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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-16 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection nor the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection set forth previously. Claim 3 has been canceled and all limitations have been incorporated into independent claim 1.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 includes the limitations of, “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;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of performing an assessment based on criteria/received values which is an act that can reasonably be performed using the human mind, and thus, falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For instance, claim 1 includes the additional limitations of, “performing processing of a workpiece based on the at least one process parameter and the at least one material parameter;” and “outputting the assessment of the workpiece.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds limitations of generically performing processing according to provided values as well as simply outputting a result, which just simply apply the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 1 further includes the limitation of, “transmitting at least one process parameter and at least material parameter to a control unit of the processing apparatus;” and “detecting values of the workpiece, after the performing processing, with at least one sensor;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 1 additionally includes the limitation of, “the at least one material parameter comprising a type of coating material, a workpiece material, or adhesive;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, merely describes types of properties which just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Finally, the limitations of, “a processing apparatus” and “a control unit”, as generally recited merely represent generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering workpiece data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Dependent claims 2-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. For instance, claims 5 and 6, each include limitations of calculating errors or correction values, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, each includes limitations in which mathematical calculations are preformed which fall within the, “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 15 includes limitations of presenting correction values to an operator, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just presents suggestions on corrections to an operator which just merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claims 2-4, 7-14, and 16, each includes limitations which simply describe type of values/parameters monitored/selected, techniques used to perform the assessment, types of sensors used, generic process functions, how the assessment is presented, and how the assessment is output, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, include a bunch of limitations just generally describing certain aspects of the invention which simply links the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering workpiece data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
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 7, paragraph 4; disclose a sensor for detecting values of the workpiece)
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).
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 filed 12/17/2025 with regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection and the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues:
Amending the preamble to recite the invention is for coating a workpiece provides integration into a practical application and the collective provides a technological improvement by providing real-time quality control.
Further, the elements of “processing apparatus for coating a workpiece”, “control unit”, and “at least one sensor”, are not generic computer components but integral to the claimed solution and help provide a nexus for calculating correction values (claim 6).
Finally, with respect to 101, the claims amount to significantly more that the abstract idea as utilizing sensor values in conjunction with coating-specific materials is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art and that emphasizing, focusing on the coating process that involve adhesives and coatings distinguishes from generic data gathering.
The reference of Kaiser is silent on the limitations of, “the at least one material parameter comprising a type of coating material, a workpiece material, or adhesive;”.
The office respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the first argument, simply rephrasing the preamble to provide a narrower scope of limiting the apparatus to coating a workpiece does not necessarily equate to the claims directly providing an improvement to a field, but rather just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). And though the steps themselves, might equate to an improvement, the assertions made currently are more declaratory without providing support as to the improvement described. Further, even if correction parameters are generated from the process of claim 1, without actually applying or utilizing the parameters to effect some controlled state of the apparatus, the claim still will just generally apply the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2016.05(f)).
With respect to the second argument, none of the listed components as currently claimed, would indicate any specialized hardware needed to perform the steps and thus can reasonably characterized as generic computer components that implement the abstract idea. As detailed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II):
“To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.”
With respect to the third argument, simply providing specific data gathered by sensors in a system does not necessarily involve steps that amount to more than just mere data gathering. Further, when taking the combination of steps as a whole in which data is gathered, analyzed, and then a result is displayed, has been deemed not to show an improvement in technology by the courts as detailed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II); “iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;”.
Regarding the fourth argument, currently, the limitation as worded is an “or” statement which requires only a single element of the list be present in a cited reference, however, review of the reference of Kaiser explicitly demonstrates two of the three listed elements as in paragraph 2 on page 6, “type of coating” is listed as well as workpiece materials listed under “material properties”. Review of the reference does reveal that the reference of Kaiser is silent on “adhesives”, but again, the limitation is an “or” statement and thus only one of the listed parameters need be present, which as cited above, clearly exists in the reference of Kaiser.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kinoh et al. (US Patent 5,867,390): disclose an adhesive application system and method in which correction operations can be performed in order to create an optimal application process based upon received data as well as historical data.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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