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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-18 are pending and examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) received on 5/10/2023 and 11/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 12-18 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the term “downstream” in multiple instances (e.g. “a downstream production process”, “a downstream industrial plant”, “at least one downstream equipment”). However, it is unclear what the term “downstream” is in relation to, as there is no corresponding upstream production process, industrial plant, equipment, etc. that is recited. Further clarification is needed in order to clarify what makes the recited instances of “downstream” qualify as downstream.
Examiner’s Note: claim 2 recites an upstream industrial plant, and upstream computing unit, and therefore provides context for why the “downstream” elements recited in claim 1 are downstream, and therefore overcomes the 112(b) rejection applied to claim 1, for claim 2 and its dependent claims (claims 3-11).
Claims 12-15 and 18 are rejected at least for depending on a rejected claim.
Claims 16-17 are similarly rejected for reciting “downstream” in multiple instances without clarifying what the term “downstream” is in relation to, and are similarly rejected as in claim 1.
Further regarding claim 13, Ln. 4 recites, ”one or more of the at least one downstream equipment or equipment zones”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the at least one…equipment zones…” in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the above limitation has been examined as, “one or more of the at least one downstream equipment, or one or more downstream equipment zones”.
Claims 14-15 are rejected at least for depending on a rejected claim.
Further regarding claim 17, Ln. 7 recites, “the downstream computing unit”. However, the computing unit previously recited in claim 17 is referred to as a “computing unit”, not a downstream computing unit. Therefore, it is unclear if the downstream computing unit is the same as or different from the previously recited computing unit. Further clarification is needed. For purposes of compact prosecution, the downstream computing unit has been examined as the same as the previously recited computing unit.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The subject matter eligibility test for the claims is shown below:
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 1
Independent claim 1 is drawn to a method, which is a statutory category. Independent claim 16 is drawn to a system, which is a statutory category. Independent claim 17 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a statutory category.
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2A Prong One
In Step 2A Prong One, it is determined if the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Independent claim 1 recites providing a set of downstream control settings for controlling production of an article, where the downstream control settings are based on a downstream object identifier comprising precursor data indicative of properties of the thermoplastic polyurethane or expanded thermoplastic polyurethane material used to make the article, at least one desired downstream performance parameter related to the article, and downstream historical data comprising process parameters and/or operational settings used for manufacturing articles in the past. The acts of determining control settings based on precursor data of the material to be worked on, a desired performance parameter of the article being produced, and parameters and settings used to produce past articles amount to evaluation/determination-type mental processes, particularly as the steps are performed at a high level of generality, and do not recite a specialized computer for performing the mental processes. Evaluation/determination-type mental processes are abstract ideas. Independent claims 16 and 17 similarly recite determining control settings based on precursor data of the material to be worked on, a desired performance parameter of the article being produced, and parameters and settings used to produce past articles, and are similarly evaluation/determination-type mental process abstract ideas.
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2A Prong Two
In step 2A Prong Two, it is determined if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Independent claim 1 further recites that the determining of the downstream control settings is for controlling a downstream production process for manufacturing an article, the article being made by processing at least one thermoplastic polyurethane and/or expanded thermoplastic polyurethane material, where the downstream control settings are provided at a downstream computing unit. These limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e. production of articles using polyurethane, and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Independent claims 16 and 17 similarly do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, although independent claims 1, 16, and 17 recite that the set of downstream control settings is for manufacturing the article at the downstream industrial plant, the claims do not positively recite manufacturing the article using the downstream control settings. Still further, even if the independent claims were amended to positively recite manufacturing the article using the downstream control settings, this would amount to merely reciting the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, and would not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2B
In step 2B, it is determined if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, independent claim 1 additionally recites a downstream industrial plant comprising at least one downstream equipment, and a downstream computing unit. These elements are well-known and conventional within the art, and are recited at a high level of generality. Further, the application of these mental processes into an industrial plant environment for article production is nothing more than generally linking the mental process judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(e). Further, while the claims have recited that the various steps have been done by a computing unit, such steps could have been done mentally and further, a general purpose computer as recited is not a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). The recited computing unit(s) do not provide to recite particular machine(s) as in MPEP 2106.05 (b), I, and fails Step 2A, Prong 2. Independent claims 16 and 17 similarly do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Still further, the act of “the set of downstream control settings [being] for manufacturing the article at the downstream industrial plant” as in independent claims 1, 16, and 17 are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and even if the claims were amended to positively recite manufacturing the article using the downstream control settings, this would amount to merely reciting the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, and would not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, with regards to the generically recited downstream industrial plant comprising at least one downstream equipment, and a downstream computing unit being nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional components that are well-known in the art, the following prior art is relied upon to show that the above elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional:
Celli (WO Pub. No. 2020/003114; already of record on the IDS received 5/10/2023) teaches a downstream industrial plant comprising at least one downstream equipment, and a downstream computing unit (Pg. 12 Lns. 19-26, Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28, For each intermediate step of which some parameters require to be predicted, the predictive model of said method therefore interacts with a first set of historical data related to a plurality of process and/or product parameters detected in the production steps of the rolls upstream of the intermediate processing step and a second set of historical data related to a plurality of process and/or product parameters detected output from the intermediate processing step of the prediction…the aim of the processing system is to “correlate” characteristics of the input materials of the various production steps, with the operating conditions and with the defects, but also to optimize the settings to be applied to the machines involved in each step. To do this it is also possible to use the information (i.e., the product and/or process parameters) from the previous steps. The operation is made possible both by the traceability of the processed materials, from the primary roll on, and by assigning process, quality and defect parameters, which are historicized as a function of the length on the Y axis, to each point of the roll.”, see Fig. 1 at plant 10 with an electronic control device 30).
Claims 2-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as depending on a rejected claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celli in view of Okumura (US Pub. No. 2021/0272033).
Regarding claim 1, Celli discloses a method for controlling a downstream production process for manufacturing an article at a downstream industrial plant (Pg. 12 Lns. 6-11, see Fig. 1).
The downstream industrial plant comprises at least one downstream equipment (see Fig. 1).
The article is manufactured by processing, via the at least one downstream equipment, at least one polymeric material using the downstream production process (see Fig. 1, and Pg. 15 Lns. 25-27, which recite that a mix of polymers is used).
The method is at least partially performed via a downstream computing unit (Pg. 12 Lns. 19-26, see Fig. 1 at electronic control device 30). The method comprises:
providing, at the downstream computing unit, a set of downstream control settings for controlling the production of the article (Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28, particularly at Pg. 30 Lns. 12-16). The downstream control settings are determined based on:
a downstream object identifier; the downstream object identifier comprising precursor data indicative of one or more properties of the at least one polymer material (Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28, particularly at Pg. 30 Lns. 12-16, “characteristics of the input materials”).
At least one desired downstream performance parameter related to the article (Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28, particularly at Pg. 30 Lns. 17-20, “quality and defect parameters”).
Downstream historical data; wherein the downstream historical data comprises downstream process parameters and/or operational settings that were used for manufacturing past one or more articles (Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28, particularly at Pg. 30 Lns. 17-20, “quality and defect parameters”, and Pg. 29 Lns. 16-21, “historical data related to a plurality of process and/or product parameters detected output from the intermediate processing step of the prediction”).
The set of downstream control settings is for manufacturing the article at the downstream industrial plant (Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28, particularly at Pg. 30 Lns. 12-16).
Celli fails to explicitly disclose that the at least one polymeric material is at least one thermoplastic polyurethane ("TPU") and/or expanded thermoplastic polyurethane ("ETPU") material.
Okumura is in the analogous field of optimizing chemical product production systems (Okumura [0006]-[0007]). Okumura teaches a TPU material (Okumura [0029]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Celli with the teachings of Okumura so that the at least one polymeric material is at least one thermoplastic polyurethane ("TPU") and/or expanded thermoplastic polyurethane ("ETPU") material. The motivation would have been to apply the method of Celli, which is used to optimize the production of polymeric products (Celli Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28), to polyurethane as in Okumura, in order to optimize the production of polyurethane products.
Regarding claim 2, modified Celli discloses the method of claim 1. Modified Celli further discloses that at least some of the downstream control settings are determined by an upstream computing unit related to an upstream industrial plant, and wherein at least one of the at least one TPU and/or ETPU material is provided by the upstream industrial plant (Celli; Pg. 12 Lns. 19-26, Pg. 18 Lns. 14-17, see Fig. 1 at electronic control device 30, which monitors both winder 13 and rewinder 17. See also claim 1 above at Okumura [0029] teaching TPU material).
Regarding claim 3, modified Celli discloses the method of claim 2. As best understood, modified Celli further discloses that the at least some of the downstream control settings are provided at a shared memory storage, the shared memory storage being accessible by both the upstream computing unit and the downstream computing unit (Celli; Pg. 12 Lns. 19-26, Pg. 18 Lns. 14-17, see Fig. 1 at electronic control device 30, which monitors both winder 13 and rewinder 17).
Regarding claim 4, modified Celli discloses the method of claim 2. As best understood, modified Celli further discloses that at least some of the downstream control settings are determined by the downstream computing unit (Celli; Pg. 12 Lns. 19-26, Pg. 18 Lns. 14-17, see Fig. 1 at electronic control device 30, which monitors both winder 13 and rewinder 17. See also Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28).
Regarding claim 5, modified Celli discloses the method of claim 4. As best understood, modified Celli further discloses that the downstream control settings determined by the downstream computing unit are determined using an upstream object identifier, wherein the upstream object identifier comprises a subset of upstream process data which comprises upstream process parameters and/or operational settings for manufacturing the at least one TPU and/or ETPU material at the upstream industrial plant (Celli; Pg. 12 Ln. 12-Pg. 14 Ln. 13, the intermediate processing step described corresponds to the downstream step).
Regarding claim 7, modified Celli discloses the method of claim 5. As best understood, modified Celli further discloses that the upstream object identifier includes a prediction and/or control logic for providing at least some of the downstream control settings based upon the downstream historical data (Celli Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28).
Regarding claim 8, modified Celli discloses the method of claim 7. As best understood, modified Celli further discloses that the prediction and/or control logic comprises a prediction model trainable by the downstream historical data (Celli Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28).
Regarding claim 9, modified Celli discloses the method of claim 8. As best understood, modified Celli further discloses that the prediction and/or control logic generates modified data for modifying the prediction and/or control logic such that computation of the downstream control settings is improved (Celli Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28).
Regarding claim 10, modified Celli discloses the method of claim 9. As best understood, modified Celli further discloses that the prediction and/or control logic and/or the modification data are provided to the upstream computing unit (Celli; Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28, Pg. 12 Lns. 19-26).
Regarding claim 11, modified Celli discloses the method of claim 2. As best understood, modified Celli further discloses that the downstream object identifier is provided by the upstream computing unit (Celli; Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28, Pg. 12 Lns. 19-26).
Regarding claim 12, modified Celli discloses the method of claim 1. Modified Celli further discloses executing, using the downstream control settings, the downstream production process (Celli Pg. 12 Lns. 19-26).
Regarding claim 16, Celli discloses a system for controlling a downstream production process for manufacturing an article at a downstream industrial plant (Pg. 12 Lns. 6-11, see Fig. 1).
The downstream industrial plant comprises at least one downstream equipment and a downstream computing unit (Pg. 12 Lns. 1-26, see Fig. 1).
The article being manufactured by processing, via the at least one downstream equipment, at least one polymer material using the downstream production process (Pg. 12 Lns. 1-26, see Fig. 1).
The system is configured to:
provide, at the downstream computing unit, a set of downstream control settings for controlling the production of the article (Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28, particularly at Pg. 30 Lns. 12-16). The downstream control settings are determined based on:
a downstream object identifier; the downstream object identifier comprising precursor data indicative of one or more properties of the at least one polymer material (Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28, particularly at Pg. 30 Lns. 12-16, “characteristics of the input materials”).
At least one desired downstream performance parameter related to the article (Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28, particularly at Pg. 30 Lns. 17-20, “quality and defect parameters”).
Downstream historical data; wherein the downstream historical data comprises downstream process parameters and/or operational settings that were used for manufacturing past one or more articles (Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28, particularly at Pg. 30 Lns. 17-20, “quality and defect parameters”, and Pg. 29 Lns. 16-21, “historical data related to a plurality of process and/or product parameters detected output from the intermediate processing step of the prediction”).
The set of downstream control settings is for manufacturing the article at the downstream industrial plant (Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28, particularly at Pg. 30 Lns. 12-16).
Celli fails to explicitly disclose that the at least one polymeric material is at least one thermoplastic polyurethane ("TPU") and/or expanded thermoplastic polyurethane ("ETPU") material.
Okumura is in the analogous field of optimizing chemical product production systems (Okumura [0006]-[0007]). Okumura teaches a TPU material (Okumura [0029]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Celli with the teachings of Okumura so that the at least one polymeric material is at least one thermoplastic polyurethane ("TPU") and/or expanded thermoplastic polyurethane ("ETPU") material. The motivation would have been to apply the system of Celli, which is used to optimize the production of polymeric products (Celli Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28), to polyurethane as in Okumura, in order to optimize the production of polyurethane products.
Regarding claim 18, modified Celli discloses the method of claim 12. Modified Celli further discloses that executing the downstream production process is by providing the downstream control settings automatically to the downstream computing unit and/or a plant control system for controlling the downstream production process (Celli; Pg. 12 Lns. 1-26, particularly at Lns. 19-26, Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celli in view of Okumura as applied to claims 1-5, 7-12, 16, and 18 above, and further in view of Schmitz (US Pub. No. 2019/0054677; already of record on the IDS received 5/10/2023).
Regarding claim 6, modified Celli discloses the method of claim 4, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Celli fails to explicitly disclose that at least one of the at least one desired downstream performance parameter is particle size distribution (“PSD”) or bulk density.
Schmitz is in the analogous field of methods for evaluating at least one industrial process (Schmitz [0004]). Schmitz teaches bulk density as a desired downstream performance parameter (Schmitz [0019]-[0041], particularly at [0036]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Celli with the teachings of Schmitz so that least one of the at least one desired downstream performance parameter is bulk density, in order to optimize the bulk density of the product, which may impart beneficial properties such as strength.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celli in view of Okumura as applied to claims 1-5, 7-12, 16, and 18 above, and further in view of Baseman et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0292812; hereinafter Baseman; already of record on the IDS received 5/10/2023).
Regarding claim 13, modified Celli discloses the method of claim 1, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Celli fails to explicitly disclose receiving, at the downstream computing unit, downstream real-time process data from one or more of the at least one downstream equipment, or one or more downstream equipment zones; wherein the downstream real-time process data comprises downstream real-time process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions.
Baseman is in the analogous field of controlling product production in multi-stage manufacturing processes by machine learning (Baseman [0005]). Baseman, as best understood, teaches receiving, at the downstream computing unit, downstream real-time process data from one or more of the at least one downstream equipment, or one or more downstream equipment zones; wherein the downstream real-time process data comprises downstream real-time process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions (Baseman [0017]-[0018]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Celli with the teachings of Baseman to include receiving, at the downstream computing unit, downstream real-time process data from one or more of the at least one downstream equipment, or one or more downstream equipment zones; wherein the downstream real-time process data comprises downstream real-time process parameters and/or equipment operating conditions, in order to be able to improve quality in real-time by uncovering early indicators that could remediate product quality problems (Baseman; [0017]-[0018], [0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Celli discloses the method of claim 13, and all limitations recited therein.
Modified Celli fails to explicitly disclose appending, to the downstream object identifier, a subset of the downstream real-time process data and/or downstream process specific data.
However, as best understood, Baseman further teaches appending, to the downstream object identifier, a subset of the downstream real-time process data and/or downstream process specific data (Baseman [0017]-[0018]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Celli with the further teachings of Baseman to include appending, to the downstream object identifier, a subset of the downstream real-time process data and/or downstream process specific data, in order to be able to improve quality in real-time by uncovering early indicators that could remediate product quality problems (Baseman; [0017]-[0018], [0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Celli discloses the method of claim 13.
Modified Celli, as best understood, discloses computing, via the downstream computing unit, at least one downstream performance parameter of the article related to the downstream object identifier based on the downstream historical data (Celli; Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28).
Modified Celli fails to explicitly disclose that the computing is based on a subset of the downstream real-time process data and the downstream historical data.
As best understood, Baseman further teaches computing at least one downstream performance parameter of the article based on a subset of the downstream real-time process data and the downstream historical data (Baseman; [0017]-[0018]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Celli with the further teachings of Baseman to include computing, via the downstream computing unit, at least one downstream performance parameter of the article related to the downstream object identifier based on a subset of the downstream real-time process data and the downstream historical data, in order to be able to improve quality in real-time by uncovering early indicators that could remediate product quality problems (Baseman; [0017]-[0018], [0003]-[0004]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celli in view of Buss et al. (US Pat. No. 7,006,084; hereinafter Buss) and Okumura.
Regarding claim 17, Celli discloses a computing unit, operatively coupled to at least one equipment for manufacturing an article at a downstream industrial plant by processing at least one polymer material using a downstream production process (Pg. 12 Lns. 1-26, see Fig. 1 at electronic control device 30, and Pg. 15 Lns. 25-27, which recite that a mix of polymers is used). The computing unit:
provides, at the downstream computing unit, a set of downstream control settings for controlling the production of the article (Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28, particularly at Pg. 30 Lns. 12-16). The downstream control settings are determined based on:
a downstream object identifier; the downstream object identifier comprising precursor data indicative of one or more properties of the at least one polymer material (Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28, particularly at Pg. 30 Lns. 12-16, “characteristics of the input materials”).
At least one desired downstream performance parameter related to the article (Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28, particularly at Pg. 30 Lns. 17-20, “quality and defect parameters”).
Downstream historical data; wherein the downstream historical data comprises downstream process parameters and/or operational settings that were used for manufacturing past one or more articles (Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28, particularly at Pg. 30 Lns. 17-20, “quality and defect parameters”, and Pg. 29 Lns. 16-21, “historical data related to a plurality of process and/or product parameters detected output from the intermediate processing step of the prediction”).
The set of downstream control settings is usable for manufacturing the article at the downstream industrial plant (Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28, particularly at Pg. 30 Lns. 12-16).
Celli fails to explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by the computing unit, causes the computing unit to perform the claimed functions; or that the at least one polymeric material is at least one thermoplastic polyurethane ("TPU") and/or expanded thermoplastic polyurethane ("ETPU") material.
Buss is in the analogous field of methods and systems for computer aided manufacturing measurement analysis (Buss Col. 1 Lns. 7-15). Buss teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by the computing unit, causes the computing unit to perform functions (Buss; Col. 3 Lns. 32-38, Col. 5 Lns. 34-59). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the computing unit of Celli by providing a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by the computing unit, causes the computing unit to perform the claimed functions as in Buss, in order to provide a well-known implementation of a control scheme in the form of software in a computer-readable medium that affords flexibility in a product that may be marketed and/or applied to various production plants as desired.
Modified Celli fails to explicitly disclose that the at least one polymeric material is at least one thermoplastic polyurethane ("TPU") and/or expanded thermoplastic polyurethane ("ETPU") material.
Okumura is in the analogous field of optimizing chemical product production systems (Okumura [0006]-[0007]). Okumura teaches a TPU material (Okumura [0029]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the non-transitory computer readable medium of modified Celli with the teachings of Okumura so that the at least one polymeric material is at least one thermoplastic polyurethane ("TPU") and/or expanded thermoplastic polyurethane ("ETPU") material. The motivation would have been to apply the method of Celli, which is used to optimize the production of polymeric products (Celli Pg. 28 Ln. 23-Pg. 30 Ln. 28), to polyurethane as in Okumura, in order to optimize the production of polyurethane products.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/JOHN MCGUIRK/ Examiner, Art Unit 1798