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 .
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement, mailed 5/12/25 is withdrawn on the basis of groups I-II does not represent separate and distinct inventions, group II has been reinstated and claims 1-16 are being examined.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/12/23 are accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/12/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is a method claim that use contingency language “in a presence”, it is noted that MPEP 2111.04 states “II. CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, “[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.” Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14. See also MPEP § 2143.03.” Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claim 1 would be without the steps with contingent limitations because the condition of “among said operating parameters, of at least one anomalous operating parameter whose current value does not comply with the respective predetermined reference values” is not required by the claim, however, for the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner has examined the claims in consideration of the steps with contingent limitation. The examiner recommend amending claim 1 to recite “determining, among said operating parameters, of at least one anomalous operating parameter whose current value does not comply with the respective predetermined reference values, in response to determining the at least one anomalous operating parameter whose current value does not comply with the respective predetermined reference values” for the contingent limitations to be included as part of the BRI.
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: transport members, feeding devices, retaining members, fixing device, cutting device in claim 14, suction devices in claim 15.
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 § 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, 4, 7, 9, and 12-13). 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, 6, 8, 10-11 and 16) 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 transport members; retaining members configured to retain in position the elements placed on the supporting surface of the transport members; at least one fixing device adapted to fix the elements of the absorbent sanitary articles being processed together; at least one cutting device 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 13-15) generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment because it claims field of use. The limitations of a step of automatically 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 generally apply the abstract idea via generalized control (claim 5).
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20130304246 to Rosani et al. (hereinafter “Rosani”), in view of US20210042570 to Iskandar et al. (hereinafter “Iskandar”).
As per claim 1, Rosani substantially discloses an automated method of detection of defects in absorbent sanitary articles being processed along a production line and/or in finished absorbent sanitary articles in output from the production line (Rosani, see Fig. 1, its corresponding paragraphs and [0084]-[0085]), comprising steps 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 (Rosani, see [0055]-[0063]);
performing a comparison between the current values of the detected operating parameters and respective predetermined reference values (Rosani, see [0063]-[0066]);
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 (Rosani, see [0075]-[0078]);
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 (Rosani, see [0075]-[0078], it is noted that FMEA-type analysis is based on known data related to correlations between said at least one anomalous operating parameter and said plurality of possible malfunctioning causes of the line).
Rosani does not explicitly disclose 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. 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 (Iskandar, see [0018]-[0025] and [0037]).
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 [0121]).
Claim 13 is a system claim corresponds to the method claim 1, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Rosani further discloses production devices configured to perform respective production operations on the absorbent sanitary articles being processed along the production 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; a control unit comprising a memory and a processor (Rosani, see Fig. 1 and its corresponding paragraphs).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Rosani further discloses malfunctioning causes of the line (Rosani, see [0075]-[0078]). Iskandar further discloses 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 (Iskandar, see Fig. 3 and its corresponding paragraphs).
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 [0121]).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Iskandar further discloses 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 (Iskandar, see Fig. 1 and its corresponding paragraphs).
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 [0121]).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Iskandar further discloses 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 (Iskandar, see Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and their corresponding paragraphs).
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 [0121]).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, Rosani further discloses a step of automatically 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 (Rosani, see [0082]-[0084]).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Rosani further discloses 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 (Rosani, see Fig. 1 and its corresponding paragraphs).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, Rosani further discloses a step of detecting further defects by processing said acquired images (Rosani, see Fig. 1 and its corresponding paragraphs). Iskandar further discloses detecting further defects in addition to said prediction of the defects (Iskandar, see Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and their corresponding paragraphs).
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 [0121]).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Rosani further discloses wherein the detected operating parameters comprise position of objects (Rosani, see Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and their corresponding paragraphs).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Rosani further discloses 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 (Rosani, see Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and their corresponding paragraphs).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, Rosani further discloses the article data relate to positioning (Rosani, see Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and their corresponding paragraphs).
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, Rosani further discloses a step of detecting further defects by processing said article data (Rosani, see Fig. 1 and its corresponding paragraphs). Iskandar further discloses detecting further defects in addition to said prediction of the defects (Iskandar, see Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and their corresponding paragraphs).
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 [0121]).
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated, Rosani further discloses the production devices comprise transport members adapted to support and move the absorbent sanitary articles being processed along the line (Rosani, see Fig. 1 and its corresponding paragraphs).
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated, Rosani further discloses wherein the sensors comprise position sensor (Rosani, see Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and their corresponding paragraphs).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosani, in view of Iskandar, further in view of US20030132762 to Delzer et al. (hereinafter “Delzer”).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Iskandar further discloses the defects predicted by means of said decision algorithms relate to the product (Iskandar, see [0018]-[0025] and [0037]).
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 [0121]).
The combination of Rosani and Iskandar does not explicitly disclose the defect relate to distribution of material. However, Delzer in an analogous art discloses the defect relate to distribution of material (Delzer, see [0006]).
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 Delzer into the above combination of Rosani and Iskandar. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide an improved system and/or method for phasing the targeting of superabsorbent material (Delzer, see [0007]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosani, in view of Iskandar, further in view of US20120190523 to Pastrello et al. (hereinafter “Pastrello”).
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, the combination of Rosani and Iskandar does not explicitly disclose wherein the retaining members comprise suction devices active on retaining holes formed on the supporting surface of the transport members. However, Pastrello in an analogous art discloses wherein the retaining members comprise suction devices active on retaining holes formed on the supporting surface of the transport members (Pastrello, see Fig. 1 and its corresponding paragraphs).
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 Pastrello into the above combination of Rosani and Iskandar. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to prevent interference between the edges of the trapezoidal pieces (Pastrello, see [0020]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US20210283717 discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus includes an energy source to melt material to form a component in an additive manufacturing process, a camera aligned with the energy source to obtain image data of the melted material during the additive manufacturing process, and a controller to control the energy source during the additive manufacturing process in response to processing of the image data. The controller adjusts control of the energy source based on a correction determined by: applying an artificial intelligence model to image data captured by a camera during an additive manufacturing process, the image data including an image of a melt pool of the additive manufacturing process; predicting an error in the additive manufacturing process using an output of the artificial intelligence model; and compensating for the error by generating a correction to adjust a configuration of the energy source during the additive manufacturing process.
US20180341248 discloses machine learning-based methods and systems for automated object defect classification and adaptive, real-time control of additive manufacturing and/or welding processes.
US20040030432 discloses methods for providing registration control in connection with a web converting manufacturing process such as that used for manufacturing disposable absorbent garments. Some of the disclosed embodiments include relating inspection data, such as product (or process) attribute data, to data from other manufacturing-related systems. Also disclosed are systems and methods for linking product (or process) attribute data obtained during the manufacturing process with one or more data sources including raw material data, process setting data, product quality data, and/or productivity data. Also disclosed are systems and methods for identifying manufacturing set point changes and automatically implementing such changes and automated web steering changes based on data from one or more inspection systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. 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.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117