DETAILED ACTION
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 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for Application No. DE10 2021 117 244 filed on 07/05/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) 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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Independent claim 1 recites “A method for operating a production machine [[(1)]], which has at least two different standby states, wherein incoming and outgoing flows (ES, AS), comprising energy flows (EN) and material flows (ST), occur in each standby state depending on the state, and a base rating (BB1, BB2), which has a dependency on the period of time that elapses when changing from the standby state to the productive state of the machine [[(1)]], is associated with each standby state, wherein the base rating (BB1, BB2) is higher, the shorter the period of time mentioned is, and wherein – key figures (EEK, EAK) are assigned….- a future factor (ZFE, ZFA, ZFESa, ZFASa) is associated … - the key figures (ZEEK, ZESAK) weighted with the future factors (ZFE, ZFA, ZFESa, ZFASa) are added …- time-dependent state ratings for the individual standby states are calculated …- the time (tG) is determined… - the determined time (tG) is compared …, - a signal for changing…”
The claim does not include any of the recognized transitional phrases in accord with MPEP 2111.03. The claim recites “wherein” prior to defining the scope of the claim with respect to additional components or steps included in the scope of the claim, which is not a recognized transitional phrase. See MPEP 2111.04 (“Adapted to,” “Adapted for,” “Wherein,” “Whereby,” and Contingent Clauses.) Appropriate correction through claim amendment is respectfully requested.
In addition, although the claim appears to be directed to a method; however, none of the recited elements including the key figures, the future factor, the time-dependent state ratings, the time, the determined time, and the signal are positively recited functions or processes that would define the intended claim scope of a method claim. See MPEP 2173 (Claims Must Particularly Point Out and Distinctly Claim the Invention – in the context of US Patent law, a method claim must positively recite the function to ensure clarity and prevent indefiniteness.) Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the claim be amended in accord with the statute clearly reciting functions.
The Office also recognizes that new independent claim 11 has been added in the Preliminary Amendment dated December 11, 2023. Independent claim 11 is a method claim reciting functions. If independent claim 1 is amended, the Office notes that the recitations of such claim would be similar or duplicate from independent claim 11, which would raise an objection under 37 CFR 1.75 as both claims being substantial duplicate. (When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).)
As a recommendation, the Office suggests that any additional functionality recited in dependent claims 2-8 be positively recited.
As the intended scope is unclear, for purposes of examination, the claims cannot be examined over prior art.
Claims 2-10 are dependent claims of claim 1. The claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and therefore, claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Independent claim 11 recites “A method for operating a production machine having at least two different standby states and a productive state comprising: assigning key figures for different standby states for each of an incoming flow and an outgoing flow of the production machine, wherein an assigned key figure is higher, the more similarities the incoming flow or the outgoing flow has with a flow that occurs in the productive state” in lines 1-6. It is unclear what the difference is between “at least two different standby states” and “different standby states”. In addition, it is unclear what Applicant means by “wherein an assigned key figure is higher, the more similarities the incoming flow or the outgoing flow has with a flow that occurs in the productive state”, where “an assigned key figure is higher” and “the more similarities the incoming flow or the outgoing flow has with a flow that occurs in the productive state” do not seem to be connected to one another. Appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. For purposes of examination, the recitation will be interpreted as “A method for operating a production machine having at least two different standby states and a productive state comprising: assigning key figures for the at least two different standby states for each of an incoming flow and an outgoing flow of the production machine, wherein the more similarities the incoming flow or the outgoing flow has with a flow that occurs in the productive state, the higher an assigned key figure.” (emphasis added)
Independent claim 11 recites the limitation “associating a future factor with each key figure and weighting the key figures with the future factors, wherein a respective future factor is set to one in the case of a constant weighting of the corresponding flow and is larger or smaller than one to anticipate deviating weightings” in lines 7-10. It is unclear what the relationships are amongst “each key figure” and “the key figures”, as well as, “an assigned key figure” and “key figures” of the previous limitation in lines 3-5. The element “the future factors” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear what Applicant means by “a constant weighting of the corresponding flow” and “deviating weightings”. It is also unclear what Applicant means by “a respective future factor … is larger or smaller than one to anticipate deviating weightings”, where the limitation seems to suggest that the future factor leads to the deviating weightings. Appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “associating a future factor with the assigned key figure and weighting the assigned key figure with the future factors, wherein a weight for the weighting is set to one in the case of no anticipated deviation of a corresponding flow in the future or is larger or smaller than one in the case of anticipated deviation of the corresponding flow.”
Independent claim 11 recites the limitation “adding the key figures weighted with the future factors for each standby state on the input side and output side to weighted key figures on the input side and output side, wherein state-specific overall rating factors are formed therefrom” in lines 11-14. It is unclear what the difference is between “the key figures weighted with the future factors” and “weighted key figures”, as both elements seems to suggest a same element. The element “the input side and output side” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “adding weighted key figures of the assigned key figures of the incoming flow and the outgoing flow to form overall rating factor of each standby state of the at least two different standby states.”
Independent claim 11 recites the limitation “calculating time-dependent state ratings for the individual standby states by subtracting the product of time (t) and the overall rating factors from the base rating of the relevant standby state” in lines 15-16. Each of the elements “the individual standby states”, “the base rating” and “the relevant standby state” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Accordingly, it is unclear what Applicant means by “calculating time-dependent state ratings …” Appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “calculating a time-dependent state rating for the each standby state by subtracting the product of time (t) and the corresponding overall rating factor from a base rating of the each standby state, wherein the base rating is determined based on a period of time that elapses when changing from the each standby state to the productive state of the production machine, wherein the base rating is higher when the period of time is shorter.”
Independent claim 11 recites the limitation “determining a time for which the state rating of a first standby state corresponds to the state rating of a second standby state” in lines 18-19. The element “the state rating” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear if “a first standby state” and “a second standby state” are introducing new standby states or if they are part of the at least two different standby states. Appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “determining a time for which the time-dependent state rating of a first standby state of the at least two different standby states corresponds to the time-dependent state rating of a second standby state of the at least two different standby states.”
Independent claim 11 recites the limitation “outputting a signal for changing to the standby state which has the lower overall rating factor if the intended duration is longer than the determined time (tG)” in lines 22-24. Each of the elements “the standby state” and “the lower overall rating factor” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “outputting a signal for changing to a standby state of the at least two different standby states which has the overall rating factor that is lowest if the intended duration is longer than the determined time.”
Independent claims 1 and 15, for similar reasons as discussed above for independent claim 11 above, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2-10 are dependent claims of claim 1. The claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and therefore, claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 12-14 are dependent claims of claim 11. The claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and therefore, claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 16-20 are dependent claims of claim 15. The claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and therefore, claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 11:
(Step 2A, Prong One) The claim recites, “…assigning key figures for different standby states for each of an incoming flow and an outgoing flow of the production machine, wherein an assigned key figure is higher, the more similarities the incoming flow or the outgoing flow has with a flow that occurs in the productive state; associating a future factor with each key figure and weighting the key figures with the future factors, wherein a respective future factor is set to one in the case of a constant weighting of the corresponding flow and is larger or smaller than one to anticipate deviating weightings; adding the key figures weighted with the future factors for each standby state on the input side and output side to weighted key figures on the input side and output side, wherein state-specific overall rating factors are formed therefrom; calculating time-dependent state ratings for the individual standby states by subtracting the product of time (t) and the overall rating factors from the base rating of the relevant standby state; determining a time for which the state rating of a first standby state corresponds to the state rating of a second standby state; comparing the determined time with an intended duration, for which the production machine is to be taken out of the productive state; …”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification, such as at least paragraphs [0013] and [0015], for instance, the each of the assigning, associating, determining and comparing function is a mental process that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement based on data. That is, a person may perform, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the features enunciated above.
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraphs [0036] and [0038], for instance, each of the adding and calculating functions, as claimed, is a process that entails purely mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A, Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of, “outputting a signal for changing to the standby state which has the lower overall rating factor if the intended duration is longer than the determined time (t.sub.G).”
The practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. When so evaluated, the additional limitation of “outputting a signal for changing to the standby state which has the lower overall rating factor if the intended duration is longer than the determined time (t.sub.G)” is merely “outputting … for changing …” with the judicial exception that attempts to cover a solution “changing” to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it", and does not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and therefore is not indicative of integration into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not recite an improvement in a technology as set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(a). Accordingly, the additional limitations recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional limitation of “outputting a signal for changing to the standby state which has the lower overall rating factor if the intended duration is longer than the determined time (t.sub.G)” is merely adding the word outputting (or “to apply”) with the judicial exception “to change …”, and does not impose a meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 1 and 15 are not patent eligible for similar reasons, as explained above, for independent claim 11.
Claims 4-7 simply add more detail to or are cumulative to the abstract idea of independent claim 1.
Claims 3 and 8-10 simply add more detail to or are cumulative to the general recitation of applying the abstract idea of independent claim 1.
Claims 13-14 simply add more detail to or are cumulative to the general recitation of applying the abstract idea of independent claim 11.
Claims 17-20 simply add more detail to or are cumulative to the general recitation of applying the abstract idea of independent claim 15.
Examiner recommends incorporating claims 2, 12 and 16 into corresponding independent claims 1, 11 and 15 to overcome the 101 rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LANDGRAF et al. (US 2010/0026102 A1) teaches reducing the energy consumption of a machine using multiple energy reduction modes: a standby mode, a sleep-mode and an off-mode, as illustrated in at least FIG. 4.
FOERTSCH et al. (WO 2013/044962 A1) teaches controlling an industrial production system in an energy-efficient manner consisting of a decision logic for evaluating information relating to a structure model of the system to be controlled and at least one mode model of the components housed in the system. The controlling provides means for converting the actual modes and mode transitions currently associated with the components, to the modes of the corresponding mode model. In order to operate in an energy-efficient manner, multiple non-productive operation states or standby states are defined, as well as, a partial load operation state.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-5069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/MICHAEL W CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116