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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Reiji is not relevant prior art since they teach laminating multiple layers of sheet material which is incompatible with airbag production requirements.
The Office disagrees. The claim states “a fabric band for airbag production.” The airbag could be for airbags in cars or airbags used as filler material in packages. The prior art Reiji discloses an apparatus that is capable of cutting fabric and therefore reads on the fabric band for airbag production.
Applicant argues that Jung is prior art published more than three decades ago and one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider Jung for high-speed, high-precision laser cutting, furthermore, the mapping of Jung and Floeder appears to result from hindsight.
The Office disagrees. The claim does not recite “high speed or high precision” and Jung discloses an apparatus for cutting fabric and is therefore relevant prior art. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Jung and Floeder’s teaching about sorting cut parts into different bins. Doing so would have the benefit of sorting quality parts from defective parts. The benefits from sorting out defective parts from quality parts is not hindsight and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “control unit is configured to, at a positive quality result is configured, to approve the corresponding cut fabric material part for doffing.” The language of “configured to…is configured, to approve” is confusing. The limitation should be amended to something like --control unit is configured to approve the corresponding cut fabric part for doffing based on a positive quality result--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Machining unit: specification par. 18 cites “Preferably, the cutting or marking, respectively, may still be made by the machining unit, e.g., by a laser.” The machining unit will be interpreted as a laser.
Recognition unit: specification par. 34 cites “the recognition unit may comprise a camera and/or a transmitter and receiver and/or one or more sensors, and/or an illumination unit.” Recognition unit will be interpreted as sensor.
Marking unit: specification par. 18 cites “Since the flexible material of the invention is conveyed on the conveyor, e.g., a printer or a laser marker of the marking unit may mark the material part.” Marking unit will be interpreted as a printer or laser.
Doffing apparatus: specification par. 94 cites “The doffing apparatus 40 may comprise one or more doffing modules 41 with one or more suction grippers and/or clamping grippers.” Doffing apparatus will be interpreted as grippers.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 19 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 19 recites “for airbag production and aid method further comprises.” It is unclear what “aid method further comprises” means. For examination, it will be interpreted as –for airbag production and the method further comprises--.
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) 1-2, 5, 9, 14, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiji (JP 2017104957 A) in view of Campbell (US 5172326 A), Jung (US 4758960 A) and Floeder (US 20210390676 A1).
Claim 1. Reiji discloses a cutting machine (fig. 2), comprising:
a conveyor (conveyor, Fig. 2, par. 20) for conveying flexible material (sheet material 9);
a machining unit for cutting said flexible material into material parts (cutting head 22);
a recognition unit (recognizing means 14) for detecting said flexible material (line sensor to detect a flaw tape stuck on the sheet material, par. 22) and/or at least one cut material part, said recognition unit is arranged in the conveying direction after said machining unit,
a control unit (control system 2) configured to generate a quality result based on information of said recognition unit (line sensor to detect a flaw tape stuck on the sheet material, par. 22) and/or on marking information,
and to control said machining unit (control system cuts the material to its predetermined length, par. 31),
wherein said flexible material is a fabric band (fabric, par. 33)
Reiji does not disclose the cutter head as a laser unit.
Campbell discloses a laser unit (abstract) for cutting fabric material with varying length and patterns (col 14, lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reiji to incorporate the teachings of Campbell and provide a laser for cutting. Campbell demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of selecting a laser cutter head for cutting fabric of varying length and patterns.
Reiji in view of Campbell does not disclose cutting fabric bands for airbag production.
The airbag could be for airbags in cars or airbags used as filler material in packages. The combination discloses an apparatus that is capable of cutting fabric and therefore reads on the fabric band for airbag production. If there are additional structural limitations or method steps that are required for vehicular airbag production, applicants should positively recite them.
Reiji in view of Campbell does not disclose said control unit is configured to, at a positive quality result is configured, to approve the corresponding cut fabric material part for doffing and,
at a negative quality result, categorize a defective airbag part as a scrap part or as a reworkable airbag part.
Jung discloses a method of cutting fabric patterns wherein the defective rejected strip is removed (col 8 lines 40-55).
Floeder discloses a process wherein parts created in a manufacturing facility is sorted into different bins (par. 21), where the broadest reasonable interpreting of “doffing” is the removal of a component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reiji in view of Campbell to incorporate the teachings of Jung and Floeder and sort cut parts into different bins. Doing so would have benefit of sorting the quality and good parts from the defective parts.
Claim 2. Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder discloses the cutting machine of claim 1, further comprising:
a marking unit (origin marking means 12, par. 17, Fig. 1) for marking said flexible material and/or said at least one cut material part based on said quality result,
said marking unit being arranged in the conveying direction before and/or after said machining unit (marking means 12 is along the conveying direction after the cutter 14, Fig. 1).
Claim 5. Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder discloses the cutting machine of claim 1, wherein said flexible material is selected from the group comprising:
a flexible fabric,
a single-layered or multi-layered plastic sheet or a single-layered or multi-layered metal sheet,
a textile (fabric, par. 33),
a technical textile, and/or
an at least partly single-layered, double-layered, and/or multi- layered fabric.
Claim 9. Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder discloses the cutting machine of claim 1, wherein said recognition unit comprising a camera (camera 26) and/or a transmitter and a receiver, one or more sensors (line sensor, par. 17), and/or an illumination unit.
Claim 14. Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder discloses the cutting machine of claim 1, wherein said recognition unit recognizes a marking of material defects (line sensor detects the scratch tape to recognize the position and range of the defect, par. 23) or material defects of said flexible material are included in a file which is processed by said control unit of said cutting machine.
Claim 18. Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder discloses the cutting machine of claim 1, wherein said control unit is configured to perform said quality control during a continuous (defects can be detected during rolling out, par. 28) and/or discontinuous and/or stopped operation of said cutting machine.
Claim 19. Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder discloses a method for automated inline quality control of at least one material part cut out from a flexible material (fabric cutting machine, Fig. 2), comprising the following steps:
supplying a flexible material on a conveyor (conveyor, Fig. 2, par. 20),
cutting said flexible material by means of a machining unit into one or more material parts (cutting head 22);
detecting at least a part of said flexible material and/or of said cutout material part by means of a recognition unit (recognizing means with a line sensor to detect a flaw tape stuck on the sheet material, par. 22); and
performing a quality control based on information of said recognition unit and at least one reference value (adjustments are made based on detected defects and the position of the part is shifted based on a predetermined value, par. 29),
wherein detecting at least a part of said flexible material and/or the cut-out material part by means of a detection unit takes place after the cutting of the flexible material by means of said machining unit into one or more material parts (sheet material is cut to predetermined lengths, S1, and then the recognition means recognize the position and range of the defect in the sheet material, S2, par. 31),
wherein said flexible material is a fabric band (fabric, par. 33)
Reiji does not disclose the cutter head as a laser unit.
Reiji does not disclose the cutter head as a laser unit.
Campbell discloses a laser unit (abstract) for cutting fabric material with varying length and patterns (col 14, lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reiji to incorporate the teachings of Campbell and provide a laser for cutting. Campbell demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of selecting a laser cutter head for cutting fabric of varying length and patterns.
Reiji in view of Campbell does not disclose cutting fabric bands for airbag production.
The airbag could be for airbags in cars or airbags used as filler material in packages. The combination discloses an apparatus that is capable of cutting fabric and therefore reads on the fabric band for airbag production. If there are structural limitations or method steps that are required for vehicular airbag production, applicants should positively recite them.
Reiji in view of Campbell does not disclose for airbag production and said machining unit is a laser cutting apparatus for cutting out of fabric material parts for airbag production and aid method further comprises:
approving the corresponding cut fabric material part for doffing at a positive quality result, and
categorizing a defective airbag part as a scrap part or as a reworkable airbag part at a negative quality result.
Jung discloses a method of cutting fabric patterns wherein the defective rejected strip is removed (col 8 lines 40-55).
Floeder discloses a process wherein parts created in a manufacturing facility is sorted into different bins (par. 21), where the broadest reasonable interpreting of “doffing” is the removal of a component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reiji in view of Campbell to incorporate the teachings of Jung and Floeder and sort cut parts into different bins. Doing so would have benefit of sorting the quality and good parts from the defective parts.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jess (US 20150314583 A1)
Claim 6. Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder does not disclose the cutting machine of claim 1, further comprising a doffing apparatus for doffing said at least one cut material part of said conveyor, said doffing apparatus being arranged after said recognition unit and/or after said marking unit.
Jess discloses a fabric handling apparatus wherein the attractors 36 pick up pieces after they had been cut into different shapes (par. 132) by robot cutters with mounted cameras (robot 30, par. 97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder to incorporate the teachings of Jess and have an attractor to pick up fabric. Doing so would have the benefit of picking up different types of pieces.
Claim 7. Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, Floeder, and Jess discloses the cutting machine of claim 6, further comprising a residual material doffing apparatus for doffing a residual material (attractors can pick up a variety of fabric shapes, par. 132, Jess),
said residual material doffing apparatus being arranged in the conveying direction before or after said recognition unit and/or in the conveying direction before or after said marking unit or said residual material doffing apparatus being arranged in the conveying direction at the same position as said doffing apparatus or in the conveying direction after said doffing apparatus (attractors pick up pieces after the robot with the camera 30, par. 97, Jess).
Claim 8. Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, Floeder, and Jess discloses the cutting machine of claim 7, further comprising
a control unit configured to control said machining unit (control system 2) and/or said doffing apparatus and/or said residual material doffing apparatus and/or said marking unit based on information on said recognition unit and/or on marking information.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Srivastava (US 20200327651 A1).
Claim 10. Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder does not disclose the cutting machine of claim 9, wherein said illumination unit outputs light with a wavelength adapted to the material or a material composition and/or wherein said flexible material is arranged between said transmitter () and said receiver (),
wherein said transmitter outputs ultrasound () or a radiation with predetermined wavelength which is received by said receiver to obtain information on said material composition of said flexible material ().
Claim 11. Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder discloses the cutting machine claim 9, wherein said illumination apparatus being arranged on a side of said recognition unit opposite to said flexible material and/or facing said flexible material or said illumination apparatus arranged between said conveyor and said flexible material ().
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Srivastava (US 20200327651 A1).
Claim 12. Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder does not disclose the cutting machine of claim 1, wherein said quality result is based on an inspection on at least one of the following criterions:
position and number of the seams,
position and number of cutouts/holes, and/or
on the quality of weaved places and/or welding seams and/or adhesive areas,
position of said weaved places, adhesive areas, and/or welding seams,
position of markings at said flexible material,
whether the outer contour lies within a predetermined tolerance range,
position of said pattern to said weaved positions, and/or material warpage.
Srivastava discloses an inspection device wherein the software determines if there is any deviation in the dimensions of the cut part to desired dimensions (par. 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder to incorporate the teachings of Srivastava and determine if there is any deviation in the dimensions of the cut part. Doing so would have the benefit of maintaining quality cut parts and increase efficiencies (par. 2, Srivastava)
Claim 13. Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder does not disclose the cutting machine of claim 1, wherein said control unit is configured to inspect
said at least one cutout material part for warpage, and/or
whether the length and/or the width of said at least one cutout material part corresponds to the target or reference specifications (), and/or
whether tabs, protrusions, or cutouts at said at least one cutout material part are arranged in the respective correct position, and/or
whether said outer contours lie in previously designated areas.
Srivastava discloses an inspection device wherein the software determines if there is any deviation in the dimensions of the cut part to desired dimensions (par. 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder to incorporate the teachings of Srivastava and determine if there is any deviation in the dimensions of the cut part. Doing so would have the benefit of maintaining quality cut parts and increase efficiencies (par. 2, Srivastava)
Claim(s) 15-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yun (US 20160106182 A1).
Claim 15. Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder does not discloses the cutting machine of claim 1, wherein said flexible material is a OPW fabric band.
Yun discloses a one piece woven vamp fabric which can be cut by lasers (par. 6 and 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder to incorporate the teachings of Yun and cut one piece woven fabric. Yun demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able cut one piece woven fabric with a laser.
Claim 16. Reiji in view of Campbell, Jung, Floeder, and Yun discloses the cutting machine of claim 15, wherein said control unit (computer controls the fabric handling apparatus, par. 101) is configured to control the doffing apparatus such that said scrap parts and said reworkable OPW fabric material parts are stored separately from each other (parts created in a manufacturing facility is sorted into different bins, Floeder, par. 21), and/or
wherein said control unit is configured to identify a defect (system detects a defect in the sheet material, par. 22) and/or a cause of defect and/or to correct these, and/or output hints for defects and/or wear to said cutting machine based on the information of said recognition unit.
Claim 17. Reiji in view of Campbell, Jung, Floeder, and Yun does not disclose the cutting machine of claim 15, wherein said control unit is configured to display an approved airbag part and/or, in case of a negative quality result, to display a defective airbag part as a scrap part or as a reworkable airbag part, by means of an optical output unit and/or a marking and/or projection onto said airbag part ().
Jung further discloses a defect detection method wherein the defect on a part or pattern piece is displayed on a screen (col 2 lines 50-55)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reiji in view of Campbell, Jung, Floeder, and Yun to incorporate the teachings of Jung and display defective parts. Doing so will have the benefit of allowing a user to determine easily on the basis of the optical display whether or not to take action (col 2 lines 50-57, Jung).
Claim 20. Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder does not discloses the method of claim 19, wherein said flexible material is a OPW fabric band.
Yun discloses a one piece woven vamp fabric which can be cut by lasers (par. 6 and 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reji in view of Campbell, Jung, and Floeder to incorporate the teachings of Yun and cut one piece woven fabric. Yun demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able cut one piece woven fabric with a laser.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761