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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received 15 July, 2026, have been considered. Claims 1-7 and 11-33 are pending. Claims 19-33 have been withdrawn. Claims 8-10 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4, 11-15, and 17-18 have been amended.
Applicant acknowledges receipt of the European Office Action dated 30 October 2024, for European Patent Application No. 24000072.9.
Applicant’s efforts to overcome the claim objections are satisfactory, therefore all objections to the claim language are withdrawn.
Applicant’s efforts to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are satisfactory, therefore all 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s efforts to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 would not have been obvious in view of Olesen and Dueholm and Hall and Reber. Applicant argues that the Office appears to combine various components from various references to find the precise combination of components in the invention.
The examiner does not believe that their arguments use hindsight reasoning. Olesen discloses an evaluation device and a foreign object removal device, and that the evaluation device may autonomously activate the foreign object removal device, as shown in the previous Office action. A person having ordinary skill in the art would certainly wish for the evaluation device’s activation of the foreign object removal device to be based on data indicative of the presence of a foreign object. Noting that claim 1 already recites sensors for detecting the presence and properties of a foreign object, the examiner argued that it would have been obvious, in view of Hall, to perform sensor fusion so that the activation decision would be based on data about the foreign object from multiple sensors. The examiner considers data fusion to be a general concept with known advantages, and used Hall to demonstrate the generality of the concept.
Again, Reber teaches about measuring a mat for thickness, density, or basis weight in a process of manufacturing mats of material. Reber’s invention is in the same field of invention, and the examiner considers it reasonable to assert that using Reber’s measuring device to obtain basic properties of a mat such as its thickness, density, or basis weight would have been useful at least as a check that a manufacturing process is going according to plan.
The above does not constitute hindsight reasoning. The examiner considers that the previous claims 8-10 included general limitations the utility of which would have been understood and implemented by one of ordinary skill in the art. Autonomous removal of foreign objects enables automatic quality and safety control; sensor fusion enables decisions to be based on a determination of what multiple data sources say about the same object of interest; measuring mat properties ensures that its planned properties are its actual properties, is a check that the manufacturing devices are functioning properly, etc.
Note further that new grounds of rejection are given in light of the claim amendments. See 103 rejections below.
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.
Claims 1-5, 11-12, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesen (US 20230314346 A1) in view of Dueholm (US 6885198 B2) and Reber (US 5021666 A).
Regarding claim 1, Olesen discloses a device for detecting at least one foreign object in a mat (Abstract: "A device adapted for examining and detecting foreign objects in a flat plate-shaped material") spread on a conveyor device (See Fig. 1, fiber-based material 2 is conveyed on transport device 4) in a process for producing a plurality of manufactured boards (¶2: the flat plate-shaped material may be a manufactured board), the mat including (i) a plurality of fibers or a plurality of chips and (ii) at least one binding agent (¶4: "Flat, fiber-based materials are typically produced in a production facility using a suitable wool as the raw material, adding a binding agent and subsequently compressing the mix to form the flat, fiber-based material") which are pressed (¶4: the material is compressed), the device comprising:
at least one second sensor device (Abstract: the device comprises "a first X-ray source and a second X-ray source"; Fig. 1: see X-ray sources 5 and 6, which are directed at an area of the mat, along with sensors 7 and 8; both X-ray sources and sensors can be included in the second sensor device), which is configured for being aligned with at least one spatial measuring area (Fig. 1, the sensors are aligned with an area of the mat) and for determining at least one foreign object dimension of the at least one foreign object (¶117: "The sensor units 7, 8 will capture a two-dimensional image of the oblong foreign object 34 seen from two different angles or points of view."); and
an evaluation device that is configured for outputting a signal to an actuator to automatically remove the at least one foreign object (¶47: data from measurements can be presented to an operator, or used to autonomously actuate a device for removing the foreign object or for invoking an emergency stop. This implies that an evaluation device may be present which autonomously makes a decision about the presence of a foreign object and what to do about it.).
Olesen further discloses determining mat basis weight and density (¶111), but does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations.
Dueholm discloses a method of testing a mat made of biomass for manufacturing boards (Abstract). Dueholm also discloses a method of making manufacturing boards. As part of this method, Dueholm describes pressing a mat under an increased temperature (Column 5, lines 38-41: "In the hot press 17, the precompressed mat 11, which is now rid of the flaws mentioned, is compressed to form the finished plate 2 by the application of pressure and heat.").
Furthermore, Dueholm discloses testing a mat for foreign matter such as metal (Column 5, lines 24-25: "The testing device 12 tests the mat 11 for foreign matter like metal pieces"), and teaches that it is common to use metal detectors to detect foreign objects in the mat (Column 1, lines 20-23: "it has become known in board manufacturing to make use of metal detectors which sense magnetizable and non-magnetizable metal pieces in the mat").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Dueholm with the invention of Olesen by pressing the mat under an increased temperature because this is a known method of forming a board from a mat including fibers or chips and a binding agent. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Dueholm with the invention of Olesen by causing the device to comprise at least one first sensor device, which is configured for operating with a plurality of electromagnetic waves, a plurality of ultrasonic waves, a plurality of magnetic fields, or radiometry, for being directed at the at least one spatial measuring area of the mat in order to detect the at least one foreign object, and for recognizing a material of the at least one foreign object. Doing so would enable one to use a metal detector as a common and independent method of identifying a metallic foreign object in the same sensor region as the X-ray sensors. Furthermore, a metal detector may provide additional information (such as the foreign object’s composition) not provided by the X-ray sensors.
Dueholm also teaches measuring a density of a mat using testing device 12 (Column 3, lines 9-18; Column 5, lines 21-29). A portion of mat with too low weight per unit area can be removed (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Dueholm with the invention of Olesen by causing the device for detecting at least one foreign object to include a measuring device configured for measuring a density or a basis weight of the mat. Doing so would aid in determining whether the mat has the desired specifications for the manufacturing process, and provide another method for detecting and removing foreign objects with densities which differ from the mat’s standard density.
Finally, Dueholm teaches that an evaluation circuit makes a decision to remove mat portions that 1. are known to contain unwanted matter or 2. if the weight per unit area of the portion is too low (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Dueholm with the invention of Olesen by causing the evaluation device’s output signal to automatically remove the at least one foreign object to occur when at least one threshold value is exceeded, and for causing the evaluation device’s output signal to depend upon the material of the at least one foreign object recognized by the at least one first sensor device, upon the at least one foreign object dimension determined by the at least one second sensor device, and upon a plurality of measurement values of the density or the basis weight of the mat. Defining a threshold to be exceeded before removing a portion of mat containing a foreign object would ensure that the decision to remove a portion of mat is based on a test rather than an arbitrary decision. Having that decision depend upon the material of the at least one foreign object, its dimension, and density or basis weight measurements would ensure that the decision to remove a portion of mat is based on relevant data indicative of the presence and size of a foreign object.
Olesen in view of Dueholm does not explicitly disclose that the measuring device measures thickness of the mat.
Reber discloses a measurement device for measuring the thickness, density, and basis weight of a moving web (Abstract: "A pass-line independent measuring device for producing thickness related measurements (e.g., thickness, basis weight, density, etc.) of a moving web." Column 1, lines 12-15: the moving web can refer to sheets of material such as plastics, paper, or other materials).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Reber with the invention of Olesen in view of Dueholm by configuring the measuring device for measuring a thickness as well. Doing so would enable one to ensure the mat has the desired specifications for the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 2, Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the at least one first sensor device is configured for detecting a metal content in the material of the at least one foreign object (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber discloses the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Olesen teaches detecting at least two dimensions of the foreign object, and implies detecting three dimensions (¶106: "foreign objects 31 will look differently depending on which detector is detecting the foreign object 31. Therefore, further data processing, such as for instance image processing, is needed with the aim of providing an approximate 3D-shape of the relevant section of a flat plate-shaped material 2"; presumably this may include a 3D shape of the foreign object, inasmuch as a 3D shape can be obtained from two 2D images obtained from different angles; see ¶117 and rejection of claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Olesen with the invention of Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber by configuring the at least one second sensor device for detecting three dimensions of the material of the at least one foreign object. Doing so would enable one to estimate the total volume of the foreign object, which is a relevant factor for determining how much the foreign object risks damaging equipment and which may be relevant for determining how to remove the object.
Regarding claim 4, Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that the at least one first sensor device includes a metal detector (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that the at least one second sensor device includes a sensor that is based on a plurality of X-rays (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly recite the limitations of claim 11. However, it is common for sensors to operate at different frequencies, angles, positions, etc. such that their information is not in a common spatiotemporal reference frame and must be synchronized. Synchronization would likely involve detecting distance or time information, such as a universal time, to perform the synchronization; providing a universal time for synchronization is also common.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber to configure a device for synchronizing a plurality of sensor signals of the at least one first sensor device and the at least one second sensor device. Doing so would enable one to relate data values from sensors to one another. The device performing the synchronization may be called a distance/time detection device since synchronization may involve detecting spatial or temporal values.
Regarding claim 12, Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber to include a housing, wherein the at least one first sensor device and the at least one second sensor device are accommodated in the housing. Doing so would protect the sensors from damage.
Regarding claim 14, Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber teaches the limitations of claim 1. Olesen discloses that a foreign object may cause damage (¶5). Considering the rejection of claim 1, it is implied that the evaluation device predicts damage (see rejection of claim 1 noting that the evaluation device can remove a foreign object or invoke an emergency stop; this would reasonably be in response to a prediction that the foreign object would cause damage). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber to configure the evaluation device to predict damage.
Regarding claim 17, Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that the device is configured for being connected with at least one sensor assigned to a device/station of a production line for producing the plurality of manufactured boards (Olesen, the “device adapted for examining and detecting foreign objects” is configured to be connected with at least the X-ray sensors, which is assigned to the device/station for examining and detecting foreign objects. Also, from ¶12 the “device adapted for examining and detecting foreign objects” is can “readily and easily be integrated in a production line or facility”).
Regarding claim 18, Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Olesen discloses that the device is configured for being a part of a production line which is for producing the plurality of manufactured boards (¶93: the device is to be integrated into a production line for producing flat pieces of fiber-based material; see also rejection of claim 1). Dueholm also teaches a spreading station for spreading a mat (Column 5, lines 15-20, and Fig. 1: A scattering machine 6 forms a mat 9), a continuous press for compacting the mat (Column 5, lines 36-41 and 45-50, and Fig. 1: A continuous hot press 17 compresses a board 2 between upper and lower press belts 18 and 19), and that its testing device may be between the spreading station and the continuous press (Fig. 1: the testing device 12 is between the spreading station and the continuous press).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Dueholm with the invention of Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber by causing the production line to include a spreading station for spreading the mat and a continuous press for compacting the mat, and to cause the device to be between the spreading station and the continuous press. This would follow a known method of creating boards and would enable one to detect foreign objects before the foreign object damages a compactor (note Dueholm, Column 1, lines 14-20 teach that foreign matter can damage steel belts or other equipment in the compactor).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesen (US 20230314346 A1) in view of Dueholm (US 6885198 B2) and Reber (US 5021666 A), and further in view of Zale (US 20240349945 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 6.
Zale teaches that a thermal sensor can be used to detect foreign material in a pathway (¶135).
Noting that a foreign object may have different thermal properties than the mat in which it is embedded, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Zale with the invention of Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber by causing the at least one first sensor device or the at least one second sensor device to include a sensor based on thermal imaging. Doing so would provide an independent method of detecting a foreign object.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesen (US 20230314346 A1) in view of Dueholm (US 6885198 B2) and Reber (US 5021666 A), and further in view of Manome (US 6009755 A).
Regarding claim 7, Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 7.
Manome describes using ultrasonics to detect foreign contaminants in a product (Column 7, lines 30-40). The material can be a board material (Column 2, lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Manome with the invention of Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber by causing the at least one first sensor device or the at least one second sensor device to include a sensor that is based on the plurality of ultrasonic waves and that includes a sound reflection receiver. Doing so would enable one to implement an independent known method of detecting foreign objects in materials.
Claims 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesen (US 20230314346 A1) in view of Dueholm (US 6885198 B2) and Reber (US 5021666 A), and further in view of Birkhofer (US 20240381881 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 13.
Birkhofer discloses a system and method for smart manufacturing (Title). As part of the invention, Birkhofer discloses training a machine learning (ML) model to detect foreign objects in a production line based on sensor data such as images, video, and X-ray data (¶4: "The method includes receiving, by a controller, image data captured from a product traveling on a conveyor table in a food processing facility, determining, by the controller, at least one of a presence of a foreign object embedded within the product"; ¶67: A method of detecting foreign objects in meat can include receiving input data including images, video, X-ray images, etc. ; ¶70: a controller can identify foreign objects from the image data.; ¶50: A data analysis engine 285 can comprise ML or AI. It's clear from context that the controller's identification of foreign objects may involve the ML or AI.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Birkhofer with the invention of Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber by causing the evaluation device to comprise a ML model, and by configuring the ML model to analyze a damage history of sensor data to predict the presence of damage-causing foreign objects. Doing so would be useful because ML can use historical data to learn complex relationships between inputs and use those learned relationships to more accurately classify foreign objects.
Regarding claim 15, Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to cause the evaluation device to comprise a ML model configured as described in the rejection of claim 13, for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13). Such a ML can be termed an adaptive unit, which the evaluation device includes.
Regarding claim 16, Olesen in view of Dueholm and Reber and Birkhofer teaches the limitations of claim 15. Furthermore, noting that the ML trained on historical sensor data would determine patterns in input signal data from multiple sensors, it would be reasonable to conclude that the adaptive unit (i.e. the ML) is configured for identifying a plurality of at least possible damage images (that is, sensor data representing possible damage-causing foreign objects) based on a plurality of patterns of a plurality of detected signals of a plurality of individual sensors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hoffman (US 20110089611 A1) discloses a method for preheating a pressed material mat spread on a circulating molding band during manufacture of wood material boards (Abstract). The mat includes fibers and/or chips (¶19). The material mat is pressed and heated (¶10). A metal detector is used to detect foreign metal objects in the mat (¶16). Metal parts larger than a threshold dimension can cause problems if they remain to the heating phase (¶16). Both magnetic metals and non-magnetic metals can be removed (¶16).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights