DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on April 17, 2023.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/17/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Preliminary amendments filed on April 17, 2023 have been entered.
The specification has been amended.
Claims 1-9 have been amended.
Claims 1-9 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Machine-side sensor, which is attached to the injection-molding machine ‘1’ in Figure 1, should be numbered ‘3’ (not ‘4’), in accordance with the specification details (see p. 5).
Tool-side sensor, which is attached to the injection-molding tool ‘2’ in Figure 1, should be numbered ‘4’ (not ‘3’), in accordance with the specification details (see p. 5, 11-12).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 2, line 16: Language “By way of example, EP 1486312 B1 und EP 1762360 B1 concern” should read “By way of example, EP 1486312 B1 [[und]]and EP 1762360 B1 concern” in order to correct for minor informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims include multiple informalities that require appropriate correction. The examiner has made an effort suggesting language to clarify the recited subject matter for compliance under 35 U.S.C. 112. Applicant’s cooperation is kindly requested.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“A method for recording mass production work cycles of an installation, the installation comprising a machine and a replaceable mass production tool which is secured to the machine and is moved by the machine, the method comprising:
counting sequences that indicate how many of the mass production work cycles have been carried out with cooperation between the replaceable mass production tool and the machine
wherein required detection of the cooperation between the replaceable mass production tool and the a first physical variable being measured on the replaceable mass production tool and [[the]]a second physical variable being measured on the machine,
the values of the two measured physical variables changing cyclically with [[the]]a rhythm of the mass production work cycles carried out by the replaceable mass production tool and the machine together” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis and clarify the recited subject matter for compliance under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
a tool-side sensor attached to the replaceable mass production tool, continuously and repeatedly measures [[the]]a first value of a physical state on the replaceable mass production tool, and sends first information, including identification information relating to the tool-side sensor, to a coupling unit in a continually updated manner,
a machine-side sensor attached to the machine, continuously and repeatedly measures [[the]]a second value of a physical state on the machine, the second value fluctuating cyclically with the mass production work cycles, and transmits second information, including identification information relating to the machine-side sensor, to the coupling unit in [[a]]the continually updated manner,
the coupling unit forms, from the first information received from the tool-side sensor[[s]] and the second information received from the machine-side sensor[[s]], value sequences associated with the the tool-side sensor and the machine-side sensor, the value sequences each representing information about the s of the values of the two measured physical variables measured by the tool-side sensor and the machine-side sensor,
the coupling unit checks, in groups of two value sequences, one of which originates from [[a]]the machine-side sensor and one of which originates from [[a]]the tool-side sensor, whether the two value sequences have features which repeatedly run synchronously in relation to one another in respect of time andthe features as an indication that the replaceable mass production tool belonging to the tool-side sensor is fitted on the machine belonging to the machine-side sensor,
the coupling unit extracts, from the value sequences of pairs comprising [[a]]the machine and [[a]]the replaceable mass production tool that are identified as being associated, a characteristic value for [[the]]a cyclical course of the mass production work cycles
the coupling unit transmits a counting pulse to a counting unit for each identified individual work cycle of an identified pair comprising [[a]]the machine and [[a]]the replaceable mass production tool, the counting pulse containing the information that the pair formed from the replaceable mass production tool has carried out a further work cycle, and
the machine and [[a]]the replaceable mass production tool a count value by one with each counting pulse that is suitable for the identified pairing .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first physical variable measured on the replaceable mass production tool and the second physical variable measured on the machine are accelerations” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis and clarify the recited subject matter for compliance under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first physical variable measured on the machine is an electrical voltage or an electrical current which triggers a function of the machine” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis and clarify the recited subject matter for compliance under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The method as claimed in claim 5, wherein the electrical energy is obtained from mechanical energy and/or from temperature differences” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis and clarify the recited subject matter for compliance under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the machine is a casting machine, and replaceable mass production tool is a casting mold” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis and clarify the recited subject matter for compliance under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The method as claimed in claim [[7]]1, wherein the replaceable mass production tool is an injection-molding tool” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis and clarify the recited subject matter for compliance under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the machine is a bending machine or a punching machine or a punching-and-bending machine or a embossing machine or a forging machine, and replaceable mass production tool is a bending tool or a punching tool or a punching-and-bending tool or an embossing tool or a forging tool” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis and clarify the recited subject matter for compliance under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test (see italic text for abstract idea):
the limitation “counting sequences that indicate how many cycles have been carried out with cooperation between a particular mass production tool and a particular machine are formed” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to count work cycles of machines combinations (see specification at p. 3-4, 7-8). Except for the machines recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a particular mass production tool, a particular machine) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation and/or applying mathematical concepts to count work cycles of machines.
the limitation “in that the required detection of the cooperation between the respective mass production tool and the respective machine is carried out on the basis of a comparison between the time profiles of the values of two measured physical variables” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to compare data for identifying pair of machines working together (see specification at p. 4, 7-9). Except for the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data to be manipulated), the machines recited at a high level of generality (i.e., the respective mass production tool, the respective machine) and/or the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation and/or applying mathematical concepts to compare data to identify pair of machines working together.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when considering the claim as a whole. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claim (see non-italic text for additional elements):
“A method for recording mass production work cycles of an installation, the installation comprising a machine and a replaceable mass production tool which is secured to the machine and is moved by the machine” appends machines at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(b)) while generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
“counting sequences that indicate how many cycles have been carried out with cooperation between a particular mass production tool and a particular machine are formed” appends machines recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(b)) while generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
“in that the required detection of the cooperation between the respective mass production tool and the respective machine is carried out on the basis of a comparison between the time profiles of the values of two measured physical variables” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data to be manipulated; see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and appends machines recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(b)) while generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
“one physical variable being measured on the tool and the second physical variable being measured on the machine, and both physical variables being such that the value thereof changes cyclically with the rhythm of the work cycle carried out by the tool and the machine together” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering; source/type of data to be manipulated; see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and appends machines recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, the claim, when considered as a whole, does not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., recording mass production work cycles), which as indicated in the MPEP: “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (see MPEP 2106.05(h); and
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering by selecting a particular data source/type to be manipulated) using machines (i.e., a machine and a replaceable mass production tool) specified at a high level of generality, which as indicated in the MPEP: “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(b), section III).
The claim, when considered as a whole, does not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test.
Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations (Claim 2), that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering using a data type or source) and machines recited at a high level of generality and used in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation (Claims 2-9), which as indicated in the Office’s guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A – Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B) when considering the claimed invention as a whole.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 1-9 are distinguished over the prior art of record for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1.
Catoen (US 20120231103 A1) discloses/teaches:
A method for recording mass production work cycles of an installation (Fig. 1, item 10 – “injection molding assembly”), the installation comprising a machine (Fig. 1, item 10a – “stationary section”) and a replaceable mass production tool (Fig. 1, item 10b – “moveable section”) which is secured to the machine and is moved by the machine ([0022]-[0023]: an injection molding assembly, including a stationary section and a moveable section, utilizes a sensor unit array comprising one or more sensor units for determining a cycle count of one or more components of the injection molding assembly; the components being replaceable due to maintenance based on cycle count (see [0042]-[0043], [0070])), wherein
counting sequences that indicate how many cycles have been carried out ([0060]-[0062]: cycle counts are determined by comparing sensor signals to thresholds, with a counter per component (see [0064])),
one physical variable being measured on the tool and the second physical variable being measured on the machine ([0024]: sensor unit array includes one or more sensors to collect signals used for determining a cycle count of one or more components of the injection molding assembly (see Fig. 2, sensors 192a-e placed in stationary section, and sensors 192f-g placed in moveable section)), and
both physical variables being such that the value thereof changes cyclically with the rhythm of the work cycle carried out by the tool and the machine together ([0037]: sensors outputs are expected to be similar during cycles (e.g., see Figs. 11-13 and 15-20)).
Manner (US 20040247724 A1) discloses:
“In an injection mold comprising a stationary and a movable mold half for opening and closing the injection mold, an electronic data storage with a counter for detecting and retrievably recording the number of injection molding procedures and the number of closing movements of the mold halves in the data storage is provided and the data storage is removably mounted on the injection mold and, furthermore, a sensor is provided for recording the mounting state of the data storage and also a time recording element for determining any time period for which the data storage was removed from the data storage” (Abstract: an injection mold, comprising a stationary half and a movable mold half, includes processing and sensors to determine a counter of injection molding procedures by detecting strikes on the sensor upon closing of the model (see [0013]-[0014], [0030])).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest (see italic text):
“counting sequences that indicate how many cycles have been carried out with cooperation between a particular mass production tool and a particular machine are formed, and in that the required detection of the cooperation between the respective mass production tool and the respective machine is carried out on the basis of a comparison between the time profiles of the values of two measured physical variables”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant (note: the examiner submits that while the prior art of record discloses counting cycles as indicated above, the references do not count cycles by detecting cooperation between a particular mass production tool and a particular machine by comparing corresponding signals).
Regarding claims 2-9.
They are also distinguished over the prior art of record due to their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Catoen; Bruce, US 8425216 B2, Cycle counting system for injection molding assembly
Reference discloses determining cycle counts of components in an injection molding assembly by comparing sensor readings to thresholds.
KUSAKABE; Hironori et al., US 20210107194 A1, INJECTION MOLDING INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT DEVICE AND INJECTION MOLDING MACHINE
Reference discloses checking trend variations of machine state data in injection molding machines
Shirai; Hideaki, US 20060103040 A1¸ Synchronous operation starting method for injection molding machines
Reference discloses synchronous operation of two injection molding machines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857