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
Applicant filed an amendment on 7/6/26. Applicant has amended claims 1-10.
No claims are added or canceled. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Patent Publication to Smallridge 20100257130 in view of US Patent Publication to Hartmann 20170100749 and Akella 20190137979
As per claim 1, Smallridge discloses; A neural network for managing a process[[es]] with temporal development into [[the]] a past using input data items, which describe a state of the process, and output data derived therefrom by the neural network,
said neural network comprising:
(0084, Neural network)
an artificial network of computers
wherein a value of at least one digital stopwatch is provided, Smallridge(0109)
a. the value of which is supplied to the neural network as a further input data item, and
b. which wherein the at least one digital stopwatch is Smallridge(0109)
set to an initial value in the event response to an occurrence of a specific change in one of the input data items
and then ii indicates to the neural network an increasing distance from this a current time with a rising or falling profile of [[its]] a value of the one of the input data items.
Smallridge (0097)
Smallridge does not explicitly disclose what Hartmann teaches;
Hartmann(0030, neural network, “or is a choice” for a conveyor line)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the conveying system of Hartmann with the timer system of Smallridge for the motivation of “ efficient unloading” (0004)
Smallridge and Hartmann do not explicitly disclose what Akella teaches;
called nodes
comprising input nodes, output nodes, and inner nodes disposed between the input nodes and the output nodes,
wherein the input data items are received by the input nodes and processed into the output data by the inner nodes, wherein the output data is outputted at the output nodes,
Akella(0111, or stations)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the Neural network of Smallridge with the nodes/assembly line of Akella for the motivation of “minimizing idle time” on the assembly line (0002)
As per claim 2 Smallridge disclose;
The neural network as claimed in claim 1, wherein the profile of the value of the at least one digital stopwatch rises or falls a. linearly,
b. exponentially,
or c. on the basis of differences between the value of at least one of the input data items at the time at which the digital stopwatch was last reset to its initial value and the values of the at least one of the input data items at the subsequent times. Smallridge(this is a choice, it appears that the timestamps are compared… see 6a, 6b fig.) see also Hartmann, choice of one, linear 0082
As per claim 3 Smallridge discloses;
The neural network as claimed in claim 1, wherein the digital stopwatch is stopped after a certain time has elapsed.
Smallridge (0085)
As per claim 4, Smallridge does not explicitly disclose what Hartmann teaches;
The neural network as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one input data item is a state of a light barrier which, within the scope of the temporally developed process, alternately indicates the presence and absence of piece goods passing by the light barrier with the aid of binary values, and two stopwatches (SU31_up, SU31_down) are provided for the at least one input data item, one of which is reset when the beginning of the presence is indicated by a change in the binary value and the other of which is reset when the beginning of the absence is indicated by a change in the binary value.
Hartmann(0014)
As per claim 5, Smallridge discloses;
A method for configuring the neural network configured as claimed in claim 1, in which the 0 configuration by data-based training the neural network with aid of input data items for the process from the past.
Smallridge(0134, “effected” and training….. , historical data are all very generic elements because how much effect, how much past data, what process etc)
As per claim 6, Smallridge discloses; the neural network as claimed in claim 1 wherein the neural network is trained with aid of input data items for the process from the past (Smallridge fig. 1)
As per claim 7, Smallridge does not explicitly disclose what Hartmann teaches;
Predicting using the neural network at least one likely future behavior of an industrial installation in which at least two processes take place at the same time in a relative dependence on one another and are at least partially controlled relative to one another on the basis of temporal development of the at least two processes into the past.
Hartmann(0024, “observer, predictor design… self learning is for the future. Further behavior is a very generic recitation as anything could be a behavior, “relative dependence” is relative, “partly” could be a little bit)
As per claim 8 Smallridge discloses; A computer program product or non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions, which upon being executed by a processor implements the method of claim 5
(0019)
As per claim 9 Smallridge discloses; A computing unit comprising the computer program product of claim 8. (0019, computing unit could be a computer)
As per claim 10 Smallridge does not explicitly disclose what Hartmann teaches;
A logistics system having one or more parallel conveyor lines for piece goods, which each lead to a combining unit in conveying direction, wherein each of the one or more conveyor lines
includes a plurality of partial conveyor lines which are accelerated or decelerated by a respectively associated drive under control of the computing unit configured as claimed in claim 9 in order to enable the combining unit to combine the piece goods onto a single output conveyor line at a defined distance.
between packages upstream of the combining unit or upstream of a flow-wrapping machine of a packaging machine.
Hartmann is directed to conveying systems, see fig. 1
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the conveying system of Hartmann with the timer system of Smallridge for the motivation of “ efficient unloading” (0004)
Response to Arguments
Applicant filed an amendment on 7/6/26. Applicant has amended claims 1-10.
No claims are added or canceled. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
35 U.S.C. 101 -moot
35 U.S.C. § 112(b)- moot
The Examiner rejected claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Smallridge (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100257130) in view of Hartmann (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170100749).
35 U.S.C. & 103: Claims 1-10
The Examiner rejected claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Smallridge (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100257130) in view of Hartmann (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170100749).
Claim 1
Applicant respectfully contends that claim 1 is not unpatentable over Smallridge in view of Hartmann, because Smallridge in view of Hartmann does not teach or suggest each and every feature of claim 1.
A first example of why claim 1 not unpatentable over Smallridge in view of Hartmann is that Smallridge in view of Hartmann does not teach or suggest the feature: "wherein a value of at least one digital stopwatch is supplied to the neural network as a further input data item".
A second example of why claim 1 not unpatentable over Smallridge in view of Hartmann is that Smallridge in view of Hartmann does not teach or suggest the feature: "wherein the at least one digital stopwatch is (i) set to an initial value in response to an occurrence of a specific change in one of the input data items and then (ii) indicates to the neural network an increasing distance from this a current time with a rising or falling profile of a value of the one of the input data items".
Applicant arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
The dependent claims are argued by virtue of dependency only.
Conclusion
A search of IP.com resulted in the following references being identified;
Data Management in Industry 4.0: State of the Art and Open Challenges, IEEE 2019
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 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 BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights