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 .
This office action is a response to an application filed 08/30/2024, in which claims 1-33 are pending and ready for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 10/08/2024, 05/14/2025, and 03/31/2026.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 32and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 30 and 31 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,111,644, as outlined below. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Instant Application
US Patent No. 12,111,644
32. A system comprising:
a paper making machine comprising a creping blade;
a memory configured to store process data, wherein the process data includes vibration data;
one or more sensors configured to measure the process data, wherein measuring process data includes measuring vibration data of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine using one or more vibration sensors; and one or more processors configured to: assign a score to the process data, including assigning a vibration score for the vibration data, wherein assigning the vibration score for the vibration data comprises: determining an average vibration value of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine; calculating a standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine; and assigning the score to the vibration data comprises based at least in part on the average vibration value of the creping blade and the standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade; and generate an index score based on the score for the process data and the vibration score for the vibration data
30. A system comprising:
a paper making machine comprising a creping blade;
a memory configured to store process data, wherein the process data includes vibration data; one or more sensors configured to measure the process data, wherein measuring process data includes measuring vibration data of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine using one or more vibration sensors; and one or more processors configured to: assign a score to the process data, including assigning a vibration score for the vibration data, wherein assigning the vibration score for the vibration data comprises: determining an average vibration value of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine; calculating a standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine; and assigning the score to the vibration data comprises based at least in part on the average vibration value of the creping blade and the standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade; and generate an index score based on the score for the process data and the vibration score for the vibration data.
33. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of a computing device to: measure process data, wherein the process data includes vibration data, and wherein measuring process data includes measuring vibration data of a creping blade currently in use by a paper making machine using one or more vibration sensors; assign a score to the process data, including assigning a vibration score for the vibration data, wherein assigning the vibration score for the vibration data comprises: determining an average vibration value of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine; calculating a standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine; and assigning the score to the vibration data comprises based at least in part on the average vibration value of the creping blade and the standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade; and generate an index score based on the score for the process data and the vibration score for the vibration data.
31. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of a computing device to: measure process data, wherein the process data includes vibration data, and wherein measuring process data includes measuring vibration data of a creping blade currently in use by a paper making machine using one or more vibration sensors; assign a score to the process data, including assigning a vibration score for the vibration data, wherein assigning the vibration score for the vibration data comprises: determining an average vibration value of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine; calculating a standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine; and assigning the score to the vibration data comprises based at least in part on the average vibration value of the creping blade and the standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade; and generate an index score based on the score for the process data and the vibration score for the vibration data
Claims 1-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 12,111,644, in view of US Patent Publication No 2019/0120811 to Luneau et al., (hereinafter Luneau), as outlined below.
Instant Application
US Patent No. 12,111,644
1. A method of tracking data associated with a creping process, the method comprising: measuring process data, wherein the process data includes at least sheet quality data and vibration data, and wherein measuring process data includes measuring vibration data of a creping blade currently in use by a paper making machine using one or more vibration sensors; assigning a vibration score for the vibration data; assigning a quality score for the sheet quality data; and generating an index score based on the vibration score for the vibration data and the quality score for the sheet quality data.
1. A method of tracking data associated with a creping process, the method comprising: measuring process data, wherein the process data includes vibration data, and wherein measuring process data includes measuring vibration data of a creping blade currently in use by a paper making machine using one or more vibration sensors;
assigning a score for the process data, including assigning a vibration score for the vibration data, wherein assigning the vibration score for the vibration data comprises: determining an average vibration value of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine; calculating a standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine; and assigning the score to the vibration data comprises based at least in part on the average vibration value of the creping blade and the standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade; and generating an index score based on the score for the process data and the vibration score for the vibration data. The method of claim 1, wherein the process data further comprises product quality data.
The Patent claim does not explicitly teach sheet quality data; assigning a quality score for the sheet quality data; and generating an index score based on a first process score for a one process data and a score for another data;
However, Luneau from the same or similar field of papermaking process monitoring teaches sheet quality data (Data can be indicative of whether a paper product’s quality will be unfavorable, as well as vibration being scored with respect to a threshold, see p41-42, 51-53, Luneau); assigning a quality score for the sheet quality data (Data indicative of whether a paper product’s quality will be unfavorable can be gauged (scored), as to its potential impact, for example in the case of an amount of deposits, see 52-53, 51, p41-42, Luneau); and generating an index score based on a first process score for a one process data and a score for another data (Vibration level and a level of data indicative of whether a paper product’s quality will be unfavorable can be gauged (scored) can be used together to gauge the performance (i.e. an index score) of a system component, see p52, p41-42, 51-53, Luneau).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the papermaking and monitoring as described by the Patent claim and incorporating consideration of sheet quality and scores based on the quality and vibration, as taught by Luneau.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better consider various factors that can provide additional information on the state of an intended use process so as to form a more well-rounded judgement as to level of performance of the process, or lack thereof, that can better indicate whether corrective action should be taken (see p52, p41-42, 51-53, Luneau).
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the sheet quality data comprises data indicative of one or more of: tissue quality, crepe structure information, sheet moisture, sheet softness, sheet bulk, sheet stretch in a machine direction, sheet stretch in a cross direction, creping moisture.
Luneau further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the process data further comprises product quality data. 24. The method of claim 1, wherein the index score further comprises measurements from one or more other sensors, the one or more other sensors comprising one or more of: an additional vibration sensor, a temperature sensor, a tachometer, a pressure sensor, a flow sensor, and a moisture sensor. wherein the sheet quality data comprises data indicative of one or more of: tissue quality, crepe structure information, sheet moisture, sheet softness, sheet bulk, sheet stretch in a machine direction, sheet stretch in a cross direction, creping moisture (Data indicative of whether a paper product’s quality will be unfavorable, such as data indicative of likelihood of holes or other defects in paper sheet product, see p41-42, 51-53, Luneau).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the papermaking and monitoring as described by the Patent claim and incorporating consideration of data indicative of sheet quality, as taught by Luneau.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better consider various factors that can provide additional information on the state of an intended use process so as to form a more well-rounded judgement as to level of performance of the process, or lack thereof, that can better indicate whether corrective action should be taken (see p52, p41-42, 51-53, Luneau).
3. The method of claim 1, wherein assigning the vibration score for the vibration data comprises: determining an average vibration value of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine; calculating a standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine; and assigning the score to the vibration data comprises based at least in part on the average vibration value of the creping blade and the standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade.
1….wherein assigning the vibration score for the vibration data comprises: determining an average vibration value of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine; calculating a standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine; and assigning the score to the vibration data comprises based at least in part on the average vibration value of the creping blade and the standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising: comparing the standard deviation to a threshold; and outputting a signal when the standard deviation of the vibration data exceeds the threshold.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: comparing the standard deviation to a threshold; and outputting a signal when the standard deviation of the vibration data exceeds the threshold.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein outputting the signal comprises outputting the signal to a display when the standard deviation of the vibration data exceeds the threshold.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein outputting the signal comprises outputting the signal to a display when the standard deviation of the vibration data exceeds the threshold.
6. The method of claim 4, wherein assigning the vibration score to the vibration data comprises comparing the vibration data to previous vibration data, wherein the previous vibration data is associated with at least one previously used creping blade.
5. The method of claim 3, wherein assigning the vibration score to the vibration data comprises comparing the vibration data to previous vibration data, wherein the previous vibration data is associated with at least one previously used creping blade.
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising reducing the previous vibration data to a single value per creping blade.
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising reducing the previous vibration data to a single value per creping blade.
8. The method of claim 7, further comprising comparing the standard deviation of the vibration data to a standard deviation of previous vibration data, wherein the single value is the standard deviation of the previous vibration data.
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising comparing the standard deviation of the vibration data to a standard deviation of previous vibration data, wherein the single value is the standard deviation of the previous vibration data.
9. The method of claim 7, wherein reducing the previous vibration data to the single value per creping blade comprises: generating fitted vibration data by fitting a function to the vibration data; generating a detrended function by calculating a difference between the measured vibration data and the fitted vibration data; and calculating a standard deviation of the detrended function.
8. The method of claim 6, wherein reducing the previous vibration data to the single value per creping blade comprises: generating fitted vibration data by fitting a function to the vibration data; generating a detrended function by calculating a difference between the measured vibration data and the fitted vibration data; and calculating a standard deviation of the detrended function.
10. The method of claim 6, further comprising determining a start point and a stop point of the at least one previously used creping blade, wherein the start point corresponds to a start of use of the at least one previously used creping blade and the stop point corresponds to an end of use of the at least one previously used creping blade.
9. The method of claim 5, further comprising determining a start point and a stop point of the at least one previously used creping blade, wherein the start point corresponds to a start of use of the at least one previously used creping blade and the stop point corresponds to an end of use of the at least one previously used creping blade.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the vibration data comprises vibration data at one or more frequencies.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the vibration data comprises vibration data at one or more frequencies.
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising diagnosing one or more issues with a Yankee dryer based at least in part on the vibration data.
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising diagnosing one or more issues with a Yankee dryer based at least in part on the vibration data.
13. The method of claim 1, wherein assigning the vibration score to the vibration data further comprises: comparing the vibration data to a threshold; and assigning the score to the at least one vibration value using a difference between the vibration data and the threshold, wherein, when the vibration data exceeds the threshold, a larger difference between the vibration data and the threshold corresponds to a worse vibration score.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein assigning the vibration score to the vibration data further comprises: comparing the vibration data to a threshold; and assigning the score to the at least one vibration value using a difference between the vibration data and the threshold, wherein, when the vibration data exceeds the threshold, a larger difference between the vibration data and the threshold corresponds to a worse vibration score.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the vibration score for the vibration data is associated with a color, wherein the color corresponds to the difference between the vibration data and the threshold.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the vibration score for the vibration data is associated with a color, wherein the color corresponds to the difference between the vibration data and the threshold.
15. The method of claim 1, wherein the index score comprises a combination of the vibration score for the vibration data, the quality score for the sheet quality data, and at least one other score for at least one other portion of the process data.
14. The method of claim 1, wherein the index score comprises a combination of the vibration score for the vibration data and at least one other score for at least one other portion of the process data.
16. The method of claim 15, further comprising associating the at least one other score with one or more of a paper making process and creping blade chatter.
15. The method of claim 14, further comprising associating the at least one other score with one or more of a paper making process and creping blade chatter.
17. The method of claim 15, wherein the at least one other score is a score for data descriptive of one or more of: vibration of a back side of a creping blade, vibration of a front side of a creping blade, a steam pressure of a Yankee dryer, a uhle box pressure of the Yankee dryer, properties of an adhesive coating on a Yankee dryer, properties of a release coating on a Yankee dryer, and a ratio of the properties of the adhesive coating and the release coating.
16. The method of claim 14, wherein the at least one other score is a score for data descriptive of one or more of: vibration of a back side of a creping blade, vibration of a front side of a creping blade, a steam pressure of a Yankee dryer, a uhle box pressure of the Yankee dryer, properties of an adhesive coating on a Yankee dryer, properties of a release coating on a Yankee dryer, and a ratio of the properties of the adhesive coating and the release coating.
18. The method of claim 15, wherein generating the index score comprises assigning a respective weight to each of the vibration score and the at least one other score; and determining a sum of the weighted vibration score and the at least one other weighted score.
17. The method of claim 14, wherein generating the index score comprises assigning a respective weight to each of the vibration score and the at least one other score; and determining a sum of the weighted vibration score and the at least one other weighted score.
19. The method of claim 18, further comprising: determining wherein the weight assigned to the vibration data based on operator input.
18. The method of claim 17, further comprising: determining wherein the weight assigned to the vibration data based on operator input.
20. The method of claim 1, further comprising: comparing the index score to a threshold; and outputting a signal indicative of whether the index score is above the threshold or below the threshold.
19. The method of claim 1, further comprising: comparing the index score to a threshold; and outputting a signal indicative of whether the index score is above the threshold or below the threshold.
21. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a length of time until a creping blade should be changed using one or more of the vibration score assigned to the vibration data and the index score.
20. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a length of time until a creping blade should be changed using one or more of the vibration score assigned to the vibration data and the index score.
22. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining an evaluation of a performance of a Yankee dryer using the index score; and performing an action based on the evaluation.
21. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining an evaluation of a performance of a Yankee dryer using the index score; and performing an action based on the evaluation.
23. The method of claim 22, wherein the action comprises one or more of: using the index score to prevent damage to the Yankee dryer, determining the performance of the creping process.
22. The method of claim 21, wherein the action comprises one or more of: using the index score to prevent damage to the Yankee dryer, determining the performance of the creping process.
24. The method of claim 22, wherein performing the action comprises: outputting an alarm for an operator to perform maintenance on the creping blade.
32. The method of claim 21, wherein performing the action comprises: outputting an alarm for an operator to perform maintenance on the creping blade.
25. The method of claim 1, wherein the process data further comprises measurements from one or more other sensors, the one or more other sensors comprising one or more of: an additional vibration sensor, a tissue sheet crepe structure sensor, a Yankee coating film thickness sensor, a Yankee coating film modulus sensor, a temperature sensor, a tachometer, a pressure sensor, a flow sensor, and a moisture sensor.
24. The method of claim 1,
wherein the index score further comprises measurements from one or more other sensors, the one or more other sensors comprising one or more of: an additional vibration sensor, a temperature sensor, a tachometer, a pressure sensor, a flow sensor, and a moisture sensor.
26. The method of claim 25, further comprising: comparing a measurement of the one or more other sensors to a threshold; and outputting a signal indicative of whether the measurement is above or below the threshold.
25. The method of claim 24, further comprising: comparing a measurement of the one or more other sensors to a threshold; and outputting a signal indicative of whether the measurement is above or below the threshold.
27. The method of claim 1, wherein the creping blade comprises a doctor blade.
26. The method of claim 1, wherein the creping blade comprises a doctor blade.
28. The method of claim 1, wherein the paper making machine is a first paper making machine, wherein the index score is associated with the first paper making machine, and wherein the method further comprises: comparing the index score to a second index score, the second index score being associated with a second paper making machine.
27. The method of claim 1, wherein the paper making machine is a first paper making machine, wherein the index score is associated with the first paper making machine, and wherein the method further comprises: comparing the index score to a second index score, the second index score being associated with a second paper making machine.
29. The method of claim 1, further comprising comparing the index score to an average index score of one or more paper making machines.
28. The method of claim 1, further comprising comparing the index score to an average index score of one or more paper making machines.
30. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more vibration sensors generate the vibration data, the vibration data comprising a series of side-to-side variation measurements over time for the creping blade during a papermaking process.
29. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more vibration sensors generate the vibration data, the vibration data comprising a series of side-to-side variation measurements over time for the creping blade during a papermaking process.
31. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more vibration sensors are located on one or more of a front side of a creping blade and a back side of a creping blade.
23. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more vibration sensors are located on one or more of a front side of a creping blade and a back side of a creping blade.
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 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, claim 1 recites “A method of tracking data…”, and therefore is a process, which is a statutory category. Meanwhile, claim 32 recites “A system…,” and thus is also a statutory category. Claim recites 33 “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions…,” which is a product, and also a statutory category.
At Step 2A, prong one, claim 1 recites a series of limitations that involve assigning a vibration score for vibration data (i.e. mental judgement/estimation), assigning a quality score for sheet quality data (i.e. mental judgement/estimation), and generating an index score based on the vibration score for the vibration data and the quality score for the sheet quality data (i.e. mental calculation/estimation). Similarly, claims 32 and 33 recites a series of limitations that involve assigning a score to process data, including assigning a vibration score for vibration data (i.e. mental judgement/estimation), wherein assigning the vibration score for the vibration data comprises: determining an average vibration value of a creping blade currently in use by a paper making machine (i.e. mental calculation/mathematical concept), calculating a standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine and assigning a score to the vibration data based at least in part on the average vibration value of the creping blade and the standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade (i.e. mental calculation/mathematical concept) using specified data), and generating an index score based on the score for the process data and the vibration score for the vibration data (i.e. mental calculation/estimation).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they are directed to the abstract ideas of mental limitations capable of being performed in the mind and mathematical concepts, and thus directed to the mental processes grouping and mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
Specifically, the abstract idea include the limitations of:
“…assigning a vibration score for the vibration data; assigning a quality score for the sheet quality data; and generating an index score based on the vibration score for the vibration data and the quality score for the sheet quality data.” in claim 1.
And for claims 32 and 33, the limitations of:
“…assign a score to the process data, including assigning a vibration score for the vibration data, wherein assigning the vibration score for the vibration data comprises: determining an average vibration value of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine; calculating a standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine; and assigning the score to the vibration data comprises based at least in part on the average vibration value of the creping blade and the standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade; and generate an index score based on the score for the process data and the vibration score for the vibration data” (or a variation thereof).
As noted earlier, the limitations in question can essentially be interpreted to include mental judgements and calculations of considering, assigning, calculating, and analyzing data for an intended use. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
At step 2A, prong 2, claim 1 recites “measuring process data, wherein the process data includes at least sheet quality data and vibration data, and wherein measuring process data includes measuring vibration data of a creping blade currently in use by a paper making machine using one or more vibration sensors;” Claim 32 recites “a paper making machine comprising a creping blade;
a memory configured to store process data, wherein the process data includes vibration data;
one or more sensors configured to measure the process data, wherein measuring process data includes measuring vibration data of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine using one or more vibration sensors; and one or more processors configured to:…” Meanwhile, claim 33 also recites “one or more processors of a computing device to: measure process data, wherein the process data includes vibration data, and wherein measuring process data includes measuring vibration data of a creping blade currently in use by a paper making machine using one or more vibration sensors;”
At Step 2B, while the claims include additional elements as noted above in Step 2A prong 2, they are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the recitation of processors, memories, and computing devices, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that the represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP2106.05(h)). Furthermore, the limitations of measured data by sensors, amount to necessary data gathering, which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). Furthermore, the aspects of the data relating to “process data that includes at least sheet quality data and vibration data, and wherein measuring process data includes measuring vibration data of a creping blade currently in use by a paper making machine,” and recitation to a paper making machine comprising a creping blade, amount to intend-use and field-of-use to the extent that they do not impose meaningful limits on the claim because these aspects contribute only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed subject matter. It would not integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more because the intent of the limitations is merely to generically highlight the intended use and field of use to which the mental and mathematical limitations may be used for, without integrally linking any aspect as a (more than insignificant) practical application (see MPEP2106.05(b)III., MPEP2106.5(c) 5., MPEP2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims 2-31, similarly recite abstract idea limitations and/or limitations that do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 2 recites further intended use and or field-of-use limitations of the type of data gathered, claim 3 recites limitations capable of being performed in the mind and reciting mathematical concepts of determining/calculating averages, standard deviations, score assigning, Claim 4 recites mental/mathematical comparison limitation, and extra-solution activity of data output see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3), claim 5 also recites extra-solution activity of data output, claim 6 further recites mental/mathematical limitation of comparison and intended use data, claim 7 recites mental/mathematical limitation of data manipulation, reduction, or filtering, claim 8 further recites mental/mathematical limitation of comparison, claim 9 further recites mental/mathematical limitations of data manipulation and statistical analysis and generation, claim 10 further recites mental limitation of determining starting and stop points, claim 11 further recites intended type of data, claim 12 further recites a mental limitation in the form of a mental judgement determination of an issue or diagnosis, claim 13 further recites mental/mathematical limitations of mental comparisons, score assignments based on mental comparisons with a threshold value, claim 14 further recites mental limitations of color association and/or extra-solution activity of a form of data output, claim 15 further recites mental and/or extra-solution activity in the form of how data is to be organized or presented, claim 16 further recites mental association of data, claim 17 further recites field of use or intended use of the type of data, claim 18 further recites mental/mathematical limitations of mentally assigning weights to scores and determining a weighted sum, claim 19 further recites mere data gathering in the form of an input of data, claim 20 further recites a mental/mathematical limitation of comparing to a threshold, and an extra-solution limitation of data output, claim 21 further recites a mental limitation of judging/determining a length of time of an intended use based on mental consideration of previously mentally derived information, claim 22 further recites a mental limitation of a evaluation/judgement, and an extra-solution activity of performing an action recited at a high level of generality so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), and can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP2106.05(h)), claim 23 further recites limitations in the alternative where one limitation is a mental limitation of determining (i.e. a judging action) of determining a performance (either as in how something is performing or as in determining how some object or equipment is to perform some action), and the other alternative limitation amounts to mere extra-solution activity stated so generically that it can be interpreted as a form insignificant extra-solution activity to “apply it,” as the specific application is so generic to amount merely to wording that is equivalent to mere generic instructions to implement an abstract idea to an intended field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(d) I.), claim 24 further recites a limitation of extra-solution activity of mere data/information output, claim 25 further recites mere intended use/field-of-use limitation of the type of data and intended type of sensors used for data the necessary data gathering, claim 26 further recites a mental/mathematical limitation of comparison of data value to a threshold and an extra solution activity of data/information output, claim 27 further recites a limitation of an intended use/field of use limitation of a type of component in a system or being considered, claim 28 further recites a limitations of field-of-use/intended use of types of equipment and mental/mathematical limitation of a comparison and mental association, claim 29 further recites a mental/mathematical limitation of comparing a mentally derived value with another value representing a field-of-use/intended use value of an average associated with paper making machines, claim 30 further recites a field-of-use/intended use limitation of the type of sensors and data that is gathered for the mental limitations, and claim 31 recites an intended use limitation relating where sensors used for necessary data gathering are intended to be placed/located so as to gather the needed data for the mental limitations.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is 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.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation “…further comprising: determining wherein the weight assigned to the vibration data based on operator input.” The limitation is generally unclear, and perhaps comprises unintended typographical or grammatical errors. It is unclear what is meant by “determining wherein the weight assigned to the vibration data,” since there has been no prior mention of a weight assigned to vibration data. The base claim of claim 19 refers to assigning weight, but to scores, not specifically to vibration data per se. Additionally, it is not clear what it means to determine “wherein a weight assigned to data based on operator input.” For the purpose of examination, the limitation is being broadly interpreted to mean that user input of some form is received.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
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 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No 2016/0340830 to Von Drasek et al., (hereinafter Von Drasek), in view of US Patent Publication No 2019/0120811 to Luneau et al., (hereinafter Luneau).
Regarding claim 1, Von Drosek teaches a method of tracking data associated with a creping process (Monitoring including related to creping, see p53-54, p2, p7, Von Drosek), the method comprising: measuring process data, wherein the process data includes at least vibration data (Vibration sensor data related to a creping process, see p58, p53-54, p2, p7, Von Drosek), and wherein measuring process data includes measuring vibration data of a creping blade currently in use by a paper making machine using one or more vibration sensors (Detected (measured) vibration sensor data related to a creping process that uses a blade in paper making machinery, see p55, p58, p53-54, p2, p7, Von Drosek); assigning a vibration score for the vibration data (Vibration data is used in determining (assigning) performance property, such as determining an RMS level that is indicative of a level of concern, and thus interpreted as a score, see P62, P58-67, Von Drosek);
While Van Drosek implies the combination of different combinations of monitoring as a means
classifying a performance of a process (p62), the reference does not explicit in teaching sheet quality data; assigning a quality score for the sheet quality data; and generating an index score based on a first process score for a one process data and a score for another data;
However, Luneau from the same or similar field of papermaking process monitoring, more explicitly teaches sheet quality data (Data can be indicative of whether a paper product’s quality will be unfavorable, see p41-42, 51-53, Luneau); assigning a quality score for the sheet quality data (Data indicative of whether a paper product’s quality will be unfavorable can be gauged (scored), as to its potential impact, for example in the case of an amount of deposits, see 52-53, 51, p41-42, Luneau); and generating an index score based on a first process score for a one process data and a score for another data (Vibration level and a level of data indicative of whether a paper product’s quality will be unfavorable can be gauged (scored) can be used together to gauge the performance (i.e. an index score) of a system component, see p52, p41-42, 51-53, Luneau).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the papermaking and monitoring as described by Von Drosek and incorporating consideration of sheet quality and scores based on the quality and vibration, as taught by Luneau.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better consider various factors that can provide additional information on the state of an intended use process so as to form a more well-rounded judgement as to level of performance of the process, or lack thereof, that can better indicate whether corrective action should be taken (see p52, p41-42, 51-53, Luneau).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Luneau further teaches wherein the sheet quality data comprises data indicative of one or more of: tissue quality, crepe structure information, sheet moisture, sheet softness, sheet bulk, sheet stretch in a machine direction, sheet stretch in a cross direction, creping moisture (Data indicative of whether a paper product’s quality will be unfavorable, such as data indicative of likelihood of holes or other defects in paper sheet product, see p41-42, 51-53, Luneau).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the papermaking and monitoring as described by the combination that includes Von Drosek and incorporating consideration of data indicative of sheet quality, as taught by Luneau.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better consider various factors that can provide additional information on the state of an intended use process so as to form a more well-rounded judgement as to level of performance of the process, or lack thereof, that can better indicate whether corrective action should be taken (see p52, p41-42, 51-53, Luneau).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches wherein assigning the vibration score for the vibration data comprises: determining an average vibration value of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine (A root mean square, which is an averaging operation, is performed on vibration data that was taken of a creping blade while operational, see p18, p60-62, 71, Von Drosek); calculating a standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine (Standard deviation with respect to creping blade vibrational data, see p16-17,19, p62, Von Drosek); and assigning the score to the vibration data comprises based at least in part on the average vibration value of the creping blade and the standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade machine (RMS data of vibration is scored in relation to standard deviation from a baseline, so as to gauge the criticality of vibrations for a desired condition, see p16-17,19, p62, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches further comprising: comparing the standard deviation to a threshold (Deviation is compared to alarm level limits (threshold), see p62, p19, p16-17,19, p62, Von Drosek); and outputting a signal when the standard deviation of the vibration data exceeds the threshold (Alarning signal can be provided when value greater than a level threshold, see p62, p19, p16-17,19, p62, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches wherein outputting the signal comprises outputting the signal to a display when the standard deviation of the vibration data exceeds the threshold (Visual alarm, see p62, p19, p16-17,19, p62, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches wherein assigning the vibration score to the vibration data comprises comparing the vibration data to previous vibration data, wherein the previous vibration data is associated with at least one previously used creping blade (Trend analysis comprises a comparison of vibrational data over time of a previously used blade, see p18, p62, p60, p62, p19, p16-17,19, p62, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches further comprising reducing the previous vibration data to a single value per creping blade (Data reduction performed by extracting a single root mean square magnitude value, see p59, p18, p62, p60, p62, p19, p16-17,19, p62, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches further comprising comparing the standard deviation of the vibration data to a standard deviation of previous vibration data, wherein the single value is the standard deviation of the previous vibration data (RMS standard deviation used in analysis to trend data, see p61-62, p59, p18, p62, p60, p62, p19, p16-17,19, p62, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches wherein reducing the previous vibration data to the single value per creping blade comprises: generating fitted vibration data by fitting a function to the vibration data (Reduction based on rms trend fitting fft, see Fig. 11, p75, 59, p71-74, p61-62, p68, p70, p18, p62, p60, p62, p19, p16-17,19, p62, Von Drosek); generating a detrended function by calculating a difference between the measured vibration data and the fitted vibration data (Comparison of fitted slope analysis on vibration data, see Fig. 11, p75, 59, p61-62, p68, p70, p18, p62, p60, p62, p19, p16-17,19, p62, Von Drosek); and calculating a standard deviation of the detrended function (Standard deviation of alarming further used, see p73-76, Fig. 11, p75, 59, p61-62, p68, p70, p18, p62, p60, p62, p19, p16-17,19, p62, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches comprising determining a start point and a stop point of the at least one previously used creping blade, wherein the start point corresponds to a start of use of the at least one previously used creping blade and the stop point corresponds to an end of use of the at least one previously used creping blade (Trend analysis indicative of blade changes, meaning when a blade stopped and another started, see p61, Figs. 3, p18, p62, p60, p62, p19, p16-17,19, p62, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches wherein the vibration data comprises vibration data at one or more frequencies (Data with frequencies, see Abs., p12, p57, p62, 73, 76, Von Drosek)..
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches further comprising diagnosing one or more issues with a Yankee dryer based at least in part on the vibration data (Vibration data can be used to determine at least chatter, in relation to a dryer surface, a probable maintenance issue, etc.,, see p53, p7, p62, 73, 76, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches wherein assigning the vibration score to the vibration data further comprises: comparing the vibration data to a threshold; and assigning the score to the at least one vibration value using a difference between the vibration data and the threshold, wherein, when the vibration data exceeds the threshold, a larger difference between the vibration data and the threshold corresponds to a worse vibration score (Vibration data compared to limits of varying degrees and that can signal a concern or worse condition if a passed limit is a larger difference from normal, see p76, 66, p62-65, p53, p7, p62, 73, 76, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches wherein the vibration score for the vibration data is associated with a color, wherein the color corresponds to the difference between the vibration data and the threshold (Color can be used to differences in relation to an alarm, see p76, 66, p62-65, p53, p7, p62, 73, 76, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Luneau further teaches wherein an index score comprises a combination of vibration score for vibration data, a quality score for a sheet quality data, and at least one other score for at least one other portion of process data (Data indicative of whether a paper product’s quality will be unfavorable, such as data indicative of likelihood of holes or other defects in paper sheet product, is used with other vibration data and process data such as other process parameters, in determining the performance value of a system component, see p52-53, p41-42, 51-53, Luneau).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the papermaking and monitoring as described by the combination that includes Von Drosek and incorporating consideration of various data and vibration, as taught by Luneau.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better consider various factors that can provide additional information on the state of an intended use process so as to form a more well-rounded judgement as to level of performance of the process, or lack thereof, that can better indicate whether corrective action should be taken (see p52, p41-42, 51-53, Luneau).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches further comprising associating the at least one other score with one or more of a paper making process and creping blade chatter (Performance based on determined levels (scores) with at least another level of another paper making process such as at other sites, see p58, p62-65, p53, p7, p62, 73, 76, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Luneau further teaches wherein the at least one other score is a score for data descriptive of one or more of: vibration of a back side of a creping blade, vibration of a front side of a creping blade, a steam pressure of a Yankee dryer, a uhle box pressure of the Yankee dryer, properties of an adhesive coating on a Yankee dryer, properties of a release coating on a Yankee dryer, and a ratio of the properties of the adhesive coating and the release coating (Data analysis that determines levels descriptive of issues such as in relation to coating on a dryer, see p52, p42-43, p47, P49-50, p41-42, 51-53, Luneau).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the papermaking and monitoring as described by the combination that includes Von Drosek and incorporating consideration of other conditions, as taught by Luneau.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better consider data in relation to other issues that may impact the level of quality of an intended process (see p52, p41-42, 51-53, Luneau).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches wherein generating the index score comprises assigning a respective weight to each of the vibration score and the at least one other score (Weighting applied to rms values, see P63-64, Von Drosek); and determining a sum of the weighted vibration score and the at least one other weighted score (A level is determined from summed weighting levels, see P65-66, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches determining wherein the weight assigned to the vibration data based on operator input (User input in the form of how much weight to give to a level at which vibration value will indicate issues, is used in , see p62, p76, p61-66, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches further comprising: comparing the index score to a threshold (RMS score compared to alarming threshol, see P66-67, 61-65,Von Drosek); and outputting a signal indicative of whether the index score is above the threshold or below the threshold (Outputs indicative of a level surpassing an alarming threshold, see p76, p61-66, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches further comprising: determining a length of time until a creping blade should be changed using one or more of the vibration score assigned to the vibration data and the index score (Analysis based on level can be used for pre-determining when to replace a blade, see p19, P65-66, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches further comprising determining an evaluation of a performance of a Yankee dryer using the index score evaluation (Evaluation can be extended with regards to a dryer surface performance, see p53, p20, Von Drosek); and performing an action based on the evaluation (An action of at least alerting for preventative or corrective maintenance, see p53, p20, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches wherein the action comprises one or more of: using the index score to prevent damage to the Yankee dryer, determining the performance of the creping process (Gauging the severity of data relative to limits (i.e scoring), is performed in view of determining whether the performance of equipment is acceptable and for predictive maintenance with the implication to prevent damage to equipment in drying operation, see p53, p62, p7, 73, 76, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches wherein performing the action comprises: outputting an alarm for an operator to perform maintenance on the creping blade (Alarm alert to operator for predictive maintenance, see p62, 73, 76, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches wherein the process data further comprises measurements from one or more other sensors, the one or more other sensors comprising one or more of: an additional vibration sensor, a tissue sheet crepe structure sensor, a Yankee coating film thickness sensor, a Yankee coating film modulus sensor, a temperature sensor, a tachometer, a pressure sensor, a flow sensor, and a moisture sensor (At least one or more other vibration sensors, tachometer, etc., see p57, p58, Von Drosek (Luneau also teaches other vibration sensors and other type, see p47, P49-50)).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Luneau further teaches further comprising: comparing a measurement of the one or more other sensors to a threshold (Other sensors data can be compared to thresholds, see p47, P49-50, Luneau); and outputting a signal indicative of whether the measurement is above or below the threshold (Alerts indicative of passing a threshold, see p47, P49-50, p41-42, 51-53, Luneau).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the papermaking and monitoring as described by the combination that includes Von Drosek and incorporating consideration of other sensors with respect to thresholding conditions, as taught by Luneau.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better consider various factors that can provide additional information on the state of an intended use process so as to better indicate or announce whether corrective action should be taken (see p52, p41-42, 51-53, Luneau).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches wherein the creping blade comprises a doctor blade (Doctor blade, see Fig. 1, p11-12, p54, p55, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches wherein the paper making machine is a first paper making machine, wherein the index score is associated with the first paper making machine, and wherein the method further comprises: comparing the index score to a second index score, the second index score being associated with a second paper making machine (Analysis performed in relation to a papermaking machine and can be compared relative to other equipment of other sites, see Fig.2, p3, p58, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches further comprising comparing the index score to an average index score of one or more paper making machine (Comparison relative to other sites, see p58, Von Drosek)s.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches wherein the one or more vibration sensors generate the vibration data, the vibration data comprising a series of side-to-side variation measurements over time for the creping blade during a papermaking process (sensors for measuring during process on cross directional direction (side to side), see p56-57, Fig. 1, p54, p55, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Von Drosek and Luneau teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Von Drosek further teaches wherein the one or more vibration sensors are located on one or more of a front side of a creping blade and a back side of a creping blade (sensors on at least a back side of creping blade, a sensor on a surface also means it has to be on either side of a blade, see Fig. 1, p54, p55, Von Drosek).
Regarding claim 32, Von Drosek teaches a system comprising: a paper making machine comprising a creping blade (Doctor blade in paper making, see Fig. 1, p11-12, p54, p55, Von Drosek);
a memory configured to store process data, wherein the process data includes vibration data (Vibration sensor data related to a creping process, see p58, p53-54, p2, p7, p62, Von Drosek);
one or more sensors configured to measure the process data, wherein measuring process data includes measuring vibration data of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine using one or more vibration sensors Detected (measured) vibration sensor data related to a creping process that uses a blade in paper making machinery, see p55, p58, p53-54, p2, p7, Von Drosek); and one or more processors configured to: assign a score to the process data, including assigning a vibration score for the vibration data (Vibration data is used in determining (assigning) performance property, such as determining an RMS level that is indicative of a level of concern, and thus interpreted as a score, see P62, P58-67, Von Drosek), wherein assigning the vibration score for the vibration data comprises: determining an average vibration value of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine (A root mean square, which is an averaging operation, is performed on vibration data that was taken of a creping blade while operational, see p18, p60-62, 71, Von Drosek); calculating a standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade currently in use by the paper making machine (Standard deviation with respect to creping blade vibrational data, see p16-17,19, p62, Von Drosek); and assigning the score to the vibration data comprises based at least in part on the average vibration value of the creping blade and the standard deviation of the vibration data of the creping blade (RMS data of vibration is scored in relation to standard deviation from a baseline, so as to gauge the criticality of vibrations for a desired condition, see p16-17,19, p62, Von Drosek); and generate an index score based on the score for the process data and the vibration score for the vibration data.
While Van Drosek implies the combination of different combinations of monitoring as a means
classifying a performance of a process (p62), the reference does not explicit in teaching generating an index score based on a first process score for a one process data and a score for another data;
However, Luneau from the same or similar field of papermaking process monitoring, more explicitly teaches sheet quality data (Data can be indicative of whether a paper product’s quality will be unfavorable, see p41-42, 51-53, Luneau); assigning a quality score for the sheet quality data (Data indicative of whether a paper product’s quality will be unfavorable can be gauged (scored), as to its potential impact, for example in the case of an amount of deposits, see 52-53, 51, p41-42, Luneau); and generating an index score based on a first process score for a one process data and a score for another data (Vibration level and a level of data indicative of whether a paper product’s quality will be unfavorable can be gauged (scored) can be used together to gauge the performance (i.e. an index score) of a system component, see p52, p41-42, 51-53, Luneau).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the papermaking and monitoring as described by Von Drosek and incorporating consideration of sheet quality and scores based on the quality and vibration, as taught by Luneau.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better consider various factors that can provide additional information on the state of an intended use process so as to form a more well-rounded judgement as to level of performance of the process, or lack thereof, that can better indicate whether corrective action should be taken (see p52, p41-42, 51-53, Luneau).
Claim 33is rejected on the same grounds as claim 32.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Von Drasek et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2015/0160001 teaches monitoring and control of characteristics of a creping process, such as determining the distribution of crepe structures, where analysis is performed based on averaging and standard deviation.
Herring III, US Patent No. 11,181,872 teaches optimizing operation of industrial equipment, such as in papermaking, by collecting raw data used in classifier training and outputting importance scores, generating set-points, visualizations, monitoring for deviations, and performing action based on the deviations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (EST).
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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights