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 with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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:
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 § 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, 5, 9, 15-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohnen (WO 2017202606 A1), Yang (US 20180243862 A1), Jung (US 4758960 A), Floeder (US 20210390676 A1), and Wang (US 20030034637 A1).
Claim 1. Kohnen does not disclose a cutting machine (device for cutting airbags, Fig. 1), comprising:
a conveyor for conveying flexible material (transport device 100 is a driven roller which winds up the fabric web after cutting, par. 29);
a machining unit for cutting said flexible material into material parts (laser cutting device 2 for cutting the fabric, par. 30);
a recognition unit (recognition device 3) for detecting said flexible material (surface of the fabric track is scanned by the digital camera, par. 35) and/or at least one cut material part, said recognition unit is
a control unit configured to generate
wherein said flexible material is a fabric band (fabric web 1, Fig. 1, made of one-piece weaving process or two fabric layers sewed together, par. 3) for production of airbags for a vehicle (fabric web is for airbags in a vehicle, par. 3),
said machining unit is a laser cutting apparatus for cutting out of fabric material parts for the production of said airbags (laser cutting device 2 for cutting the fabric, par. 30) and
Kohnen does not disclose the recognition unit is arranged in the conveying direction after said machining unit, and said control unit is configured to approve the corresponding cut fabric material part for doffing based on a positive quality result and categorize a defective airbag part as a scrap part or as a reworkable airbag part based on a negative quality result, the airbags having dimensions of up to multiple meters.
Yang discloses a laser cutting machine on a conveyor wherein the recognition unit (camera 111, par. 10, Fig. 2) is arranged in the conveying direction after said machining unit (two cameras are used for detecting the position of the sheets and two cameras for identification of scraps after cutting, par. 10).
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 Kohnen to incorporate the teachings of Yang and place the recognition device downstream of the laser cutter. Yang demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to physically place the camera in a location after the laser cutter while still providing the same function of monitoring the cut material.
Kohnen in view of Yang does not disclose said control unit is configured to approve the corresponding cut fabric material part for doffing based on a positive quality result and categorize a defective airbag part as a scrap part or as a reworkable airbag part based on a negative quality result, the airbags having dimensions of up to multiple meters.
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 Kohnen in view of Yang 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.
Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, and Floeder does not disclose the airbags having dimension of up to multiple meters.
Wang discloses that airbags can be manufactured using up to 5 square meters of fabric (par. 16).
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 Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, and Floeder to incorporate the teachings of Wang. Wang demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be knowledgeable that to manufacture airbags would require dimension of up to multiple meters.
Claim 5. Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang discloses the cutting machine of claim1, wherein said flexible material is selected from the group comprising: a flexible fabric, a single-layered (fabric web 1, Fig. 1, made of one-piece weaving process or two fabric layers sewed together, par. 3) or multi-layered plastic sheet or a single-layered or multi-layered metal sheet, a textile, a technical textile, and/or an at least partly single-layered, double-layered, and/or multi- layered fabric.
Claim 9. Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang discloses the cutting machine of claim 1,wherein said recognition unit comprising a camera (digital camera, par. 30) and/or a transmitter and a receiver, one or more sensors, and/or an illumination unit.
Claim 15. Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang discloses the cutting machine of claim1, wherein said flexible material is a OPW fabric band (fabric web 1, Fig. 1, made of a one-piece weaving process, par. 3).
Claim 16. Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang discloses the cutting machine of claim 15, wherein said control unit 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 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. Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang 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 Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang 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 19. Kohnen discloses a method for
supplying a flexible material on a conveyor (transport device 100 is a driven roller which winds up the fabric web after cutting pulling the fabric from the supply roll, par. 29),
cutting said flexible material by means of a machining unit into one or more material parts (laser cutting device 2 for cutting the fabric, par. 30);
detecting at least a part of said flexible material and/or of said cutout material part by means of a recognition unit (surface of the fabric track is scanned by the digital camera, par. 35); and
wherein said flexible material is a fabric band for production of airbags for a vehicle (fabric web is for airbags in a vehicle, par. 3), the
Kohnen does not disclose the recognition unit is arranged in the conveying direction after said machining unit, and said control unit is configured to approve the corresponding cut fabric material part for doffing based on a positive quality result and categorize a defective airbag part as a scrap part or as a reworkable airbag part based on a negative quality result, the airbags having dimensions of up to multiple meters.
Yang discloses a laser cutting machine on a conveyor wherein the recognition unit (camera 111, par. 10, Fig. 2) is arranged in the conveying direction after said machining unit (two cameras are used for detecting the position of the sheets and two cameras for identification of scraps after cutting, par. 10).
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 Kohnen to incorporate the teachings of Yang and place the recognition device downstream of the laser cutter. Yang demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to physically place the camera in a location after the laser cutter while still providing the same function of monitoring the cut material.
Kohnen in view of Yang does not disclose said control unit is configured to approve the corresponding cut fabric material part for doffing based on a positive quality result and categorize a defective airbag part as a scrap part or as a reworkable airbag part based on a negative quality result, the airbags having dimensions of up to multiple meters.
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 Kohnen in view of Yang 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.
Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, and Floeder does not disclose the airbags having dimension of up to multiple meters.
Wang discloses that airbags can be manufactured using up to 5 square meters of fabric (par. 16).
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 Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, and Floeder to incorporate the teachings of Wang. Wang demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be knowledgeable that to manufacture airbags would require dimension of up to multiple meters.
Claim 20. Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang discloses the method of claim 19, wherein said flexible material is a OPW fabric band (fabric web 1, Fig. 1, made of one-piece weaving process or two fabric layers sewed together, par. 3).
Claim(s) 2, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reji (JP 2017104957 A)
Claim 2. Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang does not disclose the cutting machine of claim 1, further comprising: a marking unit 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.
Reiji discloses a fabric cutting apparatus wherein 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).
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 Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Reiji and have a marking unit. Doing so will have the benefit of fixing an origin label to the fabric in order to provide additional information and identification (par. 17-18, Reiji).
Claim 14. Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang does not disclose the cutting machine of claim1, wherein said recognition unit recognizes a marking of material defects or material defects of said flexible material are included in a file which is processed by said control unit of said cutting machine.
Reiji discloses a fabric cutting apparatus wherein the line sensor detects the scratch tape to recognize the position and range of the defect (par. 23).
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 Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Reiji. Doing so will have the benefit of detecting a defect and logging the position and range of the defect (par. 23, Reiji).
Claim 18. Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang does not disclose the cutting machine of claim1, wherein said control unit is configured to perform said quality control during a continuous and/or discontinuous and/or stopped operation of said cutting machine.
Reiji discloses a fabric cutting apparatus wherein the defects can be detected during rolling out (par. 28).
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 Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Reiji. Doing so will have the benefit of detecting a defect during the operation (par. 28, Reiji).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jess (US 20150314583 A1)
Claim 6. Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang 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 Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang 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. Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, Wang , 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. Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, Wang and Jess discloses the cutting machine of claim 7, further comprising
a control unit configured to control said machining unit (control device 5, Fig. 1) 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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wardell (US 2019/0164270 A1)
Claim 11. Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang does not disclose the cutting machine of 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.
Wardell discloses using a image equipment with lighting to enhance the visibility of defects in the object being inspected (par. 76) with front or back lighting (par. 43).
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 Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Wardell and provide lighting in the front or back. Doing so would have would have the benefit of enhancing any defect in the object being inspected (par. 76, Wardell).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Srivastava (US 20200327651 A1).
Claim 12. Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang 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 Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang 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. Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang 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 Kohnen in view of Yang, Jung, Floeder, and Wang 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 9, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose an illumination device which changes the wavelength based on the flexible material or flexible material composition.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights