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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 12, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being ANTICIPATED by Norris et al. (WO 2015/042661).
Norris et al. show a conveyor roller 10 having a sensor which senses at least one characteristic of the roller and produces data which represents the sensed data, a processor, an identification device and a transmitter.
Re claim 7, all of these conditions are disclosed as being sensed.
Re claim 8, disclosed is a generator 25.
Re claim 9, a memory is disclosed.
Re claim 12, disclosed is the system in a plurality of rollers using a central server and processor.
Re claim 13, other communication protocols are used.
Re claim 17, disclosed is an external network.
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) 2-5, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norris et al. in view of Den Haak et al. (US 2019/0203773).
Norris et al. do not show the sensor within a shaft of the conveyor. However, shown by Den Haak et al. is a sensor system within a bore of a roller, see paragraph [0019]. To do such with Norris et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a housing would provide protection for the sensor device.
Re claim 3, each reference includes a housing for the sensing device.
Re claim 4, see Figure 2A of Den Haak et al.
Re claim 5, Den Haak et al. teach the sensor system as being releasably mounted in the roller shaft.
Re claim 18, mounting within a roller shaft is fairly taught by Den Haak et al.
Re claim 19, as per claim 5 rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10, 11, 14-16 and 20 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R BIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6910. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 to 4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gene Crawford, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-6911. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/JAMES R BIDWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651 02/03/2026