DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling the application on 11/03/2023.
The application has claims 11-20 present. Claims 1-10 have been canceled with a preliminary amendment. All present claims have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/03/2023 and 09/18/2024 filed before the mailing date of the non-final office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the term "and/or", which is selective language, the examiner suggests using either the "and" term or the "or" term, otherwise the claim should be worded in a clearer fashion to claim both terms. For the purpose of this examination the examiner is selecting the "or" term from this selective language. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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.
Claim(s) 11-13, 15, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (US 20030049881), in view of Furukawa et al. (US 20200257272), and in view of Suh et al. (US 20100042380) and Saito et al. (US 20080191848).
In regards to claims 11 and 20, Takada teaches a method for operating a press, wherein blanks that have a respective unique serial number are machined (see abstract and at least para 2 and 59: processed articles including metals formed in a press. The processed articles have ID associated with them), an electronic computing device is used to hold measured values characterizing the blank associated with the respective serial number (see para 62 and 111-112: stored data associated with the ID), and recognizing, using a recognition unit, the serial numbers (see at least para 40: a reading step for the ID. On para 59: an article on a pressing process. On para 62: mentions using image processing software. At least 65, 134: reading operation of ID using a reading apparatus).
Takada doesn’t specifically teach determining a recognition rate.
Suh teaches determining a recognition rate (see FIG 7B and at least para 53: teaches providing a recognition rate between a reader and id/tags associated to a positioning of the components).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Suh and implement them with the system taught by Takada, since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated given that it provides means to receive data associated with the process and optimize the system using the collected data and provided desired results (see para 45, 56).
Although Takada teaches reading operation of ID using a reading apparatus (see para 65), they do not specifically teach producing, using a capture device, photographs of the serial number; recognizing, the serial numbers, on the photographs.
Furukawa teaches producing, using a capture device, photographs of the serial number; recognizing, the serial numbers, on the photographs (see para 61, 64, 68, 72: reading id on a workpiece using image data).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Furukawa and implement them with the system taught by Takada, since a person skilled in the art would have been motivated given that it provides another option to use as a reader as RFID reader or camera can be used, depending on the type of ID used within the process (see para 68, 72).
Although Takada teaches reading operation of ID using a reading apparatus (see para 65), they do not specifically teach the method comprises: producing, data of the serial number in an introduction region in which the blanks are introduced into the press.
Saito teaches the method comprises: producing, data of the serial number in an introduction region in which the blanks are introduced into the press (see para 28: teaches reading a tag at the start of the process on a manufacturing/assembly line which supports process progress of the product on the line).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Saito and implement them with the system taught by Takada, since a person skilled in the art would have been motivated given that it enhances the system by providing means to manage process progress and analysis of the product on the line (see para 28).
In regards to claim 12, Takada doesn’t specifically teach wherein determining the recognition rate comprises: comparing the recognized serial numbers against the number of blanks introduced into the press.
Suh teaches determining the recognition rate comprises: comparing the recognized serial numbers against the number of blanks introduced into the press (see FIG 7B and at least para 15, 37, 39, 53-55: teaches providing a recognition rate between a reader and id/tags. The table on FIG 7B shows data associated to the recognition where out of 10 readings only 4 were successful and provides a 40% recognition rate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Suh and implement them with the system taught by Takada, since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated given that it provides means to receive data associated with the process, this data provides means to analyze and optimize the system using the data which can be used to make changes to reach desired results (see para 45, 56).
In regards to claim 13, Takada doesn’t specifically teach wherein the recognition rate is continuously determined during a production cycle.
Suh teaches wherein the recognition rate is continuously determined during a production cycle (see at least para 15, 39, 53-55, recognition process is done in cycles e.g. 10 reading attempts per cycle to determine the recognition percentages after each cycle, changes are made to generate another set of data for each cycle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Suh and implement them with the system taught by Takada, since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated given that it provides means to receive data associated with the process in multiple cycles where each cycle has changes done to attempt to improve the rates, by doing so these data sets provide means to analyze and optimize the process and thus the system making changes to reach desired results (see para 45, 56).
In regards to claim 15, Takada doesn’t specifically teach further comprising: measuring a change in the recognition rate over time.
Suh teaches further comprising: measuring a change in the recognition rate over time.
(see FIG 8: shows measure data associated with the recognition rate where at different times (each cycle with its different alterations), provides values which show insight at the improvements of the recognition rate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Suh and implement them with the system taught by Takada, since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated given that it provides means to receive data associated with the process, this data provides means to analyze and optimize the system using the data which can be used to make changes to reach desired results (see para 45, 56).
In regards to claim 16, Takada doesn’t specifically teach further comprising: comparing the recognition rate with at least one recognition rate from an earlier production cycle.
Suh teaches comparing the recognition rate with at least one recognition rate from an earlier production cycle (see at least para 15, 37, 39, 53-55, a recognition process is done in cycles e.g. 10 reading attempts per cycle to determine the recognition percentages after each cycle, changes are made to generate another set of data for each cycle. The results are compared and using comparison data, optimal changes can be applied).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Suh and implement them with the system taught by Takada, since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated given that by comparing results, it provide means to analyze and optimize the process and thus the system making changes to reach desired results (see para 39, 45, 56).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada, Furukawa, Suh and Saito as applied claims above and further in view of Beacham et al. (US 20170087634).
In regards to claim 14, Takada doesn’t specifically teach further comprising: outputting a warning signal is output in response to the recognition rate diverging from a first limit value.
Beacham teaches outputting a warning signal is output in response to the recognition rate diverging from a first limit value (see at least para 14, 26-27: using alert to provide indication when data falls outside limits which provides means to take action when intervention or corrections are required).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Beacham and implement them with the system taught by Takada, since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated given that it provides means to take action when intervention or corrections are required (see para 26-27).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada, Furukawa, Suh and Saito as applied claims above and further in view of Suzuki Yusuke (JP2015145842A) English translation.
In regards to claim 17, Takada doesn’t specifically teach further comprising: ascertaining a further limit value based on the change.
Suzuki teaches ascertaining a further limit value based on the change (see para 29, 33: teaches a known technique based on desired outcome for improving results, updating limit values to enhance a process in order to archive improvements based on determinations of changes).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Suzuki and implement them with the system taught by Takada, since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated given that it provides means to adjust a process to only accept values which enhance performance to achieve a desired outcome.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada, Furukawa, Suh and Saito as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of NOMOTO TAZU et al. (JP 2016184309 A) English translation.
In regards to claim 18, Takada doesn’t specifically teach further comprising: determining, using machine learning and/or at least one statistical method, the change.
Suh teaches determining, using machine learning and/or at least one statistical method, the change (see at least para 7, 15, 37, 39, 53-55, the system uses statistical means to analyze the data, the differences in the results (changes between them). The results are compared and using comparison data, optimal changes can be applied).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Suh and implement them with the system taught by Takada, since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated given that by analyzing and comparing results using statistical means, it provide means to analyze and optimize the process and thus the system making changes to reach desired results (see para 7, 39, 45, 56).
Takada doesn’t specifically teach further comprising: determining, using machine learning and/or at least one statistical method, a divergence.
Tazu teaches determining, using machine learning and/or at least one statistical method, a divergence. (see at least para 51: optimization of a process by analyzing data including determining divergence between values).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Tazu for using statistical means to analyze data and determining divergence and implement them with Takada as modified by Suh, since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated to enhance the analysis of the data given that the results can be use understating the results and for optimization (see para 51).
In regards to claim 19, Takada doesn’t specifically teach further comprising: determining, using machine learning and/or at least one statistical method, the comparison.
Suh teaches determining, using machine learning and/or at least one statistical method, the comparison (see at least para 7, 15, 37, 39, 53-55, the system uses statistical means to analyze the data, the differences in the results (changes between them). The comparison of the resulting values in order to achieve recommendations for optimization. The results are compared and using comparison data, optimal changes can be applied).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Suh and implement them with the system taught by Takada, since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated given that by analyzing and comparing results using statistical means, it provides means to analyze and optimize the process and thus the system making changes to reach desired results (see para 7, 39, 45, 56).
Takada doesn’t specifically teach further comprising: determining, using machine learning and/or at least one statistical method, a divergence.
Tazu teaches determining, using machine learning and/or at least one statistical method, a divergence. (see at least para 51: optimization of a process by analyzing data including determining divergence between values).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Tazu for using statistical means to analyze data and determining divergence and implement them with Takada as modified by Suh, since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated to enhance the analysis of the data given that the results can be use understating the results and for optimization (see para 51).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30am-5:30pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118