by Axmann, in the method of Brixius, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of sorting containers in accordance with destination.
13. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brixius et al. USP 6,897,625 in view of Schroader et al. USP 11,459,188 further in view of Axmann USP 10,196,213.
Brixius discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶7,10 above), but does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 20.
Axmann teaches wherein processing is carried out continuously, and further with calculation of an adjustment of electrically adjustable railings and/or deflector plates and/or lane guides (25,31) of the one or more transport belts, wherein, in the case of electrically adjustable railings and/or deflector plates and/or lane guides divided into sections, the adjustment comprises section-by-section adjustment (see at least fig.2,7; C17/L2-5).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to carry out processing continuously, and further with calculation of an adjustment of electrically adjustable railings and/or deflector plates and/or lane guides (25,31) of the one or more transport belts, wherein, in the case of electrically adjustable railings and/or deflector plates and/or lane guides divided into sections, the adjustment comprises section-by-section adjustment, as taught by Axmann, in the method of Brixius, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of sorting containers in accordance with destination.
14. Claims 10,11,13,14, as best understood by the Examiner (see ¶3,4 above), are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brixius et al. USP 6,897,625 in view of Schroader et al. USP 11,459,188 further in view of Furukawa PGPub 2022/0113944.
Brixius discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶7,10 above), but does not expressly disclose the limitations of claims 10,11,13,14.
Furukawa teaches [regarding claim 10] an algorithm comprising a neural network (¶0020,0166), [regarding claim 11] wherein an output node of the neural network comprises a Tanh activation function (¶0116), [regarding claim 13] wherein an output of the neural network comprises an array (see at least ¶0015,0102,0162), [regarding claim 14] wherein the neural network comprises at least one fully connected layer, as a result of which the neural network learns features from all combinations of features of the previous layer (see at least ¶0010,0069).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the algorithm with a neural network, wherein an output node of the neural network comprises a Tanh activation function, wherein an output of the neural network comprises an array, wherein the neural network comprises at least one fully connected layer, as a result of which the neural network learns features from all combinations of features of the previous layer, as taught by Furukawa, in the method of Brixius, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the combination yields, for example, the array comprises a respective assignment of an identity of the transport belt to its belt speed or an identity of one of the plurality of transport belts to its belt speed, for the purpose of shortening the processing time, thus providing greater efficiency (¶0020).
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 12 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.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Petrovic (USP 6,168,005) discloses a conveyor system comprising conveyor belts (302,304,310,312) and movable guides (322,324) that deflect containers to one or to another outlet (fig.4).
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE A. NICHOLSON III whose telephone number is (571)272-5487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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 C McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/LESLIE A NICHOLSON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 7/20/2026
Prosecution Insights