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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/02/2024 and 07/02/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Preliminary Remarks
The amendment filed on 07/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 have been amended, claims 16-41were previously canceled, and no new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-15 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
The objection of claims 1-15 is hereby withdrawn as applicant has amended the claims to overcome the objection of said claims in the Office Action mailed on 04/02/2026.
Specification
The abstract of the instant application has been modified by applicant to reduce the content to 150 words or less to correct the improper formatting and content cited in the previously mailed Office Action.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite or teach obtaining data, comparing data and using data for identifying faulty equipment which can be a mental step of observing and evaluating, and monitoring operational parameters outside an acceptable range (for claims 1-2, and 4).
The limitation of “obtaining one or more data sets of monitored operational parameters” in claim 1 and “use of an algorithm or model” in claims 1 and 15, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Additionally, in the context of claims 1-2, 4, and 15, encompass a mental step of observing and evaluating and an algorithm (a mathematical calculation—also an abstract idea) by the user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) of the instant application recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because the claim only recites one additional element–using an algorithm or model, and nothing beyond this step, that is, no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an algorithm or model to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102008031379A1-Schmitt (all citations are made to the English machine translation, hereinafter “Schmitt), and further in view of DE4206584A1-Wagner et al. (all citations are made to the machine English translation, hereinafter “Wagner”).
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE102008031379A1-Schmitt (all citations are made to the English machine translation, hereinafter “Schmitt).
Regarding claim 1, Schmitt discloses a method of detecting faulty sample cartridges (elates to a method and a device for welding a closure device onto the spout of a container using ultrasound, para. [0001]; any major defects on the edge of the canister are detected and the canister is treated as reject, para. [0009], lines 6-7; this ensures that the containers that have successfully passed the welding process and subsequent inspection can be delivered, para. [0014], lines 7-8), the method comprising: obtaining one or more data sets of monitored operational parameters during a manufacturing process of a sample cartridge (the distance traveled by the sonotrode during the welding process is recorded using a displacement measuring system and compared with specified target values. The starting position of the sonotrode or ultrasonic welder is recorded before the welding process, and the final position is measured after the specified welding time has elapsed. The waypoint for activating the welding device is set to zero as the starting point, para. [0012]; the result of the comparison is usually that the sonotrode has traveled a distance within a defined upper and lower limit during the welding process and has therefore complied with a tolerance value, and the weld can be considered successful and tight within the specified parameters, para. [0013]; and the device includes measuring elements and evaluation and control electronics to carry out the welding process in a defined manner and to check the result in relation to the welding path, para. [0021], lines 1-3), wherein the operational parameters are associated with operation of manufacturing equipment performing the manufacturing process;
Schmitt discloses: and identifying a faulty sample cartridge based on a variance of the one or more data sets of the monitored operational parameters from the baseline data set (the container can be appropriately marked in a suitable form of procedure, whereby the recorded distance of the welding process is linked with further information, for example the time of the welding process and the specified welding parameters, and printed on the container. This allows for automated and reliable recording that the container marked in this way has been correctly welded to the closure device after completion of the welding process. This ensures that the containers that have successfully passed the welding process and subsequent inspection can be delivered. Any defects in the weld that may be detected later cannot be attributed to the welding process itself, but must have arisen during the subsequent transport or use of the containers, para. [0014], lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 1, Schmitt teaches the invention discussed above. Further, Schmitt teaches the container can be appropriately marked in a suitable form of procedure, whereby the recorded distance of the welding process is linked with further information, for example the time of the welding process and the specified welding parameters, and printed on the container. This allows for automated and reliable recording that the container marked in this way has been correctly welded to the closure device after completion of the welding process. This ensures that the containers that have successfully passed the welding process and subsequent inspection can be delivered. Any defects in the weld that may be detected later cannot be attributed to the welding process itself, but must have arisen during the subsequent transport or use of the containers, (para. [0014], lines 1-10).
Schmitt does not explicitly teach use of an algorithm or model.
However, Wagner teaches an analogous art of device for machining a component or joining two components using ultrasound, with an ultrasound generator and an ultrasound system, wherein the ultrasound system comprises an ultrasonic welding device with a converter and a sonotrode (abstract) and Wagner teaches a personal computer (PC, para. [0011]), which reads on the instant claim limitation of an algorithm or model. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Schmitt to further include a computer to for use of an algorithm or model, because Wagner teaches the PC allow for the data to be compared with target values, in case of a deviation, corresponding control signals can be output to the ultrasound generator and the data can be stored for the comparison of other data or measurements (para. [0011]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Schmitt teaches identifying a faulty sample cartridge is based on the monitored operational parameters being outside a range of acceptable operational values of the parameter associated with approved sample cartridges ((the container can be appropriately marked in a suitable form of procedure, whereby the recorded distance of the welding process is linked with further information, for example the time of the welding process and the specified welding parameters, and printed on the container; automated and reliable recording that the container marked in this way has been correctly welded to the closure device after completion of the welding process. This ensures that the containers that have successfully passed the welding process and subsequent inspection can be delivered. Any defects in the weld that may be detected later cannot be attributed to the welding process itself, but must have arisen during the subsequent transport or use of the containers, para. [0014], lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 3, modified Schmitt teaches the range of acceptable values varies with respect to time during the manufacturing process (the most favorable setting ranges for welding parameters such as contact pressure, amplitude of the ultrasonic waves and welding time for each welding process are determined through elaborate welding tests, para. [0003], lines 6-8; he container can be appropriately marked in a suitable form of procedure, whereby the recorded distance of the welding process is linked with further information, for example the time of the welding process and the specified welding parameters, para. [0014], lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, modified Schmitt teaches identifying a faulty sample cartridge is based on the monitored operational parameters diverging from a characteristic profile of the operational parameters associated with approved sample cartridges (any major defects on the edge of the canister are detected and the canister is treated as reject, para. [0009], lines 6-7; the most favorable setting ranges for welding parameters such as contact pressure, amplitude of the ultrasonic waves and welding time for each welding process are determined through elaborate welding tests, para. [0003], lines 6-8; the container can be appropriately marked in a suitable form of procedure, whereby the recorded distance of the welding process is linked with further information, for example the time of the welding process and the specified welding parameters, and printed on the container, para. [0014], lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 5, modified Schmitt teaches the manufacturing process is welding of cartridge components by a welder that engages forcibly against the cartridge components and applies ultrasonic energy to form a weld that seals the components together (the device includes measuring elements and evaluation and control electronics to carry out the welding process in a defined manner and to check the result in relation to the welding path; these components should also be designed to be usable in an explosive atmosphere, para. [0021]; the inventive method for welding a closure device onto the spout of a container using ultrasound is implemented here by an advantageous device which is formed on the one hand from the device for fixing the spout and on the other hand from the ultrasonic welder, para. [0018], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, modified Schmitt teaches the manufacturing process is welding of a lid apparatus to a cartridge body to form a weld that seals the lid apparatus to the cartridge body (a method for welding a closure device onto the spout of a container using ultrasound, para. [0009], lines 1-2; a canister filled with methanol is to be welded shut with a sealing device, para. [0016], line 4).
Regarding claim 7, Schmitt teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. Further, Schmitt teaches the operational parameters comprise any two or more of: power, travel, distance, force, amplitude, and frequency, or any combination thereof (to check the welding result, the distance traveled by the sonotrode during the welding process is recorded using a displacement measuring system and compared with specified target values, para. [0012], lines 1-3).
Schmitt does not explicitly teach the operational parameters comprise frequency.
However, Wagner teaches an analogous art of device for machining a component or joining two components using ultrasound, with an ultrasound generator and an ultrasound system, wherein the ultrasound system comprises an ultrasonic welding device with a converter and a sonotrode (abstract) and Wagner teaches an operational parameter comprising frequency and amplitude (para. [0017]), which reads on the instant claim limitation of frequency as an operational parameter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Schmitt and further include frequency as an operational parameter, because Wagner teaches a number of parameters can be changed simultaneously or sequentially, which all for the welding energy, welding time, holding time, welding path, contact force, feed rate, amplitude, frequency, start or end of sound emission, etc. are regulated (para. [0016] and Wagner teaches amplitude and frequency can be adjusted which prevents damage to the material components to be joined or the component to be processed, as well as damage to the sontrode itself (para. [0021]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Schmitt teaches the operational parameters comprise power supplied to the welder during welding (the device includes measuring elements and evaluation and control electronics to carry out the welding process in a defined manner and to check the result in relation to the welding path, para. [0021], lines 1-3; only the equipment and electrical operating resources required for the execution of the process need to be selected. Para. [0017], lines 3-4; that is, the energy used for the device from electricity can generate the rate of the energy transferred or used; also, Schmitt discloses a motor-driven gear, para. [0028], line 3).
Regarding claim 9, modified Schmitt teaches the operational parameters comprise a travel distance of the welder during welding (the distance traveled by the sonotrode during the welding process is recorded using a displacement measuring system and compared with specified target values, para. [0012], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, modified Schmitt teaches the operational parameters comprise a force applied by the welder during welding (the ultrasonic welding device is applied under defined pressure, para. [0010], line 1; the contact pressure used, the amplitude of the ultrasonic waves and the time of the welding process are determined in advance, para. [0010], lines 4-5; further, Schmitt discloses the screwing process is carried out with a set torque, para. [0009], line 5).
Regarding claim 11, modified Schmitt teaches the operational parameters comprise an amplitude of ultrasound applied during welding (the contact pressure used, the amplitude of the ultrasonic waves and the time of the welding process are determined in advance, para. [0010], lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 12, modified Schmitt teaches the operational parameters comprise a frequency of ultrasound applied during welding (a high-frequency generator to produce the ultrasonic frequency is required, para. [0003], line 1; also, Schmitt discloses a motor-driven gear, para. [0028], line 3).
Regarding claim 13, modified Schmitt teaches wherein the manufacturing process is heat sealing of the cartridge lid by a heat-sealing mechanism that presses a film across the lid and applies heat thereby heat sealing the film atop the lid (it is known to use ultrasonic welding for joining plastics, whereby the heat required for the welding process, para. [0002], lines 1-2; a method for welding a closure device onto the spout of a container using ultrasound, para. [0009], lines 1-2; a canister filled with methanol is to be welded shut with a sealing device, para. [0016], line 4).
Regarding claim 14, modified Schmitt teaches wherein identifying faulty cartridges comprises automatically identifying faulty cartridges based on the one or more data sets obtained from an automated control unit controlling operation of the manufacturing equipment, and the method further comprises automatically discarding any faulty cartridge identified (any major defects on the edge of the canister are detected and the canister is treated as reject, para. [0009], lines 6-7; following this inspection, the container can be appropriately marked in a suitable form of procedure, whereby the recorded distance of the welding process is linked with further information, for example the time of the welding process and the specified welding parameters, and printed on the container. This allows for automated and reliable recording that the container marked in this way has been correctly welded to the closure device after completion of the welding process, para. [0014], lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 15, Schmitt teaches the invention discussed above in claim 1. Further, Schmitt teaches 0009], lines 6-7; following this inspection, the container can be appropriately marked in a suitable form of procedure, whereby the recorded distance of the welding process is linked with further information, for example the time of the welding process and the specified welding parameters, and printed on the container. This allows for automated and reliable recording that the container marked in this way has been correctly welded to the closure device after completion of the welding process, para. [0014], lines 1-6; further, this ensures that the containers that have successfully passed the welding process and subsequent inspection can be delivered, para. [0014], lines 7-8).
Schmitt does not explicitly teach an algorithm developed from a supervised model.
However, Wagner teaches an analogous art of device for machining a component or joining two components using ultrasound, with an ultrasound generator and an ultrasound system, wherein the ultrasound system comprises an ultrasonic welding device with a converter and a sonotrode (abstract) and Wagner teaches a personal computer (PC, para. [0011]), which reads on the instant claim limitation of an algorithm or model. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Schmitt to further include a computer to for use of an algorithm or model, because Wagner teaches the PC allow for the data to be compared with target values, in case of a deviation, corresponding control signals can be output to the ultrasound generator and the data can be stored for the comparison of other data or measurements (para. [0011]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. More specifically, the current rejection above pertains to new reference(s) relied upon to address the newly amended claim limitations; the arguments filed rely on the reference or combination of references not currently being used in the present Office Action.
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 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 LENORA A. ABEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8270. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/LENORA A ABEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights