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 .
This action is responsive to the communications filed 3/13/2024. As per the claims filed 2/1/2024:
Claims 16-35 are pending.
Claim(s) 16, 32-35 is/are independent claim(s).
Note Regarding Prior Art
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Note Regarding AIA Status
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 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.
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 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In summary, claim 36 recites a “Computer programme product” for carrying on the steps of the method of claim 35. The computer programme product fails to claim any structure or hardware. Accordingly, the recited computer program product is software per se and is not a “process”, a “machine”, a “manufacture”, or a “composition of matter” as defined in 35 USC 101. Accordingly, claims 36 failed to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 34 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.
Claim 34 reads: “A sheet metal processing means for processing sheet metal including an RFID transponder connected therewith, to be used in conjunction with a device as claimed in claim 16 or in a system for processing sheet metal, including: the device; a sheet metal processing machine having a machine system; a sheet metal processing means having an RFID transponder connected therewith; and an RFID reader for reading out the RFID transponder when the sheet metal processing means is located at a sheet metal processing station in the sheet metal processing machine”
Firstly, it is unclear how if the claim language reads “to be used in conjunction with a device as claimed in claim 16 or in a system” the claim goes on to claim the system including “the device” at this point of the claim “the device” has no link whatsoever to the previous claims.
Secondly, it is unclear whether “a sheet metal processing means having an RFID transponder connected therewith” refers to the sheet metal processing means in the preamble or if it refers to a different sheet metal processing means.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the claim to be building upon the device of claim 16.
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: “an RFID unit for receiving”, “an evaluation unit for” in claim 16.
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 § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-17, 22-23, 29, 32, 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clemens Megerle et al (US PG Pub No. US 2020/0070305; Published: 03/05/2020)(hereinafter: Megerle).
Claim 16:
As per independent claim 16, Megerle discloses a device for recognising a sheet metal processing means in a sheet metal processing machine, including:
an RFID unit for receiving a read signal of an RFID reader with information relating to an RFID transponder affixed on a sheet metal processing means at a sheet metal processing station in said sheet metal processing machine [[0030] the detector 10 emits RFID query signals R1 which are received by the transponder device 9 which uses them to create and output RFID response signals R2.]
an evaluation unit for determining sheet metal processing means data with information on the sheet metal processing means based on said read signal [[0037] the detector 10 puts out a detection signal S1 to the controller device 6, which in turn correspondingly triggers the drive 5 for the grinding cylinder 3. The user can check the data stored on the RFID chip 22 at any time via the input and output device 7. Moreover, the controller device 6 can also put out warning signals S2 to the input and output device 7 if the settings stored on the RFID chip 22 do not match the working parameters set via the controller device 6 such as pressure force F, belt velocity v etc., or if, generally, a non-matching endless abrasive belt 8 is in use.] and
a machine interface for controlling a machine system of the sheet metal processing machine based on the sheet metal processing means data [[0037] [0038] In a further development it is possible via the detector 10 to write onto the RFID chip 22, using an appropriate RFID chip 22 and an active writing detector 10. Hereby, it is possible, in particular, to store data relating to wear, e.g. the time of operation and/or distance of operation, and/or an evaluation index created e.g. from the time of operation and a pressure force and evaluating the previous wear. [0039] Furthermore, it is also possible to store data relating to wear, e.g. the time of operation and/or distance of operation, together with an identification number of the endless abrasive belt 8, in the machine tool 1, e.g. a memory 6a, provided internally or externally of the controller device 6, whereby the memory 6a may also be combined with the input and output device 7.].
Claim 17:
As per claim 17, which depends on claim 16, Megerle discloses wherein the evaluation unit is designed for determining a type of the sheet metal processing means, a sheet metal processing station at which said sheet metal processing means is located, a graining of the sheet metal processing means, a predefined possible area of application of the sheet metal processing means, wear information on a wear status of the sheet metal processing means and/or on an accumulated operating time of the sheet metal processing means; and/or determining an individual parameter of the sheet metal processing means that has been acquired in the course of a previously performed measurement operation[ [0018] data related to wear, preferably time of operation and/or distance of operation and/or an evaluation index depending upon wear, formed e.g. as a function of the previous time of operation and the pressure force during such time of operation, may also be written into the transponder].
Claim 22:
As per claim 22, which depends on claim 16, Megerle discloses wherein the evaluation unit is designed for recognising whether the sheet metal processing means is a previously unknown sheet metal processing means; and the machine interface is designed for initiating a wear measurement if the sheet metal processing means is a previously unknown sheet metal processing means [[0038] In a further development it is possible via the detector 10 to write onto the RFID chip 22, using an appropriate RFID chip 22 and an active writing detector 10. Hereby, it is possible, in particular, to store data relating to wear, e.g. the time of operation and/or distance of operation, and/or an evaluation index created e.g. from the time of operation and a pressure force and evaluating the previous wear.]. Data relating wear is stored and aggregated. It is implicit that a previously unused sheet metal processing means is recognized and wear measurement is initiated.
Claim 23:
As per claim 23, which depends on claim 16, Megerle discloses wherein the RFID unit is designed for controlling the RFID reader to trigger an RFID read operation when a machine operator indicates consent via a machine operator interface of the sheet metal processing machine and/or when an opening/closing of an access door to the sheet metal processing station is detected; and/or is designed for transmitting a write signal to the RFID reader in order to store a wear information of the sheet metal processing means, on the RFID transponder. [[0039] Furthermore, it is also possible to store data relating to wear, e.g. the time of operation and/or distance of operation, together with an identification number of the endless abrasive belt 8, in the machine tool 1, e.g. a memory 6a, provided internally or externally of the controller device 6, whereby the memory 6a may also be combined with the input and output device 7].
Claim 29:
As per claim 29, which depends on claim 16, Megerle discloses wherein the evaluation unit is designed for determining a number of sheet metal processing means at the sheet metal processing station [[0020] in particular, a writable memory of the machine tool, whereby, in this case, e.g. data sets with individual identification numbers of the endless abrasive belts can be created. Thus, it is possible to insert different endless belts, even for short times of operation, and reused later appropriately so as to utilize the endless belt in an optimum manner.] and for comparing the determined number to a previously known target number.
Claim 32:
As per independent claim 32, Megerle discloses a system for processing sheet metal, including: a device as claimed in claim 16 (see claim 16 above);
a sheet metal processing machine having a machine system; a sheet metal processing means having an RFID transponder connected therewith [[0030] FIG. 1 shows a sanding machine 1 when processing a work piece 2, which may be e.g. a metal pipe or metal section sein and is conveyed in a transport direction t... . To that end, the detector 10 emits RFID query signals R1 which are received by the transponder device 9 which uses them to create and output RFID response signals R2.] and an RFID reader for reading out the RFID transponder when the sheet metal processing means is located at a sheet metal processing station in the sheet metal processing machine [[0030] To that end, the detector 10 emits RFID query signals R1 which are received by the transponder device 9 which uses them to create and output RFID response signals R2.]
Claim 34:
As per independent claim 34, Megerle discloses a sheet metal processing means for processing sheet metal including an RFID transponder connected therewith, to be used in conjunction with a device as claimed in claim 16 (see claim 16 above);
in a system for processing sheet metal, including: the device; a sheet metal processing machine having a machine system; a sheet metal processing means having an RFID transponder connected therewith [[0030] FIG. 1 shows a sanding machine 1 when processing a work piece 2, which may be e.g. a metal pipe or metal section sein and is conveyed in a transport direction t... . To that end, the detector 10 emits RFID query signals R1 which are received by the transponder device 9 which uses them to create and output RFID response signals R2.] and an RFID reader for reading out the RFID transponder when the sheet metal processing means is located at a sheet metal processing station in the sheet metal processing machine. [[0030] To that end, the detector 10 emits RFID query signals R1 which are received by the transponder device 9 which uses them to create and output RFID response signals R2.]
Claim 35:
As per independent claim 35, it recites a method for recognising a sheet metal processing means in the sheet metal processing machine of claim 16, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 16 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 18-21, 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Megerle in view of Nicola Gallo et al (US PG Pub No.2021/0347002; Published: 11/11/2021)(hereinafter: Gallo).
Claim 18:
As per claim 18, which depends on claim 16, Megerle discloses storing data related to wear but failed to specifically disclose including a database connection to a database with information on sheet metal processing means, wherein the evaluation unit is designed for determining sheet metal processing means data based on a database query from the database, taking into account the read signal; and/or the evaluation unit is designed for storing sheet metal processing means data in the database.
Gallo, in the same field of monitoring usage of tools discloses this limitation in [[0082] As shown in FIG. 4, the tool management center 2 comprises: an electronic communication interface 18 configured to communicate with electronic communication interfaces 12 of electronic monitoring devices 8 to receive therefrom data indicative of either the residual service lives or exhaustion of service lives of the associated tools 5, as well as with electronic communication interfaces, described later, of the tool collection and dispensing stations 3 to receive wear data therefrom; a tool database TDB, which may be stored in a dedicated electronic storage unit or in storage resources that are part of other business technologies, such as ICT, PLM or ERP; and an electronic data processing unit 19, conveniently in the form of a server, configured to communicate with the electronic communication interface 18 to receive data received thereby and to access the tool database TDB, and to communicate with the tool collection and dispensing stations 3 to manage collection and dispensing of the tools 5 and the associated driving apparatuses 7 by the tool collection and dispensing stations 3 based on the received data and on data stored in the tool database TDB.] sheet metal processing means stored in the database.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sheet metal means of Megerle to include a database connection to a database with information on sheet metal processing means, such that the evaluation unit is designed for determining sheet metal processing means data based on a database query from the database, the evaluation unit is designed for storing sheet metal processing means data in the database as disclosed by Gallo. The motivation for doing so would have been to take advantage of machine-to-machine and cloud computing for the centralization of information and its storage (0007).
Claim 19:
As per claim 19, which depends on claim 16, Megerle discloses wherein the evaluation unit is designed for determining wear information related to a wear status of the sheet metal processing means[[0038] In a further development it is possible via the detector 10 to write onto the RFID chip 22, using an appropriate RFID chip 22 and an active writing detector 10. Hereby, it is possible, in particular, to store data relating to wear, e.g. the time of operation and/or distance of operation, and/or an evaluation index created e.g. from the time of operation and a pressure force and evaluating the previous wear.]
Megerle failed to specifically disclose the evaluation unit is designed for comparing the wear information with a predefined maximum wear.
Gallo, in the same field of monitoring usage of tools discloses this limitation in [[0043] additional data may be stored or encoded in the tag 6, depending on whether the tag 6 is in the form of an RFID or of a barcode, respectively, which additional data is indicative of the tool 5 and/or its service or useful life (durability) and may conveniently be expressed in terms of maximum limits of usage of the tool 5. Conveniently, the maximum limits of usage of the tool 5 may in turn be expressed in terms of maximum wear of the tool 5, of the maximum number of mechanical machining operations for which the tool 5 may be used, and/or the maximum time for which the tool 5 may be used to perform mechanical machining operations, or any other suitable quantities representing the maximum allowable usage of the tool 5].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wear storage means of Megerle to compare the wear information with a predefined maximum wear as disclosed by Gallo. The motivation for doing so would have been to implement an intelligent tool management that enables compliance with expected quality and safety standards (0032).
Claim 20:
As per claim 20, which depends on claim 19, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 19 above. Additionally, Megerle and Gallo disclose, wherein the machine interface is designed for blocking a processing procedure when the maximum wear has been reached. Gallo, [[0072 the tool 5 can no longer be used to perform subsequent mechanical machining operations, carry out one or more different interventions intended to cause the mechanical machining cycle in progress to be interrupted due to the exceeding of one or more of the stored maximum usage limits, and in particular: notify the operator, via the electronic display and/or light indicator and/or audible warning device of the operator interface 17]].
Claim 21:
As per claim 21, which depends on claim 19, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 19 above. Additionally, Megerle and Gallo disclose, wherein the evaluation unit is designed for determining wear information related to an accumulated operating time of the sheet metal processing means. Gallo, [[0039]it is also possible to store data relating to wear, e.g. the time of operation and/or distance of operation, together with an identification number of the endless abrasive belt 8, in the machine tool 1, e.g. a memory 6a, provided internally or externally of the controller device 6, whereby the memory 6a may also be combined with the input and output device 7.]
Claim 30:
As per claim 30, which depends on claim 29, Megerle failed to specifically disclose wherein the machine interface is designed for controlling the machine system so as to block a processing procedure and/or for controlling a display unit of the sheet metal processing machine in order to issue information on the determined number and the target number if the determined number and the target number do not coincide
Gallo, in the same field of monitoring usage of tools discloses this limitation in [[0072] , provide the operator with information on the residual service life of the tool 5 via the electronic display and/or the light indicators and/or the audible warning device of the operator interface 17; and if instead the service life of the tool 5 is determined to be exhausted and, hence, the tool 5 can no longer be used to perform subsequent mechanical machining operations, carry out one or more different interventions intended to cause the mechanical machining cycle in progress to be interrupted due to the exceeding of one or more of the stored maximum usage limits, and in particular: notify the operator, via the electronic display and/or light indicator and/or audible warning device of the operator interface 17, of a need to immediately interrupt use the tool 5].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Megerle to control the machine system so as to block a processing procedure as disclosed by Gallo. The motivation for doing so would have been to implement an intelligent tool management that enables compliance with expected quality and safety standards (0032).
Claim 31:
As per claim 31, which depends on claim 16, Megerle failed to disclose the limitations of claim 31.
Gallo, in the same field of monitoring usage of tools discloses wherein the machine interface is designed for receiving processing data from the sheet metal processing machine containing information on a performed sheet metal processing operation, Gallo, [[0060] The operator interface 17 may conveniently comprise one or more of: an electronic display, for example a liquid crystal display, to display a variety of information useful to the operator, for example information relating to the operation of the electronic monitoring device 8, the wear of the tool 5, and, if applicable, the interventions to be carried out on the tool 5 and the associated driving apparatus 7;] and the evaluation unit is designed for determining the sheet metal processing means data based on these processing data. Gallo, [[0089] an electronic operator interface 20 through which operators can submit requests for tools 5 to perform mechanical machining operations, possibly in conjunction with the associated driving apparatuses 7; a electronic communication interface 21 to communicate with the communication electronic interface 18 of the tool management center 2 and possibly with the communication electronic interfaces 12 of the electronic monitoring devices 8].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the operator interaction means of Megerle to include an interface for receiving processing data from the sheet metal processing machine containing information on a performed sheet metal processing operation and for determining the sheet metal processing means data based on these processing data as disclosed by Gallo. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow an operator to interact with the electronic monitoring device(0059).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Megerle in view of Makoto Sugiyama (US PG Pub No.2011/0298592; Published:12/08/2011)(hereinafter: Sugiyama).
Claim 24:
As per claim 24, which depends on claim 23, Megerle failed to specifically disclose wherein the RFID unit is designed for controlling the RFID reader to trigger an RFID read operation when a machine operator indicates consent via a machine operator interface of the sheet metal processing machine and/or when an opening/closing of an access door to the sheet metal processing station is detected based on a sensor signal of a sensor of the sheet metal processing machine.
Sugiyama in the same field of RFID apparatuses discloses this limitation in that [[0016]The communication interface 204 is configured to be connected to a plurality of external devices. An operator may manipulate operations of the RFID tag reader/writer 200 through the manipulation panel 203 or a host device (not shown) that is connected to the communication interface 204.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify RFID unit of Megerle to trigger an RFID read operation when a machine operator indicates consent via a machine operator interface of the sheet metal processing machine as disclosed by Sugiyama. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase safety by including an operator consent.
Claim(s) 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Megerle in view of John W. Wirtz et al. (US PG Pub No.2021/0031261; Published:02/04/2021)(hereinafter: Wirtz).
Claim 25:
As per claim 25, which depends on claim 16, Megerle discloses interrupting the machine from processing when the sheet metal processing means loaded in the machine is past a wear point (0019) failed to specifically. Megerle failed to specifically disclose wherein the machine interface is designed for receiving, from the machine system, an indication concerning a sheet metal processing means loaded into said machine system; the evaluation unit is designed for determining whether the sheet metal processing means corresponds to the sheet metal processing means currently loaded in the machine system; and the machine interface is designed for controlling the machine system so as to block a processing procedure when the sheet metal processing means does not correspond to the sheet metal processing means that is currently loaded in the machine system.
Wirtz, in the same field of machining discloses these limitations in that [[claim 16] at least one machine downstream of the pasteing machine is configured to use a variety of different tools and the tag of the orifice plate includes predetermined data which is read and used to determine whether the tool installed in the installed downstream machine is the correct tool for use with the orifice plate and if not inhibits operation of the pasteing machine and the downstream machine and/or provides an audible or visual indication to a person that the wrong tool has been installed in the downstream machine.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify RFID unit of Megerle to determine whether the sheet metal processing means corresponds to the sheet metal processing means currently loaded in the machine system; and the machine interface is designed for controlling the machine system so as to block a processing procedure when the sheet metal processing means does not correspond to the sheet metal processing means that is currently loaded in the machine system as disclosed by Wirtz. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce chances in production loss in some instances damages the machine or production line(0003).
Claim 26:
As per claim 26, which depends on claim 25, Megerle and Wirtz disclose wherein the sheet metal processing means loaded into the machine system corresponds to a sheet metal processing means present at an earlier point in time in the sheet metal processing machine. Megerle, [[0020] current data storage may also happen in the machine tool—in particular, a writable memory of the machine tool, whereby, in this case, e.g. data sets with individual identification numbers of the endless abrasive belts can be created. Thus, it is possible to insert different endless belts, even for short times of operation, and reused later appropriately so as to utilize the endless belt in an optimum manner.] Data about previously used sheet metal processing means is stored in order to track wear.
Claim 27:
As per claim 27, which depends on claim 25, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 25 above. Additionally, Megerle and Wirtz disclose, wherein the machine interface is designed for controlling a display unit of the sheet metal processing machine in order to provide the machine operator with information displayed thereon relating to the currently installed sheet metal processing means and to the sheet metal processing means loaded in the machine system whenever said sheet metal processing means does not correspond to the sheet metal processing means that is loaded in the machine system. [[claim 16] at least one machine downstream of the pasteing machine is configured to use a variety of different tools and the tag of the orifice plate includes predetermined data which is read and used to determine whether the tool installed in the installed downstream machine is the correct tool for use with the orifice plate and if not inhibits operation of the pasteing machine and the downstream machine and/or provides an audible or visual indication to a person that the wrong tool has been installed in the downstream machine.]. Visual indication is displayed to the user.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Megerle and Wirtz further in view of Hiroshi Itoh et al. (US PG Pub No.2007/0050079; Published:08/25/2006)(hereinafter: Itoh).
Claim 28:
As per claim 28, which depends on claim 25, Megerle and Wirtz failed to specifically disclose wherein the machine interface is designed for receiving a confirmation by the machine operator to the effect that the sheet metal processing means loaded in the machine system has been replaced by the actually mounted sheet metal processing means [[0048] when the tool K is manually exchanged, movement of the tool is stopped by performing feed hold during automatic machining. Thus, it is possible to prompt the operator to confirm tool exchange, thereby preventing tool exchange error from occurring.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the machine interface of Megerle and Wirtz receive a confirmation by the machine operator to the effect that the sheet metal processing means loaded in the machine system has been replaced by the actually mounted sheet metal processing means as disclosed by Itoh. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce chances of error, thus increasing productivity and savings.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Megerle in view of Barton C. Phinney et al (US PG Pub No. 2019/0065629; Published: 02/28/2019)(hereinafter: Phinney).
Claim 33:
As per claim 33, which depends on claim 32, Megerle failed to specifically disclose the limitations of claim 33.
Phinney, in the same field of product manufacturing discloses wherein the machine system comprises a sheet metal processing means selector unit for determining a suggestion for a sheet metal processing means to be used based on a specification for the processing procedure to be carried out [[0032] The type of suggestions/feedback generated by the insight server 120 may be different based on the manufacturing process (e.g., plastic, metal, casting, assembly, etc.) Different materials, processes, machines, geometry features, and the like, may be changed to affect complexity.].
the machine interface is designed for transmitting the sheet metal processing means data to the sheet metal processing means selector unit [[0051] data implicitly transmitted to manufacturing process] and the sheet metal processing means selector unit is designed for determining the suggestion based on the sheet metal processing means data [[0040] FIG. 4 illustrates a user interface 400 displaying manufacturing attributes of a component in accordance with an example embodiment, and FIG. 5 illustrates a user interface 500 displaying suggested corrections or other modifications for designing a component, see [0052]].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify RFID unit of Megerle to include a sheet metal processing means selector unit for determining a suggestion for a sheet metal processing means to be used based on a specification for the processing procedure to be carried out the machine interface is designed for transmitting the sheet metal processing means data to the sheet metal processing means selector unit and the sheet metal processing means selector unit is designed for determining the suggestion based on the sheet metal processing means data as disclosed by Phinney. The motivation for doing so would have been to include the suggestions that may be determined to reduce manufacturing cost, increase manufacturing efficiency, reduce manufacturing time (0046).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Megerle.
With respect to claim 35, Megerle, as applied to claim 16, does not disclose programme code for carrying out the steps of the method as claimed in claim 35, the programme code is being executed on a computer. However, such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD CORTES whose telephone number is (571)270-1383. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott T Baderman can be reached on (571)272-3644. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOWARD CORTES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118