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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 10 are amended.
Claims 11-18 are new.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 16-18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 16 and 17 depend from themselves, rather than 15 and 16 respectively.
Claims 14 and 18 incorrectly recite “.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 and similarly claim 10 recite “acquiring real-time target working condition data, real-time target condition monitoring data”, however applicant has not cited where the specification supports said language and upon examiners review, only Par. 31 recites “working condition data may mainly include data information that reflects a real-time processing status of the evaluation target or a specific processing of the evaluation target”. The recitation of “data information that reflects a real-time processing status” does not provide sufficient support for “real-time target working condition data, real-time target condition monitoring data”.
Claims 12-13 and similarly 16-17 recite “target working condition data is selected from the group consisting of: machine speed, type of process, load, Yankee surface coating and blade grade” and “condition monitoring data is selected from the group consisting of: blade angle, vibration, temperature and humidity” respectively. Applicant cites Par. 31 and 32 respectively to support said claim language, however, neither of these sections describe their respective data is “data is selected from the group consisting of” their respective groups. Par. 31 recites “the working condition data may include time stamp, machine speed, type of process, load, Yankee surface, coating, blade grade, and the like. It should be understood that the embodiments of the present disclosure are not limited by a specific composition and type of the above-mentioned working condition data” and Par. 32 recites “condition monitoring data may include blade angle, vibration, temperature, humidity, and the like. It should be understood that the embodiments of the present disclosure are not limited by a specific composition and type of the above-mentioned condition monitoring data”; these do not provide support for “selecting” the data or requiring the groups to consist of their respective data types.
Claims 2-9 and 11, 14-15 and 18 are rejected based on their inherited deficiencies.
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 1-18 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.
Claims 1 and similarly 10 recites the limitation "preprocessing the acquired target working condition data, target condition monitoring data", while this presumably refers to the previous “real-time target working condition data, real-time target condition monitoring data”, however as written there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-9 and 11-18 are rejected based on their inherited 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 and similarly 10 recite(s) “a method for evaluating papermaking quality comprising: determining at least one evaluation target that affects the papermaking quality, the at least one evaluation target comprising a component of an operating papermaking machine; for each evaluation target:” and “preprocessing the acquired target working condition data, target condition monitoring data and target papermaking quality data to obtain preprocessed target working condition data, preprocessed the target condition monitoring data and preprocessed target papermaking quality data; performing data integration on the preprocessed target working condition data, the preprocessed target condition monitoring data, and the preprocessed target papermaking quality data to obtain an integrated data set; performing feature extraction on data in the integrated data set according to types and characteristics of the data based on the integrated data set to obtain a target feature data set; establishing a paper quality analysis model for evaluation of the corresponding evaluation target based on the target feature data set; evaluating the corresponding evaluation target and generating a quality health evaluation result of the corresponding evaluation target based on the papermaking quality analysis model; and obtaining a comprehensive papermaking quality evaluation result based on the quality health evaluation result of the at least one evaluation target” are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes for example see Applicant’s specification Par. 45.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “acquiring real-time target working condition data, target condition monitoring data and target papermaking quality data related to the corresponding evaluation target;” are 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 “a computer processor configured to” 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 “a sensor associated with the operating papermaking machine” are 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 claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “acquiring real-time target working condition data, real-time target condition monitoring data and target papermaking quality data related to the corresponding evaluation target;” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g). The elements of “a computer processor configured to” are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d). The elements of “a sensor associated with the operating papermaking machine” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(see prior art of record).
Claims 2-8 and 11-18 are considered to further describe the abstract ideas cited above.
In claim 9, “A non-transient computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a computer,” are neither integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they 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 and are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-8 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Von Drasek (US 2015/0160001).
In claim 1, Drasek discloses a method for evaluating papermaking quality (Par. 68 “real-time or near real-time analysis of the crepe structure is collected to assess product quality”) comprising: determining at least one evaluation target that affects the papermaking quality (Fig. 6, Par. 64 “images are captured at known CD positions”) the at least one evaluation target comprising a component (Par. 5, 50) of an operating papermaking machine (Fig. 1); for each evaluation target: acquiring real-time target working condition data, real-time target condition monitoring data and target papermaking quality data related to the corresponding evaluation target (Fig. 6, Par. 64 “images are captured at known CD positions as the sample is translated across the imaging plane”, Par. 68 “real-time or near real-time analysis of the crepe structure); preprocessing the acquired target working condition data, target condition monitoring data and target papermaking quality data to obtain preprocessed target working condition data, preprocessed the target condition monitoring data and the preprocessed target papermaking quality data (Par. 64 “Processing is performed to construct a CD profile for different metrics, e.g., CBI, CSI, marginal slope, % fine, etc., using the various analysis methods described here” examiner considers the processing to be said preprocessing); performing data integration on the preprocessed target working condition data, the preprocessed target condition monitoring data, and the preprocessed target papermaking quality data to obtain an integrated data set (Par. 64 examiner considered the profile to be said integrated data set); performing feature extraction on data in the integrated data set according to types and characteristics of the data based on the integrated data set to obtain a target feature data set (Par. 74); establishing a paper quality analysis model for evaluation of the corresponding evaluation target based on the target feature data set (Par. 58, 60 “steps 1-3”); evaluating the corresponding evaluation target and generating a quality health evaluation result of the corresponding evaluation target based on the papermaking quality analysis model (Par. 58, 60, 62 “evaluating the row-by-row profile data processed in steps 1-3”); and obtaining a comprehensive papermaking quality evaluation result based on the quality health evaluation result of the at least one evaluation target (Par. 62, 74-75 “results”).
In claim 2, Drasek discloses wherein for each evaluation target, the performing feature extraction target feature data set (Par. 74) comprises: extracting features of working condition data in the integrated data set to obtain working condition features (Par. 7, 31); extracting features of condition monitoring data in the integrated data set to obtain condition monitoring features (Par. 50, 66); extracting features of papermaking quality data in the integrated data set to obtain papermaking quality features (Par. 74); obtaining the target feature data set based on the working condition features, the condition monitoring features and the papermaking quality features (Par. 62, 74-75).
In claim 3, Drasek discloses all of claim 2. Drasek further discloses wherein for each evaluation target, the obtaining the target feature data set based on the working condition features, the condition monitoring features and the papermaking quality features comprises: obtaining fused feature data by feature fusion processing based on the working condition features, the condition monitoring features and the papermaking quality features (Par. 60 “a combination of these characteristics”), and generating the target feature data set based on the fused feature data (Par. 62, 74-75).
In claim 4, Drasek discloses establishing a quality anomaly detection model for detecting quality anomaly of the corresponding evaluation target based on the target feature data set (Par. 61 “Comparing differences”); establishing a quality level classification model for classifying a quality level of the corresponding evaluation target based on the target feature data set (Par. 58 “metric to assess operating conditions and product quality”); and establishing a quality indicator prediction model for predicting quality indicators of the corresponding evaluation target based on the target feature data set (Par. 78).
In claim 5, Drasek discloses all of claim 4. Drasek further discloses detecting the quality anomaly of the corresponding evaluation target and generating the quality anomaly detection result based on an output of the quality anomaly detection model (Par. 61); classifying the quality level of the corresponding evaluation target and generating a quality level classification result based on an output of the quality level classification model (Par. 58); predicting the quality indicators of the corresponding evaluation target and generating a quality indicator prediction result based on an output of the quality indicator prediction model (Par. 78); and generating the quality health evaluation result of the corresponding evaluation target based on at least one of the quality anomaly detection result, the quality level classification result, and the quality indicator prediction result (Par. 62, 74-75).
In claim 6, Drasek discloses performing at least one of data deduplication processing, data noise reduction processing, data encoding processing, and data filtering processing (Par. 61 “filter”).
In claim 7, Drasek discloses performing at least one of synchronization, alignment and correction processing on the preprocessed target working condition data, the preprocessed target condition monitoring data, and the preprocessed target papermaking quality data (Par. 54 “correction”).
In claim 8, Drasek discloses wherein the at least one evaluation target includes at least one component of a papermaking machine (See Fig. 1, Par. 48).
Claim(s) 9-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Von Drasek in view of Pourdeyhimi (US 20050004956 A1) hence for Pour which is incorporated via reference in Von Drasek (see Par. 6 and 79).
In claim 9, Drasek discloses all of claim 1. Drasek in view of Pour discloses a non-transient computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a computer, perform the method of claim 1 (Par. 5 “computer”).
In claim 15, Drasek discloses all of claim 1. Drasek in view of Pour further disclose wherein the at least one evaluation target comprises a cutter or a bearing (Par. 5, 50 “crepe blade”).
In claim 16, Drasek discloses all of claim 16. Drasek in view of Pour further disclose wherein the real-time target working condition data is selected from the group consisting of: machine speed (Par. 5 “speed”), type of process (Par. 5 “creping process”), load (Par. 8), Yankee surface coating (Par. 3) and blade grade (Par. 4).
In claim 17, Drasek discloses all of claim 17. Drasek discloses wherein the condition monitoring data is selected from the group consisting of: blade angle (Par. 5 “creping blade geometry”), vibration (Par. 41), temperature (Par. 45) and humidity (Par. 5, 44 “sheet moisture level” “dryness typically between 50 to 90%”).
In claim 18, Drasek discloses all of claim 1. Drasek further discloses wherein the at least one evaluation target comprises a bearing (Par. 35 “roll”), and wherein the condition monitoring data comprises vibration data associated with the operating papermaking machine (Par. 41).
In claim 10, Drasek in view of Pour discloses a system for evaluating papermaking quality (Par. 68 “real-time or near real-time analysis of the crepe structure is collected to assess product quality”) of an operating papermaking machine (Fig. 1) comprising: a sensor (Fig. 1 101) associated with the operating papermaking machine, and a computer processor (See Pour, Par. 5 “computer”) configured to: determine at least one evaluation target that affects the papermaking quality (Fig. 6, Par. 64 “images are captured at known CD positions”, Par. 68 “real-time or near real-time analysis”); the at least one evaluation target comprising a component (Par. 5, 50) of the operating papermaking machine; and, for each evaluation target, to: acquire real-time target working condition data from the sensor, real-time target condition monitoring data from the sensor, and target papermaking quality data related to the corresponding evaluation target (Fig. 6, Par. 64 “images are captured at known CD positions as the sample is translated across the imaging plane”); preprocess the acquired target working condition data, target condition monitoring data and target papermaking quality data to obtain preprocessed target working condition data, preprocessed target condition monitoring data and preprocessed target papermaking quality data (Par. 64 “Processing is performed to construct a CD profile for different metrics, e.g., CBI, CSI, marginal slope, % fine, etc., using the various analysis methods described here” examiner considers the processing to be said preprocessing); perform data integration on the preprocessed target working condition data, the preprocessed target condition monitoring data, and the preprocessed target papermaking quality data to obtain an integrated data set (Par. 64 examiner considered the profile to be said integrated data set); perform feature extraction on data in the integrated data set according to types and characteristics of the data based on the integrated data set to obtain a target feature data set (Par. 74); establish a paper quality analysis model for evaluation of the corresponding evaluation target based on the target feature data set (Par. 58, 60 “steps 1-3”); evaluate the corresponding evaluation target and generate a quality health evaluation result of the corresponding evaluation target based on the papermaking quality analysis model (Par. 58, 60, 62 “evaluating the row-by-row profile data processed in steps 1-3”); and obtain a comprehensive papermaking quality evaluation result based on the quality health evaluation result of the at least one evaluation target (Par. 62, 74-75 “results”).
In claim 11, Drasek discloses all of claim 10. Drasek in view of Pour further disclose wherein the at least one evaluation target comprises a cutter or a bearing (Par. 5, 50 “crepe blade”).
In claim 12, Drasek discloses all of claim 11. Drasek in view of Pour further disclose wherein the real-time target working condition data is selected from the group consisting of: machine speed (Par. 5 “speed”), type of process (Par. 5 “creping process”), load (Par. 8), Yankee surface coating (Par. 3) and blade grade (Par. 4).
In claim 13, Drasek discloses all of claim 12. Drasek in view of Pour further disclose wherein the condition monitoring data is selected from the group consisting of: blade angle (Par. 5 “creping blade geometry”), vibration (Par. 41), temperature (Par. 45) and humidity (Par. 5, 44 “sheet moisture level” “dryness typically between 50 to 90%”).
In claim 14, Drasek discloses all of claim 11. Drasek in view of Pour further disclose wherein the at least one evaluation target comprises a bearing (Par. 35 “roll”), and wherein the condition monitoring data comprises vibration data associated with the operating papermaking machine (Par. 41).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. regarding applicant’s 101 arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitation describes the target of the determination, which merely further describes the output of the abstract idea. Regarding applicant’s 102 arguments, the cited portions disclose the amended limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 8958898 B2 Method And Apparatus To Monitor And Control Sheet Characteristics On A Creping Process; US 20230204156 A1 METHOD, SYSTEM AND MEDIUM FOR LUBRICATION ASSESSMENT.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/JEFFREY P AIELLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857