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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 02/26/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 4 are amended.
Claims 3, 11, and 13-14 are canceled.
Claims 16-21 are new.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 15-21 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 15-21 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.
Claim 1 recites in two instances “a sensor”, it is unclear if these are the same or different sensors, for the purposes of examining, they are considered to be the same.
Claims 2, 4-10, 12, and 15-21 are rejected based on their inherent deficiencies.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claim 1 belong to statutory a category.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1 recite(s) “a method for determining a product quality that results from a manufacturing method”, “performing a simulative determination, by a simulation facility, of one manufacturing state variable of multiple manufacturing state variables as a function of a scattering manufacturing state variable of the multiple manufacturing state variables, wherein the scattering manufacturing state variable is a manufacturing state variable of the real manufacturing method, and wherein the scattering manufacturing state variable deviates from a mean value, therein providing an indication of a deviation in a quality parameter of the manufactured product;”, “executing a simulative detection, by a simulative detection facility during the manufacturing of the product, of one manufacturing state variable that cannot be detected by a sensor in a sensory manner of the multiple manufacturing state variables as a function of the manufacturing state variable that is detected by the sensor in the sensory manner of the multiple manufacturing state variables; carrying out an associative determination of the product quality, by a determination facility via performing a machine learning method, using (1) the manufacturing state variable obtained through the simulative determination, (2) the manufacturing state variable obtained through the sensory detection, and (3) the manufacturing state variable obtained via the simulative detection, wherein the multiple manufacturing state variables are used as input variables for the associative determination, and wherein through the associative determination, a total of all determined or recorded manufacturing state variables are connected or linked to the product quality of the manufactured product based on a predictive model;” and “providing the predictive model that comprises a statement regarding the product quality based on the multiple manufacturing state variables without a direct quality check of the manufactured product being conducted” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes see applicant’s specification, for example pages 7, 17-20, 24. Examiner notes in regards to the “a simulative detection facility” applicant’s specification describes it as a "virtual sensor" (page 24) and “detected in a sensory manner of the manufacturing state variables as a function of the manufacturing state variable” (page 7) which amounts to mathematical concepts. Further “conducting a sensory detection of one manufacturing state variable of the multiple manufacturing state variables” could be understood as methods of organizing human activity, as a person could reasonably measure and input the manufacturing state variables.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “conducting a sensory detection, by a sensor of a detection facility during the manufacturing of the product, of one manufacturing state variable of the multiple manufacturing state variables;” is considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The elements of “a simulation facility”, “a detection facility”, and “a determination facility” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The elements of “the method comprising: manufacturing a product via a real manufacturing method to provide a manufactured product;” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “conducting a sensory detection, by a sensor of a detection facility during the manufacturing of the product, of one manufacturing state variable of the multiple manufacturing state variables;” is considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and are further considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality (as noted above, the “a sensory detection” could be considered a human activity) see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). The elements of “a simulation facility”, “a detection facility”, and “a determination facility” are considered to be are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(ii). The elements of “the method comprising: manufacturing a product via a real manufacturing method to provide a manufactured product;” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record).
Claims 2, 4-10, 12, and 15-20 are considered to further describe the abstract ideas above.
Claim 21 is not integrated into a practical application and does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “wherein the real manufacturing method is performed for a first time” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record).
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) 1-10 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (US 6281465) in view of Spes (US 20200334921 A1).
In claim 1, Muller discloses a method for determining a product quality that results from a manufacturing method (See abstract “prevailing quality of the technical work”), the method comprising: manufacturing a product via a real manufacturing method to provide a manufactured product (Fig. 2 see dashed box, 18, 19, Column 5 Lines 28-38 “occurring during the spot-welding operation”); performing a simulative determination (see abstract “measured values of the installation to simulate an actual value”), by a simulation facility (Fig. 2, 3, see abstract “measured values of the installation to simulate an actual value”), of one manufacturing state variable of multiple manufacturing state variables (see abstract “measured values”, Fig. 2, 2 P1-P5) as a function of a scattering manufacturing state variable of the multiple manufacturing state variables (Fig. 2, 21, column 4 lines 55 – column 5 line 5), wherein the scattering manufacturing state variable is a manufacturing state variable of the real manufacturing method (Fig. 2, 1, column 4 Lines 1-23), wherein the scattering manufacturing state variable deviates from a setpoint value (column 2 Lines 45-60), therein providing an indication of a deviation in a quality parameter (Fig. 2, 13-15 column 4 lines 3-24 “technological parameters which influence the quality of welding spots”) of the manufactured product (Column 2 Lines 1-33 “quality of the technical work result”); conducting a sensory detection, by a sensor of a detection facility during the manufacturing of the product (Fig. 2, 2, Column 3 Lines 50-65 examiner considers the measured-value acquisition to be the function equivalent of a sensor by a facility, Column 4 Lines 24-33 “an automatic testing device”), of one manufacturing state variable of the manufacturing state variables (column 5 lines 10-20 “measuring the air pressure”); executing a simulative detection, by a simulative detection facility during the manufacturing of the product (Fig. 2: 3, 9, 12), of one manufacturing state variable that cannot be detected by a sensor in a sensory manner of the multiple manufacturing state variables as a function of the manufacturing state variable that is detected by the sensor in the sensory manner of the multiple manufacturing state variables (Fig. 1, 5 and Fig. 2, 9, Column 3 Lines 12-20 and Column 4 lines 33-48 “offline” Examiner notes that the values are determined via a lab experiment rather than in a sensory manner, and are determined offline, thus cannot be detected using the sensors);
carrying out an associative determination of the product quality (Fig. 2, 26 column 4-5), by a determination facility (Fig. 2, 12) via performing a machine learning method (column 3 lines 19-32 “neural network”), using (See Fig. 1 Claim 14, “cyclically acquiring sets of measured values”, “simulating an actual value for the prevailing quality”, “successively evaluating by an iterative optimization the sets of measured values and associated ones of the characteristic quality values” and column 4 lines 49-55 “a characteristic value Qm, Qm+l, Qm+2, Qm+3 ... for the prevailing quality of the welding spots of spot-welding robot”) (1) the manufacturing state variable obtained through the simulative determination (Column 4 Lines 49-60) (2) the manufacturing state variable obtained through the sensory detection (column 4 lines 55 – column 5 line 5 “a function of the number n of measured values provided in the measured-value acquisition”), and (3) the manufacturing state variable obtained via the simulative detection (column 3 Lines 12-20 and column 4 lines 33 – column 5 line 5), wherein the multiple manufacturing state variables are used as input variables for the associative determination (column 4 lines 55 – column 5 line 5), and wherein through the associative determination, a total of all determined or recorded manufacturing state variables are connected or linked to the product quality of the manufactured product based on a predictive model (Fig. 2 8-12, column 2 line 61 – column 3 line 17 “database”, column 4 lines 3-24 “a complete set of measured values… together with an associated characteristic quality value… are stored for each acquisition instant”, column 4 lines 49-60 “installation model can now, quasi in the form of an on-line converter, simulate a characteristic value Qm”); and providing the predictive model, that comprises a statement regarding the product quality based on the multiple manufacturing state variables (column 4 lines 49-60 “actual values for the quality of the technical work result are available at the issue of installation model 12, these values being able to be used in closed-loop or open-loop control engineering for influencing the operating mode of the spot-welding robot” also see title, “PREDICTIVE DIAGNOSIS”) without a direct quality check of the manufactured product being conducted (Examiner notes that applicants specification describes “without a direct quality check” on page 4 as “It is possible to use special machines and facilities that render possible a quality check. For example, soldering sites can be checked using X-rays or after a deep-drawing process distortion can be measured using images or laser measurements. Such facilities come in many different forms with the common disadvantage that they are very expensive and often slow down production”, as no such facilities are described one of ordinary skill in the art would infer that a direct quality check is not made).
Muller does not explicitly disclose wherein the scattering manufacturing state variable deviates from a mean value (emphasis added)
Spes teaches wherein the scattering manufacturing state variable deviates from a mean value (Par. 224).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have wherein the scattering manufacturing state variable deviates from a mean value based on the teachings of Spes in order to improve confidence (Spes Par. 149) thus leading to improved accuracy.
In claim 2 Muller discloses wherein the performing of the simulative determination comprises performing a system simulation of the manufacturing method (column 5 lines 15-20 “spot-welding robot is advantageously simulated”).
In claim 4 Muller discloses all of claim 1. Muller further discloses wherein the executing of the simulative detection comprises executing an instance of the system simulation, the instance being simplified in terms of computational -complexity, and/or an analytical equation (Fig. 2, see t1-x, examiner considers each t to be a simplified instance).
In claim 5 Muller discloses all of claim 2. Muller further discloses wherein the system simulation is parameterized as a function of the scattering manufacturing state variable of the multiple manufacturing state variables (Fig. 2, 21, column 4 lines 55 – column 5 line 5).
In claim 6 Muller discloses all of claim 2. Muller further discloses wherein the system simulation comprises a continuous simulation, a one-dimensional simulation, and/or an analytical equation, or a combination thereof (See Fig. 2 examiner considers it to be a continuous simulation).
In claim 7 Muller discloses all of claim 2. Muller further discloses wherein the continuous simulation comprises a finite element method, a computational fluid dynamics method, and/or a multi-body simulation, or a combination thereof (See Fig. 2 examiner considers it to be a finite element method).
In claim 8 Muller discloses wherein the simulative determination comprises sampling a value range of the scattering manufacturing state variables of the multiple manufacturing state variables (Fig. 2, 21, column 4 lines 55 – column 5 line 5).
In claim 9 Muller discloses all of claim 2. Muller further discloses wherein the sampling comprises performing a statistical experimental design method (Fig. 2, 21, column 4 lines 55 – column 5 line 5 Examiner considers the sampling to fall within the BRI of statistical experimental design method).
In claim 10, Muller discloses all of claim 9. Muller does not explicitly disclose wherein the statistical experimental design method comprises Monte Carlo sampling and/or Latin Hypercube sampling.
Spes teaches wherein the statistical experimental design method comprises Monte Carlo sampling and/or Latin Hypercube sampling (Par. 95 and 124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the statistical experimental design method comprises Monte Carlo sampling and/or Latin Hypercube sampling based on the teachings of Spes as one of ordinary skill in the art would use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In claim 12, Muller discloses all of claim 1. Muller does not explicitly disclose wherein the machine learning method comprises a decision tree and/or an artificial neural network, or a combination thereof.
Spes teaches wherein the machine learning method comprises a decision tree and/or an artificial neural network, or a combination thereof (Par. 95).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the machine learning method comprises a decision tree and/or an artificial neural network, or a combination thereof based on the teachings of Spes as one of ordinary skill in the art would use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In claim 15 Muller discloses wherein the simulative determination comprises sampling a value range (column 4 lines 60-67 “ranges of value”) between a lower limit and an upper limit for each scattering manufacturing state variable of the multiple manufacturing state variables (column 5 lines 1-5, “critical range”).
Muller does not explicitly teach conducting a plurality of simulation runs in parallel using different combinations of the sampled value ranges for the manufactured state variables.
Spes teaches conducting a plurality of simulation runs in parallel using different combinations of the sampled value ranges for the manufactured state variables (Par. 124, 161 see Fig. 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have conducting a plurality of simulation runs in parallel using different combinations of the sampled value ranges for the manufactured state variables based on the teachings of Spes in order to solve complex equations (Spes Par. 161) thus leading to improved processing.
In claim 16 Muller discloses post-processing or recycling the manufactured product when the predictive model identifies an insufficient product quality (Fig. 1, 23/24).
In claim 17 Muller discloses processing, by a separation facility, the manufactured product based on the product quality (Fig. 1, 23/24).
In claim 18 Muller discloses post-processing or recycling the manufactured product when the predictive model identifies an insufficient product quality (Fig. 1, 23/24).
In claim 19 Muller discloses wherein the multiple manufacturing state variables are physical state variables set on the product or within the product to be manufactured (Column 5 Lines 28-38 “temperature”) during a course of the real manufacturing method (Fig. 2 see dashed box, 18, 19, Column 5 Lines 28-38 “occurring during the spot-welding operation”).
In claim 20 Muller discloses in view of Spes teaches all of claim 19. Muller further discloses wherein at least one manufacturing state variable of the multiple manufacturing state variables comprises a temperature, a pressure, a pressing force, or a sheet metal position (Column 5 Lines 28-38 “temperature”).
In claim 21 Muller discloses wherein the real manufacturing method is performed for a first time (Fig. 1 and 2 examiner considers the first time the actions are performed to be said “a first time”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s 101 arguments, the amended claim language does not overcome for the reasons cited above. Regarding applicant’s 103 arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As affirmed by the PTAB, the features of previous claim 3 are disclosed as cited. As cited above the additional elements are taught by the prior art of record, notably, that they occur during manufacturing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6480755 B1, Process Control Device And Process Control Method Permitting Processing Order And Processing Condition To Be Changed While Manufacturing Process Continues; US 20090216804 A1 System And Method For Using Manufacturing States Of Vehicle Products For Display Of A Manufacturing Process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857