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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 16-33 have been examined in this Final Rejection. Claim 16, 28, and 29 have been amended. Claims 16-37 are currently pending. Claims 34-37 have been withdrawn.
Priority
Application 18/833,445 filed 07/26/2024 is a 371 of PCT/EP2023/051232 filed 01/19/2023, and claims priority to DE10 2022 101 940.3 filed 01/27/2022.
Election/Restrictions
Claim(s) 34-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/10/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“weighing arrangement” in claim 16. The specification discloses that the corresponding structure sufficient to perform the recited function is a weighing cell, reciting that “ The weighing arrangement 3 comprises a weighing cell, which determines analog and/or digital weight values representative of the weight of the package 2”
“dispensing arrangement” in claim 16. The specification discloses that the corresponding structure sufficient to perform the recited function is labels from a material strip, disclosing that “The dispensing arrangement 4 is provided for dispensing the label 5, which may be configured to be releasable from a material strip 6”. The specification also discloses that “In particular, labels 5 configured as adhesive labels are used, which already have an adhesive face by means of which they are fastened releasably on the material strip 6. Likewise, it is also conceivable to use adhesive-free labels 5, which are only subsequently provided with an adhesive face or are applied onto an adhesive face on the respective package 2”.
“a printer arrangement” in claim 16. The specification discloses that the corresponding structure sufficient to perform the recited function as a thermal printer , disclosing “thermal printing, in particular thermal direct printing or thermal transfer printing, is provided”.
- a operation controller” in claim 16. The specification discloses that the corresponding structure to perform the recited function as comprising electronics for implementing the control tasks, disclosing “the operation controller 12 for this purpose preferably comprises control electronics for implementing the control tasks that arise in the scope of the labeling routine”.
“the sensor arrangement” in claim 16. The specification discloses that the corresponding structure to perform the recited function is at least one sensor, disclosing that “the term sensor arrangement 13 includes sensor units assigned to the functional units… Here, the sensor units comprise at least one sensor, and preferably a plurality of sensors, which determine operating values for example on the basis of optical, acoustic, mechanical and/or electronic measurement quantities”.
“evaluation arrangement” in claim 16. The specification discloses that the corresponding structure to perform the recited function is a server for the labeling system. “The evaluation arrangement may for example, be a server for the labeling system, which is superordinate to the operation controller 12 and carries out an evaluation of the operating values. Further, here and preferably, the connection of the evaluation arrangement 14 to a cloud 15 that comprises at least one cloud server 16 is provided. It is conceivable for at least some of the tasks that arise at the evaluation arrangement 14 to be observed by means of the cloud server 16. In the embodiment represented, however, an evaluation of the operating values is carried out for example locally on the labeling device 1 by means of the evaluation arrangement 14”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 16-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 16-33 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method for predicting when maintenance is required. For Claim 16 the limitations of:
in a labeling routine, driving […] a operation controller to label the individual packages;
processing and transmitting sensor data as operating values to the operation controller, […], and using the operating values to monitor and drive […] the labeling routine; and
predicting a future maintenance instant for at least one of the functional units by means of the evaluation arrangement with the aid of a predetermined prediction model on the basis of the operating values, wherein the future maintenance instant indicates when a maintenance requirement occurs because of wear of individual functional units.
The above limitations are reciting a process of predicting when maintenance of a unit would be required. The concept of determining if maintenance is required, is considered to be a commercial practice that is a certain method of organizing human activities. This concept is something that is known to be done in the corporate world or vehicle industry where devices or vehicles are monitored and are provided with a maintenance schedule. Using data about a device to determine a maintenance servicing is considered to be reciting a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea that is a commercial practice. Accordingly, Claim 16 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 16 recites the additional elements of functional units of a labeling device, weighing arrangement, dispensing arrangement, printer arrangement, and sensor arrangement that implements the identified abstract idea. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computers performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, even in combination 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. Claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of functional units of a labeling device, weighing arrangement, dispensing arrangement, printer arrangement, and sensor arrangement, to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”), see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such claim 16 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 17-33 are similarly rejected because they further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 16 and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim(s) 17 merely describe(s) the predetermined prediction model based on a time dependency of the operating values.
Claim(s) 18 merely describe(s) the predetermined prediction model based on an extrapolation of the time dependency of the operating values.
Claim(s) 19 merely describe(s) the prediction model containing at least one threshold value for an operating value or for a quantity derived from the operating values as a model parameter, and wherein the predicted maintenance instant is determined with the aid of the threshold value being reached, which is predicted from the operating values.
Claim(s) 21 merely describe(s) the prediction model containing model parameters that are determined by means of the evaluation arrangement in a configuration routine with the aid of the operating values.
Claim(s) 22 merely describe(s) the configuration routine performed with the initialization of the labeling device and/or in a time-controlled manner.
Claim(s) 23 merely describe(s) what the operating values are representative of.
Claim(s) 24 merely describe(s) speed.
Claim(s) 25 merely describe(s) a time interval with an earliest maintenance instant and a latest maintenance instant is determined for the predicted maintenance instant, the earliest maintenance instant and the latest maintenance instant describing the bounds of a confidence interval with a predetermined confidence.
Claim(s) 26 merely describe(s) the predicted maintenance instant transmitted by means of the evaluation arrangement to a production management system of the labeling system, which compiles a processing plan for the operation of the labeling system, and/or wherein the processing plan is transmitted to the evaluation arrangement by means of the production management system and wherein the prediction model is defined as a function of the processing plan.
Claim(s) 27 merely describe(s) the production management system of the labeling system comprising the processing plan for the operation of the labeling system as a function of the predicted maintenance instant.
Claim(s) 28 merely describe(s) the predetermined maintenance instants stored and outputted by means of the evaluation arrangement in addition to the predicted maintenance instants.
Claim(s) 29 merely describe(s) the processing plan compiled by means of the production management system in such a way that a predicted maintenance instant coincides with one of the predetermined maintenance instants.
Claim(s) 30 merely describe(s) the maintenance means is assigned by means of the evaluation arrangement to the predicted maintenance instant with the aid of a maintenance specification.
Claim(s) 31 merely describe(s) the maintenance means being a replacement part or a tool.
Claim(s) 32 merely describe(s) the maintenance means in a warehouse management system at the predicted maintenance instant being requested by means of the evaluation arrangement.
Claim(s) 33 merely describe(s) output of the predicted maintenance instant and at least some of the current operating values and/or quantities dependent on the operating values by a display device is instigated by means of the evaluation arrangement.
Claim(s) 20 further recite the additional element of a machine learning model. These additional elements are again recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic computer components) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, dependent claims 17-33 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. None of these dependent claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by reciting an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limitations that, in an ordered combination provide “significantly more”. Therefore, Claims 17-33 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claim(s) 16-19, 20-24, 26-30, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pou (EP 0902385 A2), in view of Rodgers (US 9802728 B1), in view of Rajalakshmi (IN202141051373), and in further view of Wojdyla (US 20140096900 A1).
Regarding Claim 16,
Pou discloses, A method for the operation of a labeling system with at least one labeling device, the labeling device including, as functional units, (Pou Par. 0010, 0012).
the method comprising predicting a future maintenance instant for at least one of the functional units by means of the evaluation arrangement with the aid of a predetermined prediction model on the basis of the operating values (Pou Par. 0006).
the method comprising predicting a future maintenance instant for at least one of the functional units by means of the evaluation arrangement with the aid of a predetermined prediction model on the basis of the operating values. "More particularly, in accordance with the present invention, a microprocessor monitors the resistive trends of the printing elements 23 of the thermal printhead. A read/write memory may be used to store previous resistive values of the individual printing elements 23 for use in determining the resistive trend. The microprocessor compares one or more characteristics of the resistive trend to predict whether an individual printing element is failing. If the microprocessor deter- mines that an individual printing element may be failing, a warning to that effect is generated." (Pou Par. 0006).
Pou discloses a method for predicting maintenance, but fails to disclose labeling of a package, at least one weighing arrangement for determining a weight value of the package, a dispensing arrangement for dispensing a label from a material strip, and a printer arrangement for printing the label, the labeling device further including a sensor arrangement by means of which operating values assigned to the functional units are determined and transmitted to an evaluation arrangement of the labeling system. Rodgers discloses a printing system. Rodgers further discloses,
for the labeling of a package “According to some embodiments disclosed herein, the underlying object may be a container of any type or form, such as a box, a tube, an envelope or the like” (Rodgers Col. 2 Line 54-56).
at least one weighing arrangement for determining a weight value of the package, "The fulfillment center 240 may further include one or more item sensors 260, which may consist of or comprise one or more sensors, including but not limited to a scale or other device for determining a mass of one or more object" (Rodgers Col. 9 Lines 11-14).
a dispensing arrangement for dispensing a label from a material strip, and "The label printer 276 may be configured to operate separately or in conjunction with the rotatable tamp head 272, and may include various label supply facilities such as rolls, trays or carriages which may provide blank stock to the label printer 276 for printing" (Rodgers Col. 10 Lines 42-46).
a printer arrangement for printing the label, "The label printer 276 may be any form of analog or digital printer, e.g., a toner-based, inkjet, solid ink, inkless, dot-matrix or daisy wheel printer, configured to impose one or more characters, symbols or other markings onto a label or other adhesive paper-type product" (Rodgers Col. 10 Lines 38-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the failure prediction system of Pou with specific parts of a label system of Rodgers since efforts to realign printers or print heads prior to printing labels for application by tamp heads or tamp assemblies are ineffective (Rodgers Col. 5 Lines 45-47).
The combination of Pou and Rodgers disclose a label system that predicts maintenance, but fail to disclose wherein the future maintenance instant indicates when a maintenance requirement occurs because of wear of individual functional units. Rajalakshmi discloses, a predictive maintenance platform with real time analysis for printing industries which predict when equipment failure could occur based on the datasets driven from various sensors in the machine. Rajalakshmi further discloses wherein the future maintenance instant indicates when a maintenance requirement occurs because of wear of individual functional units. "These sensed values help in forecasting the upcoming failure which is done with the help of deep learning model (3) developed" (Rajalakshmi Page 5). "The sensed data of the printer can be viewed after logging in to their account. The printer data stored in the database is then sent to the machine learning block and if error is detected it is sent to service department. The status of the error is then notified to the user through UI and alarm (106) placed in their location. 11 major parameters affects the working of printing machines namely temperature, blanket pressure, Compressor pressure, pH, GSM (Gram per square meter), Alignment of Cylinders, Diameter of Cylinders, Coolant Level, BF (Bursting factor), Number of copies, Web break tension. These are to be measured by 11 sensors, which are then connected to the IoT hardware through 8 ESP8266 NodeMCU for each parameter respectively" (Rajalakshmi Page 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the failure prediction system of Pou and Rodgers with the future maintenance instant indicating when a maintenance requirement occurs because of wear of individual functional units of Rajalakshmi to collect real time data and forecast upcoming failures, and warn users (Rajalakshmi Page 5).
The combination of Pou, Rodgers, and Rajalakshmi disclose a label system that predicts maintenance because of wear of individual functional units, but fail to disclose the labeling device further including a sensor arrangement by means of which operating values assigned to the functional units are determined and transmitted to an evaluation arrangement of the labeling system, in a labeling routine, driving the functional units by means of a operation controller to label the individual packages; processing and transmitting sensor data as operating values to the operation controller, by means of the sensor arrangement, and using the operating values to monitor and drive the functional units in the labeling routine. Wojdyla, discloses labeling one or more products such as packages transported along a conveyer. Wojdyla further discloses, the labeling device further including a sensor arrangement by means of which operating values assigned to the functional units are determined and transmitted to an evaluation arrangement of the labeling system, " Sensors maybe added along the conveyer path to update tracking accuracy and to confirm arrival of the package at the label application system 30 and the arrival at the specific label printer-applicator assembly 104-1, 104-2 assigned to apply the label" (Wojdyla Par. 0044).
in a labeling routine, driving the functional units by means of a operation controller to label the individual packages; "There is provided a method for labeling a plurality packages with a movable label applicator assembly. The assembly includes at least a printer and an applicator. … Data is printed by way of the printer on a first label, and the first label is applied to the first package with the label applicator assembly positioned above the conveyor" (Wojdyla Par. 0004).
processing and transmitting sensor data as operating values to the operation controller, by means of the sensor arrangement, and using the operating values to monitor and drive the functional units in the labeling routine; and "Sensors maybe added along the conveyer path to update tracking accuracy and to confirm arrival of the package at the label application system 30 and the arrival at the specific label printer-applicator assembly 104-1, 104-2 assigned to apply the label" (Wojdyla Par. 0044). "The control box 130-1, 130-2 contains the servo and pneumatic controllers as well as sensor inputs. Label print data, package height data and label placement information comes from the labeler control computer 35. The labeler control computer 35 also synchronizes the operation of each of the double label application subsystems 100-1 and 100-2 to ensure that throughput is maximized and to ensure that the label printer-applicator assembly does not collide with a package. The labeler control computer 35 (FIG. 3) is mounted below the conveyer 31 and is in communication with both control boxes 130-1 and 130-2" (Wojdyla Par. 0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the failure prediction system of Pou, Rodgers, and Rajalakshmi with a sensor arrangement, labeling routine, and processing and transmitting sensor data as operating values to the controller of Wojdyla to update tracking accuracy and to confirm arrival of the package at the label application system and the arrival at the specific label printer-applicator assembly assigned to apply the label (Wojdyla Par. 0044).
Regarding Claim 17,
The combination of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla disclose the method of claim 16, as shown above. Pou further discloses, wherein the predetermined prediction model is based on a time dependency of the operating values. "The first time that the routine is executed, the first printing element position is loaded prior to execution of the routine as depicted in Fig. 2. Alternately, if it is desired to only test a single printing element, that element position is loaded prior to execution. If it is desired to test a subset of the printing elements 23, the position of the first printing element of the subset is loaded prior to execution. The microprocessor 24 then begins the failure prediction routine by evaluating the loaded printing element or dot element of the thermal printhead 22. … If the microprocessor 24 determines at block 102 that the printing element has not yet failed, the microprocessor 24 proceeds to block 104 where it compares a resistance value, or values, previously stored for that printing element to the current resistance that was found at block 100 to determine a resistive trend.…This determination may be made by comparing the curve defined by the resistive trend for the printing element to a predetermined, previously stored curve to determine whether the printing element is approaching failure. The difference between the curve defined by the resistive trend and a predetermined curve can also be examined to determine whether the printing element is approaching failure.… this determination may be made by comparing the slope or rate of change of the resistive trend for the printing element to a predetermined slope or rate of change. The current resistance value of the printing element may also be used as the characteristic of the trend where the resistance is compared to a reference value to determine whether it is greater than the reference indicating approaching failure of the element" (Pou Par. 0013).
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla disclose the method of claim 17, as shown above. Pou further discloses, wherein the predetermined prediction model is based on an extrapolation of the time dependency of the operating values. "The difference between the curve defined by the resistive trend and a predetermined curve can also be examined to determine whether the printing element is approaching failure.… this determination may be made by comparing the slope or rate of change of the resistive trend for the printing element to a predetermined slope or rate of change. The current resistance value of the printing element may also be used as the characteristic of the trend where the resistance is compared to a reference value to determine whether it is greater than the reference indicating approaching failure of the element" (Pou Par. 0013).
Regarding Claim 19,
The combination of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla disclose the method of claim 16, as shown above. Pou further discloses, wherein the prediction model contains at least one threshold value for an operating value or for a quantity derived from the operating values as a model parameter, and “If the microprocessor 24 determines at block 106 that the resistive trend of the printing element is increasing, the microprocessor 24 proceeds to block 108 to determine whether a characteristic of the increasing resistive trend has exceeded predetermined boundaries" (Pou Par. 0013).
wherein the predicted maintenance instant is determined with the aid of the threshold value being reached, which is predicted from the operating values. "If a characteristic of the resistive trend exceeds the predetermined boundaries as determined at block 108, the microprocessor 24 predicts that the printing element is failing and proceeds to block 110. At block 110 the microprocessor 24 stores in memory the position of the printing element predicted to fail. The microprocessor 24 then proceeds to block 124 to generate a warning message that preferably includes the identity of the printing element approaching failure and/or its position" (Pou Par. 0017).
Regarding Claim 20,
The combination of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla disclose a prediction model. Pou fails to teach the predetermined prediction model contains a machine learning model trained in order to generate the predicted maintenance instant from the operating values.. Rajalakshmi further discloses, wherein the predetermined prediction model contains a machine learning model trained in order to generate the predicted maintenance instant from the operating values. "The key objective of this project is to do predictive maintenance by finding the Remaining Useful Life (RUL). And if the RUL reaches a certain level (15-7 days will be optimum for this prototype), then maintenance can be scheduled accordingly thus failure can be avoided. The created ML prediction model helps in forecasting RUL of the real time time-series data has been done using LSTM algorithm which gives an accuracy of 73% on an average, which indicates its reliability. Thus, it can be implemented and can help in making better profits" (Rajalakshmi Page 7)."As illustrated in Fig.1, with the help of sensors collection of real time data (1) is carried out" (Rajalakshmi Page 5). " 11 major parameters affects the working of printing machines namely temperature, blanket pressure, Compressor pressure, pH, GSM (Gram per square meter), Alignment of Cylinders, Diameter of Cylinders, Coolant Level, BF (Bursting factor), Number of copies, Web break tension. These are to be measured by 11 sensors, which are then connected to the IoT hardware through 8 ESP8266 NodeMCU for each parameter respectively. Bursting factor, Number of copies and GSM are to be taken as input from the user through a User Interface. Number of copies has to be given before every printing schedule, whereas the other 2 has to be given by the user every time paper is being fed" (Rajalakshmi Page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the failure prediction system of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla with a machine learning model of Rajalakshmi to reduce likelihood of failures, and warn users if an upcoming failure is forecasted (Rajalakshmi Page 5).
Regarding Claim 21,
The combination of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla disclose the method of claim 16, as shown above. Pou further discloses, wherein the prediction model contains model parameters that are determined by means of the evaluation arrangement in a configuration routine with the aid of the operating values. "The microprocessor 24 executes the thermal printhead failure prediction routine, depicted in Fig. 2, to predict whether an individual printing element of the thermal printhead is failing. The routine is preferably executed to monitor each of the printing elements 23 of the printhead 22 by looping through the routine until all of the printing elements 23 are checked. Alternatively, it may be executed a single time to predict whether one printing element is failing, or it may be executed several times to test a subset of the printing elements 23 of the thermal printhead 22" (Pou Par. 0012).
Regarding Claim 22,
The combination of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla disclose the method of claim 21, as shown above. Pou further discloses wherein the configuration routine is performed with the initialization of the labeling device and/or in a time-controlled manner. "The microprocessor 24 executes the thermal printhead failure prediction routine, depicted in Fig. 2, to predict whether an individual printing element of the thermal printhead is failing. The routine is preferably executed to monitor each of the printing elements 23 of the printhead 22 by looping through the routine until all of the printing elements 23 are checked. Alternatively, it may be executed a single time to predict whether one printing element is failing, or it may be executed several times to test a subset of the printing elements 23 of the thermal printhead 22. The first time that the routine is executed, the first printing element position is loaded prior to execution of the routine as depicted in Fig. 2." (Pou Par. 0012-0013).
Regarding Claim 23,
The combination of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla disclose the method of claim 16 as shown above. Pou fails to teach wherein the operating values are representative of at least one of: the operating duration of at least one functional unit; a speed assigned to the functional unit; temperature, pressure and/or humidity; the number of packages processed, of start processes, of labels and/or material strips used; the package weight of the packages processed; the number of recorded collisions between the dispensing arrangement and the packages processed and/or step losses; and/or drive values of electrical actuators of the functional units. Rajalakshmi discloses, a predictive maintenance platform with real time analysis for printing industries which predict when equipment failure could occur based on the datasets driven from various sensors in the machine. Rajalakshmi further discloses, wherein the operating values are representative of at least one of: the operating duration of at least one functional unit; a speed assigned to the functional unit; temperature, pressure and/or humidity; the number of packages processed, of start processes, of labels and/or material strips used; the package weight of the packages processed; the number of recorded collisions between the dispensing arrangement and the packages processed and/or step losses; and/or drive values of electrical actuators of the functional units. “11 major parameters affects the working of printing machines namely temperature, blanket pressure, Compressor pressure, pH, GSM (Gram per square meter), Alignment of Cylinders, Diameter of Cylinders, Coolant Level, BF (Bursting factor), Number of copies, Web break tension. These are to be measured by 11 sensors, which are then connected to the IoT hardware through 8 ESP8266 NodeMCU for each parameter respectively. Bursting factor, Number of copies and GSM are to be taken as input from the user through a User Interface. Number of copies has to be given before every printing schedule, whereas the other 2 has to be given by the user every time paper is being fed" (Rajalakshmi Page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the failure prediction system of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla with specific operating values of Rajalakshmi to collect real time data and forecast upcoming failures, and warn users (Rajalakshmi Page 5).
Regarding Claim 24,
The combination of Pou and Rajalakshmi disclose the method of claim 23, as shown above. However, the speed is not required in Claim 23, therefore Claim 24 is not required.
Regarding Claim 26,
The combination of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla disclose the method of claim 16, as shown above. Pou further discloses, wherein the predicted maintenance instant is transmitted by means of the evaluation arrangement to a production management system of the labeling system, which compiles a processing plan for the operation of the labeling system, and/or wherein the processing plan is transmitted to the evaluation arrangement by means of the production management system and wherein the prediction model is defined as a function of the processing plan. "If the microprocessor 24 determines in block 108 that the resistive trend does not exceed predetermined boundaries, the next printing element is loaded at block 114. If the routine is executing in a loop, the microprocessor 24 the returns to block 100. If the microprocessor 24 determines in block 106 that the resistive trend is not increasing, the microprocessor 24 proceeds to block 116 where it evaluates whether the resistive trend is decreasing. If the resistive trend is not decreasing, the next printing element is loaded at block 114. If the routine is executing in a loop, the microprocessor 24 then returns to block 100" (Pou Par. 0014-0015). "A method of monitoring a thermal printer having a thermal printhead comprising a plurality of printing elements, a processing means, and a memory for storing data, comprising: sampling over time a plurality of resistance values for at least one of said printing elements; storing said sampled resistance values; comparing each of said resistance values sampled for a print element to its immediately preceding sampled resistance value for the print element to determine a trend; comparing a characteristic of said resistance trend to a reference; storing the printing element position in said memory when said characteristic of said resistance trend exceeds said reference; and generating a warning when said characteristic of said resistance trend exceeds said reference" (Pou Claim 8).
Regarding Claim 27,
The combination of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla disclose the method of claim 26, as shown above. Pou further discloses, wherein the production management system of the labeling system comprises the processing plan for the operation of the labeling system as a function of the predicted maintenance instant. "If the microprocessor 24 determines in block 108 that the resistive trend does not exceed predetermined boundaries, the next printing element is loaded at block 114. If the routine is executing in a loop, the microprocessor 24 the returns to block 100. If the microprocessor 24 determines in block 108 that the resistive trend does not exceed predetermined boundaries, the next printing element is loaded at block 114. If the routine is executing in a loop, the microprocessor 24 the returns to block 100." (Pou Par. 0015). "The microprocessor 24 then proceeds to block 124 to generate a warning message indicating the printing element approaching failure and/or its position. The warning message may be sent to a host computer 28 via a communication interface 25 and/or a warning indication, such as a message on a display screen of the thermal label/tag printer 20 or an illuminated LED on the thermal label/tag printer 20, may be displayed" (Pou Par. 0017).
Regarding Claim 28,
The combination of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla disclose the method of claim 26, as shown above. Pou further discloses, wherein predetermined maintenance instants are stored, and wherein the predetermined maintenance instants are output by means of the evaluation arrangement in addition to the predicted maintenance instants. " A read/write memory may be used to store previous resistive values of the individual printing elements 23 for use in determining the resistive trend. The microprocessor compares one or more characteristics of the resistive trend to predict whether an individual printing element is failing. If the microprocessor determines that an individual printing element may be failing, a warning to that effect is generated" (Pou Par. 0006). "The microprocessor 24 then begins the failure prediction routine by evaluating the loaded printing element or dot element of the thermal printhead 22. Specifically, the microprocessor 24 determines the current resistance value of the printing element at block 100 and stores this value for later use. At block 102, the microprocessor 24 determines whether the resistance of the printing element indicates that it has failed. If the microprocessor 24 determines at block 102 that the printing element has not yet failed, the microprocessor 24 proceeds to block 104 where it compares a resistance value, or values, previously stored for that printing element to the current resistance that was found at block 100 to determine a resistive trend. If the microprocessor 24 determines at block 106 that the resistive trend of the printing element is increasing, the microprocessor 24 proceeds to block 108 to determine whether a characteristic of the increasing resistive trend has exceeded predetermined boundaries" (Pou Par. 0013).
Regarding Claim 29,
The combination of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla disclose the method of claim 28, as shown above. Pou further discloses, wherein the processing plan is compiled by means of the production management system in such a way that the predicted maintenance instant coincides with one of the predetermined maintenance instants. "If the microprocessor 24 determines at block 106 that the resistive trend of the printing element is increasing, the microprocessor 24 proceeds to block 108 to determine whether a characteristic of the increasing resistive trend has exceeded predetermined boundaries. This determination may be made by comparing the curve defined by the resistive trend for the printing element to a predetermined, previously stored curve to determine whether the printing element is approaching failure" (Pou Par. 0013).
Regarding Claim 30,
The combination of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla disclose the method of claim 16, as shown above. Pou further discloses, wherein at least one maintenance means is assigned by means of the evaluation arrangement to the predicted maintenance instant with the aid of a maintenance specification. "The early thermal printhead failure prediction system of the present invention monitors the resistive trends of the individual printing elements 23 of a thermal printhead to provide a warning indication when the resistive trends deviate beyond predetermined limits" (Pou Par. 0005).
Regarding Claim 33,
The combination of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla disclose the method of claim 16, as shown above. Pou further discloses, wherein an output of the predicted maintenance instant and at least some of the current operating values and/or quantities dependent on the operating values by a display device is instigated by means of the evaluation arrangement. "The microprocessor 24 executes the thermal printhead failure prediction routine, depicted in Fig. 2, to predict whether an individual printing element of the thermal printhead is failing. The routine is preferably executed to monitor each of the printing elements 23 of the printhead 22 by looping through the routine until all of the printing elements 23 are checked. Alternatively, it may be executed a single time to predict whether one printing element is failing, or it may be executed several times to test a subset of the printing elements 23 of the thermal printhead 22… Specifically, the microprocessor 24 determines the current resistance value of the printing element at block 100 and stores this value for later use. At block 102, the microprocessor 24 determines whether the resistance of the printing element indicates that it has failed. If the microprocessor 24 determines at block 102 that the printing element has not yet failed, the microprocessor 24 proceeds to block 104 where it compares a resistance value, or values, previously stored for that printing element to the current resistance that was found at block 100 to determine a resistive trend" (Pou Par. 0012-0013).
Claim(s) 25 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pou (EP 0902385 A2), in view of Rodgers (US 9802728 B1), in view of Rajalakshmi (IN202141051373), in view of Wojdyla (US 20140096900 A1), and in further view of Osadchyy (US 10658666 B2).
Regarding Claim 25,
The combination of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla disclose the method of claim 16 as shown above. Pou fails to teach a time interval with an earliest maintenance instant and a latest maintenance instant is determined for the predicted maintenance instant, the earliest maintenance instant the latest maintenance instant describing the bounds of a confidence interval with a predetermined confidence. Osadchyy teaches predicting colorant usage by printing devices. Osadchyy further discloses wherein a time interval with an earliest maintenance instant and a latest maintenance instant is determined for the predicted maintenance instant, the earliest maintenance instant and "Suppose PD1 was activated on day D1 and remained active for a number of days ND and PD1 was configured to provide printer data, including current usage data on a daily basis to prediction server(s) 130. Then, prediction server(s) 130 can aggregate available historical data AHD about PD1 by storing and/or updating available historical data AHD so that AHD includes, but is not limited to, the current usage data provided by PD1 on day D1, day D1+1, . . . , and day D+ND. Other techniques for obtaining, generating, and/or aggregating available historical data AHD are possible as well" (Osadchyy Col. 26 Line 63-Col. 27 Line 6)."Continuing the example above from blocks 1012 and 1016, where the general initial prediction components predict that toner for PD1 will last 15 days, and that the related initial prediction components predict that toner for PD1 will last 17 days, colorant-usage prediction software 216 can generate specific initial prediction components based on PD1-specific data. And, for this particular example, colorant-usage prediction software 216 can use the specific initial prediction components to predict that toner for PD1 will last 20 days, or five days longer than predicted by the general initial prediction components, and three days longer than predicted by the related initial prediction components" (Osadchyy Col. 27 Lines 21-32).
the latest maintenance instant describing the bounds of a confidence interval with a predetermined confidence. "At block 1024, colorant-usage prediction software 216 can receive a request to predict colorant usage for PD1. For example, the request to predict colorant usage can be a request to predict how long until colorant needs to be added to PD1, a request to predict when PD1 will be out of colorant, a request to predict when remaining colorant for PD1 will be at a certain percentage (e.g., a request to determine when PD1 will reach a 10%, 20%, 25%, 50%, or 80% level of remaining colorant), and/or another prediction related to PD1's colorant usage. In some embodiments, the request to predict colorant usage for PD1 can also include a request to provide confidence interval information related to prediction of colorant usage by PD1. In other embodiments, confidence interval information can be requested implicitly; that is, a request for a prediction of colorant usage by PD1 implicitly includes a request for confidence interval information related to the prediction of colorant usage by PD1" (Osadchyy Col. 27 Line 54- Col. 28 Line 3, See Also Col. 37 Line 63- Col. 38 Line 11)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the failure prediction system of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla with a time interval with an earliest maintenance instant and a latest maintenance instant is determined for the predicted maintenance instant, the earliest maintenance instant the latest maintenance instant describing the bounds of a confidence interval with a predetermined confidence of Osadchyy for better printer performance and smaller expenditures for spare colorant (Osadchyy Col. 4 Lines 10-11).
Regarding Claim 31,
The combination of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla disclose the method of claim 30, as shown above. Pou fails to disclose the at least one maintenance means is a replacement part or a tool. Osadchyy teaches predicting colorant usage by printing devices. Osadchyy further discloses, wherein the at least one maintenance means is a replacement part or a tool. "The herein-described techniques for predicting colorant can take into account actual colorant usage by a particular printing device, colorant usage by printing devices having the same manufacturer, model, and/or other device characteristics, colorant usage by co-located and/or co-owned devices, colorant replacement events, and printing device maintenance events. … e.g., information about toner cartridge or ink replacement for PD1, fuser replacement if PD1 uses toner, nozzle replacement if PD1 uses ink. The prediction server can then take the printer information (e.g., some or all of the device information, colorant-usage information, and/or maintenance-event information) from PD1 and other printing devices to estimate colorant usage by PD1." (Osadchyy Col. 4 Lines 25-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the failure prediction system of Pou with the maintenance meaning a replacement part or a tool of Osadchyy for better printer performance and smaller expenditures for spare colorant (Osadchyy Col. 4 Lines 10-11).
Claim(s) 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pou (EP 0902385 A2), in view of Rodgers (US 9802728 B1), in view of Rajalakshmi (IN202141051373), in view of Wojdyla (US 20140096900 A1), and in further view of Okumura (JP2019016062A).
Regarding Claim 32,
The combination of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla disclose the method of claim 30, as shown above. Pou fails to disclose wherein the availability of the maintenance means in a warehouse management system at the predicted maintenance instant is requested by means of the evaluation arrangement. Okumura teaches calculating the replacement timing for each replacement part used in each piece of equipment. Okumura further discloses, wherein the availability of the maintenance means in a warehouse management system at the predicted maintenance instant is requested by means of the evaluation arrangement. "The inventory quantity of replacement item 30 is the number of replacement item 30 that is predicted to be stocked in the warehouse 300 of the administrator of management system 1. For example, the number of replacement items (item number 30) in stock today is 2. The inventory of replacement parts 30 decreases when a user of equipment 20 purchases a new replacement part 30. For example, one replacement item (30 units) will be purchased one day from today. This will reduce the stock quantity of replacement item 30 by 1. Therefore, the number of replacement items (30) in stock one day from today will be 1. Additionally, the inventory of replacement item 30 increases when replacement item 30 is delivered to or scheduled to be delivered to warehouse 300. In the example shown in Figure 5, no replacement parts 30 are currently in stock at warehouse 300, nor are any deliveries planned. Therefore, the inventory of replacement item 30 has not increased. The data on the inventory quantity of replacement item 30 is transmitted from the first host computer 301, located in the administrator's warehouse 300, to the server 100” (Okumura Par. 0033).
Examiner Note: Under BRI, “the availability of the maintenance means in a warehouse management system at the predicted maintenance instant is requested by means of the evaluation arrangement” is interpreted as if a component/part required is available.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the failure prediction system of Pou, Rodgers, Rajalakshmi, and Wojdyla with the availability of the maintenance means in a warehouse management system at the predicted maintenance instant is requested by means of the evaluation arrangement of Okumura since replacement parts fluctuate from time to time and if there is a shortage of replacement parts in stock, it will cause problems for users of each device (Okumura Par. 0004).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2026 with respect to the Claim Objections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Claim Objection to Claim 29 is withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112 Rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the amendments make it abundantly clear that the claimed subject matter cannot be fairly characterized as merely an abstract idea since the operation of structural/physical elements of the labeling device referenced in the preamble (the functional units are driven in the driving step, which makes the functional units referenced in the preamble structural limitations that should be considered when determining the patentability of the claim). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of functional units including a labeling device, weighing arrangement, dispensing arrangement, printer arrangement, and sensor arrangement are recited at a high level of generality and do not amount to a practical application that integrates the abstract idea into a specific technical improvement in computer functionality or technology. The clamed features do not reflect an improvement to the technology used to print the labels or process the information of determining wear, but rather use that technology as a tool to perform the abstract analysis. Therefore the claims do not recite significantly more.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 102, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated above in light of the amendments, therefore making the remaining arguments moot.
Conclusion
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 Emily M Kraisinger whose telephone number is (703)756-4583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM -4:30 PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/E.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/SANGEETA BAHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
