DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-21 are pending in this Application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. This application is a National Phase entry pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 371 of International Application No. PCT/KR2022/010726 filed on Jul. 21, 2022, which claims priority to and the benefit of Korean Patent Application No. 10-2021-0174785 filed on Dec. 8, 2021, the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show elements “800” and “900” as described in the specification (see [0122], [0123], [0125], [0131], [0132], and [0136] “…vision graph 800…” and [0126], [0129], [0131], [0132], and [0136] “…vision graph 900…”). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 Objections
Applicant refers to this application as a “substitute” of Application No. 18273711, filed on 8/14/2023. The term “substitute” is used to designate an application which is in essence the duplicate of an application by the same applicant abandoned before the filing of the later application. A “substitute” does not obtain the benefit of the filing date of the prior application.
The amendment filed 8/14/2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Page 2 recites “The background description provided herein is for the purpose of generally presenting context of the disclosure. Unless otherwise indicated herein, the materials described in this section are not prior art to the claims in this application and are not admitted to be prior art, or suggestions of the prior art, by inclusion in this section”. The original disclosure does not have support for this paragraph.
Also, Page 4 [13] “abnormal range” changed to “first range”
“abnormal range” changed to “second range”
“abnormal position” changed to “first position”.
The original disclosure does not have support for these changes and these amendments change the scope of the invention and the original specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The specifications is also objected because the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description “…vision graph 800…” and “…vision graph 900…” are not depicted in the drawings 8-9 as suggested in the disclosure (see [0122], [0123], [0125], [0131], [0132], and [0136] “…vision graph 800…” and [0126], [0129], [0131], [0132], and [0136] “…vision graph 900…”). The Examiner suggests amending Fig. 8 and 9 by adding a reference 800 and 900, respectively, to the graphs being depicted therein.
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: a facility operating unit…for determining an operation of the 3D model machine in claim 11.
The facility operating unit has been interpreted as software steps being executed on a processor and including the structure or steps of Fig. 7 (see [0068], [0079], [0124] and Fig. 7). The facility operating unit includes the display of GUI for a user to change or adjusts parameters which are simulated and results are obtained during the simulation.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 recite “executing an apparatus operating unit including a 3D mold notching machine”, “determining an operation of the 3D mold notching machine…”, “a material generated by the 3D mold notching machine…” and obtaining at least one of first user action information obtained through the apparatus operating unit or first user condition information obtained through the facility operating unit; determining the operation of the 3D mold notching machine based on at least one of the first user action information and or the first user condition information; and punching out electrodes based on the operation of the 3D mold notching machine”.
The metes and bounds of the terms “executing an apparatus operating unit including a 3D mold notching machine” are unclear. For instance, how the processor executes the apparatus operating unit including a 3D mold notching machine, the facility operating unit for determining an operation of the 3D mold notching machine, and the quality checking unit quality information related to quality of a material generated by the 3D mold notching machine? Is the 3D mold notching machine a physical/actual machine. In other words, what operations are occurring by the processor to execute these components or units that include a physical/actual machine.
The disclosure clearly states that each of these units represent software program/modules included in a simulation device (0068), wherein the simulation device perform a simulation of a virtual device/3D model mold machine and its process based on parameters and configuration selected via GUI screens (0069). The disclosure clearly states that this invention is about a training and simulation system wherein an actual or physical mold notching machine is not present (0004, 0009, 0073) or controlled during the punching of the electrodes. The disclosure is clear about the simulation device simulating a virtual 3D model machine but the claims recite “3D mold notching machine” which to a reader suggests an actual/physical machine, thus, it makes the claims confusing and unclear.
For purposes of Examination, the claims will be interpreted as the following suggested interpretation: (also, as suggested amendments.)
1. A simulation device for secondary battery production, the simulation device (100) comprising:
a) a memory configured to store at least one instruction; and
b) at least one processor configured to execute the at least one instruction stored in the memory to perform operations comprising:
b1) executing a software module apparatus operating unit including a virtual 3D mold notching machine related to secondary battery production;
b2) executing a software module facility operating unit including a plurality of adjustment parameters for determining an operation of the virtual 3D mold notching machine;
b3) executing a software module quality checking unit including quality information related to quality of a material generated by the virtual 3D mold notching machine
b4) obtaining at least one of first user action information obtained
through the software module apparatus operating unit or first user condition
information obtained through the software module facility operating unit;
b5) determining the operation of the virtual 3D mold notching machine
based on at least one of the first user action information or the first user condition
information; and
b6) virtually punching out electrodes based on the operation of the virtual 3D mold notching machine.
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.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 21 recites “a computer program stored in a computer-readable medium provided to execute a method according to claim 11 on a computer. The computer program is software or software in execution. Therefore, the invention is directed to software or software in execution, none of which is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a computer-readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer usable medium (see MPEP 2111.01), wherein the transitory propagating signals are non-statutory subject matter.
The disclosure discloses an apparatus with memory 1620 and storage device 1630 for executing the method of claimed invention (claim 11) (see 0160). The disclosure recites in [0164] “According to one embodiment, the memory 1620 may include a volatile memory unit or a plurality of memory units”. Thus, a volatile memory covers forms of transitory propagating signals per se. Also, disclosure further recites in [0165] “The storage device 1630 may be one or more mass storage devices for storing data for the computing device 1600. For example, the storage device 1630 may be configured to include a hard disc; a magnetic disc such as a portable disc; an optical disc; a semiconductor memory device such as an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), an electrically erasable PROM (EEPROM), and a flash memory; and a computer-readable medium including a CD-ROM or DVD-ROM disc; or the storage device 1630 may be configured to include the computer-readable medium. Also, the computer program may be implemented tangibly in the computer-readable medium”. While the storage device exemplifies one or more non-transitory memory components, this does not precludes the memory to include transitory signals because it uses the term “may”.
Applicant can overcome this rejection by adding the term “non-transitory storage medium" in claim 21 as suggested below.
For instance, a suggested amendment is :
“21. A computer program stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium provided to execute a method according to claim 11 on a computer”.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11, and 21, recite in part:
“b1) executing an apparatus operating unit including a 3D mold notching machine related to secondary battery production (presenting or outputting an image or a video of a 3D model of the machine, see 0068);
b2) executing a facility operating unit including a plurality of adjustment parameters for determining an operation of the 3D mold notching machine (presenting parameters related to the machine, see Fig. 7 and [0043], [01117], and [0124]);
b3) executing a software module quality checking unit including quality information related to quality of a material generated by the virtual 3D mold notching machine;
b4) obtaining at least one of first user action information obtained through the apparatus operating unit or first user condition information obtained through the facility operating unit (collecting data from displayed/depicted screens);
b5) determining the operation of the 3D mold notching machine based on at least one of the first user action information and or the first user condition information (determining or estimating a state of the 3D model machine based on the collected information, e.g. will the state or operation of machine will be in a normal or bad scenario);
b6) punching out electrodes based on the operation of the 3D mold notching machine (illustrate an image for a training and calculating a state, see [0151]).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps of organizing human activities and/or mental processes which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). The current limitations b1) -b6) above correspond to managing personal behavior (teaching or human activities ), wherein a simulation regarding one or more tasks including a (virtual) 3D mold notching machine related to secondary battery production and quality information related to quality of a material generated by the virtual 3D mold notching machine, is presented to a user/trainee. Also, These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps of monitoring/observation/collecting data, evaluation and judgment which are steps that can be easily performed mentally but for the recitation of generic components. For instance, executing a quality check involves the calculation or estimation or data or state operation of a supposed machine (virtual machine), based on collected data, which is collected from the operating unit and the facility operating units. The determining the state of the operation of the machine to perform punching out electrodes which is estimated or calculated also from the collected data. Thus, an experienced worker can easily estimate the state and quality of an operation for a 3D mold notching machine by simply looking at a couple of parameter and perform in his mind the estimation/simulation based on experience and determine different states such as normal/good or bad states of the process or quality of material (blank out) possibly generated by the machine without using an actual machine. That is other than reciting “a processor” and, memory in claim 1, 11, and 21 nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. These components (processor and memory) have been interpreted in the BRI in light of the disclosure as a generic CPU with memory to execute the steps/algorithm of the recited functions. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer processor/unit/device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim also recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements such as “processor and memory” in claim 1, 11, and 21 respectively, when interpreted in the BRI refers to a generic CPU which is recited at a high level of generality and represents no more than instructions “to apply” the abstract idea on a computer or to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer which cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Furthermore, the step b4) “obtaining at least one of first user action information or first user condition information” recited in a high level of generality and is considered insignificant extra solution and pre-solution activities of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of processor/computer and its memory to perform the abstract idea, which are recited in high level of generality and simply represents no more than instructions “to apply” with the judicial exception/the abstract idea on a computer or to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)). Also, the additional element of step b4) “obtaining at least one of first user action information or first user condition information” recited in a high level of generality and is considered insignificant extra solution and pre-solution activities of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10, 12-20 depend from claims 1 and 11, and thus recite or inherit the limitations and the abstract ideas of their respective parent claim.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 also recites additional elements that simply cover the abstract ideas described above and simply expands the abstract ideas and cover elements of mere data collection/gathering and adjustments of parameters to perform or simulate different scenarios and/o defects that results in different estimations (claims 2-5 and 12-15), determining different of types of defect scenarios related to an operation of a machine and calculate, adjust different values for quality parameter based on the scenarios data to calculate values for the different scenarios, performing and determining further adjustments to values to correct a defect in any scenarios, and outputting data calculated to correct the quality parameter in the different scenarios in quality values or (claims 6-10 and 16-20). Thus, these additional limitations are also abstract ideas themselves since they involve same concepts of organizing human activities and/or mental processes which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11 into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Provided that the rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 101 are overcome, claims 1-21 could be allowed since not prior art has been found that teaches or suggest the limitations recited in claims 1, 11, and 21. For instance, None of the references cited below or in the IDS, alone or in combination, explicitly teach the combination of limitations when combined with the other claimed limitations of claim 1, 11, and 21 including:
“executing (a software module) apparatus operating unit including a (virtual) 3D mold notching machine related to secondary battery production;
executing a (software module) facility operating unit including a plurality of adjustment parameters for determining an operation of the (virtual) 3D mold notching machine;
executing a (software module) quality checking unit including quality information related to quality of a material generated by the (virtual) 3D mold notching machine;
obtaining at least one of first user action information obtained through the (software module) apparatus operating unit or first user condition information obtained through the facility operating unit;
determining the operation of the (virtual) 3D mold notching machine based on at least one of the first user action information and or the first user condition information; and
(virtually) punching out electrodes based on the operation of the 3D mold notching machine”.
Relevant Art not relied upon
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of sill the in the applicant's art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
The Applicant cited in an information disclosure statement (IDS) the references:
Peters et al (CN 105190724 cited in IDS same as WO 2014/140720) teaches system for simulating a welding process and for training users (see Abstract) comprising displaying screens to input parameters and performing welding process (see 0041, 0042, 0062, 0066, see Figs 12-13 and [0063], [0065]) simulating an operation of the welding machine (see 0077, 0080), simulating normal and defect scenarios (see [0066]-[0068]), detecting quality of a processed operation in the welding machine (see [0108], [0117], 0148], [0151], [0174]), the system presents a user with corrective actions or the user adjusts parameters to improve or correct the simulated process (see [0175], [0180], [0186]). However, Peters does not explicitly teach the simulation of 3D mold notching machine and operation including punching out electrodes virtually using the 3D mold notching machine and inputting or obtaining parameters related to a 3D mold notching machine process.
Song et al (CN111900336A cited in IDS, machine translation provided by the examiner) teaches a lithium-ion power battery manufacturing comprising simulate the production logistics system of lithium-ion power batteries of an enterprise through a simulation platform (see pages 11-12), wherein a process such as production is simulated (page 12), definition and parameters are set for the simulation of the system (see page 15 and Fig. 6). However, Song does not explicitly teach the simulation of 3D mold notching machine and operation including punching out electrodes virtually using the 3D mold notching machine and inputting or obtaining parameters related to a 3D mold notching machine process to obtain a quality parameter.
LAN PEILIN et al (CN 110737981) teaches a system comprises a production simulation monitoring system of a fuel cell which is used for executing a production task corresponding to the target production order based on the production parameters corresponding to the target production order, monitoring the quality detection results of the intermediate products respectively obtained by each production node in the production task (see the Abstract, also, see page 10 par. 6), performing a quality checking unit for obtaining results (see Abstract) for a process/task based on parameters inputted (see page 10). However, Lan Peilin is directed to the production of fuel cells, and it does not explicitly teach a quality checking unit including quality information related to quality of a material generated by the virtual 3D mold notching machine (quality parameters includes front and rear shoulder line positions).
Additional references found which are pertinent to this Application:
Zhuang (CN 107229343 cited by the examiner) teaches a system for making a 3D model of coating machine for producing batteries by scanning a physical coating machine with a camera, the model of the machine is modified by adding control panels, switch, and moving mechanisms to the model, a user can control the machine with helmet/GOOGLES. Zhuang is about generating a 3D model of a machine. However, Zhuang does not explicitly teach the simulation of 3D mold notching machine and operation including punching out electrodes virtually using the 3D mold notching machine.
Choquet (US 2006/0136183) teaches virtual simulator to create a training environment for a welding machine for a trainee (see 0004), perform different scenarios based on user inputted parameters selection (see 0008), performing calculations of a simulated environment on time and online in response to the use of the input device by the user and management of the test elements, parameters and controls by the user (see 0012), checking results (see Fig. 4), to perform a task(s) and/or operate an apparatus-such as, a welding machine ([0071 ]; [0076]); and furthermore, based on one or more inputs that the user is providing, the system generates one or more updated scenarios related to the task being simulated, including images/animations regarding one or more of: a weld bead, assembled metals, etc. ([0084]; [0091] to [0097]; [0101 ]). However, Choquet is specific to welding training However, Zhuang does not explicitly teach the simulation of 3D mold notching machine and operation including punching out electrodes virtually using the 3D mold notching machine.
Dupont (US 2003/0215779) teaches a simulation system for training user in the installation of equipment/apparatus in the form of a telecommunication equipment ([0001] to [0012]; [0031 ]). Accordingly, the simulation system generates to the user one or more virtual scenarios regarding tasks related to repairing and/or installing the equipment above; and thus, the user performs, while using one or more input units of the simulation system, one or more virtual repairing and/or installation tasks-such as, connecting two cables and testing the connection of the cables, etc. ([0068] to [0070]). However, Dupont does not explicitly teach the simulation of 3D mold notching machine and operation including punching out electrodes virtually using the 3D mold notching machine.
Ogawa (US 20150268661) teaches a simulation apparatus to simulate an NC machine, includes a touch panel 20, a display controller 11, a display screen data storage unit 12, an input control unit 13, an operation information storage unit 14, a model data storage 16, a simulation executor 15 and an NC program generator 17. The simulation executor 15 displays an image of a movable structure 12 to be operated on the touch panel 20, moves the image in accordance with a manual operation and checks occurrence of interference, and, in the case where interference occurs, stops the movement of the image and displays the occurrence of interference on the touch panel 20 (see abstract). The components I/O helps a user to operate a virtual machine that represents (e.g., a replica of) a physical machine ([0011 ]; [0038]). In this regard, the simulation system incorporates input/output devices, including (a) a display for presenting visual data, (b) one or more input controls for allowing the user to provide input(s) for controlling the virtual machine ([0047]; [0051 ]); and furthermore, based on one or more inputs that the use is providing, the system generates one or more relevant virtual scenarios-such as, images that illustrate the movements of one or more parts of the virtual machine, etc., which demonstrates to the user whether there are some interferences between one or more structures of the machine, etc. ([0057] to [0062]). However, Ogawa does not explicitly teach the simulation of 3D mold notching machine and operation including punching out electrodes virtually using the 3D mold notching machine.
Min et al (US 20130252072) teaches a 3D mold notching apparatus comprising a monitoring system for checking the quality of a process or material generated by the apparatus (see Fig. 6 element 80; 0087 “an inspector 80 that inspects the electrode sheet 10 on which the notches 11 and 12 are pressed is arranged at the rear of the second gripper 30b”; 0094 “The inspector 80 confirms whether pressing of the press 20a is within an acceptable error range through visual testing. The electrode sheet 10 passing through the inspector 80 is transported to the rewinder 90 and is wound on the roll 91”). However, Min does not teach a simulation system comprising the functions as described above in claims 1, 9, and 21.
Becker et al (US 20170046977) teaches a welding training simulation system comprising executing a unit that causes the display of virtual reality mode (see Fig. 9) , wherein a user can perform user actions (select configurations in Fig. 9 element 270, 0135), execute a second unit wherein a user can select parameters (Fig. 11), obtaining the user inputs from these screens and perform a simulation of welding system. Becker is not related to the simulation of a 3D mold notching machine and a process of punching out electrodes.
Han et al (US 9360861) teaches system and method for simulating a sequence for machining a workpiece for training purpose (see abstract) comprising a CNC being simulated, executing software modules/units to display screens (fig. 1), displaying a virtual model of the machine being simulated (see Figs. 2-5), entering data via the screens and obtaining the data (see Col 4 lines 53-67 to col 5 ; Col 16 lines 16-37), simulating a process of the machine based on the inputted data (see fig. 7 and see Col 16 lines 16-37), determining the state of the machine (see Col 3 lines 18-23). However, Han is not related to the simulation of a 3D mold notching machine and a process of punching out electrodes.
Hwang (EP 4266290, does not qualify as prior art) is a EPO patent related to the same subject matter of claims 1, 11, and 21. The Examiner suggest the Applicnat to consider the allowed claims when amending the claims in this instant application.
Conclusion
It is suggested to include the limitations of claim 2 and/or 5 and consider the subject matter of Figs. 8, 9, 10, and 11 which suggests graphically displaying results, obtaining actual error data from an actual machine to be inputted in the simulation as shown in Fig. 11, when amending the claims to try to overcome the 112(b) and 101 rejections.
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid or differentiate from such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLVIN LOPEZ ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7686 and fax (571) 270-8686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Fennema, can be reached at (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/O. L./
Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights