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 § 112
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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the simulating" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schuesslburner U.S. Patent No. 11,807,470.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claim 1, Schuesslburner teaches a method for automatically controlling at least two drivable belts 101,102 in a system 100, wherein the belts 101,102 are each configured to transport containers 130 in a first direction 173 or a second direction 175, wherein the system 100 comprises a machine 316 that is upstream of the belts 101,102 and/or a machine 122 that is downstream of the belts 101,102 Fig. 3, wherein the method comprises: detecting via 317 a first operating state of the upstream machine 316 and/or detecting via 327 a second operating state of the downstream machine 122, determining a speed to be selected for each of the belts 101,102 based on the first operating state via 317 and/or the second operating state via 327, controlling the belts 101,102 according to the speed to be selected in each case C7 L15-30; C11 L64-67; C12 L1-40.
Claim 2, Schuesslburner teaches the first operating state via 317 comprises a first transport speed and/or a first power (from the control unit), and wherein the second operating state via 327 comprises a second transport speed and/or a second power (from the control unit) C12 L1-10.
Claim 3, Schuesslburner teaches simulating via 317,327 a position of the containers 130 in the system 100.
Claim 5, Schuesslburner teaches the determination of the speed to be selected is further carried out based on a predetermined belt occupancy of each of the belts 101,102 C12 L1-10.
Claim 6, Schuesslburner teaches the determination of the speed to be selected is further carried out based on a predetermined number of containers 130 which are to be delivered by the belts 101,102 in each case C5 L10-25.
Claim 7, Schuesslburner teaches the at least two drivable belts 101,102 are two consecutive belts Fig. 3.
Claim 8, Schuesslburner teaches the at least two drivable belts 101,102 are arranged in parallel Fig. 3.
Claim 12, Schuesslburner teaches the containers 130 are arranged on the belts 101,102 as container rows Fig. 3.
Claim 13, Schuesslburner teaches an apparatus 100 for automatically controlling at least two drivable belts 101,102 in a system 100, wherein the belts 101,102 are each configured to transport containers 130 in a first direction 173 or a second direction 175, wherein the system 100 comprises a machine 316 that is upstream of the belts 101,102 and/or a machine 122 that is downstream of the belts 101,102, wherein the apparatus is configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 Fig. 3.
Claim 14, Schuesslburner teaches the at least two drivable belts 101,102 are two consecutive belts, or wherein the at least two drivable belts are arranged in parallel Fig. 3.
Claim 15, Schuesslburner teaches a time delay member (control unit) C10 L45-60.
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 (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.
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) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuesslburner U.S. Patent No. 11,807,470 in view of Seger U.S. Patent No. 7,942,255.
Claim 4, Schuesslburner teaches the simulating via 317,327, further comprises: evaluating sensor data 317,327 from a sensor included in the system 100, using a default value from the downstream machine 122, but does not teach as Seger teaches the sensor data via 32-35 comprises data from a light barrier included in the system 1 C4 L30-45. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Schuesslburner with the monitoring system taught in Seger with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim(s) 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuesslburner U.S. Patent No. 11,807,470 in view of Gehin U.S. Patent No. 11,511,946.
Claim 9, Schuesslburner does not teach as Gehin teaches the determination of the speed to be selected is further based on a first path of 10 to be covered by a container 1 on a first of the belts 3 to a position downstream of the belts 6 and on a path to be covered by a container on the other belts 10,2,10 to the position in each case C2 L60-67; C3 L1-2 Fig. 7. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Schuesslburner with the monitoring system taught in Gehin with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 10, Schuesslburner does not teach as Gehin teaches a predetermined total output rate of the belts 5,10,2,10,6 is based on an output rate of the belts in each case, wherein the output rates are different C9 L15-35. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Schuesslburner with the monitoring system taught in Gehin with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 11, Schuesslburner teaches communication with a secondary buffer included in the system, which is arranged downstream of the belts 101,102, for closed-loop control of the belts 101,102 according to the speed to be selected C11 L20-40.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-2362. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (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 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.
/KAVEL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
KS
Prosecution Insights