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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 05/26/2023.
Claims 1-13 have been cancelled.
Claims 14-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
Claims 14-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corriveau et al. “US 20080277469 A1” (Corriveau).
Regarding Claims 14 and 22: A method for automatic tracking of a reel of thread comprising a tube provided with a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, the method comprising at least the following steps: providing at least one automatic reading device comprising: an antenna (at least see Corriveau Abstract; Fig. 1; [0015]);
a reader connected to the antenna by a connection cable, adapted to exchange information with the RFID tag by the antenna (at least see Corriveau Abstract; Fig. 1; [0054]);
an electronic system connected to the reader, comprising a central processing unit (at least see Corriveau Abstract; Fig. 1; [0055-56]); and
a reel handling support provided with a tip on which a plurality of reels of thread comprising the tube provided with the RFID tag is insertable in sequence, wherein the tip is the antenna, and wherein the antenna comprises a head provided with an internal seat in which an antenna body is accommodated, the internal seat being closed at the rear by a screen (at least see Corriveau Abstract; Fig. 4; [0050]);
tracking each reel of thread inserted onto the reel handling support by a tracking algorithm (at least see Corriveau Abstract; Fig. 1; [0015]);
wherein said tracking algorithm is run by a computer and includes at least the following steps: a) at the start of loading of the reels of thread on the reel handling support, starting a counter that samples pulses of a clock; b) while loading the reels of thread on the reel handling support, sampling readings of each RFID tag by the antenna; and c) at the end of loading of the reels of thread on the reel handling support, switching off the counter and dividing counted clocks in step b) by the number of expected reels of thread, and defining clock ranges corresponding to each loaded reel of thread (at least see Corriveau Abstract; Fig. 9; [0053]-[0060]).
Norris discloses the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose Clock range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include Clock range, for the advantage of faster and efficient inventory.
Regarding Claim 15: The automatic reading device of claim 14, wherein the antenna is coaxial, the antenna being adapted to receive and emit signals at 360° on a plane (at least see Corriveau [0058]).
Regarding Claim 16: The automatic reading device of claim 14, wherein the head is made of a non- shielding material and the screen is made of a shielding material (at least see Corriveau [0054]).
Regarding Claim 17: The automatic reading device of claim 16, wherein the non-shielding material is plastic and the shielding material is metal (at least see Corriveau [0060]).
Regarding Claim 18: The automatic reading device of claim 14, wherein the reel handling support comprises a cylindrical and hollow support body, and wherein the connection cable runs inside a shielded tube arranged inside the cylindrical and hollow support body and exits from a connection end (at least see Corriveau [0063]).
Regarding Claim 19: The automatic reading device of claim 18, wherein the shielded tube is a metal tube (at least see Corriveau [0037]).
Regarding Claim 20: A machine for handling reels of thread, comprising a plurality of automatic reading devices according to claim 14, wherein said machine is a doffer (at least see Corriveau [0039]).
Regarding Claim 21: An automatic system for tracking a reel of thread, comprising: an automatic reading device according to claim 14; and a series of tubes for reels of thread, each of said tubes being provided with the RFID tag (at least see Corriveau [0038]).
Regarding Claim 23: The method of claim 22, wherein the tracking algorithm further includes the following step, associated with an optimal condition in which the antenna has read only one RFID tag in a clock range: associating a corresponding reel of thread to the clock range, on the basis of the RFID tag read (at least see Corriveau [0054]).
Regarding Claim 24: The method of claim 22, wherein the tracking algorithm further includes the following step, associated with an imperfect condition in which the antenna has simultaneously read two different RFID tags in a same clock range: associating a corresponding reel of thread to the clock range by applying at least one of the following corrective logics: a. acquisition order of the RFID tag; b. interval of clocks in which the RFID tag was read (at least see Corriveau [0059]).
Regarding Claim 25: The method of claim 22, wherein the tracking algorithm further includes the following step, associated with a faulty or missing RFID condition in which the antenna has not read any RFID tag in a clock range: associating a corresponding reel of thread to the clock range by applying the following corrective logic: interval of clocks in which the RFID tag is missing (at least see Corriveau [0065]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance:
Argument A:
Accordingly, Corriveau neither discloses nor suggests a reel handling support configured to receive a plurality of reels in sequence, as expressly required by the claimed combination.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Conrriveau disclose “[0029] More particularly, a typical component placement machine includes one or several feeding areas. Each feeding area, depending on the machine supplier, can hold a number of feeders and/or feeder banks in respective locations. Each feeder will typically hold one or more components tapes & reels, one or several trays of components, or any other type of receptacle for holding components therein or thereon. Although the following description of the system has been made specific to the case of a component placement machine with feeders containing components packaged in tape & reel format, it is readily understood that the same system is also capable of handling components packaged in trays, racks and the like.” Also in “[0055] To monitor the reels 32 during a given process, a set of antennae, each associated with a respective position or feeder slot within a selected machine 3D, can be installed to interface with the reel-mounted tags 48 and provide identification and validation data to the system 10. For instance, when a reel 32 is mounted to a particular feeder 42 on the machine 30, or again when a feeder 42 or feeder bank 44 holding at least one reel 32 is mounted in a particular feeder slot, the antenna associated therewith will detect the presence of the reel 32 and communicate its presence, as well as the data stored in its tag 48, to the system 10. Similarly, when the reel 32, the feeder 42 or the feeder bank 44 is removed from a given location, the antenna will cease to detect the presence of the tag 48 thereby indicating the removal of the reel 32 from a given location.” Therefore Corriveau meets the scope of the claimed limitations.
Argument B:
Further there is no reason or motive to modify Corriveau to meet the structure and
function of the claimed combination.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the references are selected as being reasonably pertinent to the problem based on the judgment of a person having ordinary skill in the art. It is necessary to consider the reality of the circumstances, in other words, common sense in deciding in which fields a person of ordinary skill would reasonably be expected to look for a solution to the problem facing the inventor. In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, (C.C.P.A. 1979). A reference is either in the field of the applicant's endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned in order to rely on that reference as basics of rejection. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The elements are all known but not combined as claimed. The technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. When combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. The prior art differs from the claim by the substitution of some components. The substituted components were known. The technical ability existed to substitute the components as claimed and the result of the substitution is predictable. Applicant's arguments having been found unpersuasive; the rejection has not been withdrawn. Therefore Corriveau meets the scope of the claimed limitations.
Argument C:
Such a modification would change the fundamental manner in which Corriveau performs reel tracking and would therefore be based on impermissible hindsight. Accordingly, Corriveau fails to render claim 22 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. “[0050] In the exemplary illustrative embodiment of FIG. 4, the system 10 is used for component and material validation at a components placement station S, namely using a components placement machine 30 for the fabrication of printed circuit boards (PCBs). As stated hereinabove and as will become apparent to a person of skill in the art, the system 10 may also be implemented using other types of components placement machines, or in other types of applications entirely where object identification, tracking and validation may be of interest. [0051] In FIG. 4, the components placement machine 30 is used to fabricate PCBs from a series of components provided to the machine 30 by a set of components reels 32 mounted therein. Illustratively, the machine 30 is comprised of a feeding area 34 and a processing station 36 comprising optional process monitoring peripherals such as LCD screens 38 and the like. An optional local system monitoring station 40 may also be included at station S for monitoring the general fabrication process, accessing various materials and process databases, accessing other networked monitoring and processing stations and the like. Therefore Corriveau meets the scope of the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/FATEH M OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights