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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a “computer-readable medium storing a computer program” which under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be interpreted as software per se. Moreover, software per se has been held to be non-statutory subject matter (MPEP 2106.03).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 12-13 recite the limitation “their”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “its”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 2, 7, 9, 11, the phrases "in particular" and “preferably” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Cf. MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Examiner requests clarification and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention. In the interim, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted as set forth below.
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer (US 2003/0089580) in view of Schroader (US 2018/0339865 A1).
Pfeiffer teaches a conveyor system for transporting a conveyed material, comprising:
(re: certain elements of claim 1) a conveying device that is designed to transport the conveyed material along a conveyor line, the conveyor line being divided into multiple zones (fig. 2 showing conveyor line 120 divided into multiple zone 128-1, 128-2, 128-n; para. 5, 22-23 teaching “a conveyor system with flexible zone parameter control which provides flexibility for use with different units or workpieces having different dimensions and sizes”)
at least one sensor device that is designed to capture at least one section of the conveyor line in at least one piece of sensor information (para. 24 teaching sensor assembly 132),
an evaluation device that is designed to evaluate the captured sensor information and determine the conveyed material therein (para. 23-24 teaching interface 130 to configure the zone control units 126 based on sensor information indicating workpiece size, wherein evaluation module is regarded as inherent); and
a control device that is designed to adapt the zones with regard to their size, based on the determined conveyed material (Id. teaching zone control units 138 configured by interface 130 based on workpiece size);
(re: certain elements of claim 2) the evaluation device is designed to determine a size parameter in the captured sensor information which is specific for a size of the conveyed material,
(re: claim 3) the control device is designed to define the sizes of the zones differently in order to take into account different properties,
(re: claim 5) the control device is designed to control a speed in the zones differently based on the evaluation (para. 36-38 teaching embodiment configured to control speeds in respective zones differently);
(re: claim 7) the control device is designed to control the zones independently of one another in each casewith a control unit that is activated by the control device (para. 22-24 teaching each zone configured with a respective zone control unit 128-n);
(re: claim 8) the conveying device is designed as a conveyor belt in order to transport the conveyed material in the form of packets (para. 22 teaching rotating conveying element extending along a conveyor path).
(re: claims 10-13) The claimed method steps and the related processor/computer program steps are performed in the normal operation of the combined device cited below.
Pfeiffer as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claims 1, 2, 9) wherein the sensor device is an image capture device configured generate information;
the image capture device is designed as a camera, the image information being designed as a camera recording, and the section captured by the camera having multiple
(re: claim 6) the control device is designed to control a direction in the zones differently based on the evaluation.
Schroader, however, teaches that it is well-known in the conveying arts
(re: claims 1, 2, 9)
-to use multiple video camera as sensor elements that generate image data, such as item size, that can be used to optimize conveyor functions (fig. 1, 3 and para. 9-13, 23, 26, 74-79, 88, 97 teaching vide/camera-based conveyor management system used to monitor the number and size of items via a digital image or footprint of said item that is present in conveyor zones to optimize conveyor functions, e.g., speed; para. 74-79);
(re: claim 6)
-to use said video/camera-based system as well as directional conveyor elements to better control and handle the direction of the conveyors, i.e., item flow, in a conveyor system (para. 25); and
(re: claims 12, 13)
-to implement said conveyor method with a computer program (para. 9, 13, 97 teaching that video/camera based conveyor package management can be implemented with a programmable logic controller or computer, wherein a memory for storing said method steps is regarded as inherent in teaching of computer and related instructions).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (i.e., video cameras and related image processing elements) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Pfeiffer for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer and Schroader (“Pfeiffer et al.”) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Tang et al. (“Tang”)(US 2023/0012156).
Pfeiffer et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 4) the evaluation device is designed to determine an edge of the conveyed material in the captured image information, wherein the control device is designed to adapt the size of the zones based on the determined edge.
Tang, however, teaches that it is well-known in the conveying arts to determine an item edge during image evaluation to allow more precise control of the relevant conveyor elements for item conveying/separating (para. 14-18, 74-75 teaching that image evaluation performs edge detection of item images to better identify positions of adjacent items and allows application of different conveyor speeds; para. 65 teaching 3D camera configured to detect size and real-time position of items using edge information).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of references with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention as these modifications are already well-known and commonly implemented in the conveying arts. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Pfeiffer et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
August 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights