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 .
The specification, abstract, drawings and claims of October 11, 2024 are under examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on December 4, 2024 and May 23, 2025. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
The “means to carry out the method” in claim 8 is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
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(s) 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(s) is/are: “data processing device” in claim 8 and claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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 1-14 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(s) 1, the phrase “is designed” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the language following the phrase is required by the claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, the language “taking into account the received second signal” renders the claim indefinite because the language is vague and does not clearly set forth a positive action. It is unclear as to what action is required by “taking”. It is unclear how the “taking” affects the step of “assigning”.
Claim 2 is unclear because of the excessive of “and/or”. The use of multiple “and/or” statements creates confusion as to all of the alternatives required by the claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, the language “taking account of the conveying speed of the conveying device, the length of the conveying device along the conveying direction and/or the number of elements of the conveying device ” renders the claim indefinite because the language is vague and does not clearly set forth a positive action.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, the language “taking into account the received second signal” renders the claim indefinite because the language is vague and does not clearly set forth a positive action. It is unclear as to what action is required by “taking”.
Claim 5 lacks antecedent basis for “the time axis”. It is unclear what “regular in the time axis” encompasses.
Claim 6 is unclear because of the excessive of “and/or”. The use of multiple “and/or” statements creates confusion as to all of the alternatives required by the claim.
Claim 7 is unclear because of the excessive of “and/or”. The use of multiple “and/or” statements creates confusion as to all of the alternatives required by the claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, as claim 8 requires the language of claim 1, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Claim limitation “means to carry out the method” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to provide structure for performing each step of the method. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 9 is indefinite because “on which the computer program product according to claim 1” does not set forth any limitation. Further, claim 1 is directed to a method, not a computer program product; therefore, claim 9 is unclear as to what is being referred.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, the phrase “designed according to claim 8” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the language.
Further, as claim 10 requires the language of claim 8, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8. Claim 8 also refers back to claim 1
Regarding Claim(s) 10, the phrase “is designed such that” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the language.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, the phrase “is designed to” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the language following the phrase is required by the claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, the phrase “is designed as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the language following the phrase is required by the claim.
Claim 11 is unclear because of the excessive of “and/or”. The use of multiple “and/or” statements creates confusion as to all of the alternatives required by the claim.
Claims 2-14 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The claims will be treated as best understood.
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, 3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gluch et al. (US Pub 20170095839 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Gluch et al. (US Pub 20170095839A1) teaches a computer-implemented method for monitoring a conveying device (trolleys 10-14 moving on paths 16-18), wherein the conveying device comprises a plurality of elements (trolleys 10-14) and is designed such that the plurality of elements is movable along a conveying direction of the conveying device (the trolleys move along the paths), comprising the steps of: receiving a first signal, wherein the first signal represents sound generated during the operation of the conveying device [Para. 25, “receive process information…process information is acoustic and/or optical process information”, “process information can also be the tipping noise…and/or the running noise”], receiving a second signal, wherein the second signal represents a time when an element of the conveying device passes through a light barrier [Para. 25, “can be monitored by using a light barrier”], assigning the received first signal to elements of the conveying device, taking into account the received second signal [Para. 25, “process information can be stored”], and monitoring the conveying device by analyzing the assigned first signal [Para. 25, “acoustic process information can be subjected to a Fourier analysis”].
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Gluch et al. teaches the first received signal comprises amplitude values for consecutive times and/or wherein the method comprises the step of determining frequencies contained in the first signal [Para. 25, “the captured acoustic process information can be subjected to a Fourier analysis and the frequency spectrum detected can be compared with a nominal frequency spectrum”].
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Gluch et al. teaches a data processing device [Para 25, “decentralized functional units 34, 36”].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluch et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mrasek et al. (US Pub 20260050243A1, having an effectively filed date of October 12, 2022).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Gluch et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the monitoring of the conveying device comprises identifying an irregular element of the conveying device, and/or wherein the monitoring of the conveying device is performed by means of machine learning and/or statistical methods. Mrasek et al. teaches monitoring a conveying device by means of machine learning [Para. 42, “a model that uses at least a machine learning method”]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the monitoring by means of machine learning to detect anomalies. Machine learning techniques are well-known.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluch et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Borghi et al. (USPN 11807464, having an effectively filed date of September 27, 2018).
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Gluch et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a non-transitory computer-readable data medium, on which the computer program product according to claim 1. Borghi et al. teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program. It is old and well-known to use a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program product to execute a method using a computer. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a non-transitory computer-readable data medium for its known purpose.
Claim(s) 10-12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluch et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ueda et al. (USPN 11325789).
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Gluch et al. teaches a system comprising a conveying device (trolleys 10-14 moving on paths 16-18), a data processing device [Para. 25, “decentralized functional units 34, 36”] designed according to claim 8, at least one microphone [Para. 25, “microphone”] and at least one light barrier [Para. 25, “light barrier”], wherein the conveying device comprises a plurality of elements (trolleys 10-14) and is designed such that the plurality of elements is movable along a conveying direction of the conveying device (along paths 16-18), wherein the microphone is designed to generate a first signal on the basis of sound [Para. 25, “receive process information…process information is acoustic and/or optical process information”, “process information can also be the tipping noise…and/or the running noise”], wherein the light barrier is designed to generate a second signal on the basis of optical signals [Para. 25, “can be monitored by using a light barrier”], and wherein the microphone and the light barrier have a communication connection to the data processing device such that the first and second signal are receivable by the data processing device [Para. 25, “process information can be stored on the decentralized functional unit 34, 36”]. Gluch et al. fails to teach the light barrier comprises a light source and a light sensor. Ueda et al. (USPN 11325789) teaches a conveying device having elements (carriage 20) and teaches a light barrier having a light source and light sensor to sense the carriage [Col. 8:20-25, “trigger sensor 44 is composed of a light emitting section emitting light to the reflection plate 29 provided at the conveyance carriage 20, and a light receiving section”]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a light source and a light sensor since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results. The source and sensor would operate in a known manner to provide a light barrier to detect an element on the conveying device.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, Gluch et al. the elements are designed to move objects arranged on the elements perpendicularly to the conveying direction (the trolleys are disclosed as having cross-belt elements [Para. 24]).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Gluch et al. teaches the microphone is arranged in relation to the conveying device such that sound generated in a curve of the conveying device is within the receive range of the microphone (the lone figure shows a functional unit 36 near a curve of the conveying device).
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Gluch et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach at least one element of the conveying device is equipped with a reflector, and wherein the light source of the light barrier is arranged in relation to the conveying device such that a light beam from the light source strikes the reflector perpendicularly when the element passes through. Ueda et al. (USPN 11325789) teaches a conveying device having elements (carriage 20), the element equipped with a reflector (reflection plate 29 on body 21 of the carriage), and wherein a light source [Col. 8:20-25, “light emitting section”] of a light barrier is arranged in relation to the conveying device such that a light beam from the light source strikes the reflector perpendicularly when the element passes through. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to equip the element with a reflector to detect the passage of the element as taught by Ueda et al.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluch et al. in view of Ueda et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Borghi et al. (USPN 11807464, having an effectively filed date of September 27, 2018).
Regarding Claim(s) 13, Gluch et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the microphone is arranged on a static component of the conveying device and/or below an underside of the elements of the conveying device. Borghi et al. (USPN 11807464) teaches a conveying device having elements (301) and teaches a microphone (sensor 204, [Col. 6:10, “the sensor 204 may comprise a microphone”]) and teaches the sensor can be mounted close to a track (303) of the conveying device [Col. 6:32-37, which would imply a static component] or the sensor can be attached to the element [Col. 6:44-47]. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to mount the microphone to a static component of the conveying device or below an underside of the element in order to capture sound data related to the conveying device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200189898A1 is the English equivalent of DE102017111066A1. USPN 12071310 discloses using sensors to identify an anomaly in a conveying device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-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, MICHAEL 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights