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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because should be 150 words, one paragraph related to the inventions. It discloses just claim 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stewart et al EP 4303678 (hereinafter “Stewart”).
As to claim 1, 9-10, 11 and 19-20 Stewart teaches a method of performing machining steps comprising the steps of:
1) performing an initial machining on a plurality of initial parts utilizing at least one machine and storing machining parameters for each of the initial parts (paragraph 0029-0030 “perform real-time predicting of characteristics of the prepreg being manufactured by prepreg system 118 before manufacturing” and paragraph 0057, 0117);
2) capturing features of the initial parts subsequent to the initial machining (paragraph 0029-0031 “manufacturing a composite part. Based on the set properties predicted for the prepreg, composite material manager 132 can record one or more portions” and paragraph 0057, 0117);
3) associating the captured features of the initial parts and the stored machining parameters for each of the initial parts, and utilizing the association to form a training database (paragraph 0057 “Training dataset 240 can include labels in the form of historical properties 244. Historical properties 244 can be determined from measurements made of unconsolidated composite material 204 at different locations in composite material manufacturing system 206. In other words, historical properties 244” and paragraph 0117 “For example, the sensor system can measure tension on paper 503, the speed at which paper 503 moves, a gap width of gap 508, resin viscosity of resin 505 in resin dams 510, basis/areal weight, and other parameters”);
4) predicting a part quality for production parts by utilizing a machining parameter of a production machining operation (paragraph 0057-0060 “For example, machine learning model 236 can be trained to determine predicted properties 224 for unconsolidated composite material 204 such as prepreg using training dataset 240”); and
5) modifying machining parameters of a subsequent machining production step based upon the predicted part quality (paragraph 0030-0032 “Additionally, with knowing the predicted properties for a portion of the prepreg, composite material manager 132 performs corrective actions based on the quality level determined for the portion of the unconsolidated composite material from the prediction of the properties of unconsolidated composite materials made prior manufacturing operations being completed when the portion is completed product in the unconsolidated composite material”).
As to claim 9, Steward teaches wherein a feed rate of the initial parts into the subsequent machining step is controlled based upon the prediction of the part quality (paragraph 0115-0116, 0030-0031, claim 5).
As to claim 10, Steward teaches wherein the production machining operation and the subsequent machining step are performed on different ones of said at least one machine (paragraph 0081-0086 and 0030-0031).
As to claim 11, recites similar limitations as of claim 1, also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 19-20, recites similar limitations as of claims 9-10, also rejected by same rational.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-8 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al EP 4303678 (hereinafter “Stewart”) in view of Lachmann et al. WO2022063702A1 (hereinafter “Lachmann”).
As to claim 2, Stewart teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Steward does not explicitly teach wherein the captured features include a dimension of at least one feature of the respective initial part, and the modification of the subsequent machining step includes changing a tolerance for a production feature formed by the subsequent production machining step.
However, Lachmann teaches wherein the captured features include a dimension of at least one feature of the respective initial part, and the modification of the subsequent machining step includes changing a tolerance for a production feature formed by the subsequent production machining step (paragraph 0050-0053).
Steward and Lachmann are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to energy management system.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above machining system, as taught by Steward, and incorporating modification of the subsequent machining step includes changing a tolerance for a production feature, as taught by Lachmann.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve monitoring, controlling or quality control after each processing step takes too much time overall to be practical for 100% inspection in mass production, as suggested by Lachmann (paragraph 0006).
As to claim 3, Steward and Lachmann teaches all the limitations all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lachmann further teaches wherein the subsequent machining step has also been put through steps 1-4 such that the changed tolerance can be utilized to control parameters of a second subsequent machining step (paragraph 0052-0057).
As to claim 4, Steward and Lachmann teaches all the limitations all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lachmann further teaches wherein the subsequent machining step has also been put through steps 1-4 such that the changed tolerance may be utilized to find a part, that might have been out of tolerance, to be acceptable (paragraph 0057-0058 and paragraph 0053).
As to claim 5, Steward and Lachmann teaches all the limitations all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Steward further teaches wherein the tolerance is tightened during the subsequent machining step based upon the predicted part quality from the production machining operation (paragraph 0030-0031 and claim 5).
As to claim 6, Steward and Lachmann teaches all the limitations all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lachmann further teaches wherein the tolerance is loosened during the subsequent machining step based upon the predicted part quality from the production machining operation (paragraph 0057-0058 and paragraph 0053).
As to claim 7, Steward and Lachmann teaches all the limitations all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Steward further teaches wherein the subsequent machining step has a speed modified based upon the predicted part quality (paragraph 0030-0031 and claim 5).
As to claim 8, Steward and Lachmann teaches all the limitations all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Steward further teaches wherein a backlash during the subsequent machining step is monitored to control the speed based upon predicted part quality (claim 5 and paragraph 0029-0032).
As to claims 12-18, recites similar limitations as of claims 2-8, also rejected by same rational.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and listed on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cella et al USPGPUB 20200133257 A1 a system and method for detecting operating characteristics of an industrial machine in which the systems include at least one data capture device configured to capture raw data of a point of interest of the industrial machine and a computer vision system. The computer vision system can generate one or more image data sets using the raw data captured, identify one or more values corresponding to a portion of the industrial machine within the point of interest represented by the one or more image data sets, compare the one or more values to corresponding predicted values, generate a variance data set based on the comparison of the one or more values and the corresponding predicted values, detect an operating characteristic of the industrial machine based on the variance data, and generate data indicating the detection of the operating characteristic.
Tuszynski USP 7,840297 teaches an apparatuses and systems that facilitate the design, production, control and/or measurement tasks associated with manufacturing and other processes. In one implementation, the present invention facilitates or enables the use of indirect process variables for use in manufacturing or other processes that yield articles or parts. For example, it enables determining a desired value profile for an indirect process variable based on the operating target, the lower operating limit and the upper operating limit for the predictor characteristic, and observations of the process. In one implementation, the present invention facilitates qualifying articles resulting from the process by comparing the desired versus observed value profiles for an indirect process variable. In another implementation, the present invention facilitates controlling a direct process variable based on the observed versus desired values of an indirect process variable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights