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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The United States Patent & Trademark Office appreciates the application that is submitted by the inventor/assignee. The United States Patent & Trademark Office reviewed the following application and has made the following comments below.
Priority
This application claims benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) of JP 2022-060713, filed in Japan on 03/31/2022, and PCT/JP2023/005096, filed on 03/02/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/26/2024, 03/05/2026, and 06/04/2026 are being considered by the examiner. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Preliminary Amendment
Applicant submitted a preliminary amendment on 09/26/2024. The Examiner acknowledges the amendment and has reviewed the claims accordingly.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0002], on page 1, line 15, “been combined” should read “being combined.”
In paragraph [0004], on page 1, line 24, “such checking by human” should read “such checking by a human.”
In paragraph [0014], on page 5, line 24, “FIG. 2 is a block diagram” should read “FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“acquisition unit” in claims 1 and 5 (see Paragraph [0019] of Applicant’s specification for corresponding structure) and
“arithmetic unit” in claims 1-2 and 4-6, (see Paragraph [0016] of Applicant’s specification for corresponding structure).
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claims 1, 9, and 10, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-10 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner will analyze Claim 1, and similar rationale applies to independent Claims 9 and 10. The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below:
The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claim is related to a machine since the claim is directed to a screw piece assembly error detection device.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim 1 limitation of “comparing constructions of two screws for a twin- screw extruder constructed by assembling a plurality of screw pieces and detecting an assembly error of the screw pieces, comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires appearance data indicating an appearance of the plurality of screw pieces aligned to constitute the two screws or of the two screws; and an arithmetic unit that calculates a difference between the plurality of screw pieces that constitute a first screw of the screws and the plurality of screw pieces that constitute a second screw of the screws, based on the acquired appearance data” are directed to an abstract idea. The claim is related to mental process by "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The Examiner interprets that Claim 1 limitation does not provide additional elements or combination of additional elements to a practical application since the claim/s is/are adding the words of “applying it” with more instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. Specifically, the Examiner finds that the claim limitations of “comparing constructions of two screws for a twin- screw extruder” can be performed in the human mind by simply looking at the two screws with eyes and identifying visual similarities and/or differences between two screws. Next, the Examiner finds that “detecting an assembly error of the screw pieces” can be performed by the human mind by looking at the screws and visually identifying any dents, cracks, deformities, etc. on the screw/s using the eyes. In addition, the Examiner finds the claim limitation of “acquir(ing) appearance data indicating an appearance of the plurality of screw pieces aligned” can be done by a human by looking at the screws with their eyes. Further, the Examiner finds the limitation of “calculat(ing) a difference between the plurality of screw pieces that constitute a first screw of the screws and the plurality of screw pieces that constitute a second screw of the screws, based on the acquired appearance data” can be performed in the human mind by a human looking at the two screws and identifying visual differences between them.
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that the Claims do not amount to significantly more since the Claim/s is/state a series of abstract ideas carried out by “a screw piece assembly error device.”
Furthermore, the generic computer components of the non-transitory CRM and a computer recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Claims 2-8 depending on the independent claim/s include all the limitations of the independent claim. The Examiner finds that Claims 2-8 do not state significantly more since the claim only recites applying an object detection learning model to identify alignment positions and types of screw pieces at a high level of generality otherwise conventionally performed visually/mentally in an industrial environment. Even if assisting with identifying defects in twin extruder screws is useful/practical – the utility of the exception itself does not serve for integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Thus, Claims 2-8 recite the same abstract idea and are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, the Examiner interprets that the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rechter et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0148932 A1, hereafter referred to as Rechter) in view of Gaspar-Cunha et al. (NPL “Defining the Configuration of Co-Rotating Twin-Screw Extruders With Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms,” 2005, hereafter referred to as Gaspar-Cunha).
Regarding Claim 1, Rechter teaches a screw piece assembly error detection device (Abstract, Paragraphs [0001], [0008], [0048], Fig. 3, Rechter teaches a device for checking the construction of an extruder screw consisting of a shaft and screw elements that are to be pushed on or have been pushed on one after the other onto said shaft in a defined sequence. The device allows highly accurate checking of the fitting sequence and is capable of immediately detecting and communicating any fitting errors, so an imminent error can be avoided, or an existing error can be immediately corrected. Fig. 3 below shows a representation of the device for checking the screw element construction.)
PNG
media_image1.png
361
885
media_image1.png
Greyscale
detecting an assembly error of the screw pieces (Paragraphs [0043-45], Fig. 1, Rechter teaches comparing the actual sequence of the screw elements pushed on one after the other (4) with the target information, which defines how the correct fitting sequence of the extruder screw (2) to be constructed looks. It then decides whether the extruder screw (2) has been constructed correctly or whether it has a fitting error. Corresponding comparison may also be performed continuously where with every screw element (4) that is to be newly pushed on, it can be recorded by way of the comparison whether it is the correct screw element or whether there is an error. If it is not the correct screw element, a red luminous signal may be output, indicating an error.),
PNG
media_image2.png
520
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires appearance data indicating an appearance of the plurality of screw pieces aligned to constitute the two screws or of the two screws (Paragraphs [0056], [0003], Fig. 4, Fig. 6, Rechter teaches a “sensor means” such as a camera that takes single images or records a video sequence. The camera (16) may take several separate images of the entire extruder screw (2) and the images are subsequently put together to create an overall image of the complete extruder screw. The extruder screw consists of a shaft and screw elements aligned on the shaft that are pushed one after the other onto said shaft in a defined sequence, each screw element having an element-specific external geometry. The target geometry of the [AltContent: arrow]single image recorded is also obtained, as shown in Fig. 6b below. In addition, the Examiner interprets that Fig. 5 also shows “appearance data” collected for both the [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]actual screw (Fig. 5a) and the target screw (Fig. 5b) since it represents a scanned height profile generated with laser information. The height profile is used to determine corresponding fitting errors.);
PNG
media_image3.png
160
349
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
160
349
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and an arithmetic unit (Paragraph [0009], Fig. 1, Rechter teaches a controlling and processing device (12) for comparing the information recorded with the target information that describes the sequence of screw elements that are to be pushed on or have been pushed on one after the other or the target geometry of the extruder screw.) that calculates a difference between the plurality of screw pieces that constitute a first screw of the screws and the plurality of screw pieces that constitute a second screw of the screws (Paragraphs [0007], [0011], [0045-46], Rechter teaches performing an actual-target comparison to identify whether or not the correct screw element has been placed on the shaft. The information recorded is compared with the target information that describes the sequence of screw elements that are to be pushed on or have been pushed on one after the other or the target geometry of the extruder screw. The controlling and processing device is designed for corresponding comparison with target information, that is to say likewise element-specific information or target-geometry information. Each screw element has an element-specific transponder, the sensor means being a reading device for recording the transponder information of each screw element. In each element-specific transponder, there is a stored element of element-specific information, which identifies the screw element. The reading device records the element-specific item of transponder information. In the example shown in Fig. 1, two screw elements of the actual screw (4a) and (4b) have already been pushed onto the shaft. In the next step, the screw element (4c) is to be pushed on. It is located with its transponder (8) in the reading-out region of the transponder reading device (10), so that the transponder information is recorded. It can be immediately compared in the controlling device (12) with the target information. If the comparison shows that it is not the correct screw element (i.e. the actual and target screw information do not match, i.e., they are different), then a red luminous signal may be output, indicating a screw error. The three types of screw elements, a, b, and c are being fitted on. The element “a” being a conveying element, the element “b” being a mixing element, and the element “c” being a zoning element. The Examiner interprets the “actual” information to be the “first screw” of the screws having a plurality of elements (a = conveying element, b = mixing element, c = zoning element) and the “target” information to be a “second screw” of the screws having a plurality of elements (a = conveying element, b = mixing element, c = zoning element) (see Fig. 1). The target information (second screw) describes the sequence of the screw elements that are to be pushed on or have been pushed on one after another or the “target geometry” of the extruder screw. Therefore, the Examiner interprets that since the target geometry describes a plurality of screw pieces put together, and the screw pieces can differ from the actual screw information, that it describes a “second screw.”)
PNG
media_image4.png
455
642
media_image4.png
Greyscale
based on the acquired appearance data (Paragraphs [0016], [0052], Rechter teaches a laser, with which the surface of the extruder screw is scanned along a line for recording a height profile, may be used as the “sensor means.” The laser is made to move along the screw, so that a height profile is scanned. Stored in the comparing and processing device is a comparison profile, which is compared to the actual height profile, whereby corresponding fitting errors can be recorded.). Rechter does not explicitly disclose comparing constructions of two screws for a twin- screw extruder constructed by assembling a plurality of screw pieces.
Gaspar-Cunha is in the same field of art of identifying differences in twin screw extruder configurations. Further, Gaspar-Cunha teaches comparing constructions of two screws for a twin- screw extruder constructed by assembling a plurality of screw pieces (Optimization of Screw Configuration and Operating Conditions, Fig. 13, Gaspar-Cunha teaches comparing geometries of extruder screws for co-rotating twin-screw extruders.),
PNG
media_image5.png
245
894
media_image5.png
Greyscale
constructed by assembling a plurality of screw pieces (Case Studies, The Problem to Solve, Fig. 1, Gaspar-Cunha teaches each screw is built by sliding its constitutive elements along a shaft. Among the screw elements available, there are five transport elements, with lengths of 30, 60, and 120 mm and pitches of 20, 30, and 45 mm; four kneading blocks with different staggering angles (-30°, -60°, and 90°) and lengths, and one left-handed element. Fig. 1 below shows the different screw elements for the twin screws.)
PNG
media_image6.png
362
702
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rechter by comparing the constructions of two real twin extruder screws assembled with a plurality of screw pieces that is taught by Gaspar-Cunha, to make the invention that compares the two real twin-extruder screws to detect a construction error in one of the screws; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since the sequence in which the individual screw elements are pushed onto the shaft must be precisely maintained in order to avoid fitting errors, which would result in a changed geometry that is unsuitable for the intended working process and since each individual screw element is allocated a certain function, such as conveying, kneading, or mixing, in each case resulting from the element specific external geometry, each fitting error has the effect that if the wrongly fitted screw shaft can be installed at all, the desired working result is not achieved (Rechter, Paragraph [0003]).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Rechter in view of Gaspar-Cunha teaches the screw piece assembly error detection device according to claim 1, wherein the arithmetic unit calculates a difference between appearance data of the first screw and appearance data of the second screw (Paragraphs [0054-55], [0016], Fig. 5, Rechter teaches evaluating the height profile using the controlling and processing device. For example, finding a height profile deviation between the actual screw information and the target screw information. For example, in the subregion II, as shown in Fig. 5, a deviation was found. While in the left-hand region of the stepped portion II, the two profiles coincide, in the region between the two dashed vertical lines there is a clear profile deviation.),
PNG
media_image7.png
352
388
media_image7.png
Greyscale
calculates an index value indicating a magnitude of the difference (Paragraphs [0016-17], [0052-55], Fig. 5, Rechter teaches scanning the surface of the extruder screw along a line for recording a height profile. Along the abscissa of the height profile is the distance traveled (the position) plotted with x; along the ordinate, the respective height is plotted with h. The Examiner interprets the respective height values (along the y-axis) to be “index values” since the claim is silent to the meaning of “index value.” In addition, the Examiner interprets that the respective height values indicate a magnitude of a difference since the heights are compared between the actual screw and the target screw geometries. For example, in subregion II, it is evident a profile deviation can be found (¶ [0054]). The amount or “magnitude” of the difference between the actual and target screws can be seen in Fig. 5a and Fig. 5b.) at a plurality of positions in a lengthwise direction of the screws (Paragraphs [0049], [0052-53], Rechter teaches scanning the surface of the extruder screw along a defined line. The sensor means (16), which as represented by the arrow P in Fig. 4, can be made to move axially along the extruder screw (2) to obtain actual geometry information concerning the actual geometry of the extruder screw. The distance xv is plotted along the abscissa in the height profiles shown in Fig. 5. Respective height values (h) are plotted for each position along the axial direction of the extruder screw.),
PNG
media_image8.png
511
695
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and determines a presence or an absence of an assembly error of the screw pieces based on a calculated index value (Paragraph [0054], Rechter teaches identifying a clear profile deviation between the actual profile and target profile which is attributable to the fact that, although a mixing or kneading element has been installed there, it has been pushed onto an external interlocking tooth arrangement of the extruder shaft while rotationally misaligned. Linear scanning makes it possible to record any error with respect to the angular position of installation.).
Regarding Claim 3, Rechter in view of Gaspar-Cunha teaches the screw piece assembly error detection device according to claim 2, further comprising a display unit that displays a position of at least one of the screw pieces that is determined as an assembly error (Paragraph [0050], Rechter teaches a display for issuing signals, such as alerting the operator to the presence of an error. The error may be indicated in a locally resolved manner, so that the operator is directly informed of where the error is, and therefore, which screw element is to be exchanged or turned.) based on the index value (Paragraph [0016], Rechter teaches recording fitting errors based on the comparison of the actual height profile and the comparison height profile (target profile). The Examiner interprets height values along the length of the screw to be “index values” since the claim is silent to the definition of index value. Further, an “index value,” is being interpreted as its plain meaning as an indicator, sign, or measure of something. The Examiner interprets the respective height values along the distance of the screw to be an indicator of distinct portions or “zones” of the extruder screw (e.g., conveying elements, mixing or kneading elements, etc.).
Regarding Claim 4, Rechter in view of Gaspar-Cunha teaches the screw piece assembly error detection device according to claim 1, wherein the arithmetic unit (Paragraphs [0043-45], Rechter teaches a controlling and processing device.) infers alignment positions and types of the plurality of screw pieces constituting the first screw and alignment positions and types of the plurality of screw pieces constituting the second screw (Paragraph [0052], Fig. 5, Rechter teaches obtaining a very characteristic height profile, with three distinct zones, I, II, and III based on scan data. The zones I and III are defined by conveying elements that have screw-shaped external geometries, while zone 2 is defined by mixing or kneading elements, which are arranged offset by a defined angular amount, so that the stepped profile shown in zone II forms.), and respectively compares the alignment positions and the types of the plurality of screw pieces constituting the first screw with the alignment positions and the types of the plurality of screw pieces constituting the second screw (Paragraphs [0050], [0052-53], [0016], Fig. 5, Rechter teaches in the controlling and processing device, the actual information is compared with the target information. Fig. 5a shows the actual height profile recorded, while Fig. 5b shows the target height profile for purposes of comparison. The height profile indicates the type of screw element based on the shape/height of the heights recorded along the screw. Along the abscissa, the position is plotted with x (distance) indicates the alignment of the screw elements via the “zones” I, II, and III.).
In regards to Claim 6, Rechter in view of Gaspar-Cunha teaches the screw piece assembly error detection device according to claim 4, wherein the arithmetic unit (Paragraphs [0043-45], Rechter teaches a controlling and processing device.) infers data indicating alignment positions and types of the plurality of screw pieces by performing rule-based image processing on the appearance data (Paragraph [0018], Rechter teaches within the camera images, the corresponding geometry information is analyzed by the camera or if appropriate, the controlling and processing device, by using analysis and detection algorithms. For example, edge detection algorithms are used to determine in the images the corresponding edges of the element geometries. A conveying element has screw-shaped helical edge structure, while the kneading element, which usually has several egg-shaped kneading units arranged one behind the other and offset by defined angular amounts, has a specific edge geometry, which can readily be analyzed in the corresponding images by processing software.).
In regards to Claim 7, Rechter in view of Gaspar-Cunha teaches the screw piece assembly error detection device according to any claim 4, further comprising a display unit that displays a position of at least one of the screw pieces (Paragraph [0050], Rechter teaches a display for issuing of signals, such as indicating the presence and location of the error, so that the operator is directly informed where the error is and therefore, which screw element is to be exchanged or turned.) having an equal alignment position and a different type (Paragraphs [0057], [0059], Fig. 6, Rechter teaches comparing the true representation of the external geometry to the target geometry of the single image. As shown in Fig. 6, the regions I and II coincide, but in region III there is an evident mounting error. The two screw elements (4) have been pushed onto the shaft while rotationally misaligned in their angular position. The profile of the wave-like edge does not coincide between the target and actual geometries. This means the two screw elements (4) have been installed in the incorrect angular position. In addition, installation of a screw of the wrong type would lead to more serious differences within the images of the external geometry. The Examiner interprets the screw elements shown in Fig. 6 are aligned in the same location but are different in regards to rotational alignment position. The Examiner interprets “type” to be proper alignment vs. improper alignment since the claim is silent to the meaning of type.).
PNG
media_image9.png
392
459
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In regards to Claim 8, Rechter in view of Gaspar-Cunha teaches the screw piece assembly error detection device according to claim 1, wherein the appearance data includes image data obtained by imaging the plurality of screw pieces (Paragraphs [0056], [0001], [0003], Rechter teaches taking single images or a video sequence using a camera. Multiple images of the extruder screw are taken. The individual images are put together to create an overall image of the complete extruder screw. The extruder screw consists of a shaft and screw elements that are pushed onto the shaft in a defined sequence. The Examiner interprets an image of the extruder screw to contain a “plurality of screw pieces” since there is a plurality of individual screw elements fitted onto the shaft of the extruder screw. In addition, the Examiner interprets “or” to mean only one of either image data by imaging the plurality of screw pieces or the screws or point group data are required to meet the limitation.) or or
In regards to Claim 9, Rechter teaches a screw piece assembly error detection method (Paragraphs [0024], [0008], Rechter teaches a method for checking the construction of an extruder screw consisting of a shaft and screw elements that are to be pushed on or have been pushed on one after the other onto said shaft in a defined sequence. The method allows highly accurate checking of the fitting sequence and is capable of immediately detecting and communicating any fitting errors, so an imminent error can be avoided, or an existing error can be immediately corrected.) and detecting an assembly error of the screw pieces (Paragraphs [0043-45], Fig. 1, Rechter teaches comparing the actual sequence of the screw elements pushed on one after the other (4) with the target information, which defines how the correct fitting sequence of the extruder screw (2) to be constructed looks. It then decides whether the extruder screw (2) has been constructed correctly or whether it has a fitting error. Corresponding comparison may also take place continuously where with every screw element (4) that is to be newly pushed on, it can be recorded by way of the comparison whether it is the correct screw element or whether there is an error. If it is not the correct screw element, a red luminous signal may be output, indicating an error.), comprising: acquiring appearance data indicating an appearance of the plurality of screw pieces aligned to constitute the two screws or of the two screws (Paragraphs [0056], [0003], [0052-53], Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Rechter teaches taking several separate images of the entire extruder screw (2) and the images are subsequently put together to create an overall image of the complete extruder screw. The extruder screw consists of a shaft and screw elements that are pushed one after the other onto said shaft in a defined sequence, each screw element having an element-specific external geometry. The target geometry of the single image recorded is also obtained, as shown in Fig. 6b. In addition, the Examiner interprets that Fig. 5 shows appearance data collected for both the actual screw (Fig. 5a) and the target screw (Fig. 5b) since it represents a scanned height profile generated with laser information.);
PNG
media_image10.png
495
552
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
543
638
media_image11.png
Greyscale
and calculating a difference between the plurality of screw pieces that constitute a first screw of the screws and the plurality of screw pieces that constitute a second screw of the screws (Paragraphs [0007], [0011], [0045-46], Rechter teaches performing an actual-target comparison between the actual and target screw information. The actual screw information recorded is compared with the target screw information that describes the sequence of screw elements that are to be pushed on or have been pushed on one after the other or the target geometry of the extruder screw. The controlling and processing device is designed for corresponding comparison with target information, that is to say likewise element-specific information or target-geometry information. Each screw element has an element-specific transponder, the sensor means being a reading device for recording the transponder information. In each element-specific transponder, there is a stored element of element-specific information, which identifies the screw element. The reading device records the element-specific item of transponder information. In the example shown in Fig. 1, two screw elements of the actual screw (4a) and (4b) have already been pushed onto the shaft. In the next step, the screw element (4c) is pushed on. It is located with its transponder (8) in the reading-out region of the transponder reading device (10), so that the transponder information is recorded. It can be immediately compared in the controlling device (12) with the target information. If the comparison shows that is not the correct screw element (i.e. the actual and target screw information do not match, i.e., they are different), then a red luminous signal may be output, indicating a screw error. The three types of screw elements, a, b, and c are being fitted on. The element “a” being a conveying element, the element “b” being a mixing element, and the element “c” being a zoning element. The Examiner interprets the “actual” information to be the “first screw” of the screws having a plurality of elements (a = conveying element, b = mixing element, c = zoning element) and the “target” information to be a “second screw” of the screws having a plurality of elements (a = conveying element, b = mixing element, c = zoning element) (see Fig. 1). The target information describes the sequence of the screw elements that are to be pushed on or have been pushed on one after another or the target geometry of the extruder screw. Therefore, the Examiner interprets since the target geometry describes a plurality of screw pieces put together, and the screw pieces can differ from the actual screw information, that it describes a “second screw.”).
Rechter does not explicitly disclose comparing constructions of two screws for a twin- screw extruder constructed by assembling a plurality of screw pieces.
Gaspar-Cunha is in the same field of art of identifying differences between twin screw extruder configurations. Further, Gaspar-Cunha teaches comparing constructions of two screws for a twin- screw extruder constructed by assembling a plurality of screw pieces (Optimization of Screw Configuration and Operating Conditions, Fig. 13, Gaspar-Cunha teaches comparing geometries of extruder screws for co-rotating twin-screw extruders.), constructed by assembling a plurality of screw pieces (Case Studies, The Problem to Solve, Fig. 1, Gaspar-Cunha teaches each screw is built by sliding its constitutive elements along a shaft. Among the screw elements available, there are five transport elements, with lengths of 30, 60, and 120 mm and pitches of 20, 30, and 45 mm; four kneading blocks with different staggering angles (-30°, -60°, and 90°) and lengths, and one left-handed element.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rechter by comparing constructions of two twin extruder screws assembled with a plurality of screw pieces that is taught by Gaspar-Cunha, to make the invention that compares the two real twin-extruder screws to detect a construction error in one of the screws; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since the sequence in which the individual screw elements are pushed onto the shaft must be precisely maintained in order to avoid fitting errors, which would result in a changed geometry that is unsuitable for the intended working process and since each individual screw element is allocated a certain function, such as conveying, kneading, or mixing, in each case resulting from the element specific external geometry, each fitting error has the effect that if the wrongly fitted screw shaft can be installed at all, the desired working result is not achieved (Rechter, Paragraph [0003]).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rechter et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0148932 A1, hereafter referred to as Rechter) in view of Gaspar-Cunha et al. (NPL “Defining the Configuration of Co-Rotating Twin-Screw Extruders With Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms,” 2005, hereafter referred to as Gaspar-Cunha) in further view of Liu (U.S. Patent Pub No. 2022/0020138 A1, hereafter referred to as Liu).
Regarding Claim 5, Rechter in view of Gaspar-Cunha teaches the screw piece assembly error detection device according to claim 4.
Rechter in view of Gaspar-Cunha does not explicitly disclose wherein to an object detection learning model so trained as to output data indicating alignment positions and types of the plurality of screw pieces if the appearance data is input, the arithmetic unit inputs the acquired appearance data by the acquisition unit, to output data indicating alignment positions and types of the plurality of screw pieces.
Liu is in the same field of art of product inspection via image processing to identify defects in screws. Further, Liu teaches wherein to an object detection learning model (Paragraph [0118], Liu teaches an inspection model which can be a machine learning model.) so trained as to output data indicating alignment positions and types of the plurality of screw pieces if the appearance data is input (Paragraphs [0177-178], Fig. 6, Liu teaches the inspection model of the classifier type can be applied to product inspection such as screws. Referring to Fig. 6, the inspection model can effectively conduct product inspection on parts with fixed shapes such as screws. A1, B1, C1, and D1 are detected defective screws and A2, B2, C2, and D2 are detected qualified screws. The model can detect that the screw assembly positions A1, B1, C1, and D1 are not equipped with corresponding screws, while the screw assembly positions A2, B2, C2, and D2 are properly equipped with screws. The Examiner interprets “type” to include “defective” screws and “qualified” screws since the claim is silent to the meaning of “type.” Additionally, the Examiner interprets indicating “alignment position” to include detecting whether the screw assembly positions are or are not equipped with screws (i.e., whether the screws are aligned with the assembly positions).),
PNG
media_image12.png
733
1068
media_image12.png
Greyscale
the arithmetic unit inputs the acquired appearance data by the acquisition unit (Paragraphs [0071-77], [0047], Liu teaches obtaining a production line image, extracting an inspection point image, and inputting the inspection point image into an inspection model to obtain an inspection result. The one or more processors implement the image acquisition and inputting operations.), to output data indicating alignment positions and types of the plurality of screw pieces (Paragraphs [0010], [0177-178], Liu teaches the inspection model outputs an inspection result. For example, the inspection model can distinguish the type of screws such as being “defective” or “qualified.” In addition, the inspection model can determine that the screw assembly positions are or are not equipped with corresponding screws.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rechter in view of Gaspar-Cunha by implementing an object detection model into the twin extruder screw construction checking device to perform the image analysis operations that is taught by Liu, to make the invention that obtains a screw inspection result from a machine learning model; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since by replacing manual inspection with the inspection model, the manpower required for product inspection can be reduced, and the accuracy of product inspection can be improved (Liu, Paragraph [0118]).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regards to Claim 10, Rechter teaches (Paragraphs [0043-45], Fig. 1, Rechter teaches comparing the actual sequence of the screw elements pushed on one after the other (4) with the target information, which defines how the correct fitting sequence of the extruder screw (2) to be constructed looks. It then decides whether the extruder screw (2) has been constructed correctly or whether it has a fitting error. Corresponding comparison may also take place continuously where with every screw element (4) that is to be newly pushed on, it can be recorded by way of the comparison whether it is the correct screw element or whether there is an error. If it is not the correct screw element, a red luminous signal may be output, indicating an error.), comprising: acquiring appearance data indicating an appearance of the plurality of screw pieces aligned to constitute the two screws or of the two screws (Paragraphs [0056], [0003], [0052-53], Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Rechter teaches taking several separate images of the entire extruder screw (2) and the images are subsequently put together to create an overall image of the complete extruder screw. The extruder screw consists of a shaft and screw elements that are pushed one after the other onto said shaft in a defined sequence, each screw element having an element-specific external geometry. The target geometry of the single image recorded is also obtained, as shown in Fig. 6b. In addition, the Examiner interprets that Fig. 5 shows appearance data collected for both the actual screw (Fig. 5a) and the target screw (Fig. 5b) since it represents a scanned height profile generated with laser information.); and calculating a difference between the plurality of screw pieces that constitute a first screw of the screws and the plurality of screw pieces that constitute a second screw of the screws (Paragraphs [0007], [0011], [0045-46], Rechter teaches performing an actual-target comparison between the actual and target screw information. The actual recorded information is compared with the target information that describes the sequence of screw elements that are to be pushed on or have been pushed on one after the other or the target geometry of the extruder screw. The controlling and processing device is designed for corresponding comparison with target information, that is to say likewise element-specific information or target-geometry information. Each screw element has an element-specific transponder, the sensor means being a reading device for recording the transponder information. In each element-specific transponder, there is a stored element of element-specific information, which identifies the screw element. The reading device records the element-specific item of transponder information. In the example shown in Fig. 1, two screw elements of the actual screw (4a) and (4b) have already been pushed onto the shaft. In the next step, the screw element (4c) is pushed on. It is located with its transponder (8) in the reading-out region of the transponder reading device (10), so that the transponder information is recorded. It can be immediately compared in the controlling device (12) with the target information. If the comparison shows that is not the correct screw element (i.e. the actual and target screw information do not match, i.e., they are different), then a red luminous signal may be output, indicating a screw error. The three types of screw elements, a, b, and c are being fitted on. The element “a” being a conveying element, the element “b” being a mixing element, and the element “c” being a zoning element. The Examiner interprets the “actual” information to be the “first screw” of the screws having a plurality of elements (a = conveying element, b = mixing element, c = zoning element) and the “target” information to be a “second screw” of the screws having a plurality of elements (a = conveying element, b = mixing element, c = zoning element) (see Fig. 1). The target information describes the sequence of the screw elements that are to be pushed on or have been pushed on one after another or the target geometry of the extruder screw. Therefore, the Examiner interprets since the target geometry describes a plurality of screw pieces put together, and the screw pieces can differ from the actual screw information, that it describes a “second screw.”).
Rechter does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a computer program causing a computer to execute processing of comparing constructions of two screws for a twin-screw extruder constructed by assembling a plurality of screw pieces.
Gaspar-Cunha is in the same field of art of identifying differences in twin screw extruder configurations. Further, Gaspar-Cunha teaches comparing constructions of two screws for a twin-screw extruder (Optimization of Screw Configuration and Operating Conditions, Fig. 13, Gaspar-Cunha teaches comparing geometries of extruder screws for co-rotating twin-screw extruders.) constructed by assembling a plurality of screw pieces (Case Studies, The Problem to Solve, Fig. 1, Gaspar-Cunha teaches each screw is built by sliding its constitutive elements along a shaft. Among the screw elements available, there are five transport elements, with lengths of 30, 60, and 120 mm and pitches of 20, 30, and 45 mm; four kneading blocks with different staggering angles (-30°, -60°, and 90°) and lengths, and one left-handed element.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rechter by comparing constructions of two twin extruder screws assembled with a plurality of screw pieces that is taught by Gaspar-Cunha, to make the invention that compares the two real twin-extruder screws to detect a construction error in one of the screws; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since the sequence in which the individual screw elements are pushed onto the shaft must be precisely maintained in order to avoid fitting errors, which would result in a changed geometry that is unsuitable for the intended working process and since each individual screw element is allocated a certain function, such as conveying, kneading, or mixing, in each case resulting from the element specific external geometry, each fitting error has the effect that if the wrongly fitted screw shaft can be installed at all, the desired working result is not achieved (Rechter, Paragraph [0003]).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Rechter in view of Gaspar-Cunha does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a computer program causing a computer to execute processing.
Liu is in the same field of art of product inspection via image processing to identify defects. Further, Liu teaches a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a computer program causing a computer to execute processing (Paragraph [0088], Liu teaches a nonvolatile computer-readable storage medium on which computer programs are stored, when executed by a processor, implement the product inspection method.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rechter in view of Gaspar-Cunha by storing the program instructions for the extruder screw construction checking method on a nonvolatile computer-readable storage medium that is taught by Liu, to make the invention that executes the twin screw extruder inspection method using a computer program; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since storing the method on a nonvolatile computer-readable medium enables the defect detection method to be realized by a computer program executed by a processor, and therefore reduces the labor cost required for product inspection, avoiding faulty or missed inspection caused by human factors, and improves the accuracy of product inspection in an industrial environment (Liu, Paragraph [0254]).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Song et al. (NPL “Detection of Micro-Defects on Metal Screw Surfaces Based on Deep Convolutional Neural Networks,” 2018)
Kuo et al. (NPL “Screw defect detection system based on AI image recognition technology,” 2020)
Breitenbach et al. (NPL “Automated Defect Detection of Screws in the Manufacturing Industry Using Convolutional Neural Networks, 2022)
Li (U.S. Patent Pub. No 2019/0185186 A1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY L BLACKSTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7120. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Oneal Mistry can be reached at 313-446-4912. 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.
/SYDNEY L BLACKSTEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights