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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 3-5) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims (1, 3-5) are directed to the abstract idea of Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
“A laminated block correctness determining method for determining whether a laminated block to be laminated is a correct laminated block; determining whether the orientation of the laminated block is correct by comparing the orientation identification portion in a registered image with the orientation identification portion in the captured image, the registered image being an image of one end surface of the correct laminated block in the axial direction registered in advance.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional limitations such “determining whether a laminated block to be laminated is a correct laminated block when manufacturing a laminated iron core by laminating cylindrical laminated blocks, each including laminated iron core pieces, wherein orientation identification portions are respectively disposed on opposite end surfaces of each of the laminated blocks in an axial direction, the orientation identification portions being used to identify an orientation of the laminated block; acquiring, with an imaging device, a captured image of the laminated block by capturing one end surface of the laminated block in the axial direction”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite additional limitations which are “determining whether a laminated block to be laminated is a correct laminated block when manufacturing a laminated iron core by laminating cylindrical laminated blocks, each including laminated iron core pieces, wherein orientation identification portions are respectively disposed on opposite end surfaces of each of the laminated blocks in an axial direction, the orientation identification portions being used to identify an orientation of the laminated block; acquiring, with an imaging device, a captured image of the laminated block by capturing one end surface of the laminated block in the axial direction”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims (1, 3-5) that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims (1, 3-5) are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims (1-5) are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (1-3) of copending Application No. 18/4389672 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Instant application
Co-pending application
1.A laminated block correctness determining method for determining whether a laminated block to be laminated is a correct laminated block when manufacturing a laminated iron core by laminating cylindrical laminated blocks, each including laminated iron core pieces, wherein orientation identification portions are respectively disposed on opposite end surfaces of each of the laminated blocks in an axial direction, the orientation identification portions being used to identify an orientation of the laminated block, the laminated block correctness determining method comprising:
acquiring, with an imaging device, a captured image of the laminated block by capturing one end surface of the laminated block in the axial direction;
and determining whether the orientation of the laminated block is correct by comparing the orientation identification portion in a registered image with the orientation identification portion in the captured image, the registered image being an image of one end surface of the correct laminated block in the axial direction registered in advance.
1.A laminated block correctness determining method for determining whether a laminated block to be laminated is a correct laminated block when manufacturing a laminated iron core by laminating cylindrical laminated blocks, each including laminated iron core pieces, wherein the laminated blocks include a laminated block that has a groove formed on an outer circumferential surface of the laminated block and a laminated block that does not have the groove, and the laminated block correctness determining method comprises: detecting presence or absence of the groove in the laminated block, the detecting presence or absence of the groove includes detecting a position of the groove when detecting the groove; and determining whether a laminating order of the laminated blocks is correct from a detection result of the detecting presence or absence of the groove.
2. The laminated block correctness determining method according to claim 1, wherein opposite end surfaces of each of the laminated blocks in an axial direction respectively include line identification portions used to identify a production line of the laminated block, and the laminated block correctness determining method further comprises: acquiring, with an imaging device, a captured image of the laminated block by capturing one end surface of the laminated block in the axial direction; and determining whether the production line of the laminated block is correct by comparing the line identification portion in a registered image with the line identification portion in the captured image, the registered image being an image of one end surface of the correct laminated block in the axial direction registered in advance.
4.The laminated block correctness determining method according to claim 2, wherein orientation identification portions are respectively disposed on the opposite end surfaces of each of the laminated blocks, the orientation identification portions being used to identify an orientation of the laminated block, and the laminated block correctness determining method further comprises: determining whether the orientation of the laminated block is correct by comparing the orientation identification portion in the registered image with the orientation identification portion in the captured image.
The instant application differs from the co-pending application based on the underlined portion. However, the underlined portion is taught in dependent claims (2, 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to incorporate this obvious variation into the instant application, in the manner as claimed and as taught by co-pending application, for the benefit of optimizing the laminated block correctness system. Claims (2-5) have been analyzed and rejected w/r to claims (1-3).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) (1, 3-5) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sameshima et al (hereinafter Sameshima)(US Publication 2019/0089229 A1) in view of Faraci et al. (hereinafter Faraci)(US Publication 2010/0058584 A1)
Re claim 1, Sameshima discloses a laminated block correctness determining method for determining whether a laminated block to be laminated is a correct laminated block when manufacturing a laminated iron core by laminating cylindrical laminated blocks, each including laminated iron core pieces (See fig. 1; ¶ 20-26; abstract where it teaches manufacturing a rotor core; it has a cylindrical shape), wherein orientation identification portions are respectively disposed on opposite end surfaces of each of the laminated blocks in an axial direction, the orientation identification portions being used to identify an orientation of the laminated block (See fig. 1: 12, 16; ¶ 22-26 where it teaches magnet insertion holes that are aligned along the outer periphery of the stack and pass through the stack so as to extend along the central axis Ax.)
But the reference of Sameshima fails to teach the laminated block correctness determining method comprising: acquiring, with an imaging device, a captured image of the laminated block by capturing one end surface of the laminated block in the axial direction; and determining whether the orientation of the laminated block is correct by comparing the orientation identification portion in a registered image with the orientation identification portion in the captured image, the registered image being an image of one end surface of the correct laminated block in the axial direction registered in advance.
However, Faraci does. (See fig. 3-5; claims 1, 5, 8; abstract) In the same field of endeavors, the reference of Faraci discloses a system for manufacturing laminated structures wherein acquiring, with an imaging device, a captured image of the laminated block by capturing one end surface of the laminated block in the axial direction (See claim 1, 5, 8 where it teaches imaging laminate elements.); and determining whether the orientation of the laminated block is correct by comparing the orientation identification portion in a registered image with the orientation identification portion in the captured image, the registered image being an image of one end surface of the correct laminated block in the axial direction registered in advance. (See claims 1, 5, 8; abstract where it teaches a registration system for assembling a plurality of laminate elements in selected stack orientation, wherein a matching is performed between a first reference orientation data set and selected stack orientation.)
Therefore, taking the combined teachings of Sameshima & Faraci as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to incorporate this feature into the system of Sameshima, in the manner as claimed and as taught by Faraci, for the benefit of achieving alignement. (See abstract)
Re claim 3, the combination of Sameshima & Faraci discloses wherein the laminated blocks include a laminated block that has a groove formed on an outer circumferential surface of the laminated block and a laminated block that does not have the groove, and the laminated block correctness determining method further comprises: detecting presence or absence of the groove in the laminated block, the detecting presence or absence of the groove including detecting a position of the groove when detecting the groove; and determining whether a laminating order of the laminated blocks is correct from a detection result of the detecting presence or absence of the groove. (In Sameshima, see fig. 1, 3, 10A-B; ¶ 77)
Re claim 4, the combination of Sameshima & Faraci discloses wherein the opposite end surfaces of each of the laminated blocks respectively include line identification portions used to identify a production line of the laminated block, and the laminated block correctness determining method further comprises: determining whether the production line of the laminated block is correct by comparing the line identification portion in the registered image with the line identification portion in the captured image. (In Faraci, see fig. 3-5; claims 1, 5, 8; abstract)
Re claim 5, the combination of Sameshima & Faraci discloses wherein the opposite end surfaces of each of the laminated blocks respectively include type identification portions used to identify a type of the laminated block, and the laminated block correctness determining method further comprises: determining whether the type of the laminated block is correct by comparing the type identification portion in the registered image with the type identification portion in the captured image. (In Faraci, see fig. 3-5; claims 1, 5, 8; abstract)
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON FLORES whose telephone number is (571)270-1201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 6pm.
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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/LEON FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676 February 10, 2026