DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 7/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 7/2/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-15 remain pending in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth previously.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kaiser (DE 102017103866 A).
Regarding Claim 1; Kaiser teaches; Method for operating a processing apparatus for coating a workpiece, the method comprising: (Kaiser; at least Abstract)
transmitting at least one process parameter and at least one material parameter to a control unit of the processing apparatus, the at least one material parameter comprising a type of coating material, a workpiece material, or adhesive; (Kaiser; at least page 5, last two paragraphs; page 6, first two paragraphs; disclose wherein a process response variable (i.e. process parameter) and a process specification variable (i.e. material parameter) are provided to a control unit prior to performing processing operations and wherein the material parameters include type of coating as well density or composition (i.e. workpiece material))
performing processing of the workpiece based on the at least one process parameter and the at least one material parameter; (Kaiser; at least page 9, paragraph 7; disclose execution of the processing apparatus according to the process/material parameters)
detecting values of the workpiece, after the performing processing, with at least one sensor; (Kaiser; at least page 12, paragraph 2; disclose CCP tv cameras or tactile sensors for detecting values of the workpiece after being processed to determine a product quality)
assessing the workpiece by means of at least one criterion based on the values detected by the at least one sensor as well as the at least one process parameter and the at least one material parameter; and outputting the assessment of the workpiece; (Kaiser; page 12, paragraph 2; disclose wherein the system performs an assessment of the workpiece based on criterion associated with process/material parameters and outputs the assessment)
based on the assessment of the workpiece, automatically adjusting, at the control unit of the processing apparatus, the at least one process parameter; and continuing processing of a subsequent workpiece by the processing apparatus using the adjusted at least one process parameter. (Kaiser; at least page 12, paragraph 2; disclose wherein the system can determine based on the assessment of the workpiece quality as compared to various limits (Gi or Gx), an adjusted parameter (i.e. adjusted federate) can be utilized in future production processes to correct any quality issues).
Regarding Claim 2; Kaiser teaches; Method according to claim 1, in which the at least one process parameter is selected from: a contact pressure of a pressure device, an adhesive temperature, a selection, processing units in use, a feed value of a processing unit, or a feed rate of the workpiece. (Kaiser; at least page 6, first paragraph).
Regarding Claim 4; Kaiser teaches; Method according to claim 1, in which the assessment of the workpiece is performed by means of a plurality of criteria, wherein the plurality of criteria are individually weighted and summarized to form an overall criterion. (Kaiser; at least page 9, paragraph 3, step 4).
Regarding Claim 6; Kaiser teaches; Method according to claim 1, in which, if the assessment of the workpiece provides a negative result, at least one correction value is calculated for one or a plurality of process parameters. (Kaiser; at least page 6, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 9; Kaiser teaches; Method according to claim 1, in which the sensor is an optical sensor, an acceleration sensor or a vibration sensor. (Kaiser; at least page 8, paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 10; Kaiser teaches; Method according to claim 1, in which the assessment of the workpiece is performed by means of a computing unit of the control unit of the processing apparatus. (Kaiser; at least page 12, paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 11; Kaiser teaches; Method according to claim 1, in which the at least one process parameter and the at least one material parameter are entered or read. (Kaiser; at least page 9, paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 12; Kaiser teaches; Method according to claim 1, in which the output of the assessment of the workpiece is performed by a visual display on an operation panel on the processing apparatus or by a visual display on a mobile unit. (Kaiser; at least page 10, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 13; Kaiser teaches; Method according to claim 1, in which the output of the assessment is performed by an acoustic signal or tactile trigger. (Kaiser; at least page 12, paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 14; Kaiser teaches; Method according to claim 1, wherein the processing apparatus is configured for processing a workpiece made of wood or wood materials, wood-like material, composite material or a combination thereof. (Kaiser; at least page 9, paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 15; Kaiser teaches; Method according to claim 6, wherein the correction value or correction values are suggested to an operator or that the process parameter or process parameters are changed. (Kaiser; at least page 10, last paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser (DE 102017103866 A) in view of Toku et al. (US Patent 11,762,344).
Regarding Claim 5; Kaiser appears to be silent on; Method according to claim 1, in which a target value of the at least one process parameter and the at least one material parameter are used for calculating a probability of error after transmission to the control unit.
However, Toku teaches; Method according to claim 1, in which a target value of the at least one process parameter and the at least one material parameter are used for calculating a probability of error after transmission to the control unit. (Toke; at least column 26, lines 29-59; provides a system and method for providing a plurality of weights to a plurality of candidate parameters (i.e. process/material parameters of Kaiser) wherein these are then used to calculate probability of the controlled device operating properly (i.e. error probability)).
Kaiser and Toku are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of, error correction and monitoring control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of calculating error probabilities as taught by Toku with the known system of wood error correction and control system of Kaiser in order provide a method for reducing the probability of producing defective components as taught by Toku (column 1, lines 20-41).
Regarding Claim 7; the combination of Kaiser and Toku teach; Method according to claim 1, in which the assessment is performed using artificial intelligence. (Toku; at least column 26, lines 5-28).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser (DE 102017103866 A) in view of Kostenbader et al. (US PGPUB 20190061087).
Regarding Claim 8; Kaiser appears to be silent on; Method according to claim 1, in which the processing of the workpiece comprises applying and post-processing a coating material on a narrow surface of the workpiece.
However, Kostenbader teaches; Method according to claim 1, in which the processing of the workpiece comprises applying and post-processing a coating material on a narrow surface of the workpiece. (Kostenbader; at least paragraph [0037]; disclose applying and post-processing a coating material on a narrow surface of a workpiece).
Kaiser and Kostenbader are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of, error correction and monitoring control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of providing post-processing coating operations as taught by Kostenbader with the known system of wood error correction and control system of Kaiser in order provide a method for providing stable operation using simple operability which in turn leads to lower rejection rates as taught by Kostenbader (paragraph [0005]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser (DE 102017103866 A) in view of Knudson et al. (US PGPUB 20200030938).
Regarding Claim 16; Kaiser appears to be silent on; Method according to claim 12, wherein the mobile unit comprises a mobile phone, and the output is performed by vibration of the mobile phone.
However, Knudson teaches; Method according to claim 12, wherein the mobile unit comprises a mobile phone, and the output is performed by vibration of the mobile phone. (Knudson; at least paragraph [0195]).
Kaiser and Knudson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of, monitoring and alerting control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of providing mobile phone outputs as taught by Knudson with the known system of wood error correction and control system of Kaiser in order provide a method for enhancing safety and security as taught by Knudson (paragraph [0003]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 7/2/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-2 and 4-15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the reference of Kaiser is silent on, “…detecting values of the workpiece, after the performing processing, with at least one sensor,”, as the sensors disclosed by Kaiser represent sensors that detect the conditions of the machining equipment and not the workpiece as presently cited and further is silent throughout the reference with respect to a sensor that monitors the quality of the workpiece.
Though the office agrees upon further review of the previously cited sections that the sensors identified appear to only monitor conditions involving the machining equipment, upon further review of another section previously cited, the reference of Kaiser, see page 12, paragraph 2; does in fact actually describe various types of sensors (i.e. CCP cameras or tactile sensors) which automatically perform measurements for determining quality of a machined workpiece. Further, the paragraph recites that this data in conjunction with the monitored machine data (i.e. feed rate), compared to various limits, can be adjusted to correct any quality issues on future machined workpieces, thus sufficiently teaching the claim as currently recited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knorr et al. (US PGPUB 20180259931): disclose a processing machine and method for processing a workpiece including utilizing an optical detection device for monitoring various quality of parameters of a workpiece being processed by the machine.
Ketelaer et al. (US PGPUB 20180039255): disclose a method for processing a workpiece that utilizes an ultrasonic sensor to determine and detect workpiece quality.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, 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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights