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 .
Claims 1-7, 9-12 are pending.
Claims 8, 13 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Oct 28, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Objections
The objection to the claims has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landgraf et al, US Patent Pub US 20140303755 A1 (hereinafter Landgraf) in view of Kratzer et al, US Patent Pub US 20180129181 A1 (hereinafter Kratzer) in view of Uenishi, US Patent Pub US 20200070295 A1 (hereinafter Uenishi).
Claim 1
Landgraf teaches a machine tool arrangement comprising: a machine tool having a sensor device for monitoring at least one part of the machine tool (Landgraf, para 44, 46, 48 – A machine tool system with sensors for monitoring parts of the machine tool.); a control arrangement for controlling the at least one part of the machine tool, the control arrangement being configured for receiving data of the sensor device (Landgraf, para 44-45, 50-53 – A central unit/”control arrangement” controlling the machine tool and receiving sensor data.); a mobile communication device having an application for bidirectional exchange of data with the control arrangement, the control arrangement being communicatively connectable to the mobile communication device via a network link, such that the data of the sensor device is representable in the application and the at least one part of the machine tool is controllable by way of the application. (Landgraf, para 43-45 – A mobile device with computer program/application for communication/”bidirectional exchange of data” with the central unit/”control arrangement” over a network link and capable of displaying/representing data from the sensors in the computer program/application and controlling the machine tool.)
But Landgraf fails to specify a further mobile communication device having a further application, the application being configured to exchange data, in a form of a chat, with the further application, and the control arrangement being communicatively connectable to the further mobile communication device via the network link, such that the data of the sensor device is representable in the further application and the at least one part of the machine tool is controllable by way of the further application.
However Kratzer teaches a further mobile communication device having a further application, the application being configured to exchange data, in a form of a chat, with the further application, and the control arrangement being communicatively connectable to the further mobile communication device via the network link, such that the data of the sensor device is representable in the further application and the at least one part of the machine tool is controllable by way of the further application. (Kratzer, para 14-16, 18-21 – A mobile communication device with an application that allows the use of a chat client to acquire status/sensor data from and perform control of industrial machinery/”machine tool” that allows multiple mobile devices to perform the control.)
Landgraf and Kratzer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to industrial machinery control systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above industrial machinery control system, as taught by Landgraf, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Kratzer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to diagnose and correct problems faster by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Kratzer (para 20).
But the combination of Landgraf and Kratzer fails to specify evaluate a state of the machine tool based on the data provided by the sensor device, and wherein the application or the further application is configured for outputting and displaying a rating for the state of the machine tool as evaluated.
However Uenishi teaches evaluate a state of the machine tool based on the data provided by the sensor device, and wherein the application or the further application is configured for outputting and displaying a rating for the state of the machine tool as evaluated. (Uenishi, para 30-32, 44, Figs 8-9 – A display unit that displays a resulting score/rating for a state of a machine tool as its data is evaluated.)
Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to numerical control systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above industrial machinery control system, as taught by Landgraf and Kratzer, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Uenishi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to determine the machining capability in accordance with the content of the machining process by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Uenishi (para 10).
Claim 2
The combination of Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi further teaches the machine tool is configured for sheet metal processing. (Landgraf, para 44 - The machine may also be a machine tool such as a CNC machine/”sheet metal processing”.)
Claim 4
The combination of Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi further teaches the control arrangement comprises a computer. (Landgraf, para 100-101, 107 – A central unit/”control arrangement” comprising a computer.)
Claim 5
The combination of Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi further teaches the control arrangement comprises a router, a wireless local area network (WLAN) and/or a network cable for producing the network link. (Landgraf, para 33, 56, 61-62 – The central unit/”control arrangement” uses network communications/link of a WLAN, machine communications using a communications network/”network cable”. The Examiner notes that including the use of common network communication elements such as routers, wireless LANs, or ethernet cable with computer or processor based systems is well known and understood in the art.)
Claim 6
The combination of Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi further teaches the mobile communication device and/or the further mobile communication device are/is configured in the form of a smartphone, a laptop, a notebook and/or a tablet computer. (Landgraf, para 9 - The mobile device can be a smartphone, tablet PC or another device that can be connected wirelessly to a machine.)
Claim 7
The combination of Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kratzer further teaches the control arrangement comprises a chatbot for communication with the application and/or the further application. (Kratzer, para 14-16, 18-21 – A mobile communication device with an application that allows the use of a chatbot to acquire status/sensor data from and perform control of industrial machinery/”machine tool” that allows multiple mobile devices to perform the control.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above industrial machinery control system, as taught by Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Kratzer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to diagnose and correct problems faster by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Kratzer (para 20).
Claim 9
The combination of Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi further teaches the control arrangement is configured to communicate data of the machine tool to the application and/or the further application via the network link. (Landgraf, para 45 – The central unit/”control arrangement” communicates machine tool data to the mobile device application through a communications device/”network link”.)
Claim 12
The combination of Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi further teaches the storage unit and/or the evaluation unit are/is configured in a cloud-based fashion. (Landgraf, para 52, 98 - The central unit/”control arrangement” and database/”storage unit” may be configured in a web server/”cloud based fashion”.)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landgraf et al, US Patent Pub US 20140303755 A1 (hereinafter Landgraf) in view of Kratzer et al, US Patent Pub US 20180129181 A1 (hereinafter Kratzer) in view of Uenishi, US Patent Pub US 20200070295 A1 (hereinafter Uenishi) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 12 above, and in further view of Trepina et al, US Patent Pub US 20100023156 A1 (hereinafter Trepina).
Claim 3
The combination of Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi fails to specify the sensor device comprises at least one camera.
However Trepina teaches the sensor device comprises at least one camera. (Trepina, para 92-93 – A camera used to collect data from an operation of a machine tool system.)
Landgraf, Kratzer, Uenishi, and Trepina are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to industrial machinery control systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above industrial machinery control system, as taught by Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Trepina.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to allow for remote observation and control of a machine tool by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Trepina (para 92-93).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landgraf et al, US Patent Pub US 20140303755 A1 (hereinafter Landgraf) in view of Kratzer et al, US Patent Pub US 20180129181 A1 (hereinafter Kratzer) in view of Uenishi, US Patent Pub US 20200070295 A1 (hereinafter Uenishi) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 12 above, and in further view of Wang et al, US Patent Pub US 20150298318 A1 (hereinafter Wang).
Claim 11
The combination of Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi further teaches the control arrangement comprises a storage unit for storing the data of the sensor device and/or the data of the machine tool. (Landgraf, para 107 - The central unit/”control arrangement” has a database/”storage unit” for storing data from the machine tool and sensors.)
But the combination of Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi fails to specify the control arrangement comprising an evaluation unit for assessing the stored data, and the evaluation unit being configured to communicate a recommendation concerning a further procedure on the basis of the assessment to the application and/or the further application.
However Wang teaches the control arrangement comprising an evaluation unit for assessing the stored data, and the evaluation unit being configured to communicate a recommendation concerning a further procedure on the basis of the assessment to the application and/or the further application. (Wang, para 54, 63-64, claim 9 – A data processing device/”evaluation unit” checks data consistency/assessment to determine if an error may occur and suggest a solution/”communicate a recommendation concerning a further procedure”.)
Landgraf, Kratzer, Uenishi, and Wang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to industrial control systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above industrial control system, as taught by Landgraf, Kratzer, and Uenishi, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Wang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide safe equipment operation by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Wang (Para 52).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10 is/are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s claim defines over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, does not teach the control arrangement comprises a filter configured to recognize specific configurations of the sensor device and to communicate the specific configurations to the application and/or the further application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E OGG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9163. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 7:30 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/DAVID EARL OGG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights