DETAILED ACTION
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an evaluation device in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernd et al (DE 102021109399 A1) in view of Urano (US Pub. 2008/0015802).
With respect to claim 1, Bernd discloses A method for detecting a configuration of present invention, this object is achieved by a device for identifying changes to a machine arrangement, comprising…), the method comprising:
provisioning a plurality of unambiguous configuration codes that represent different configurations and parameterizations of a plurality of different modular safety controllers, (see page 2, last paragraph wherein …state expected for the machine arrangement and to identify a distinguishing feature if the detected state differs from the expected state…);
generating a digital image of the module block of
transmitting the digital image to an evaluation device configured to execute an evaluation algorithm that captures, through image recognition, the selected module types, positions of the central control module and the electronic modules within the module block, and settings of the control elements and/or switching elements of each of the electronic modules and of the central control module and generates an unambiguous logic code from information obtained therefrom, the unambiguous logic code representing a current configuration and parameterization of the module block of the comparator. It compares the detected state of the machine arrangement with a corresponding state expected for the machine arrangement. The expected state can be a state of the machine at a previous point in time and can be stored as a data record, for example, in a memory of the evaluation unit 14 …);
comparing the unambiguous logic code with the unambiguous configuration codes to identify the current configuration and parameterization of the module block of the
outputting the identification dataset and/or an image obtained from the identification dataset if the logic code matches one of the configuration codes, or outputting the error code if the logic code does not match any of the configuration codes, (see page 8, paragraph 4, wherein …result of the assessment, is the degree of change, can be output via an interface unit 18 and shared…), as claimed.
However, Bernd fails to disclose a configuration of a modular safety controller that comprises a module block having a central control module and a number n≥ 1 of parameterizable electronic modules that are selected from a plurality of available module types, wherein the configuration of the modular safety controller is determinable by different types of electronic modules and different positions of the electronic modules within the module block and wherein functions of the modular safety controller are capable of being parameterized by setting control elements and/or switching elements of at least some of the electronic modules, as claimed.
Urano teaches a configuration of a modular safety controller that comprises a module block having a central control module and a number n≥ 1 of parameterizable electronic modules that are selected from a plurality of available module types, wherein the configuration of the modular safety controller is determinable by different types of electronic modules and different positions of the electronic modules within the module block and wherein functions of the modular safety controller are capable of being parameterized by setting control elements and/or switching elements of at least some of the electronic modules (see figure 2 with multiple dies “number of modules” in a wafer “modular safety controller” that is being inspected, also see paragraph 0131), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the two references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of industrial inspection using image analysis. Teaching of Urano to have a machine visual inspection of a piece that comprises of multiple modules i.e. dies can be incorporated in to Bernd’s system as suggested (see Abstract, identifying changes to a machine arrangement), for suggestion, and modifying the system yields a predictable results of inspection system (see Urano paragraph 0001), for motivation.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, combination of Bernd and Urano further discloses wherein generating the digital image includes capturing an analysis axis usable to determine whether individual modules of the module block are arranged next to one another in a horizontal direction or one above another in a vertical direction; and wherein capturing the analysis axis is carried out by determination of an installation position of the central control module within the module block, (see Bernd page 4, second paragraph wherein …the sensor can be set up to detect a geometric dimension “an analysis axis usable to determine whether individual modules of the module block are arranged next to one another in a horizontal direction or one above another in a vertical direction” of the machine arrangement or parts thereof; see last paragraph wherein …the distinguishing feature can correspond to a change in location or position of the machine arrangement or parts of the machine arrangement), as claimed.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, combination of Bernd and Urano further discloses wherein generating the digital image includes determining the number of modules within the module block; and wherein determining the number of modules of the module block includes capturing defined distances between individual modules of the module block, (see Bernd page 7, paragraph 3, wherein …the acquisition unit 12 can be set up as an integrator, which aggregates parameters “number of modules” from different sources and of different types and combines them into a state of the machine arrangement. For example, the detection unit 12 can compile the current status from sensor data …), as claimed.
With respect to claims 6-9, combination of Bernd and Urano further discloses wherein generating the digital image includes capturing a plurality of specific recognition features of the modules within the module block and all parameterizations of the modules; wherein capturing the specific recognition features and parameterizations of the modules within the module block is carried out in a single step for an entirety of the module block; wherein capturing the specific recognition features and parameterizations of the modules within the module block is carried out module by module in several steps; wherein the image recognition is carried out by simulation and/or by calculations based on image segments of the digital image, (see Urano paragraph 0069, wherein … a field of view “specific recognition features” and rotation of a detected polarization component with respect to an inspection subject substrate in the fourth and fifth modifications of the defect inspection apparatus according to the third embodiment…; and paragraph 0164, wherein …A field of view on the inspection subject substrate W which is determined by the objective lens 0-3a, the image-forming lens 0-5a, and the polarization detecting section 0-200a'''' is moved relative to the inspection subject substrate …; and paragraph 0124 wherein …segmentation may be performed directly from spatial information of an image itself. Defects are detected on a segment-by-segment basis), as claimed.
With respect to claim 10, combination of Bernd and Urano further discloses wherein the image recognition is carried out by an image comparison of the digital image with a plurality of images stored in a database, (see Bernd page 7, paragraph 4, wherein …expected state can be a state of the machine at a previous point in time and can be stored as a data record, for example, in a memory of the evaluation unit 14…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 11, combination of Bernd and Urano further discloses wherein the image comparison is carried out module by module, (see Urano paragraph 0126 wherein …a method in which one-to-one comparison is performed for plural regions…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 12, combination of Bernd and Urano further discloses wherein the identification dataset and/or the image obtained from the identification dataset are visualized by a display device if the logic code matches one of the configuration codes, or matches the error code if the logic code does not match any of the configuration codes. (see Bernd page 7 last two lines to the first paragraph of page 8, wherein …distinguishing features can be based on the difference between the states to be compared and can be further supplemented by a set of rules. For example, not every difference has to be recorded as a distinguishing feature if, for example, the difference lies within a defined tolerance range. It is also conceivable that the set of status parameters that represent the detected status is larger or smaller than the set of status parameters that reflect the expected status. In such a case, a set of rules can specify whether and in what form a distinguishing feature is present; also see page 8, paragraph 4, wherein … the interface unit 18 can also include a display in order to be able to output…), as claimed.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claim 1, because claim 13 is claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claim 1. Furthermore, Bernd discloses an evaluation device, (see evaluation unit 14); a camera-based image generating device (see detection unit 12); and a display device (see page 8 paragraph 4, wherein …interface unit 18 can also include a display…), as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKKRAM BALI whose telephone number is (571)272-7415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/VIKKRAM BALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663