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 .
Claims 1-20 and 25-30 have been elected.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated November 9, 2023, December 4, 2023, September 11, 2024, May 15, 2025, and February 17, 2026 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609, a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the 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.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim recites a computer program (i.e., software) without recitation of tangible media storing the software. The broadest reasonable interpretation of software covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals. Transmission media are forms of energy, per se, and thus currently not believed to fall within a statutory category.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation "The computer-implemented method as claim in claim 6, further comprising … the received identification data" in lines 1-3 of the claim. The examiner notes “identification data” is not recited in the parent claims (i.e., claims 1, 2, and 6) and is only recited in claim 3 “The computer-implemented method as claim in claim 2 … includes identification data of the optical coating apparatus”; as such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation is interpreted as “The computer-implemented method as claim in claim 6, further comprising … received identification data of the optical coating apparatus”.
Regarding claims 9-11, the claims depend on parent claim 8 and to not address the antecedent basis issue. As such, the claims are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “receiving the measured spectral data at a server” in line 2 of the claim. A sever has already been recited in parent claim 1 “a second location being a server”; it is unclear if the server recited refers to the sever in parent claim 1 or another sever. As such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. For the purposes of examination the limitation is interpreted as “receiving the measured spectral data at the server”.
Regarding claim 18, the claims depend on parent claim 17 and to not address the indefiniteness issue. As such, the claim is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 12-15, 17-20, 25-27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornhill (US20200024728A1) in further view of Blom et al. (US20190004496A1) and Langer et al. (US20220090254A1).
Regarding claim 1, Thornhill teaches a computer-implemented method of generating data for calibrating … optical coating apparatuses … located at a first location … configured to apply an optical coating to a surface of a substrate (A number of processes and methods have been developed to apply the AR coating (of one or more layers) on the substrate ... For ophthalmic articles, the substrate is a transparent material, such as a glass material ... The methods and systems described herein allow a user or manufacturer more control over the composition of deposited layers as well as the ability to measure the spectral performance of each layer ... This ability to trouble-shoot the spectral performance of each layer ... eliminates the need for an operator to repeat the process)([0003] and [0101]), the method being carried out at … the method comprising:
receiving … a coating data … from a local computer at the first location, the coating data … containing measured spectral data of a test optical coating having one or more coating layers applied by an optical coating apparatus … the measured spectral data being obtained from a measurement apparatus at the first location, wherein the measurement apparatus is in data communication with the local computer at the first location … (Referring to FIG. 1, the method further comprises 110 depositing the at least one layer of at least one raw material onto at least a portion of the test substrate to form an applied layer ... measuring the spectral performance of the applied layer ... the spectral performance can be measured using custom-made or commercially available spectrophotometers … The systems described herein may be used together with hardware and associated software known in the art and a Windows® based graphical user interface)([0039], [0066], and [0067]; spectral data of a test coating (i.e., spectral performance of deposited layers on a test substrate) is received from a measurement apparatus (e.g., spectrophotometer), the spectrophotometer is in communication with hardware (e.g., computer) that runs Windows);
comparing … the measured spectral data of the test optical coating applied by the optical coating apparatus to target specification data for the test optical coating for the optical coating apparatus (comparing the programmed physical thickness (T) to the optical thickness of the applied layer … More precisely, the method comprises comparing the target spectral performance to the spectral performance of the applied layer … thereby generating a data set (∆T))([0039]; spectral performance is compared to target specification data (i.e., target spectral performance));
determining … correction factors for correcting deviations from the target specification data for the optical coating apparatus based on the comparison of the measured spectral data and the target specification data (The method also comprises calculating, using said data set (ΔT), an adjusted programmed physical thickness (T′) sufficient to achieve the target physical thickness)([0039]; a correction factor (i.e., adjusted programmed physical thickness) is determined); and
… adjusting at least one operation parameter of the optical coating apparatus based on the correction factors to correct for the deviations from the target specification data (total coating thickness may be controlled by a monitoring system ... These systems can help maintain the deposition rate and the thickness of the layers via a proportional integral derivative (PID) loop by adjusting the input and output parameters of a feedback loop)([0063] and [0065]; the adjusted programmed physical thickness is feedback into the control system to adjust operation (e.g., input) parameters).
Thornhill differs from the claim in that Thornhill fails to teach a server in data communication via the Internet and at a second different (i.e., remote) location from multiple apparatus (i.e., machines) such that the server calibrates the multiple machines at manufacturing locations by receiving measurement (i.e., sensor) data, comparing the data to a target, determining correction factors, and sending a data file containing correction factors (i.e., file containing updated build parameters).
However, a server in data communication via the Internet and at a remote location from multiple machines such that the server calibrates the multiple machines at manufacturing locations by receiving sensor data, comparing the data to a target, determining correction factors, and sending a file containing updated build parameters is taught by Blom (computer device that can communicate with the additive manufacturing system locally, remotely ... FIG. 3 is a schematic view of an exemplary manufacturing system 300 to dynamically adapt additive manufacturing of a part using DMLM system 10 ... Manufacturing system 300 includes a manufacturing control (“MC”) computing device 302 ... MC computer device 302 is further configured to store build file 210 for building part 28 including a plurality of geometries ... receive sensor information of a build of part 28 by system 10 ... compare the sensor information for each geometry of the plurality of geometries to the corresponding one or more values ... to determine one or more differences, determine one or more values for a second build parameter for each of the geometries based on the one or more differences, generate an updated build file 210 for part 28 including the one or more values for the second build parameter, and transmit the updated build file 210 to system 10 ... Sensors 310 connect to MC computer device 302 or DMLM computer device 306 through many interfaces including ... Internet connection ... server computer device 500 may include, but is not limited to, MC computer device 302 … may be in direct or indirect communication with an additive manufacturing machine or a plurality of machines that uses one or more build parameters)([0034], [0066], [0068], [0073], [0080], and [0102]; a remote server communicates via the Internet and remotely calibrates machines by sending an updated build file which is based on a comparison of sensor data to target values).
The examiner notes Thornhill and Blom teach controlling manufacturing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thornhill to include the server of Blom such that a server is in data communication via the Internet and at a second different location from multiple apparatus such that the server calibrates the multiple apparatus at manufacturing locations by receiving measurement data, comparing the data to a target, determining correction factors, and sending a data file containing correction factors. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of increasing operational efficiency.
Although Thornhill-Blom disclose of storing sensor data in a database (Blom - Database 314 stores, without limitation, data and information such as build files 210, geometries, sensor data, and parameter adjustments)([0074]). Thornhill-Blom differs from the claim in that Thornhill-Blom fails to teach storing measurement data in a file.
However, storing measurement data in a file is taught by Langer (The measurement data may be stored, for example, in a file (such as a controller calibration file))([0287]).
The examiner notes Thornhill, Blom, and Langer teach controlling manufacturing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thornhill-Blom to include the storing of Langer such that measurement data is stored in a data file. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of allowing for asynchronous processing and data persistence.
Regarding claim 2, Thornhill-Blom-Langer teach the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: receiving the coating data file including the measured spectral data and data pertaining to the test optical coating and the optical coating apparatus at the second location (Thornhill - Referring to FIG. 1, the method further comprises 110 depositing the at least one layer of at least one raw material onto at least a portion of the test substrate to form an applied layer ... measuring the spectral performance of the applied layer)([0039]); and determining the correction factors based on the coating data file and the target specification data at the second location (Thornhill - The method also comprises calculating, using said data set (ΔT), an adjusted programmed physical thickness (T′) sufficient to achieve the target physical thickness)([0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Thornhill-Blom-Langer teach the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the test optical coating has one or more layers, and the data pertaining to the test optical coating includes layer data of the one or more layers of the test optical coating from the optical coating apparatus (Thornhill - The total number of layers deposited onto the substrate to form a multi-layered antireflective (AR) coating can typically be from 2 to 9 layers ... As each layer of high index (HI-1) raw material and low index (LI-1) raw material was deposited onto the at least one substrate, each cumulative layer could be compared to the spectral performance data of each layer in the design file to see if the spectral performance matched the design file)([0048] and [0077]).
Regarding claim 5, Thornhill-Blom-Langer teach the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the layer data includes layer material data of each of the one or more layers (Thornhill - a datum that describes a thin film or layer of a particular material type to be deposited onto at least one substrate to form an applied layer, as well as a particular order of materials to be deposited)([0031]).
Regarding claim 6, Thornhill-Blom-Langer teach the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the data pertaining to the test optical coating further includes surface data of the surface having the test optical coating from the optical coating apparatus (Thornhill - Referring to FIG. 3, a graph of the spectral performance (i.e., a plot of the % reflectance against various wavelengths) after the deposition of a single raw material layer onto at least one substrate is illustrated … Below in Table 1 is data corresponding to the spectral performance of FIG. 3)([0069]; Table 1 – data including surface data (e.g., interior or exterior) is shown).
Regarding claim 7, Thornhill-Blom-Langer teach the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the data pertaining to the test optical coating further includes substrate data of the substrate of the surface having the test optical coating from the optical coating apparatus (Thornhill - High index layers can comprise one or more metal oxides ... The raw material is a high index material. More particularly, the lens substrate is an ORMA lens. In this example, a first and single layer of a high index material was deposited ... a high index layer HI-1 was measured using a spectrophotometer)([0051], [0070], and [0071]; data includes substrate data (e.g., high or low index)).
Regarding claim 12, Thornhill-Blom-Langer teach the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the target specification data includes spectral characteristics of the test optical coating (Thornhill - In each example described herein the spectral performance and numeric values measured for each layer were compared to that of the design file to determine conformance or non-conformance with the design file ... As indicated by the asterisk, the hue angle (h), chroma C*, Rm (400-700 nm) and Rv of the high index layer HI-1 did not conform to the values associated with the programmed physical thickness value T or any of the parameters associated with the design file, such as, for example, spectral performance)([0071]; a design file includes spectral characteristics (e.g., target values of chroma, Rm, etc.)).
Regarding claim 13, Thornhill-Blom-Langer teach the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: recording the coating data file in association with corresponding correction factors (although Thornhill does not disclose recording data with corresponding correction factors, said recording is taught by Blom (Database 314 stores, without limitation, data and information such as build files 210, geometries, sensor data, and parameter adjustments)([0074]). The examiner notes Thornhill and Blom teach controlling manufacturing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thornhill to include the recording of Blom such that data with corresponding correction factors is recorded. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of increasing operational efficiency).
Regarding claim 14, Thornhill-Blom-Langer teach the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 13, further comprising: determining causes for the deviations to the target specification data for the optical coating apparatus based on analysis of the recorded coating data file in association with corresponding correction factors (although Thornhill does not disclose determining causes for deviation, said determining is taught by Blom (For each geometry, feedforward control computer device 702 compares the sensor information, the build parameters from build file 210, and the adjusted build parameters from system 10 to determine updated build parameters for that geometry. For example, feedforward control computer device 702 analyzes every instance of a particular geometry to see the build parameters and the results. Feedforward control computer device 702 determines updated build parameters for that geometry and applies those updated parameters to all similar geometries in build file 210)([0092]). The examiner notes Thornhill and Blom teach controlling manufacturing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thornhill to include the determining of Blom such that causes of deviation is determined. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of increasing operational efficiency).
Regarding claim 15, Thornhill-Blom-Langer teach the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 14, further comprising: receiving and recording operating conditions data of the optical coating apparatus when applying the test optical coating; and further determining causes for the deviations to the target specification data for the optical coating apparatus based on analysis of the operating conditions data (although Thornhill does not disclose recording operation conditions data and determining causes for deviation, said recording and determining is taught by Blom (each set of build information also includes one or more real-time adjustments to the build parameters from the system 10 for that build 212 ... Feedforward control computer device 702 compares the real-time adjustments from each build to the sensor information for the corresponding build 212. Feedforward control computer device 702 determines the one or more adjustments for the build parameter … For example, if every time that a system 10 builds a specific section the system 10 has to increase the power level to reach the desired melt pool size, then feedforward control computer device 702 determines 1108 one or more adjustments to correct this discrepancy)([0103]). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thornhill to include the recording and the determining of Blom such that operating condition data is recorded and causes of deviation is determined. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of increasing operational efficiency).
Regarding claim 17, Thornhill-Blom-Langer teach the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: receiving the measured spectral data at a server at the second location, wherein the server is configured for implementing the steps of: comparing the measured spectral data to target specification data for the test optical coating for the optical coating apparatus; and determining correction factors for correcting deviations from the target specification data for the optical coating apparatus based on the comparison of the measured spectral data and the target specification data (Blom - computer device that can communicate with the additive manufacturing system locally, remotely ... FIG. 3 is a schematic view of an exemplary manufacturing system 300 to dynamically adapt additive manufacturing of a part using DMLM system 10 ... Manufacturing system 300 includes a manufacturing control (“MC”) computing device 302 ... MC computer device 302 is further configured to store build file 210 for building part 28 including a plurality of geometries ... receive sensor information of a build of part 28 by system 10 ... compare the sensor information for each geometry of the plurality of geometries to the corresponding one or more values ... to determine one or more differences, determine one or more values for a second build parameter for each of the geometries based on the one or more differences, generate an updated build file 210 for part 28 including the one or more values for the second build parameter, and transmit the updated build file 210 to system 10)([0034], [0066], and [0068]).
Regarding claim 18, Thornhill-Blom-Langer teach the computer-implemented method of claim 17, wherein the server is further configured for implementing the step of sending the target data file containing the correction factors to the first location (Blom - transmit the updated build file 210 to system 10)([0068]).
Regarding claim 19, Thornhill-Blom-Langer teach the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the target specification data includes Cauchy formula coefficients for materials of both low and high indices of refraction (Thornhill does disclose expressly that target data includes Cauchy formula coefficients. Instead, Thornhill discloses target data includes a reflection values for high and low indices of refraction (Table 2 describes the hue, chroma, Rm % (400-700 nm), and Rv % (380-780 nm) after the deposition of a high index layer HI-1, followed by a low index layer LI-1 of raw material ... As indicated by the asterisk, the hue angle (h), Rm (400-700 nm), and Rv (380-780 nm) of the applied layers HI-1+LI-1 did not conform to the values associated with the programmed physical thickness value T or any of the parameters associated with the design file)([0074] and [0076]). Applicant has not disclosed that using Cauchy formula coefficients provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected Thornhill target data, and applicant's invention, to perform equally well with either the reflection values taught by Thornhill or the claimed Cauchy formula coefficients because both are used to detect deviations in an optical layer. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Thornhill to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Thornhill).
Regarding claim 20, Thornhill teaches a … configured for generating data for calibrating … optical coating apparatuses … located at a first location … configured to apply an optical coating to a surface of a substrate (A number of processes and methods have been developed to apply the AR coating (of one or more layers) on the substrate ... For ophthalmic articles, the substrate is a transparent material, such as a glass material ... The methods and systems described herein allow a user or manufacturer more control over the composition of deposited layers as well as the ability to measure the spectral performance of each layer ... This ability to trouble-shoot the spectral performance of each layer ... eliminates the need for an operator to repeat the process)([0003] and [0101]), the method being carried out .. and configured to:
receive from a local computer at the first location a coating data … containing measured spectral data of a test optical coating applied by an optical coating apparatus from a measurement apparatus located at the first location and configured to measure spectral data of the test optical coating, wherein the measurement apparatus is in data communication with the local computer at the first location … (Referring to FIG. 1, the method further comprises 110 depositing the at least one layer of at least one raw material onto at least a portion of the test substrate to form an applied layer ... measuring the spectral performance of the applied layer ... the spectral performance can be measured using custom-made or commercially available spectrophotometers … The systems described herein may be used together with hardware and associated software known in the art and a Windows® based graphical user interface)([0039], [0066], and [0067]; spectral data of a test coating (i.e., spectral performance of deposited layers on a test substrate) is received from a measurement apparatus (e.g., spectrophotometer), the spectrophotometer is in communication with hardware (e.g., computer) that runs Windows);
compare … the measured spectral data to target specification data for the test optical coating for the optical coating apparatus (comparing the programmed physical thickness (T) to the optical thickness of the applied layer … More precisely, the method comprises comparing the target spectral performance to the spectral performance of the applied layer … thereby generating a data set (∆T))([0039]; spectral performance is compared to target specification data (i.e., target spectral performance));
determine correction factors for correcting deviations to the target specification data for the optical coating apparatus based on the comparison of the measured spectral data and the target specification data (The method also comprises calculating, using said data set (ΔT), an adjusted programmed physical thickness (T′) sufficient to achieve the target physical thickness)([0039]; a correction factor (i.e., adjusted programmed physical thickness) is determined); and
… adjusting at least one operation parameter of the optical coating apparatus based on the correction factors to correct for the deviations to the target specification data (total coating thickness may be controlled by a monitoring system ... These systems can help maintain the deposition rate and the thickness of the layers via a proportional integral derivative (PID) loop by adjusting the input and output parameters of a feedback loop)([0063] and [0065]; the adjusted programmed physical thickness is feedback into the control system to adjust operation (e.g., input) parameters).
Thornhill differs from the claim in that Thornhill fails to teach a server in data communication via the Internet and at a second different (i.e., remote) location from multiple apparatus (i.e., machines) such that the server calibrates the multiple machines at manufacturing locations by receiving measurement (i.e., sensor) data, comparing the data to a target, determining correction factors, and sending a data file containing correction factors (i.e., file containing updated build parameters).
However, a server in data communication via the Internet and at a remote location from multiple machines such that the server calibrates the multiple machines at manufacturing locations by receiving sensor data, comparing the data to a target, determining correction factors, and sending a file containing updated build parameters is taught by Blom (computer device that can communicate with the additive manufacturing system locally, remotely ... FIG. 3 is a schematic view of an exemplary manufacturing system 300 to dynamically adapt additive manufacturing of a part using DMLM system 10 ... Manufacturing system 300 includes a manufacturing control (“MC”) computing device 302 ... MC computer device 302 is further configured to store build file 210 for building part 28 including a plurality of geometries ... receive sensor information of a build of part 28 by system 10 ... compare the sensor information for each geometry of the plurality of geometries to the corresponding one or more values ... to determine one or more differences, determine one or more values for a second build parameter for each of the geometries based on the one or more differences, generate an updated build file 210 for part 28 including the one or more values for the second build parameter, and transmit the updated build file 210 to system 10 ... Sensors 310 connect to MC computer device 302 or DMLM computer device 306 through many interfaces including ... Internet connection ... server computer device 500 may include, but is not limited to, MC computer device 302 … may be in direct or indirect communication with an additive manufacturing machine or a plurality of machines that uses one or more build parameters)([0034], [0066], [0068], [0073], [0080], and [0102]; a remote server communicates via the Internet and remotely calibrates machines by sending an updated build file which is based on a comparison of sensor data to target values).
The examiner notes Thornhill and Blom teach controlling manufacturing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thornhill to include the server of Blom such that a server is in data communication via the Internet and at a second different location from multiple apparatus such that the server calibrates the multiple apparatus at manufacturing locations by receiving measurement data, comparing the data to a target, determining correction factors, and sending a data file containing correction factors. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of increasing operational efficiency.
Although Thornhill-Blom disclose of storing sensor data in a database (Blom - Database 314 stores, without limitation, data and information such as build files 210, geometries, sensor data, and parameter adjustments)([0074]). Thornhill-Blom differs from the claim in that Thornhill-Blom fails to teach storing measurement data in a file.
However, storing measurement data in a file is taught by Langer (The measurement data may be stored, for example, in a file (such as a controller calibration file))([0287]).
The examiner notes Thornhill, Blom, and Langer teach controlling manufacturing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thornhill-Blom to include the storing of Langer such that measurement data is stored in a data file. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of allowing for asynchronous processing and data persistence.
Regarding claim 25, the claim generally corresponds to computer-implemented method clam 1 and recites similar features in method form. Therefore, the claim is rejected under similar rational.
Regarding claim 26, the claim generally corresponds to computer-implemented method clam 1 and recites similar features in computer product form. Therefore, the claim is rejected under similar rational.
Regarding claim 27, the claim generally corresponds to computer-implemented method clam 1 and recites similar features in non-transitory computer readable medium form. Therefore, the claim is rejected under similar rational.
Regarding claim 30, Thornhill teaches a computer-implemented method of calibrating an optical coating apparatus located at a first location … wherein the optical coating apparatus is configured to apply an optical coating to a surface of a substrate (A number of processes and methods have been developed to apply the AR coating (of one or more layers) on the substrate ... For ophthalmic articles, the substrate is a transparent material, such as a glass material ... The methods and systems described herein allow a user or manufacturer more control over the composition of deposited layers as well as the ability to measure the spectral performance of each layer ... This ability to trouble-shoot the spectral performance of each layer ... eliminates the need for an operator to repeat the process)([0003] and [0101]), the method comprising:
obtaining from a measurement apparatus at the first location measured spectral data of a test optical coating having one or more coating layers applied by the optical coating apparatus, wherein the measurement apparatus is in data communication with a local computer at the first location (Referring to FIG. 1, the method further comprises 110 depositing the at least one layer of at least one raw material onto at least a portion of the test substrate to form an applied layer ... measuring the spectral performance of the applied layer ... the spectral performance can be measured using custom-made or commercially available spectrophotometers … The systems described herein may be used together with hardware and associated software known in the art and a Windows® based graphical user interface)([0039], [0066], and [0067]; spectral data of a test coating (i.e., spectral performance of deposited layers on a test substrate) is received from a measurement apparatus (e.g., spectrophotometer), the spectrophotometer is in communication with hardware (e.g., computer) that runs Windows);
… a coating data … containing the spectral data from a local computer at the first location … calibrating the optical coating apparatus by adjusting at least one operation parameter of the optical coating apparatus based on the correction factors to correct for the deviations to the target specification data (comparing the programmed physical thickness (T) to the optical thickness of the applied layer … More precisely, the method comprises comparing the target spectral performance to the spectral performance of the applied layer … thereby generating a data set (∆T) … The method also comprises calculating, using said data set (ΔT), an adjusted programmed physical thickness (T′) sufficient to achieve the target physical thickness … total coating thickness may be controlled by a monitoring system ... These systems can help maintain the deposition rate and the thickness of the layers via a proportional integral derivative (PID) loop by adjusting the input and output parameters of a feedback loop)([0039], [0063], and [0065]; spectral performance is compared to target specification data (i.e., target spectral performance) and the comparison is used to generate a correction factor (i.e., adjusted programmed physical thickness), the adjusted programmed physical thickness is feedback into the control system to adjust operation (e.g., input) parameters).
Thornhill differs from the claim in that Thornhill fails to teach a server in data communication via the Internet and at a second different (i.e., remote) location from the apparatus (i.e., machine) such that the server calibrates the machine at a manufacturing location by transmission of measurement (i.e., sensor) data to the server and sending a data file containing correction factors (i.e., file containing updated build parameters).
However, a server in data communication via the Internet and at a remote location from a machine such the server calibrates the machine at a manufacturing location by transmission of sensor data to the server and sending a file containing updated build parameters is taught by Blom (computer device that can communicate with the additive manufacturing system locally, remotely ... FIG. 3 is a schematic view of an exemplary manufacturing system 300 to dynamically adapt additive manufacturing of a part using DMLM system 10 ... Manufacturing system 300 includes a manufacturing control (“MC”) computing device 302 ... MC computer device 302 is further configured to store build file 210 for building part 28 including a plurality of geometries ... receive sensor information of a build of part 28 by system 10 ... compare the sensor information for each geometry of the plurality of geometries to the corresponding one or more values ... to determine one or more differences, determine one or more values for a second build parameter for each of the geometries based on the one or more differences, generate an updated build file 210 for part 28 including the one or more values for the second build parameter, and transmit the updated build file 210 to system 10 ... Sensors 310 connect to MC computer device 302 or DMLM computer device 306 through many interfaces including ... Internet connection ... server computer device 500 may include, but is not limited to, MC computer device 302 … may be in direct or indirect communication with an additive manufacturing machine or a plurality of machines that uses one or more build parameters)([0034], [0066], [0068], [0073], [0080], and [0102]; a remote server communicates via the Internet and remotely calibrate a machines by sending an updated build file which is based on a comparison of sent sensor data to target values).
The examiner notes Thornhill and Blom teach controlling manufacturing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thornhill to include the server of Blom such that a server is in data communication via the Internet and at a second different location from an apparatus such that the server calibrates the apparatus at a manufacturing location by transmission of measurement data to the server and sending a data file containing correction factors. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of increasing operational efficiency.
Although Thornhill-Blom disclose of storing sensor data in a database (Blom - Database 314 stores, without limitation, data and information such as build files 210, geometries, sensor data, and parameter adjustments)([0074]). Thornhill-Blom differs from the claim in that Thornhill-Blom fails to teach storing measurement data in a file.
However, storing measurement data in a file is taught by Langer (The measurement data may be stored, for example, in a file (such as a controller calibration file))([0287]).
The examiner notes Thornhill, Blom, and Langer teach controlling manufacturing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thornhill-Blom to include the storing of Langer such that measurement data is stored in a data file. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of allowing for asynchronous processing and data persistence.
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornhill in further view of Blom.
Regarding claim 28, Thornhill teaches an optical coating system comprising an optical coating apparatus and a local computer located at a first location … wherein the optical coating system is configured to implement a calibration of the optical coating apparatus based on data for calibrating the optical coating apparatus (A number of processes and methods have been developed to apply the AR coating (of one or more layers) on the substrate ... For ophthalmic articles, the substrate is a transparent material, such as a glass material ... The systems described herein may be used together with hardware and associated software known in the art and a Windows® based graphical user interface … The methods and systems described herein allow a user or manufacturer more control over the composition of deposited layers as well as the ability to measure the spectral performance of each layer ... This ability to trouble-shoot the spectral performance of each layer ... eliminates the need for an operator to repeat the process)([0003], [0067], and [0101]) … the optical coating system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute instructions (The systems described herein may be used together with hardware and associated software known in the art and a Windows)([0067]; a Windows computer includes memory and processors to execute instructions) to:
apply, by the optical coating apparatus, a test optical coating to surfaces of substrates at the first location based on target specification data (a design file comprising a target physical thickness and a target spectral performance for the at least one layer of the multi-layered coating … Referring to FIG. 1, the method further comprises 110 depositing the at least one layer of at least one raw material onto at least a portion of the test substrate to form an applied layer)([0038] and [0039]; a layer is applied based on a target thickness);
measure, by a measurement apparatus, spectral data of the test optical coating applied by the optical coating apparatus (measuring the spectral performance of the applied layer ... the spectral performance can be measured using custom-made or commercially available spectrophotometers)([0039] and [0066]); and
… calculating correction factors to correct for the deviations to the target specification data for the optical coating apparatus (comparing the programmed physical thickness (T) to the optical thickness of the applied layer … More precisely, the method comprises comparing the target spectral performance to the spectral performance of the applied layer … thereby generating a data set (∆T) … The method also comprises calculating, using said data set (ΔT), an adjusted programmed physical thickness (T′) sufficient to achieve the target physical thickness)([0039]; spectral performance is compared to target specification data (i.e., target spectral performance) and the comparison is used to generate a correction factor (i.e., adjusted programmed physical thickness)).
Thornhill differs from the claim in that Thornhill fails to teach a server at a second different (i.e., remote) location from the apparatus (i.e., machine) such that the server calibrates the machine at a manufacturing location by transmission of measurement (i.e., sensor) data to the server.
However, a server at a remote location from a machine such the server calibrates the machine at a manufacturing location by transmission of sensor data to the server is taught by Blom (computer device that can communicate with the additive manufacturing system locally, remotely ... FIG. 3 is a schematic view of an exemplary manufacturing system 300 to dynamically adapt additive manufacturing of a part using DMLM system 10 ... Manufacturing system 300 includes a manufacturing control (“MC”) computing device 302 ... MC computer device 302 is further configured to store build file 210 for building part 28 including a plurality of geometries ... receive sensor information of a build of part 28 by system 10 ... compare the sensor information for each geometry of the plurality of geometries to the corresponding one or more values ... to determine one or more differences, determine one or more values for a second build parameter for each of the geometries based on the one or more differences, generate an updated build file 210 for part 28 including the one or more values for the second build parameter, and transmit the updated build file 210 to system 10 … server computer device 500 may include, but is not limited to, MC computer device 302 … may be in direct or indirect communication with an additive manufacturing machine or a plurality of machines that uses one or more build parameters)([0034], [0066], [0068], [0080], and [0102]; a remote server remotely calibrates a machine by sending an updated build file which is based on a comparison of sent sensor data to target values).
The examiner notes Thornhill and Blom teach controlling manufacturing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thornhill to include the server of Blom such that a server is at a second different location from an apparatus such that the server calibrates the apparatus at a manufacturing location by transmission of measurement data to the server. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of increasing operational efficiency.
Regarding claim 29, Thornhill-Blom teach the optical coating system as claimed in claim 28, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, by a local computer of the optical coating system at the first location, the correction factors from the server at the second location; based on the correction factors, adjust, by a local computer of the optical coating system at the first location, operation parameters of the optical coating apparatus to correct for the deviations to a target specification data (Blom - Feedforward control computer device 602 applies those determined updated build parameters to any similar geometries in build file 210 that still need to be built. Feedforward control computer device 602 transmits the updated build parameters in build file 210 to system 10, so that system 10 may use those updated build parameters)([0087]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornhill, Blom, Langer, and in further view of Hsieh (US20030060916A1).
Regarding claim 3, Thornhill-Blom-Langer teach the computer-implemented method as applied above. Thornhill-Blom-Langer differs from the claim in that Thornhill-Blom-Langer fails to teach the data received includes identification data of the apparatus performing the manufacturing.
However, receiving data including identification data of an apparatus performing the manufacturing is taught by Hsieh (the relationship of the wafers and the manufacturing machines handling the wafers is recorded as the WIP database. Thus, when the wafers 140 of a lot are prone to defect, the manufacturing machines that have processed the wafers can be identified using the WIP database)([0027]).
The examiner notes Thornhill, Blom, Langer, and Hsieh teach controlling manufacturing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thornhill-Blom-Langer to include the receiving of Hsieh such that data including identification data of an apparatus performing the manufacturing is received. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of identifying which apparatus needs to be calibrated.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornhill, Blom, Langer, and in further view of McCann et al. (US20190018400A1).
Regarding claim 16, Thornhill-Blom-Langer teach the computer-implemented method as applied above. Thornhill-Blom-Langer differs from the claim in that Thornhill-Blom-Langer fails to teach determining a warning when deviations are detected and sending the warning.
However, determining a warning when deviations are detected and sending the warning is taught by McCann (The comparison of the measured sensor data and image data with their respective sets of reference data can be used to produce alerts, which can be transmitted via the network 590)([0058]).
The examiner notes Thornhill, Blom, Langer, and McCann teach monitoring manufacturing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thornhill-Blom-Langer to include the determining and the sending of McCann such that a warning is determined when deviations are detected and the warning is sent. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of optimizing production effectiveness and reducing cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider the reference fully when responding to this action.
The document cited therein and enumerated below teaches a method and apparatus for controlling a coating apparatus.
US20070036198A1
US20070222460A1
US20140195189A1
US20150285621A1
US20190155158A1
US20210332474A1
US7129492B2
US8268385B2
US9245808B2
US11481524B2
US11905592B2
CN111609802A
The document cited therein and enumerated below teaches a method and apparatus for remote calibration of equipment.
US20150169422A1
US20180205468A1
US20190049929A1
US20190118479A1
US5993043
WO2019055576A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yongjia Pan whose telephone number is (571)270-1177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/YONGJIA PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights