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 .
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 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Claim 16 recites a method, and Claim 31 recites a system. Thus, the claims are to a method and a machine, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Independent claim 16 recites:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, at a computing device, sensor data from one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors are disposed in proximity to an abrasive product or a workpiece associated with the abrasive product, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to collect abrasion operational data associated with an abrasive operation involving the abrasive product or the workpiece;
performing at least one of the following operations:
(i) displaying, on the computing device, a cycle chart plotting at least one grinding cycle corresponding to a time range or a machine; and displaying, at the computing device, the cycle chart;
(ii) determining, based on the sensor data, a grinding cycle report relating to analysis of at least one portion of a grinding cycle [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites a mathematical concepts, and mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper]; and displaying, at the computing device, the grinding cycle report; or
(iii) determining, based on the sensor data, a computed metric report having values of various metrics, wherein the values include an average and at least one local maxima [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites a mathematical concepts, and mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper]; and displaying, at the computing device, the computed metric report.
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements (i.e., the computing device, “receiving, at a computing device, sensor data from one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors are disposed in proximity to an abrasive product or a workpiece associated with the abrasive product, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to collect abrasion operational data associated with an abrasive operation involving the abrasive product or the workpiece”, “(i) displaying, on the computing device, a cycle chart plotting at least one grinding cycle corresponding to a time range or a machine; and displaying, at the computing device, the cycle chart”; “displaying, at the computing device, the grinding cycle report”; and “displaying, at the computing device, the computed metric report”).
The examiner submits that each of the additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the abstract idea is performed. The computing device is merely generic computer hardware for performing the abstract idea. The receiving step is mere gathering of data for use in the abstract idea. The displaying steps are an insignificant outputting of a result of the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Claim 16 recites that the method is computer-implemented and performed by a computing device, which is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of the storage mediums to store data received in the receiving step, the computer and data processing devices to apply the algorithm, and the display device to display selected results of the algorithm. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”). Regarding the displaying steps, the courts have decided that presenting generated data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation
Independent Claim 31 recites steps that are similar to Claim 16 (i.e., receiving of data, performing of analysis of the data, and displaying results of the analysis), and is also not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 17-30 and 32-35 merely recite further details of the mathematical concepts and/or mental process, and are also not patent eligible. Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 16 or 31 accordingly, and hence are directed towards fundamentally the same mathematical concept/mental process abstract idea grouping as the independent claims and utilize the additional elements analyzed in the expected manner.
\Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sullivan et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0156210, hereinafter “Sullivan”).
Regarding Claim 16, Sullivan teaches a computer-implemented (Figs. 1 and 2, wearable device 100/202, server 216) method, comprising: receiving, at a computing device, sensor data from one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors are disposed in proximity to an abrasive product or a workpiece associated with the abrasive product, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to collect abrasion operational data associated with an abrasive operation involving the abrasive product or the workpiece (paragraphs [0131]-[0139], sensors in wearable device 100/202 collect data regarding abrasive tool 206; various sensors described in paragraphs [0211]-[0215]); performing at least one of the following operations: (i) displaying, on the computing device, a cycle chart plotting at least one grinding cycle corresponding to a time range or a machine; and displaying, at the computing device, the cycle chart (no patentable weight due to “at least one of”); (ii) determining, based on the sensor data, a grinding cycle report relating to analysis of at least one portion of a grinding cycle (paragraph [0215]; Figs. 16-17 and 20-21); and displaying, at the computing device, the grinding cycle report (paragraphs [0210] and [0215]; Figs. 16-17 and 20-21); or (iii) determining, based on the sensor data, a computed metric report having values of various metrics, wherein the values include an average and at least one local maxima; and displaying, at the computing device, the computed metric report (no patentable weight due to “at least one of”).
Regarding Claim 26, Sullivan teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 16. Sullivan further teaches displaying, on the computing device, a cycle chart plotting at least one grinding cycle corresponding to a time range or a machine (Figs. 16 and 17; paragraphs [0196]-[0210]); and displaying, at the computing device, the cycle chart (Figs. 16 and 17; paragraph [0210]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 17-24, 31, and 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan in view of Bobst (EP-3736648-A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Sullivan teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 16. Sullivan further teaches comprising determining the grinding cycle report relating to analysis of at least one portion of the grinding cycle; and displaying, at the computing device, the grinding cycle report (paragraph [0215] and displays 2100, 2110, 2120, and 2130). Sullivan does not specifically teach wherein the grinding cycle report comprises spark time and air time related to the abrasive product. However, Bobst teaches displaying data for spark time and air time related to the abrasive product in paragraphs [0020]-[0021], [0024], [0045], and [0048]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include data regarding the various grinding cycle periods taught in Bobst in the grinding cycle report of Sullivan, in order to optimize the grinding process (see Bobst, paragraphs [0001] and [0029]).
Regarding Claim 18, Sullivan in view of Bobst teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 17. Sullivan does not specifically teach further comprising reducing air time verses spark time of the abrasive product, reducing air time and spark time of the abrasive product, or both. However, Bobst teaches reducing air time verses spark time of the abrasive product, reducing air time and spark time of the abrasive product, or both in paragraphs [0020]-[0021], [0024], [0045], [0048] (various periods of grinding cycle), and in paragraphs [0012], [0014], and [0018] (determining optimized process variables for grinding cycle; costs associated with time may be weighted higher or lower depending on backlog). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the various grinding cycle periods taught in Bobst in the grinding cycle report of Sullivan, in order to optimize the grinding process (see Bobst, paragraphs [0001] and [0029]).
Regarding Claim 19, Sullivan in view of Bobst teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 17. Sullivan does not specifically teach further comprising performing at least one of the following operations:(i) reducing grinding cycle time by optimizing feeds and speeds for the abrasive product; (ii) providing feedback on grinding cycle time and automatically optimizing feeds and speeds for the abrasive product (no patentable weight due to “at least one of”); (iii) recommending proper sparkout times related to the abrasive product (no patentable weight due to “at least one of”); (iv) suggesting increases in parts per dress for the abrasive product (no patentable weight due to “at least one of”); or (v) suggesting time reductions relating to dressing the abrasive product (no patentable weight due to “at least one of”). However, Bobst teaches reducing grinding cycle time by optimizing feeds and speeds for the abrasive product (paragraphs [0018], costs associated with time may be weighted higher or lower depending on backlog, and [0031], infeed rate and cutting speed). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the parameter optimization of Bobst in the grinding system of Sullivan, in order to optimize the grinding process (see Bobst, paragraphs [0001] and [0029]).
Regarding Claim 20, Sullivan in view of Bobst teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 17. Sullivan further teaches displaying, on the computing device, a cycle chart plotting at least one grinding cycle corresponding to a time range or a machine; and displaying, at the computing device, the cycle chart (Figs. 16-17 and 20-21; paragraph [0210]).
Regarding Claim 21, Sullivan in view of Bobst teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 17. Sullivan further teaches further comprising determining part cycle time across a plurality of machines (Fig. 20, paragraph [0238], select from plurality of plants and devices that user wishes to receive metrics on).
Regarding Claim 22, Sullivan in view of Bobst teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 21. Sullivan further teaches wherein determining part cycle time comprises using present and past sensor data (paragraphs [0115] and [0116], real time sensor data; paragraphs [0131], [0141], and [0185]-[0186], sensor data is collected and analyzed over time).
Regarding Claim 23, Sullivan in view of Bobst teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 21. Sullivan further teaches further comprising determining, at the computing device, past sensor data received at the computing device; and displaying, at the computing device, the past sensor data (Fig. 20; paragraphs [0237]-[0243]).
Regarding Claim 24, Sullivan in view of Bobst teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 23. Sullivan further teaches further comprising receiving user input indicative of changing a view of the past sensor data; and displaying the changed view of the past sensor data responsive to the user input (Fig. 20; paragraphs [0237]-[0243]).
Regarding Claim 31, Sullivan teaches a system (Figs. 1-2), comprising: a computing device configured to: receive sensor data from one or more sensors (paragraphs [0131]-[0139], sensors in wearable device collect data regarding abrasive tool; various sensors described in paragraphs [0105]-[0108] and [0211]-[0215]), wherein the one or more sensors are disposed in proximity to an abrasive product or a workpiece associated with the abrasive product, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to collect abrasion operational data associated with an abrasive operation involving the abrasive product or the workpiece (paragraphs [0035]-[0036], [0105]-[0108], and [0211]-[0215]); determine, based on the sensor data, a grinding cycle report relating to the analysis of at least one portion of a grinding cycle (paragraph [0215]; Figs. 16-17 and 20-21); and display, via a user interface, the grinding cycle report (paragraphs [0210] and [0215]; Figs. 16-17 and 20-21).
Sullivan does not specifically teach wherein the grinding cycle report comprises spark time and air time related to the abrasive product. However, Bobst teaches displaying data for spark time and air time related to the abrasive product in paragraphs [0020]-[0021], [0024], [0045], and [0048]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include data regarding the various grinding cycle periods taught in Bobst in the grinding cycle report of Sullivan, in order to optimize the grinding process (see Bobst, paragraphs [0001] and [0029]).
Regarding Claim 33, Sullivan in view of Bobst teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 31. Sullivan further teaches wherein the computing device is configured to display, via the user interface, a cycle chart plotting at least one grinding cycle corresponding to a time range or a machine (Figs. 16 and 17; paragraphs [0196]-[0210]).
Regarding Claim 34, Sullivan in view of Bobst teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 31. Sullivan does not specifically teach wherein the computing device is configured to determine an optimum feed rate, part cycle time across a plurality of machines (no patentable weight due to “or”), or both (no patentable weight due to “or”). However, Bobst teaches wherein the computing device is configured to determine an optimum feed rate (paragraphs [0018], costs associated with time may be weighted higher or lower depending on backlog, and [0031], infeed rate). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the parameter optimization of Bobst in the grinding system of Sullivan, in order to optimize the grinding process (see Bobst, paragraphs [0001] and [0029]).
Regarding Claim 35, Sullivan in view of Bobst teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 31. Sullivan further teaches wherein the computing device is configured to display sensor data across various phases of producing a single part or between multiple parts (Fig. 20).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan in view of Shin et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0191235, hereinafter “Shin”).
Regarding Claim 25, Sullivan teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 16. Sullivan does not specifically teach further comprising performing at least one of the following operations:(i) displaying, on the computing device, a plurality of datasets from the sensor data; and determining a part production quality trend (no patentable weight due to “at least one of”); (ii) determining, based on the sensor data, an optimum feed rate and an part cycle time, wherein a machine configured to use the optimum feed rate and part will minimize grinding wheel wear; and displaying, on the computing device, at least one of the optimum feed rate and the part cycle time (no patentable weight due to “at least one of”); (iii) determining, based on the sensor data, a sparkout time; and displaying, on the computing device, the sparkout time. However, Sullivan does teach displaying of data (Figs. 16-17 and 20-21). Further, Shin teaches determining, based on the sensor data, a sparkout time; and displaying, on the computing device, the sparkout time (Fig. 17, displaying sparkout times, and paragraphs [0170-[0178], empirical data is observed, i.e., sensed, data). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the sparkout time display of Shin in the data display system of Sullivan, in order to minimize cycle time and grinding cost (see Shin, paragraphs [0171]-[0172]).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan in view of Bhateja et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0165585, hereinafter “Bhateja”).
Regarding Claim 27, Sullivan teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 16. Sullivan does not specifically teach performing the following operation: determining, based on the sensor data, the computed metric report having values of various metrics, wherein the values include an average and at least one local maxima; and displaying, at the computing device, the computed metric report. However, Sullivan does teach displaying of data (Figs. 16-17 and 20-21). Further, Bhateja teaches determining, based on the sensor data, the computed metric report having values of various metrics, wherein the values include an average and at least one local maxima; and displaying, at the computing device, the computed metric report (paragraph [0066]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the data display of Bhateja in the data display system of Sullivan, in order to give the user flexibility to analyze and optimize the production process (see Bhateja, paragraphs [0061]-[0062] and [0065]).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan in view of Unno (EP-0467297-A2).
Regarding Claim 28, Sullivan teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 16. Sullivan does not specifically teach comprising performing at least one of the following operations:(i) determining, at the computing device, patterns or values corresponding to an operational error over a predetermined period of time; and displaying the operational error; or (ii) receiving, at the computing device, data corresponding to a user input; determining, from the sensor data and data corresponding to the user input, cost reductions achieved through at least one of process optimization and troubleshooting; and displaying the cost reductions (no patentable weight due to “at least one of”). However, Sullivan does teach displaying of data (Figs. 20-21). Further, Unno teaches determining, at the computing device, patterns or values corresponding to an operational error over a predetermined period of time (Fig. 7, block 504, and page 11, lines 49-52); and displaying the operational error (Fig. 7, block 510, and page 12, lines 3-10; corrected machining conditions include the machining errors determined in block 504). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the machining error determinations of Unno in the system of Sullivan, in order to efficiently correct machining errors without relying on individual operators (see Unno, page 3, lines 41-58).
Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan in view of Stenning et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0108747, hereinafter “Stenning”).
Regarding Claim 29, Sullivan teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 16. Sullivan does not specifically teach further comprising receiving, at the computing device, a user input indicating an organization of data; determining, based on the sensor data, a machine downtime report; based on the user input, organizing the machine downtime report; and determining, from the sensor data, an operator efficiency report; in response to receiving the sensor data, determining an operation metrics report; and selecting data organization types. However, Stenning teaches receiving, at the computing device, a user input indicating an organization of data (Figs. 2B and 3, user interface; paragraphs [0081]-[0082]); determining, based on the sensor data, a machine downtime report (Fig. 3 and paragraph [0082]); based on the user input, organizing the machine downtime report (Fig. 3 and paragraph [0082]); and determining, from the sensor data, an operator efficiency report (Fig. 4C and paragraph [0097], alert that a machine is in an inefficient state); in response to receiving the sensor data, determining an operation metrics report (Fig. 3 and paragraph [0082]); and selecting data organization types (Figs. 4A-C and 5, paragraphs [0096]-[0098], data is displayed and organized according to selections). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the machine metrics reporting and user selections of Stenning in the system of Sullivan, in order to understand process performance (see Stenning, paragraph [0007]).
Regarding Claim 30, Sullivan teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 16. Sullivan further teaches further comprising receiving, at the computing device, a user input indicating a data organization type wherein the data organization type includes by machine (Fig. 20, device selection, paragraphs [0238]-[0243]), by operator (Fig. 20, entry 2040, paragraphs [0238]-[0243]), or by process (no patentable weight due to “or”); and displaying, on the computing device, at least one displayed report (Fig. 20), wherein the displayed report comprises at least one of the downtime report (no patentable weight due to “at least one of”), the operation metrics report (Fig. 20, paragraph [0238]), a setup time report (no patentable weight due to “at least one of”), the shift variation report (no patentable weight due to “at least one of”), or the machine comparison report (no patentable weight due to “at least one of”).
Sullivan does not specifically teach determining, based on the sensor data and the data organization type, a setup time report; determining, based on the sensor data, a shift variation report, wherein the shift variation report provides information indicative of metric variations across a plurality of work shifts; and determining, based on the sensor data, a machine comparison report, wherein the machine comparison report provides information indicative of similar processes occurring on different machines. However, Stenner teaches determining, based on the sensor data and the data organization type, a setup time report (paragraph [0081], Setup & Adjust; paragraph [0099], setup time); determining, based on the sensor data, a shift variation report, wherein the shift variation report provides information indicative of metric variations across a plurality of work shifts (Figs 14, 15A-B, 16A, and 17; paragraphs [0111]-[0115]); and determining, based on the sensor data, a machine comparison report, wherein the machine comparison report provides information indicative of similar processes occurring on different machines (paragraph [0086], comparisons between machine performance; Fig. 5 and paragraph [0098]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the various machine metrics of Stenning in the system of Sullivan, in order to understand process performance (see Stenning, paragraph [0007]).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan in view of Bobst and Kubo et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0164781, hereinafter “Kubo”).
Regarding Claim 32, Sullivan in view of Bobst teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 31. Sullivan does not specifically teach wherein the computing device is configured to: determine, based on the sensor data, a computed metric report having values of various metrics, wherein the values include an average and at least one local maxima; and display, via the user interface at the computing device, the computed metric report. However, Sullivan does teach displaying of metrics that are based on sensor data (Fig. 20). Further, Kubo teaches, in paragraph [0003], analyzing sensor data by calculating a maximum value and an average. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the average and maximum of Kubo in the system of Sullivan, in order to detect abnormalities in data (see Kubo, paragraph [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571)272-6334. 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/JORDAN L JACKSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights