DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to papers filed on 15 April 2026.
Claims 1-19 are pending and presented for examination. Claim 20 has been cancelled.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 15, 2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-17 under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Frick et al. (USPAP No. US 2020/0125064 A1) in view of Wild et al. (USPAP No. 2017/0249020) is withdrawn in light of the arguments made.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 USC §103 as being obvious over Frick et al. and Wild et al. and further in view of Scheler (USPN 3,874,520) is maintained and restated below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed March 20, 2026, specifically with respect to claims 1 and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant has argued that the references of prior art to Frick et al. and Wild et al. in combination do not properly teach the limitation of “assigning the workpiece to a workpiece category on the basis of the-plurality of workpiece properties, the workpiece category being defined by the plurality of workpiece properties, namely a surface pattern in combination with a weight indication, and machining the workpiece based on the workpiece category”. Examiner disagrees as Frick clearly states in paragraph [0058] that “the identity of the workpiece can be determined using workpiece-specific parameters or it can be defined which parameters characterize the workpiece” [emphasis added]. This reads on the “assigning the workpiece to a workpiece category on the basis … of workpiece properties” and where “the workpiece category [is} defined by the … workpiece properties.” A “generic list” has not been given but a list of potential properties or parameters is stated which include surface properties and material properties for categorization.
Next, Applicant argues that the Examiner indicated that “thickness is well-known to be a weight characteristic”. Examiner agrees and apologizes. For this, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. US 2020/0125064 A1 to Frick et al. in view of US Patent Publication No. US 2019/0118226 A1 to Shibasaki.
The published prior art of Frick et al. (herein after “Frick”) teaches of monitoring a manufacturing process including the steps of the instant invention as follows.
Regarding independent claim 1 a method for identifying workpieces, comprising wood, wood materials or the like, in a machining process – (taught by Frick in paragraph [0001] as “the manufacturing process can, for example, involve the machining of a panel-shaped workpiece, such as a solid wood panel, a chipboard, an MDF panel, an HDF panel, or a workpiece made of another wood-based material. Such a workpiece can be used in the furniture or construction element industry.”), comprising the steps of:
• detecting a plurality of workpiece properties with different sensors prior to a machining step – (taught by Frick in paragraph [0015] where the use of a sensor unit is described, in paragraph [0018] where the use of a position sensor is explained, and in paragraph [0019] the use of an acceleration is defined. Thus the prior art of Frick specifically teaching the use of different sensors to measure workpiece properties, the detecting of properties is taught in paragraph [0036] wherein the camera (a sensor) is used to determine the identity of a workpiece);
• assigning the workpiece to a workpiece category on the basis of the plurality of workpiece properties, the workpiece category being defined by the plurality of workpiece properties, namely a surface pattern in combination with a weight indication – (stated above as taught in as paragraph [0058] of the reference which clearly states “[if] a workpiece is recognized that has not yet been assigned an identity, the sensor unit of the data goggles can be used to determine the properties of the workpiece, for example using a 2D or 3D camera. The identity of the workpiece can be determined using workpiece-specific parameters or it can be defined which parameters characterize the workpiece. These include workpiece dimensions (width, height, thickness), color, surface properties, degree of gloss of the workpiece surface, a material property, an edge material, a coating and/or the groove or hole pattern of the workpiece. If the properties of a workpiece are detected by the sensors of the data goggles, these can be used to determine the identity.” [emphasis added] The relating of workpieces with their respective workpiece-specific parameters on the basis of workpiece properties is commensurate with the step of assigning a workpiece to a workpiece category. With regard to elements of the instant claims, the assigning of the workpiece, namely surface pattern in combination to a weight indication is not particularly defined by Frick. However, the surface pattern and weight indication being a part of the workpiece properties is taught by Shibasaki in paragraphs [0005] and [0032]. Shibasaki teaches of sorting process wherein “it is necessary to accumulate a large amount of physical information, such as images and weights for each sorting category and perform annotation (instruction of categories to which workpieces belong), thereby preparing learning data” is stated in paragraph [0005]. Here the categorizing process is explained where the weight is included in the sorting process. And then in paragraph [0032] the machining device is defined as “acquiring measurement data indicative of physical quantities”, including shapes and weights. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the above mentioned monitoring device as used by Frick with the sorting/categorizing of Shibasaki so as to enable the use of surface parameters/patterns of Frick with the weight aspect of Shibasaki to allow for proper categorizing/sorting in the machining process.), and
• machining the workpiece in the machining step which is determined by the
based on the workpiece category – (taught by Frick in paragraph [0008] where “the method in accordance with the invention comprises the following steps: detecting a workpiece with a sensor unit of a portable device, sending the information detected by the sensor unit to a database and creating a workpiece-specific data set, detecting the workpiece before, during and/or after carrying out of a machining step or a handling step on the workpiece by the sensor unit of the portable device, updating the data set stored in the database before, during and/or after carrying out a machining step or handling step on the workpiece” is explained);
• wherein the assigning comprises comparing the detected surface pattern and weight indication to predefined combinations in a database to determine a one-to-one correspondence between the workpiece and the workpiece category - (as taught by Frick in paragraph [0057] at relationship between workpieces and workpiece properties is established. And as taught by Shibasaki in paragraph [0005], where weight is considered as a workpiece property for categorizing. The two references combined teach of a determination of a one-to-one correspondence between workpiece and workpiece category.)
As per claim 2, the method of claim 1, wherein at least one workpiece property to be changed is detected after the machining step, and a subsequent process step is determined on this basis is recited. Frick teaches is feature in paragraph [0059] as “assigns or creates an individualized identifier or an individualized data set for the workpiece W. The production control system 15 thus knows the new workpiece W, which is now to find its way into the manufacturing process.”
Claim 3 states the method of claim 2, wherein, in the subsequent process step, the workpiece is further machined or discharged from the machining process. Frick teaches this element in paragraph [0060] as “the machining steps are carried out according to the order. Sensors of the machining device recognize the workpiece W and document the execution of the corresponding machining steps. Based on this information, the workpiece-specific data set in database 20 is updated.”
In claim 4 the method of claim 1, further states wherein, prior to the machining, at least one workpiece property to be changed is detected and the workpiece is machined based on the workpiece category and the at least one workpiece property to be changed. This aspect is taught by Frick in paragraphs [0064]-[0065] as “the employee's data goggles 10, or detection system, recognize which workpiece W the employee is picking up in that the camera of the data goggles 10 recognizes the workpiece W and compares it with the last stored data of the individualized data set. After the workpiece W has been assigned in this way, the employee can insert the workpiece W into the second machining device B2, and certain machining operations are carried out in the second machining device B2 based on an order list stored for the individualized data set.”
With regard to claim 5 the method of claim 1, wherein the workpiece is assigned to a workpiece category by combining a plurality of workpiece properties. Paragraph [0058] of Frick states the various categories to which a workpiece is assigned.
As per claim 6 the method of claim 1, wherein physical or geometric workpiece properties are detected, in particular weight specifications, dimensions, colors or three-dimensional structures. Paragraph [0058] of Frick states the various categories to which a workpiece is assigned.
Claim 7 is directed to the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one workpiece property is one of a plurality of workpiece properties to be detected and the workpiece category is one of a plurality of workpiece categories defined in a data pool. Frick teaches this in paragraph [0058] wherein after listing the various properties/categories “if the properties of a workpiece are detected by the sensors of the data goggles, these can be used to determine the identity” is stated.
In claim 8 the method of claim 7, further comprising storing in the data pool the at least one workpiece property detected during the machining process is claimed. The various properties/categories are listed and followed by “the determined information can be summarized in a data set and used for identification” as explained by Frick in paragraph [0016].
Regarding claim 9 the method of claim 8, wherein a process control system accesses the data pool and controls the machining process. The presence of a process control system is described in paragraph [0032] as “a production control system 15 monitors the operation of the machining devices B1-B3” and further explained in paragraph [0036] as “a portable device 10 (smart device) is integrated into the workpiece handling and transport. In this embodiment example, the portable device is data goggles 10 with a sensor unit, in particular a camera” with the data goggles being the detection system as claimed.
As per independent claim 10 a device for identifying workpieces, comprising wood, wood materials or the like (taught in paragraph [0001] by Frick), is recited as the device comprising:
• at least one detection system configured upstream of a workpiece machining unit, in order to detect a plurality of workpiece properties which are necessary for assigning a workpiece category – (Frick teaches the use of data goggles as the detection system as described in paragraph [0036] where “data goggles 10 are connected to a database 20 of the production control system 15 via a wireless data connection and can be used to determine the identity of a workpiece W, among other things, by means of the camera,”. The detection system being configured upstream is necessarily taught by Frick as the data goggles or detection system is mobile.) and
• at least one workpiece machining unit configured to machine the workpiece in accordance with an assigned workpiece category, the workpiece category being defined by the plurality of workpiece properties, namely a surface pattern in combination with a weight indication – (stated above as taught in as paragraph [0058] of the reference which clearly states “[if] a workpiece is recognized that has not yet been assigned an identity, the sensor unit of the data goggles can be used to determine the properties of the workpiece, for example using a 2D or 3D camera. The identity of the workpiece can be determined using workpiece-specific parameters or it can be defined which parameters characterize the workpiece. These include workpiece dimensions (width, height, thickness), color, surface properties, degree of gloss of the workpiece surface, a material property, an edge material, a coating and/or the groove or hole pattern of the workpiece. If the properties of a workpiece are detected by the sensors of the data goggles, these can be used to determine the identity.” [emphasis added] The relating of workpieces with their respective workpiece-specific parameters on the basis of workpiece properties is commensurate with the step of assigning a workpiece to a workpiece category. With regard to elements of the instant claims, the assigning of the workpiece, namely surface pattern in combination to a weight indication is not particularly defined by Frick. However, the surface pattern and weight indication being a part of the workpiece properties is taught by Shibasaki in paragraphs [0005] and [0032]. Shibasaki teaches of sorting process wherein “it is necessary to accumulate a large amount of physical information, such as images and weights for each sorting category and perform annotation (instruction of categories to which workpieces belong), thereby preparing learning data” is stated in paragraph [0005]. Here the categorizing process is explained where the weight is included in the sorting process. And then in paragraph [0032] the machining device is defined as “acquiring measurement data indicative of physical quantities”, including shapes and weights. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the above mentioned monitoring device as used by Frick with the sorting/categorizing of Shibasaki so as to enable the use of surface parameters/patterns of Frick with the weight aspect of Shibasaki to allow for proper categorizing/sorting in the machining process.);
• wherein the detection system is configured to compare the detected surface pattern and weight indication to predefined combinations in a database to determine a one-to-one correspondence between the workpiece and the workpiece category - (as taught by Frick in paragraph [0057] at relationship between workpieces and workpiece properties is established. And as taught by Shibasaki in paragraph [0005], where weight is considered as a workpiece property for categorizing. The two references combined teach of a determination of a one-to-one correspondence between workpiece and workpiece category.)
As per claim 11 the device of claim 10, wherein the at least one detection system is configured upstream of the workpiece machining unit in order to detect workpiece properties to be changed. In paragraph [0042] Frick teaches “the employee can first carry out a workpiece transport and change the sequence of the workpieces W in the workpiece stack during the transport. The data goggles 10 that are carried along or their sensors detect the manipulation and inform the production control system 15 of the changed situation”, the upstream configuration of the detection system is necessarily set as the data goggles (or detection system) are mobile.
Claim 12 is directed to the device of claim 11, further comprising at least one detection system downstream of the machining unit in order to detect [[the ]|changed workpiece properties. In paragraph [0042] Frick teaches “the employee can first carry out a workpiece transport and change the sequence of the workpieces W in the workpiece stack during the transport. The data goggles 10 that are carried along or their sensors detect the manipulation and inform the production control system 15 of the changed situation”, the downstream configuration of the detection system is necessarily set as the data goggles (or detection system) are mobile.
In claim 13 the device of claim 10, wherein the detection system comprises one or more active or passive sensors. Frick teaches the use of sensors, in particular a camera, in paragraph [0040] as “the data goggles 10 are equipped with the corresponding sensors. In addition to the camera already mentioned, the data goggles have a sensor for determining the position of the data goggles 10 (in particular triangulation procedures, for example via Bluetooth or the WLAN network). Acceleration sensors may also be used to detect accelerations in order to determine the direction of the user's gaze”. . The use of a camera as a sensor is a well-known form of active and/or passive sensor.
With regard to claim 15 where the device of claim 10, further comprising a process control system configured to control the machining process on the basis of the data pool is claimed. Frick teaches this aspect of the instant invention in paragraph [0025] as “to detect a workpiece before, during and/or after a machining step or a handling step has been carried out and to determine and transmit information obtained on the device side about the workpiece, and a production control system having a database, wherein the production control system is arranged to create a workpiece-specific data set in the database based on the transmitted information obtained on the device side or to update a workpiece-specific data set stored in the database” as well as in paragraph [0037] as “there is always a data connection between the data goggles 10 and the production control system 15, which is preferably executed on a central server and comprises the database 20.”
As per claim 16 the device of claim 13, wherein the one or more active or passive sensors includes mechanical, thermoelectric, resistive, piezoelectric, capacitive, inductive, optical, acoustic, or magnetic sensors. Frick teaches the use of a camera or optical sensor which is well known to be either active or passive. See paragraph [0039].
Claim 17 is directed to the method of claim 6, wherein the physical or geometric workpiece properties include weight specifications, dimensions, colors, or three-dimensional structures. Frick teaches the various properties of the workpiece in paragraph [0058] where “an identity, the sensor unit of the data goggles can be used to determine the properties of the workpiece, for example using a 2D or 3D camera. The identity of the workpiece can be determined using workpiece-specific parameters or it can be defined which parameters characterize the workpiece. These include workpiece dimensions (width, height, thickness), color, surface properties, degree of gloss of the workpiece surface, a material property, an edge material, a coating and/or the groove or hole pattern of the workpiece” is explained.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. US 2020/0125064 A1 to Frick et al. and US Patent Publication No. US 2019/0118226 A1 to Shibasaki et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication No. US 2017/0249020 A1 to Wild et al..
Claim 18 recites the method of claim 1, wherein the weight indication comprises a weight value. This element is taught by Wild in paragraph [0141] where the presence of functional sensors is stated to measure weight.
Regarding claim 19, the method of claim 1, includes wherein the surface pattern is detected using an optical sensor. The detection of surface patterns is stated in paragraph [0139] as “surface members” which is commensurate with the claimed surface pattern; presence of an optical sensor is taught by Wild in paragraph [0038] where the use of an optical sensor is explained.
Although Frick teaches of a monitoring system of a manufacturing process, and Shibasaki teaches of a sorting system that can be used in a manufacturing process. The references of prior art fall short of specifically teach the use of a weight value and an optical sensor as claimed. It is for this reason the prior art of Wild is relied upon as aforementioned. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the above mentioned inventions of Frick and Shibasaki with the invention of Wild so as to teach the use of weights and sensors so as to allow for a more complete and accurate manufacturing system with measurements and visual sensors.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. US 2020/0125064 A1 to Frick et al. and US Patent Publication No. US 2019/0118226 A1 to Shibasaki et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. US 3,874,520 to Scheler.
The limitations of instant claim 14 are directed to the device claim 11, further comprising a switch element configured downstream of the at least one detection system and the machining unit in order to discharge the workpiece or to feed it to a further machining step. The use of a switch element is not particularly taught by Frick or Wild; for this reason, the patented prior art of Scheler is introduced. Scheler teaches of an apparatus for feeding work material to a machine tool comprising a conveyor which may be driven towards or away from the machine tool. In column 3 at lines 21-31, Scheler teaches “a sensor member 37 cooperating with the front end of the work material bar 5 is mounted and serves to actuate a starter switch 38. The work material bar can be displaced by means of a drive motor 8. This drive motor is switched off by a control switch 13 actuated by a cam 11 when the connecting rod 7 has reached its rear-most end position. A control switch 14 actuated by a control cam 12 switches off the drive motor 8, which is driven in a different direction of rotation than previously, when the work material bar 5 has been consumed.” Scheler teaches the use of a switch to control the motor to send the workpiece into a different location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the above mentioned inventions of Frick and Wild with the conveyance control of Scheler so as to develop an efficient and cost effective method.
For the reasons stated above, the limitations of the instant invention are taught and/or fairly suggested by the prior arts of record; thereby, rendering the instant claims unpatentable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. US 2019/0317467 A1 Blaine, et al.
Relates to portioning workpieces into pieces, while also considering the desired shape of the portioned pieces as a directly controlled characteristic
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sheela Rao whose telephone number is (571) 272- 3751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday from 7:00 am to 1:00 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, Mohammad Ali, can be reached on (571) 272-4105. The fax number for the organization where this application or any proceeding papers has been assigned is (571) 273- 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. It should be noted that status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http:// pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should any questions arise regarding access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sheela Rao whose telephone number is (571) 272- 3751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday from 7:00 am to 1:00 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, Mohammad Ali, can be reached on (571) 272-4105. The fax number for the organization where this application or any proceeding papers has been assigned is (571) 273- 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. It should be noted that status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http:// pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should any questions arise regarding access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sheela Rao/Examiner, Art Unit 2119 May 19, 2026
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights