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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on January 3, 2025 and the response to the election/restriction requirement filed July 1, 2025.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I comprising claims 1-5, 8-16, 19, and 20 in the reply filed on July 1, 2025 is acknowledged. Therefore, claims 6-7 and 17-18 stand withdrawn from consideration, and claims 1-5, 8-16, and 19-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on March 31, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner is interpreting the generation and outputting of control instructions as requiring special control circuitry for controlling operation of the conveyor that goes beyond what is provided by a generic computer and, therefore, is not interpreted as an abstract idea. Additionally, the control instructions are interpreted in view of the original disclosure as control of a physical attribute associated with the conveyor and/or apparatuses associated with the conveyor.
The computer-readable storage medium is interpreted as a transitory storage medium based on the original specification at [0049].
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claim 1, 4-5, 8-12, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0116999 (hereinafter, “dos Santos”).
Regarding claim 1, dos Santos discloses A computer-implemented method (see at least [0013], [0021], and the publication generally), comprising:
receiving, by a computer, image data associated with each section of a plurality of sections of a conveyor, wherein each section of the plurality of sections comprises at least one adjustable supporting structure, and wherein the conveyor is configured to move a plurality of entities positioned thereon (see at least [0071]; the image sensors capture images along a conveyor which is adjustable to move boards (i.e., entities) along the conveyor);
receiving, by the computer, operational data associated with the conveyor (see at least [0059] and [0065]; data associated with the production line comprising the conveyor(s) is received);
applying, by the computer, an artificial intelligence (AI) model on the image data and the operational data (see at least [0044] and [0069]-[0070]; the AI model may process the image data and operational data);
determining, by the computer, anomaly data for an anomaly associated with the conveyor, wherein the anomaly data is determined based on the application of the AI model, and wherein the anomaly is associated with at least one of a movement of the conveyor, a specific entity of the plurality of entities, or the at least one adjustable supporting structure of a specific section of the plurality of sections (see at least [0044], [0061]-[0062], and [0069]-[0070]; the anomaly may be determined by the AI model and may be associated with a specific board (i.e., specific entity of the plurality of entities));
generating, by the computer, a set of control instructions based on the anomaly data, wherein the set of control instructions is associated with an operation of the conveyor (see at least [0061]-[0062]; the production line may be stopped responsive to the anomaly being detected which also stops the conveyor); and
outputting, by the computer, the set of control instructions (see at least [0061]-[0062]; control instructions to stop the conveyor may be triggered, and instructions associated with an intervention may be triggered).
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 1. Additionally, Examiner notes that the computer of claim 1 is equivalent to a processor set and a computer-readable storage media.
Regarding claim 4, dos Santos discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, dos Santos discloses further comprising:
determining, by the computer, entity data associated with each entity of the plurality of entities, wherein the entity data is determined based on the application of the AI model on the image data and the operational data (see at least [0044] and [0069]-[0070]; the AI model may process the image data and operational data for the entities traversing along the conveyor(s)); and
determining, by the computer, the anomaly data based on the entity data (see at least [0044], [0061]-[0062], and [0069]-[0070]; the anomaly may be determined by the AI model and may be associated with a specific board (i.e., specific entity of the plurality of entities)).
Claim 15 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, dos Santos discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, dos Santos discloses wherein the entity data comprises at least one of size data associated with each entity of the plurality of entities, weight data associated with each entity of the plurality of entities, shape data associated with each entity of the plurality of entities, fragility data associated with each entity of the plurality of entities, or chemical properties associated with each entity of the plurality of entities (see at least [0019]; size, shape, and defect data associated with the boards).
Claim 16 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, dos Santos discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, dos Santos discloses wherein the operational data comprises at least one of weight data associated with each section of the plurality of sections, noise data associated with the conveyor, or speed data associated with the conveyor (see at least [0061]; operational data includes the speed of the production line (i.e., speed data associated with the conveyor)).
Claim 19 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, dos Santos discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, dos Santos discloses wherein the anomaly data for the anomaly comprises at least one of a type associated with the anomaly, a location associated with the anomaly, or a resolution process associated with the anomaly (see at least [0019] and [0063]; different types of interventions (i.e., resolution processes) may be associated with the type of anomaly).
Regarding claim 10, dos Santos discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, dos Santos discloses further comprising controlling, by the computer, an execution of the resolution process at the location associated with the anomaly for resolving the anomaly, wherein the execution of the resolution process is based on the set of control instructions (see at least [0019] and [0061]-[0063]; the intervention process (i.e., resolution process) occurs at the location associated with the anomalous board (i.e., entity) and is based on the control instructions).
Regarding claim 11, dos Santos discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, dos Santos discloses wherein the anomaly is indicative of a deviation from a pre-defined operating conditions associated with the at least one of the movement of the conveyor, the specific entity of the plurality of entities, or the at least one adjustable supporting structure of a specific section of the plurality of sections (see at least [0019]; size, shape, and defect data associated with the boards may be considered anomalies).
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over dos Santos as evidenced by NPL document “Within Its Grasp: UAV Uses Neural Network for Better Pick and Place” (hereinafter, “Hopkins”).
Regarding claim 2, dos Santos discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, dos Santos discloses further comprising:
receiving, by the computer, aerial vehicle data associated with each aerial vehicle of a plurality of aerial vehicles (see at least Figs. 4-7 and [0071]; a plurality of robots may be controlled using positional data and other data associated with each robot of the plurality);
identifying, by the computer, a specific aerial vehicle of the plurality of aerial vehicles for resolving the anomaly, wherein the specific aerial vehicle is identified based on the anomaly data and the aerial vehicle data (see at least Figs. 4-7, [0016], and [0071]; a plurality of robots may be controlled using positional data and other data associated with each robot of the plurality where the position of the robot corresponds to the anomaly position);
generating, by the computer, the set of control instructions for the specific aerial vehicle based on the anomaly data and the aerial vehicle data (see at least Figs. 4-7, [0016]-[0017], and [0071]; a plurality of robots may be controlled using positional data and other data associated with each robot of the plurality where the position of the robot corresponds to the anomaly position, and the robot may be instructed to remove the board (i.e., entity) based on the anomaly of the entity); and
controlling, by the computer, an operation of the specific aerial vehicle based on the set of control instructions (see at least Figs. 4-7, [0016]-[0017], and [0071]; a plurality of robots may be controlled using positional data and other data associated with each robot of the plurality where the position of the robot corresponds to the anomaly position, and the robot may be instructed to and controlled to remove the board (i.e., entity) based on the anomaly of the entity).
dos Santos does not explicitly teach that the robots are aerial vehicles or drones. However, dos Santos does disclose that the robots may be pick and place robots (see dos Santos at [0055]), and it was known in the art before the effective filing date that pick and place robots may be aerial robots/drones as evidenced at least by Hopkins at p. 2: “Small uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAV) are increasingly used for pick-and place tasks….” Therefore, the use of an aerial vehicle is considered at least an obvious variant to the robots disclosed by dos Santos.
Claim 13 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, dos Santos as evidenced by Hopkins renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, dos Santos discloses wherein the operation of the specific aerial vehicle corresponds to resolving the anomaly, and wherein the operation of the specific aerial vehicle comprises one of removing the specific entity or changing a position of the specific entity (see at least Figs. 4-7, [0016]-[0017], and [0071]; a plurality of robots may be controlled using positional data and other data associated with each robot of the plurality where the position of the robot corresponds to the anomaly position, and the robot may be instructed to and controlled to remove the board (i.e., entity) based on the anomaly of the entity).
dos Santos does not explicitly teach that the robots are aerial vehicles or drones. However, dos Santos does disclose that the robots may be pick and place robots (see dos Santos at [0055]), and it was known in the art before the effective filing date that pick and place robots may be aerial robots/drones as evidenced at least by Hopkins at p. 2: “Small uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAV) are increasingly used for pick-and place tasks….” Therefore, the use of an aerial vehicle is considered at least an obvious variant to the robots disclosed by dos Santos.
Claim 14 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 3.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
WO2024/078875 which pertains to operating a conveyor system and evaluating conveyor anomalies via the use of an anomaly neural network model.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights