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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental steps/mathematical concepts involving “performing a comparison between the current values of the detected operating parameters and respective predetermined reference values; in a presence, among said operating parameters, of at least one anomalous operating parameter whose current value does not comply with the respective predetermined reference values, identifying, from among a plurality of possible malfunctioning causes of the line, at least one current malfunctioning cause responsible for said at least one anomalous operating parameter; wherein said at least one current malfunctioning cause is identified starting from said at least one anomalous operating parameter by means of decision algorithms based on at least one of the following information: known and/or self-learned data related to correlations between said at least one anomalous operating parameter and said plurality of possible malfunctioning causes of the line; current and/or historical information manually provided by an operator in association with said at least one anomalous operating parameter and/or said plurality of possible malfunctioning causes of the line; known and/or self-learned logical rules; and wherein, by means of said decision algorithms, a prediction of the defects is made starting from said at least one current malfunctioning cause identified and based on at least one of the following information: known and/or self-learned data related to correlations between said at least one current malfunctioning cause identified and at least one known possible defect; current and/or historical information manually provided by an operator in association with said at least one current malfunctioning cause identified and/or with said at least one known possible defect; known and/or self-learned logical rules, a step of defining, by means of said decision algorithms, a corrective action to be taken to remedy said at least one current malfunctioning cause identified and said predicted defects; the corrective action to be taken relating to one or more of the production devices and/or to one or more of accessory devices of the production line, which are involved in said current malfunctioning cause identified, a step of detecting further defects by processing said acquired images, in addition to said prediction of the defects, the defects predicted by means of said decision algorithms relate to at least one of: tightness of a seal, tightness of a gluing, distribution or quantity of material and degree of absorbency, a step of detecting any further defects by processing said article data, in addition to said prediction of any defects, perform a comparison between the current values of the operating parameters detected by the sensors and respective predetermined reference values stored in said memory and, in a presence among said operating parameters of at least one anomalous operating parameter whose current value does not comply with the respective predetermined reference value, to identify, among a plurality of possible malfunctioning causes of the line, at least one current malfunctioning cause responsible for said at least one anomalous operating parameter; identify said at least one current malfunctioning cause starting from said at least one anomalous operating parameter by means of decision algorithms based on at least one of the following information stored in said memory: known and/or self-learned data related to correlations between said at least one anomalous operating parameter and said plurality of possible malfunctioning causes of the line; current and/or historical information manually provided by an operator in association with said at least one anomalous operating parameter and/or with said plurality of possible malfunctioning causes of the line; known and/or self-learned logical rules; and perform, by means of said decision algorithms, a prediction of defects in the absorbent sanitary articles being processed along the line and/or in absorbent sanitary articles in output from the production line starting from said at least one current malfunctioning cause identified and based on at least one of the following information stored in said memory: known and/or self-learned data related to correlations between said at least one current malfunctioning cause identified and at least one known possible defect; current and/or historical information manually provided by an operator in association with said at least one current malfunctioning cause identified and/or with said at least one known possible defect; known and/or self-learned logic rules” see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), (claims 1 and 13). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of detecting current values of operating parameters which are indicative of the current operation of at least one production device adapted to perform respective production operations on the absorbent sanitary articles being processed along the production line, a step of acquiring images of the absorbent sanitary articles being processed along the production line and/or of the absorbent sanitary articles in output from the production line, detected operating parameters comprise at least one of: temperature; pressure; vibration; position of objects; weight; quantity; vacuum level; status of air jets; impact energy level of a cutting device of the line; level of cleanliness; presence or quantity of material at a predetermined position; feeding tension of elements of the absorbent sanitary articles being processed; speed; torque; current; a step of acquiring article data directly related to the absorbent sanitary articles being processed along the production line and/or to the finished absorbent sanitary articles, in output from the line, wherein the article data relate to at least one of: appearance, shape, weight, positioning, dimensions and contours of the articles being processed along the production line and/or to the finished absorbent sanitary articles, in output from the line, sensors adapted to detect current values of operating parameters which are indicative of the current operation of at least one of the production devices, wherein the sensors comprise at least one of: temperature sensor; pressure sensor; vibration sensor; position sensor; weight sensor; quantity sensor; flow sensor; vacuum level sensor; air jet status sensor; optical sensor; tension sensor; speed sensor; torque sensor; current sensor (claims 1 and 13-15) represent insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering. The control unit comprising a memory and a processor (claim 13) is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). The inclusion of limitations of a step of storing said at least one current malfunctioning cause identified in association with said at least one anomalous operating parameter so as to enrich the self-learned data related to correlations between said at least one anomalous operating parameter and said plurality of possible malfunctioning causes of the line, a step of storing the predicted defects so as to enrich the self-learned data related to said correlations between said at least one current malfunctioning cause identified and said at least one known possible defect (claims 2-3) represent mere data storage which is insignificant extra solution activity. The inclusion of production devices configured to perform respective production operations on the absorbent sanitary articles being processed along the production line; wherein the production devices comprise at least one of: transport members adapted to support and move the absorbent sanitary articles being processed along the line; feeding devices adapted to feed elements of the absorbent sanitary articles being processed and to place them, at least partially mutually overlapping, on a supporting surface of the conveyor; suction-activated retainers configured to retain in position the elements placed on the supporting surface of the transport members; at least one joiner adapted to fix the elements of the absorbent sanitary articles being processed together; at least one impact cutter adapted to cut elements of the absorbent sanitary articles being processed and/or a continuous strip of the absorbent sanitary articles being processed joined together, resulting from the production process, into individual articles; wherein the retaining members comprise suction devices active on retaining holes formed on the supporting surface of the transport members (claims 9) generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment because it claims field of use.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the control unit comprising a memory and a processor is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)); the insignificant extra-solution activity of data storage is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see MPEP 2106.05(d), infra applied prior art, references cited. The “field of use” limitation do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP2106.05(d)). Moreover, the general application of converting the corrective action to be taken into a control signal for one or more actuators which are operatively associated with said one or more production devices and/or with said one or more accessory devices which are involved in the current malfunctioning cause identified are equivalent of applying the abstract idea, infra applied prior art, references cited, MPEP 2106.05(d) (e.g. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim Interpretation
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:
Production station in claim 1, disclosed on P12, L23 – P13, L13 as transport member, feeding device, retaining member, fixing device, or cutting device;
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 § 112
The amendment has rendered the previous 112 rejections moot.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosani et al. (US 20130304246) in view of Iskandar et al. (US 20210042570).
As to claims 1 and 13, Rosani disclose a method/apparatus for absorbent sanitary articles (Abstract; Fig. 1). Rosani discloses that the apparatus/method comprises of: a production device 40; a sensor 62; a control unit 64 comprising a memory and processing unit 56, configured to perform a comparison between the current values of the operating parameters detected by the sensors and respective predetermined reference values stored in said memory and, in a presence, among said operating parameters, of at least one anomalous operating parameter whose current value does not comply with the respective predetermined reference value, to identify, among a plurality of possible malfunctioning causes of the line, at least one current malfunctioning cause responsible for said at least one anomalous operating parameter; and wherein the processor is configured to identify said at least one current malfunctioning cause starting from said at least one anomalous operating parameter by means of decision algorithms which are based on at least one of the following information stored in said memory: known and/or self-learned data related to correlations between said at least one anomalous operating parameter and said plurality of possible malfunctioning causes of the line; current and/or historical information manually provided by an operator in association with said at least one anomalous operating parameter and/or said possible malfunctioning causes of the line; known and/or self-learned logic rules. (Fig. 1; ¶13-18, 42-43, 45-46, 49-51, 60-72, 75-79 and 84-88).
Rosani does not explicitly disclose wherein, by means of said decision algorithms, a prediction of the defects is made (performing and comparing independently of any defects perform on the absorbent sanitary article) starting from said at least one current malfunctioning cause identified and based on at least one of the following information: known and/or self-learned data related to correlations between said at least one current malfunctioning cause identified and at least one known possible defect; current and/or historical information manually provided by an operator in association with said at least one current malfunctioning cause identified and/or with said at least one known possible defect; known and/or self-learned logical rules. However, Iskandar in an analogous art discloses wherein, by means of said decision algorithms, a prediction of the defects is made starting from said at least one current malfunctioning cause identified and based on at least one of the following information: known and/or self-learned data related to correlations between said at least one current malfunctioning cause identified and at least one known possible defect; current and/or historical information manually provided by an operator in association with said at least one current malfunctioning cause identified and/or with said at least one known possible defect; known and/or self-learned logical rules (¶18-25 and 37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Iskandar into the method of Rosani. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to improve the yield of the products (Iskandar, see ¶121).
As to claim 2, the device of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Rosani discloses that the sensor is a camera (¶55).
As to claim 3, the device of claim 2 is taught as seen above. Rosani discloses that the processor is configured to perform detection of defects by processing images from the camera (¶60).
As to claims 4-6, the device of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Rosani discloses that the processor is configured to store encountered malfunctions in said memory with anomalous operating parameters, to create templates based on said information, using FMEA-type analysis, allows the processing unit to form a database of causes of defects as well as the operating parameters and processing stations associated therewith, which allows for the storage of predicted defects according to the self-learned/stored data ((¶70-84).
As to claim 7, the device of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Rosani discloses that the processor is configured to define corrective action to be taken to fix malfunctioning action to avoid defects ((¶87).
As to claim 8, the device of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Rosani discloses that the device contains actuators 44 (Fig. 1).
As to claims 9 and 10, the device of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Rosani discloses that the device may contain a transport belt/member 48 (Fig. 1).
As to claims 11 and 12, the device of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Rosani discloses that the device may have sensors for detecting and monitoring operating parameters such as status of air jets ((¶70-74).
As to claims 14-16, the method of claim 13 is taught as seen above. The method of the above references as combined discloses that the device/method acquires data directly correlated to the absorbent article produced, said data relating to appearance, and continually detects and compares defects whether said defects are present or not ((¶75-88).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10 of Remarks, filed June 13, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 under Rosani et al. (US 20130304246) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Iskandar et al. (US20210042570).
Applicant argues on page 7 that “production stations” is a term that would be recognized by one shilled in the art to understand the context of production lines. This argument is not persuasive because “production stations” is still merely a generic placeholder that does not actually confer structure.
Applicant argues that Rosani fails to specifically teach or disclose the recited controller configuration/method step of performing a comparison between current values of the operating parameters detected and performed independently of a detection of any defects performed on absorbent sanitary articles. This argument is not persuasive since, as seen in the rejection above, Iskandar discloses it is known in the art of process control to use decision algorithms to make a prediction of the defects is made starting from said at least one current malfunctioning cause identified and based on at least one of the following information: known and/or self-learned data related to correlations between said at least one current malfunctioning cause identified and at least one known possible defect; current and/or historical information manually provided by an operator in association with said at least one current malfunctioning cause identified and/or with said at least one known possible defect; known and/or self-learned logical rules.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745