DETAILED ACTION
The following is an initial Office Action upon examination of the above-identified application on the merits. Claims 1-15 were cancelled and claims 16-27 were newly added in a preliminary amendment filed on 30 September 2024. Claims 16-27 remain pending in this application.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 20 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Clam 20 includes the punctuation issue of “… a process order, PO, …” in line 5. Suggested claim language: “… a process order (PO) …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Clam 26 includes the punctuation issues of “… open platform communication, OPC, unified architecture, UA, and tobacco machine communication, TMC, standards …” in lines 5-7. Suggested claim language: “… open platform communication (OPC) unified architecture (UA) and tobacco machine communication (TMC) standards …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites:
determining, by a simulation component, a plurality of statuses of the plurality of machines of the production line based on one or more events altering an operation state of the production line and based on speed set points for the plurality of machines
analysing performance of the production line based on speed set points for the plurality of machines, including the calculated at least one new speed set point for at least one machine of the plurality of machines; and (lines 5-12)
Claim 23 recites:
… simulate the production process for each configuration of a plurality of configurations of a speed management component by determining a plurality of statuses of the plurality of machines of the production line based on one or more events altering an operation state of the production line and based on speed set points for the plurality of machines; (lines 4-8)
analyse a performance of the production line for each configuration of the plurality of configurations based on speed set points for the plurality of machines, including the calculated at least one new speed set point for at least one machine of the plurality of machines; and (lines 33-36)
Claim 1 recites speed set points in used in a determination of statuses of a plurality of machines and subsequently using speed set points for the plurality of machines including the calculated at least one new speed set point for at least one machine of the plurality of machines in analyzing performance for a production line. The claim is unclear as to whether the speed set points used in the determination of the plurality of statuses are the same speed set points used in the analyzing of the performance since the speed set points used in the analyzing of the performance are inclusive of the calculated at least one new speed set point. Hence, claims 16 and 23 are rendered indefinite. Suggested claim language:
Claim 16:
analysing performance of the production line based on the speed set points for the plurality of machines and the calculated at least one new speed set point for at least one machine of the plurality of machines
Claim 23:
analyse a performance of the production line for each configuration of the plurality of configurations based on the speed set points for the plurality of machines and the calculated at least one new speed set point for at least one machine of the plurality of machines; and .
Claims 17-22, dependent from claim 16, stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 16.
Claims 24-27, dependent from claim 23, stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 23.
Claim 16 recites:
calculating, by a digital twin speed management component, at least one new speed set point for at least one machine of the plurality of machines of the production line, based on the determined plurality of statuses and the respective configuration used for the digital twin speed management component; and
analysing performance of the production line based on speed set points for the plurality of machines, including the calculated at least one new speed set point for at least one machine of the plurality of machines; and
based on the analysis, deploying a configuration of the plurality of configurations of the speed management component for controlling the plurality of machines of the production line, (lines 9-18)
Claim 23 recites:
… simulate the production process for each configuration of the plurality of configurations by calculating at least one new speed set point for at least one machine of the plurality of machines of the production line, based on the determined plurality of statuses and the respective configuration used for the digital twin speed management component
analyse a performance of the production line for each configuration of the plurality of configurations based on speed set points for the plurality of machines, including the calculated at least one new speed set point for at least one machine of the plurality of machines; and
based on the analysis, deploy a configuration of the plurality of configurations of the speed management component for controlling the plurality of machines of the production line.
The claims recite calculating at least one new speed set point for at least one machine based on a respective configuration, analyzing performance of a production line based on the calculated at least one new speed set point, and deploying a configuration based on the analyzing. Per the recitation of “deploying a configuration”, the claim is unclear as to which configuration is deployed since the respective configuration was used in the analyzing of the performance and the deployment is based on the analyzing; hence, claims 16 and 23 are rendered indefinite.
Claims 17-22, dependent from claim 16, stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 16.
Claims 24-27, dependent from claim 23, stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 23.
Claim 16 recites:
… the one or more events comprise one of:
actual machine stops as received from the speed management component connected to the aggregation server connected to the plurality of machines, and
machine stops from stochastic variables that are being updated by the speed management component connected to the aggregation server connected to the plurality of machines. (lines 29-34)
Claim 21 recites:
… the one or more events comprise at least one of one or more unplanned events occurring with a certain probability, an operator stop for at least one machine of the plurality of machines, an unplanned stop of a machine of the plurality of machines, a lack or an excess of a product at an infeed or outfeed of a machine of the plurality of machines, machine stops from stochastic variables that have been previously estimated, and machine stops retrieved from a file. (lines 1-6)
Claim 21 dependent from claim 16 is rendered indefinite since the claim recites a group of one or more events that comprise of disparate events (i.e. “an operator stop for at least one machine of the plurality of machines” and a lack or an excess of a product at an infeed or outfeed of a machine of the plurality of machines”) from the events of the “actual machine stops” and “machine stops from stochastic variables” in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to production and optimization systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0103559 A1 discloses systems and methods for optimizing a production facility that includes workstations for producing products.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0204237 A1 discloses controlling a process having computer-controlled equipment, which provide optimized process performance according to one or more performance criteria, such as efficiency, component life expectancy, safety, emissions, noise, vibration, operational cost, or the like.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0130520 A1 discloses a factory control server stores module configuration data for modules.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0026891 A1 discloses a method for time constraint management in a manufacturing system.
U.S. Patent No. 10,303,161 B2 discloses scheduling of operations, operating parameters, and human operators on these machines.
U.S. Patent No. 12,560,916 B2 discloses a method includes receiving, by a processing device, first trace data associated with a first processing chamber, wherein the first processing chamber satisfies one or more performance metrics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights