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 .
Claims 20-39 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/15/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 38, “one additional data source and and using the data” should read “one additional data source and using the data”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 20-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, at step 1, the claim recites a device comprising combination of concrete devices (capturing device, evaluation unit), and therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “the device being configured to monitor at least one tire curing press”, “wherein the at least one capturing device is configured to detect a cycle time required for carrying out a process cycle”, “wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to monitor a condition of the at least one monitored tire curing press based on of the detected cycle time”.
The limitation of “monitor at least one tire curing press”, “detect a cycle time required for carrying out a process cycle”, “monitor a condition of the at least one monitored tire curing press based on of the detected cycle time”, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, monitoring, and detecting are steps, that in the context of this claim encompasses an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a device for acquiring measurement data of a tire curing press”, “the device comprising: at least one capturing device configured to capture at least one machine parameter of the at least one monitored tire curing press”, “the device”, “at least one capturing device”, and “at least one evaluation unit”.
The limitations of “a device for acquiring measurement data of a tire curing press”, and “the device comprising: at least one capturing device configured to capture at least one machine parameter of the at least one monitored tire curing press” represents mere data gathering (obtaining measurement data, and machine parameter) that is necessary for use of the recited exception, as the obtained information is used in the abstract mental process of detecting, and monitoring tire curing press. The obtaining of measurement data, and machine parameter is recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, it is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “the device”, “at least one capturing device”, and “at least one evaluation unit” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does 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 “the device”, “at least one capturing device”, and “at least one evaluation unit” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The acquiring measurement data, and capturing machine parameter, represents mere data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
With respect to obtaining measurement data, and machine parameter, the courts have found limitation directed to obtaining information electronically, as recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, and “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Independent Claim 34, the claim recites a method comprising series of steps (detecting, automated comparing, automated detecting, performing automated condition monitoring), and therefore is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “a. Detecting at least one cycle and/or subcycle time of at least one monitored tire curing press”, “automated comparing of the at least one detected cycle and/or subcycle time with target values”, “C. Automated detecting of a time deviation that exceeds defined tolerances”, “d. Performing automated condition monitoring of the at least one monitored tire curing press based on detected time deviations of the at least one cycle and/or subcycle time”.
The limitation of “a. Detecting at least one cycle and/or subcycle time of at least one monitored tire curing press”, “comparing of the at least one detected cycle and/or subcycle time with target values”, “d. Performing… condition monitoring of the at least one monitored tire curing press based on detected time deviations of the at least one cycle and/or subcycle time”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, detecting, comparing, performing condition monitoring are steps, that in context of this claim encompasses an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a method for acquiring measurement data of at least one tire curing press”, “automated comparing”, “automated detecting”, and “automated condition monitoring”.
The limitations of “a method for acquiring measurement data of at least one tire curing press” represents mere data gathering (obtaining measurement data) that is necessary for use of the recited exception, as the obtained information is used in the abstract mental process of detecting, comparing, and monitoring tire curing press. The method of acquiring measurement data is recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, it is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “automated comparing”, “automated detecting”, and “automated condition monitoring”, is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does 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 automated operations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The acquiring measurement data, represents mere data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
With respect to obtaining measurement data, the courts have found limitation directed to obtaining information electronically, as recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, and “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Dependent Claim 21, the additional limitations of “wherein the process cycle comprises at least two process steps” merely defines abstract query information. Thus, this claim is part of the abstract idea.
The additional limitations of “wherein the at least one capturing device detects at least one subcycle time corresponding to a duration of a defined process step” are further observations, evaluation, judgements and/or opinions practicably performable mentally by a human mind, and accordingly further limitations that are part of the abstract idea.
Regarding Dependent Claim 22, the additional limitations of “wherein each subcycle corresponds to a defined machine movement or a sequence of machine movements of the at least one monitored tire curing press” merely defines abstract query information. Thus, this claim is part of the abstract idea.
Regarding Dependent Claim 23, the additional limitations of “wherein the at least one capturing device for detecting the cycle and/or subcycle times is configured to retrieve data from a machine control system and/or to evaluate machine messages and/or for sensor-based monitoring of the at least one monitored tire curing press” merely defines abstract query information, and/or are further observations, evaluation, judgements and/or opinions practicably performable mentally by a human mind, and accordingly further limitations that are part of the abstract idea.
Regarding Dependent Claim 24, the additional limitations of “wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to retrieve stored setpoint values, tolerances and/or limit values of at least the cycle time” defines the extra-solution activity of mere data gathering.
The additional limitations of “evaluation unit… is further configured to compare the detected real cycle and/or subcycle times with the setpoint values, tolerance ranges and/or limit values for the setpoint values and to detect a time deviation if at least one of the detected times falls outside the tolerance range of the setpoint values defined for the overall process and/or the respective process step or exceeds a respective limit value” are further observations, evaluation, judgements and/or opinions practicably performable mentally by a human mind, and accordingly further limitations that are part of the abstract idea.
Regarding Dependent Claim 25, the additional limitations of “wherein the at least one evaluation unit is additionally configured to retrieve stored setpoint values, tolerances and/or limit values of at the cycle time and all defined subcycles” defines the extra-solution activity of mere data gathering.
Regarding Dependent Claim 26, the additional limitations of “wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to automatically detect a cause underlying the time deviation or to automatically delimit possible causes by assigning subcycles to specific process steps or machine movements” are further observations, evaluation, judgements and/or opinions practicably performable mentally by a human mind, and accordingly further limitations that are part of the abstract idea.
Regarding Dependent Claim 27, the additional limitations of “wherein the assigned possible causes are structured in cause lists and at least one criterion is assigned to each of the causes listed in the respective cause list, it being possible to determine from the check of the presence or absence of the at least one criterion whether the respective cause applies or can apply” merely defines abstract query information.
Regarding Dependent Claim 28, the additional limitations of “wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to retrieve additional data in case of a detected deviation outside the tolerances” defines the extra-solution activity of mere data gathering.
The additional limitations of “so that, by the evaluation of the additional data, in conjunction with the detected time deviation, the cause can be automatically identified or at least further narrowed down” are further observations, evaluation, judgements and/or opinions practicably performable mentally by a human mind, and accordingly further limitations that are part of the abstract idea.
Regarding Dependent Claim 29, the additional limitations of “wherein the additionally retrievable data comprises sensor data and/or machine messages and/or media consumption in relation to the at least one monitored tire curing press and/or corresponding tire curing presses” mere defines additionally retrievable data; thus the limitation is part of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding Dependent Claim 30, the additional limitations of “wherein the evaluation of the additionally retrieved data in the form of sensor data, machine messages and/or media consumption by the evaluation unit enables an automatic check of criteria for the presence or absence of specific causes for detected time deviation(s)” are further observations, evaluation, judgements and/or opinions practicably performable mentally by a human mind, and accordingly further limitations that are part of the abstract idea.
Regarding Dependent Claim 31, the additional limitations of “further comprising at least one communication device for connection to at least one additional data source and/or for transmitting data to a higher-level storage and/or evaluation unit” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Dependent Claim 32, the additional limitations of “wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to automatically generate suggestions for eliminating the cause… and/or to output suggestions or instructions for further cause determination” represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding Dependent Claim 33, the additional limitations of “comprising at least one device for acquiring measurement data according to claim 20” defines the extra-solution activity of mere data gathering.
Regarding Dependent Claim 35, the additional limitations of “further including automatically loading a cause list comprising possible causes for the detected deviation based on the at least one detected time deviation” defines the extra-solution activity of mere data gathering.
Regarding Dependent Claim 36, the additional limitations of “including carrying out an automatic check of possible causes of the cause list for the detected time deviation using at least one criterion for unambiguous identification of the at least one cause or for narrowing down the cause list” are further observations, evaluation, judgements and/or opinions practicably performable mentally by a human mind, and accordingly further limitations that are part of the abstract idea.
Regarding Dependent Claim 37, the additional limitations of “including automatically retrieving suggestions for action and/or instructions for action for remedying the at least one identified cause and subsequently outputting the suggestions and/or instructions” represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding Dependent Claim 38, the additional limitations of “further including, parallel to the monitoring of the cycle and/or subcycle times or after the detection of a time deviation, automatically loading data from at least one additional data source” defines the extra-solution activity of mere data gathering.
The additional limitations of “using the data for automatic unambiguous identification of the at least one cause or for narrowing down the list of causes based on predetermined criteria” are further observations, evaluation, judgements and/or opinions practicably performable mentally by a human mind, and accordingly further limitations that are part of the abstract idea.
Regarding Dependent Claim 39, the additional limitations of “including using a device for acquiring measurement data of a tire curing press, the device being configured to monitor at least one tire curing press, the device comprising: at least one capturing device configured to capture at least one machine parameter of the at least one monitored tire curing press; and at least one evaluation unit, wherein the at least one capturing device is configured to detect a cycle time required for carrying out a process cycle, and wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to monitor a condition of the at least one monitored tire curing press based on of the detected cycle time”, the additional limitations are rejected for the same reasons as those indicated in the analysis of claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 33-34, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CASALI et al. WO 2021/123974 A1 (hereinafter “CASALI”).
Regarding claim 20, CASALI teaches a device for acquiring measurement data of a tire curing press, the device being configured to monitor at least one tire curing press ([Page 5, Line 6-8] “monitoring devices are provided for monitoring a cross-linking degree reached in at least one detection zone located within the tyre”, [Page 14, Line 3-5] “The mould 3 is also operatively associated with monitoring devices 14, 15, 18 for monitoring the value of the cross-linking degree reached by the tyre 2”, [Page 4, Line 14-23] “Preferably, provision is made for detecting and storing an actual vulcanisation time, running between the beginning and the interruption of the heat supplying. Preferably, provision is made for comparing the actual vulcanisation time with a preset nominal vulcanization time, to detect a difference therebetween. Preferably, provision is made for recording a warning signal when the difference between the actual vulcanisation time and the nominal vulcanisation time exceeds at least one predetermined attention threshold”, wherein examiner interpreted monitoring devices monitoring cross-linking degree in a detected zone located within the tyre, and detecting vulcanisation time as a device for acquiring measurement data of a tire curing press, the device being configured to monitor at least one tire curing press), the device comprising:
at least one capturing device configured to capture at least one machine parameter of the at least one monitored tire curing press (Page 23, Line 15 – Page 24, Line 4 “it is preferably provided that the actual vulcanisation time, running between the activation and the deactivation of the feeding devices 11 of the heating fluid upon command of the electronic control unit 17, be each time detected via a chronometer or other chronometric devices 20 associated with the same electronic control unit 17. The actual time detected at the end of each vulcanisation cycle is stored and compared with the nominal vulcanization time by a comparator 21 associated with the electronic control unit 17. The comparator 21, which may possible be made in the shape of a module integrated in the electronic control unit 17, enables the emission of a warning signal each time the difference detected between the nominal vulcanisation time and the actual vulcanisation time at the end of each vulcanisation cycle exceeds a predetermined attention threshold, stored for example in the electronic control unit 17”, wherein examiner interpreted chronometer detecting actual time at the end of each vulcanisation cycle as at least one capturing device configured to capture at least one machine parameter of the at least one monitored tire curing press, wherein examiner interpreted the time for a vulcanisation cycle as at least one machine parameter of at least one monitored curing press); and
at least one evaluation unit, wherein the at least one capturing device is configured to detect a cycle time required for carrying out a process cycle (Page 23, Line 15 – Page 24, Line 4 “it is preferably provided that the actual vulcanisation time, running between the activation and the deactivation of the feeding devices 11 of the heating fluid upon command of the electronic control unit 17, be each time detected via a chronometer or other chronometric devices 20 associated with the same electronic control unit 17. The actual time detected at the end of each vulcanisation cycle is stored and compared with the nominal vulcanization time by a comparator 21 associated with the electronic control unit 17. The comparator 21, which may possible be made in the shape of a module integrated in the electronic control unit 17, enables the emission of a warning signal each time the difference detected between the nominal vulcanisation time and the actual vulcanisation time at the end of each vulcanisation cycle exceeds a predetermined attention threshold, stored for example in the electronic control unit 17”, wherein examiner interpreted time detected at the end of vulcanisation cycle as capturing device configured to detect a cycle time required for carrying out a process cycle), and
wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to monitor a condition of the at least one monitored tire curing press based on of the detected cycle time ([Page 4, Line 14-23] “Preferably, provision is made for detecting and storing an actual vulcanisation time, running between the beginning and the interruption of the heat supplying. Preferably, provision is made for comparing the actual vulcanisation time with a preset nominal vulcanization time, to detect a difference therebetween. Preferably, provision is made for recording a warning signal when the difference between the actual vulcanisation time and the nominal vulcanisation time exceeds at least one predetermined attention threshold”, [Page 23, Line 20 – Page 24, Line 1] “The actual time detected at the end of each vulcanisation cycle is stored and compared with the nominal vulcanization time by a comparator 21 associated with the electronic control unit 17. The comparator 21, which may possible be made in the shape of a module integrated in the electronic control unit 17, enables the emission of a warning signal each time the difference detected between the nominal vulcanisation time and the actual vulcanisation time at the end of each vulcanisation cycle exceeds a predetermined attention threshold, stored for example in the electronic control unit 17”, [Page 5, Line 28 – Page 6, Line 3] “The Applicant deems that the comparison of the actual vulcanisation time with the nominal vulcanization time and the consequent recording of the warning signals allow effectively and predictably identifying the trend of the system to approach the admissible tolerance limits”, wherein examiner interpreted electronic control unit including a comparator comparing vulcanisation time to nominal vulcanisation time which is used to identify trend of the system to approach admissible tolerance limits as at least one evaluation unit is configured to monitor a condition of the at least one monitored tire curing press based on of the detected cycle time).
Regarding claim 33, CASALI teaches a tire curing press, comprising at least one device for acquiring measurement data according to claim 20 ([Page 11, Line 23-25] “With reference to figure 1, reference number 1 overall indicates a vulcanisation apparatus for tyres of vehicle wheels, according to the present invention”, [Page 5, Line 6-8] “monitoring devices are provided for monitoring a cross-linking degree reached in at least one detection zone located within the tyre”, [Page 14, Line 3-5] “The mould 3 is also operatively associated with monitoring devices 14, 15, 18 for monitoring the value of the cross-linking degree reached by the tyre 2”, [Page 4, Line 14-23] “Preferably, provision is made for detecting and storing an actual vulcanisation time, running between the beginning and the interruption of the heat supplying. Preferably, provision is made for comparing the actual vulcanisation time with a preset nominal vulcanization time, to detect a difference therebetween. Preferably, provision is made for recording a warning signal when the difference between the actual vulcanisation time and the nominal vulcanisation time exceeds at least one predetermined attention threshold”, wherein examiner interpreted monitoring devices monitoring cross-linking degree in a detected zone located within the tyre that uses the vulcanisation apparatus, and detecting vulcanisation time as a tire curing press comprising at least a device for acquiring measurement data of a tire curing press, the device being configured to monitor at least one tire curing press).
Regarding claim 34, CASALI teaches a method for acquiring measurement data of at least one tire curing press ([Page 5, Line 6-8] “monitoring devices are provided for monitoring a cross-linking degree reached in at least one detection zone located within the tyre”, [Page 14, Line 3-5] “The mould 3 is also operatively associated with monitoring devices 14, 15, 18 for monitoring the value of the cross-linking degree reached by the tyre 2”, [Page 4, Line 14-23] “Preferably, provision is made for detecting and storing an actual vulcanisation time, running between the beginning and the interruption of the heat supplying. Preferably, provision is made for comparing the actual vulcanisation time with a preset nominal vulcanization time, to detect a difference therebetween. Preferably, provision is made for recording a warning signal when the difference between the actual vulcanisation time and the nominal vulcanisation time exceeds at least one predetermined attention threshold”, wherein examiner interpreted monitoring devices monitoring cross-linking degree in a detected zone located within the tyre, and detecting vulcanisation time as a method for acquiring measurement data of a tire curing press, the device being configured to monitor at least one tire curing press), comprising the steps of:
a. Detecting at least one cycle and/or subcycle time of at least one monitored tire curing press (Page 23, Line 15 – Page 24, Line 4 “it is preferably provided that the actual vulcanisation time, running between the activation and the deactivation of the feeding devices 11 of the heating fluid upon command of the electronic control unit 17, be each time detected via a chronometer or other chronometric devices 20 associated with the same electronic control unit 17. The actual time detected at the end of each vulcanisation cycle is stored and compared with the nominal vulcanization time by a comparator 21 associated with the electronic control unit 17. The comparator 21, which may possible be made in the shape of a module integrated in the electronic control unit 17, enables the emission of a warning signal each time the difference detected between the nominal vulcanisation time and the actual vulcanisation time at the end of each vulcanisation cycle exceeds a predetermined attention threshold, stored for example in the electronic control unit 17”, wherein examiner interpreted chronometer detecting actual time at the end of each vulcanisation cycle as detecting at least one cycle and/or subcycle time of at least one monitored tire curing press);
b. Automated comparing of the at least one detected cycle and/or subcycle time with target values (Page 23, Line 15 – Page 24, Line 4 “it is preferably provided that the actual vulcanisation time, running between the activation and the deactivation of the feeding devices 11 of the heating fluid upon command of the electronic control unit 17, be each time detected via a chronometer or other chronometric devices 20 associated with the same electronic control unit 17. The actual time detected at the end of each vulcanisation cycle is stored and compared with the nominal vulcanization time by a comparator 21 associated with the electronic control unit 17. The comparator 21, which may possible be made in the shape of a module integrated in the electronic control unit 17, enables the emission of a warning signal each time the difference detected between the nominal vulcanisation time and the actual vulcanisation time at the end of each vulcanisation cycle exceeds a predetermined attention threshold, stored for example in the electronic control unit 17”, wherein examiner interpreted comparator comparing actual time detected to nominal vulcanization time as automated comparing of the at least one detected cycle and/or subcycle time with target values);
C. Automated detecting of a time deviation that exceeds defined tolerances ([Page 4, Line 14-23] “Preferably, provision is made for detecting and storing an actual vulcanisation time, running between the beginning and the interruption of the heat supplying. Preferably, provision is made for comparing the actual vulcanisation time with a preset nominal vulcanization time, to detect a difference therebetween. Preferably, provision is made for recording a warning signal when the difference between the actual vulcanisation time and the nominal vulcanisation time exceeds at least one predetermined attention threshold”, [Page 23, Line 20 – Page 24, Line 1] “The actual time detected at the end of each vulcanisation cycle is stored and compared with the nominal vulcanization time by a comparator 21 associated with the electronic control unit 17. The comparator 21, which may possible be made in the shape of a module integrated in the electronic control unit 17, enables the emission of a warning signal each time the difference detected between the nominal vulcanisation time and the actual vulcanisation time at the end of each vulcanisation cycle exceeds a predetermined attention threshold, stored for example in the electronic control unit 17”, [Page 5, Line 28 – Page 6, Line 3] “The Applicant deems that the comparison of the actual vulcanisation time with the nominal vulcanization time and the consequent recording of the warning signals allow effectively and predictably identifying the trend of the system to approach the admissible tolerance limits”, wherein examiner interpreted electronic control unit including a comparator comparing vulcanisation time to nominal vulcanisation time which is used to identify trend of the system to approach admissible tolerance limits as automated detecting of a time deviation that exceeds defined tolerances); and
d. Performing automated condition monitoring of the at least one monitored tire curing press based on detected time deviations of the at least one cycle and/or subcycle time ([Page 4, Line 14-23] “Preferably, provision is made for detecting and storing an actual vulcanisation time, running between the beginning and the interruption of the heat supplying. Preferably, provision is made for comparing the actual vulcanisation time with a preset nominal vulcanization time, to detect a difference therebetween. Preferably, provision is made for recording a warning signal when the difference between the actual vulcanisation time and the nominal vulcanisation time exceeds at least one predetermined attention threshold”, [Page 23, Line 20 – Page 24, Line 1] “The actual time detected at the end of each vulcanisation cycle is stored and compared with the nominal vulcanization time by a comparator 21 associated with the electronic control unit 17. The comparator 21, which may possible be made in the shape of a module integrated in the electronic control unit 17, enables the emission of a warning signal each time the difference detected between the nominal vulcanisation time and the actual vulcanisation time at the end of each vulcanisation cycle exceeds a predetermined attention threshold, stored for example in the electronic control unit 17”, [Page 5, Line 28 – Page 6, Line 3] “The Applicant deems that the comparison of the actual vulcanisation time with the nominal vulcanization time and the consequent recording of the warning signals allow effectively and predictably identifying the trend of the system to approach the admissible tolerance limits”, wherein examiner interpreted electronic control unit including a comparator comparing vulcanisation time to nominal vulcanisation time which is used to identify trend of the system to approach admissible tolerance limits as performing automated condition monitoring of the at least one monitored tire curing press based on detected time deviations of the at least one cycle and/or subcycle time).
Regarding claim 39, CASALI teaches including using a device for acquiring measurement data of a tire curing press, the device being configured to monitor at least one tire curing press ([Page 5, Line 6-8] “monitoring devices are provided for monitoring a cross-linking degree reached in at least one detection zone located within the tyre”, [Page 14, Line 3-5] “The mould 3 is also operatively associated with monitoring devices 14, 15, 18 for monitoring the value of the cross-linking degree reached by the tyre 2”, [Page 4, Line 14-23] “Preferably, provision is made for detecting and storing an actual vulcanisation time, running between the beginning and the interruption of the heat supplying. Preferably, provision is made for comparing the actual vulcanisation time with a preset nominal vulcanization time, to detect a difference therebetween. Preferably, provision is made for recording a warning signal when the difference between the actual vulcanisation time and the nominal vulcanisation time exceeds at least one predetermined attention threshold”, wherein examiner interpreted monitoring devices monitoring cross-linking degree in a detected zone located within the tyre, and detecting vulcanisation time as a device for acquiring measurement data of a tire curing press, the device being configured to monitor at least one tire curing press), the device comprising:
at least one capturing device configured to capture at least one machine parameter of the at least one monitored tire curing press (Page 23, Line 15 – Page 24, Line 4 “it is preferably provided that the actual vulcanisation time, running between the activation and the deactivation of the feeding devices 11 of the heating fluid upon command of the electronic control unit 17, be each time detected via a chronometer or other chronometric devices 20 associated with the same electronic control unit 17. The actual time detected at the end of each vulcanisation cycle is stored and compared with the nominal vulcanization time by a comparator 21 associated with the electronic control unit 17. The comparator 21, which may possible be made in the shape of a module integrated in the electronic control unit 17, enables the emission of a warning signal each time the difference detected between the nominal vulcanisation time and the actual vulcanisation time at the end of each vulcanisation cycle exceeds a predetermined attention threshold, stored for example in the electronic control unit 17”, wherein examiner interpreted chronometer detecting actual time at the end of each vulcanisation cycle as at least one capturing device configured to capture at least one machine parameter of the at least one monitored tire curing press, wherein examiner interpreted the time for a vulcanisation cycle as at least one machine parameter of at least one monitored curing press); and
at least one evaluation unit, wherein the at least one capturing device is configured to detect a cycle time required for carrying out a process cycle (Page 23, Line 15 – Page 24, Line 4 “it is preferably provided that the actual vulcanisation time, running between the activation and the deactivation of the feeding devices 11 of the heating fluid upon command of the electronic control unit 17, be each time detected via a chronometer or other chronometric devices 20 associated with the same electronic control unit 17. The actual time detected at the end of each vulcanisation cycle is stored and compared with the nominal vulcanization time by a comparator 21 associated with the electronic control unit 17. The comparator 21, which may possible be made in the shape of a module integrated in the electronic control unit 17, enables the emission of a warning signal each time the difference detected between the nominal vulcanisation time and the actual vulcanisation time at the end of each vulcanisation cycle exceeds a predetermined attention threshold, stored for example in the electronic control unit 17”, wherein examiner interpreted time detected at the end of vulcanisation cycle as capturing device configured to detect a cycle time required for carrying out a process cycle), and
wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to monitor a condition of the at least one monitored tire curing press based on of the detected cycle time ([Page 4, Line 14-23] “Preferably, provision is made for detecting and storing an actual vulcanisation time, running between the beginning and the interruption of the heat supplying. Preferably, provision is made for comparing the actual vulcanisation time with a preset nominal vulcanization time, to detect a difference therebetween. Preferably, provision is made for recording a warning signal when the difference between the actual vulcanisation time and the nominal vulcanisation time exceeds at least one predetermined attention threshold”, [Page 23, Line 20 – Page 24, Line 1] “The actual time detected at the end of each vulcanisation cycle is stored and compared with the nominal vulcanization time by a comparator 21 associated with the electronic control unit 17. The comparator 21, which may possible be made in the shape of a module integrated in the electronic control unit 17, enables the emission of a warning signal each time the difference detected between the nominal vulcanisation time and the actual vulcanisation time at the end of each vulcanisation cycle exceeds a predetermined attention threshold, stored for example in the electronic control unit 17”, [Page 5, Line 28 – Page 6, Line 3] “The Applicant deems that the comparison of the actual vulcanisation time with the nominal vulcanization time and the consequent recording of the warning signals allow effectively and predictably identifying the trend of the system to approach the admissible tolerance limits”, wherein examiner interpreted electronic control unit including a comparator comparing vulcanisation time to nominal vulcanisation time which is used to identify trend of the system to approach admissible tolerance limits as at least one evaluation unit is configured to monitor a condition of the at least one monitored tire curing press based on of the detected cycle time).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CASALI et al. WO 2021/123974 A1 (hereinafter “CASALI”), in view of GRONEMANN et al. DE 102009010322 A1 (hereinafter “GRONEMANN”).
Regarding claim 21, CASALI teaches all of the features with respect to claim 20 as outlined above.
CASALI does not explicitly teach wherein the process cycle comprises at least two process steps and wherein the at least one capturing device detects at least one subcycle time corresponding to a duration of a defined process step.
However, GRONEMANN teaches wherein the process cycle comprises at least two process steps ([Abstract] “The method and apparatus are used to control the production of tires. The production process is subdivided into at least two time-sequential process steps. A tire blank applied during the individual process steps and / or at least one tool used in at least one of the process steps is moved during production. At least one movement associated with a first process step is performed at least partially overlapping in time with a movement associated with a second process step”, wherein examiner interpreted production process for production of tires that is subdivided into two time-sequential process steps as process cycle comprising at least two process steps) and wherein the at least one capturing device detects at least one subcycle time corresponding to a duration of a defined process step ([Description] “The production of a tire thus requires a plurality components. Each tire component is one of Assigned to the tire building machine predetermined sub-process, which in turn is often out a plurality of individual actions. During the individual sub-processes required movements of the green tire or used Tools or supplied Materials are typically servomotors or others Actuators performed”, [FIG. 1 Description] “1 shows a schematic representation of three movements ( 1 . 2 . 3 ), which are each assigned to sub-processes in tire production. Plotted here is the course with respect to a time axis ( 4 ) and a velocity axis ( 5 ). An assignment of the individual movements ( 1 . 2 . 3 ) is from a master axis ( 9 ) coordinates”, wherein examiner interpreted plotting movements of servomotor for each sub-processes with respect to time axis as wherein the at least one capturing device detects at least one subcycle time corresponding to a duration of a defined process step, and additionally, CASALI teaches chronometer measuring time of vulcanisation cycle).
CASALI, and GRONEMANN are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to production of tires.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above device for acquiring measurement data of tire curing press, as taught by CASALI, and incorporating subcycle of process steps, as taught by GRONEMANN.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve executing process steps for tires production faster, as suggested by GRONEMANN (see [Description]).
Regarding claim 22, CASALI, and GRONEMANN teaches all of the features with respect to claim 21 as outlined above.
GRONEMANN further teaches wherein each subcycle corresponds to a defined machine movement or a sequence of machine movements of the at least one monitored tire curing press ([Description] “The production of a tire thus requires a plurality components. Each tire component is one of Assigned to the tire building machine predetermined sub-process, which in turn is often out a plurality of individual actions. During the individual sub-processes required movements of the green tire or used Tools or supplied Materials are typically servomotors or others Actuators performed”, wherein examiner interpreted sub-processes of components including servomotors as subcycle corresponding to a defined machine movement or a sequence of machine movements of the at least one monitored tire curing press).
Regarding claim 23, CASALI, and GRONEMANN teaches all of the features with respect to claim 21 as outlined above.
CASALI further teaches wherein the at least one capturing device for detecting the cycle and/or subcycle times is configured to retrieve data from a machine control system and/or to evaluate machine messages and/or for sensor-based monitoring of the at least one monitored tire curing press (Page 23, Line 3-10 “The management carried out by the electronic control unit 17 based on the equivalent time data calculated starting from the data coming from the thermal detection probes 14, 15, 18 and/or 19, may nevertheless impose the interruption of the heat supplying and the conclusion of the vulcanisation cycle with the opening of the mould 3 at the expiry of an actual vulcanisation time, which can occur some time before or after the nominal vulcanization time”, Page 23, Line 11-20 “it is conveniently provided to perform a control on the actual vulcanisation times, and the application of interventions aimed to limit possible deviations of the same from the nominal vulcanization time. For such purpose, it is preferably provided that the actual vulcanisation time, running between the activation and the deactivation of the feeding devices 11 of the heating fluid upon command of the electronic control unit 17, be each time detected via a chronometer or other chronometric devices 20 associated with the same electronic control unit 17”, wherein examiner interpreted electronic control unit receiving data from detection probes detecting temperature as retrieving data from a machine control system and/or to evaluate machine messages and/or for sensor-based monitoring of the at least one monitored tire curing press).
Regarding claim 24, CASALI, and GRONEMANN teaches all of the features with respect to claim 21 as outlined above.
CASALI further teaches wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to retrieve stored setpoint values, tolerances and/or limit values of at least the cycle time ([Page 3, Line 22-28 “The Applicant has found that by monitoring the vulcanisation times so as to record the trend of the same to reach and/or maintain values close to the tolerance limits in the course of one or more vulcanisation cycles, and by applying suitable operations on the temperature for supplying the heating fluid (e.g. steam) to the mould, it is possible to attain quality improvements and obtain increases of productivity”), and is further configured to compare the detected real cycle and/or subcycle times with the setpoint values, tolerance ranges and/or limit values for the setpoint values and to detect a time deviation if at least one of the detected times falls outside the tolerance range of the setpoint values defined for the overall process and/or the respective process step or exceeds a respective limit value ([Page 5, Line 28 – Page 6, Line 6] “The Applicant deems that the comparison of the actual vulcanisation time with the nominal vulcanization time and the consequent recording of the warning signals allow effectively and predictably identifying the trend of the system to approach the admissible tolerance limits. The timely modification of the operating temperature in response to the recording of the warning signals allows bringing the actual vulcanisation time back to values closer to the nominal value”, [Page 4, Line 14-23] “Preferably, provision is made for detecting and storing an actual vulcanisation time, running between the beginning and the interruption of the heat supplying. Preferably, provision is made for comparing the actual vulcanisation time with a preset nominal vulcanization time, to detect a difference therebetween. Preferably, provision is made for recording a warning signal when the difference between the actual vulcanisation time and the nominal vulcanisation time exceeds at least one predetermined attention threshold”, [Page 23, Line 20 – Page 24, Line 1] “The actual time detected at the end of each vulcanisation cycle is stored and compared with the nominal vulcanization time by a comparator 21 associated with the electronic control unit 17. The comparator 21, which may possible be made in the shape of a module integrated in the electronic control unit 17, enables the emission of a warning signal each time the difference detected between the nominal vulcanisation time and the actual vulcanisation time at the end of each vulcanisation cycle exceeds a predetermined attention threshold, stored for example in the electronic control unit 17”, wherein examiner interpreted comparing actual time of vulcanisation cycle with nominal vulcanisation time to emit warning signal when difference between detected time and nominal vulcanisation time as evaluation unit further configured to compare the detected real cycle and/or subcycle times with the setpoint values, tolerance ranges and/or limit values for the setpoint values and to detect a time deviation if at least one of the detected times falls outside the tolerance range of the setpoint values defined for the overall process and/or the respective process step or exceeds a respective limit value).
Regarding claim 25, CASALI, and GRONEMANN teaches all of the features with respect to claim 24 as outlined above.
CASALI further teaches wherein the at least one evaluation unit is additionally configured to retrieve stored setpoint values, tolerances and/or limit values of at the cycle time and all defined subcycles ([Page 23, Line 20 – Page 24, Line 1] “The actual time detected at the end of each vulcanisation cycle is stored and compared with the nominal vulcanization time by a comparator 21 associated with the electronic control unit 17. The comparator 21, which may possible be made in the shape of a module integrated in the electronic control unit 17, enables the emission of a warning signal each time the difference detected between the nominal vulcanisation time and the actual vulcanisation time at the end of each vulcanisation cycle exceeds a predetermined attention threshold, stored for example in the electronic control unit 17”, wherein examiner interpreted comparing actual vulcanisation time values stored and compared to vulcanisation nominal value to determine difference to a threshold that is stored in electronic control unit 17 as at least one evaluation unit is additionally configured to retrieve stored setpoint values, tolerances and/or limit values of at the cycle time and all defined subcycles).
Regarding claim 26, CASALI, and GRONEMANN teaches all of the features with respect to claim 24 as outlined above.
CASALI further teaches wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to automatically detect a cause underlying the time deviation or to automatically delimit possible causes by assigning subcycles to specific process steps or machine movements (Page 3, Line 16-21 “The Applicant has verified that the causes which determine vulcanisation times that are significantly different from each other and/or from the nominal vulcanisation time, are essentially due to external factors which in the end cause a considerable lowering of the temperature in the zones of the mould adjacent to the tyre where the detection probes operate”, and Page 24, Line 28 – Page 25, Line 13 “Upon repeating a predetermined number of recorded warning signals, for example equal to 5 and approximately variable between 1 and 10, the electronic control unit 17 intervenes on the temperature control devices 12 in order to suitably modify the operating temperature of the heating fluid. For example, if in a predetermined number of preceding, respectively successive, vulcanisation cycles the lower attention threshold was exceeded, the operating temperature of the heating fluid, preset for example at 180°C, is preferably decreased by an amount approximately comprised between about 0.5°C and about 2°C. If on the other hand in the preceding vulcanisation cycles the higher attention threshold was repeatedly exceeded, the operating temperature of the heating fluid is increased, by an amount approximately comprised between about 0.5°C and about 2°C”, wherein examiner interpreted external factors that cause lowering of temperature which causes vulcanisation time to be different from nominal vulcanisation time as wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to automatically detect a cause underlying the time deviation or to automatically delimit possible causes by assigning subcycles to specific process steps or machine movements).
Claims 27-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CASALI et al. WO 2021/123974 A1 (hereinafter “CASALI”), in view of GRONEMANN et al. DE 102009010322 A1 (hereinafter “GRONEMANN”) as applied to claims 21-26, further in view of Knapp et al. USPGPUB 2022/0203637 (hereinafter “Knapp”).
Regarding claim 27, CASALI, and GRONEMANN teaches all of the features with respect to claim 26 as outlined above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the assigned possible causes are structured in cause lists and at least one criterion is assigned to each of the causes listed in the respective cause list, it being possible to determine from the check of the presence or absence of the at least one criterion whether the respective cause applies or can apply.
However, Knapp teaches wherein the assigned possible causes are structured in cause lists and at least one criterion is assigned to each of the causes listed in the respective cause list, it being possible to determine from the check of the presence or absence of the at least one criterion whether the respective cause applies or can apply (Paragraph [0018] “The splices can be out of tolerance due to at least one parameter setting of the manufacturing equipment. The out of tolerance splices can trigger an alarm on the manufacturing equipment and delay operation time, or, if undetected, result in a defective tire or a tire not built to specification”, Paragraph [0043] “The historical matrix can include, for example, historically collected splice tolerance value corresponding to at least one assembled splice. The ideal splice can refer to a splice with standard values, such as pressure, dimensions, shape, weight, or other aspects of the tires determined to be an expected value. The splice tolerance metric can, for example, determine a delta difference of at least one parameter between the splice and the ideal splice, such as pressure, orientation, or load. The splice tolerance metric can further determine if the splice is in tolerance or out of tolerance. The in or out of tolerance can be a binary determination. The splice tolerance metric can determine a magnitude of which the splice exceed a tolerance level. The tolerance level can refer to a boundary value or a threshold for at least one parameter to determine, for example, if the splice is in tolerance or out of tolerance. The tolerance level can be based on at least one policy from the policy data structure 142”, Paragraph [0052] “The deviation can refer to a delta difference between the tolerance of the splice and an ideal tolerance value corresponding to the splices. The degree of tolerance can refer to various parameters, such as temperature, pressure, orientation, or position of the tire during manufacturing or assembly process”, wherein examiner interpreted parameters that are out of tolerance as the assigned list of possible causes, and wherein at least one parameter as at least one criterion is assigned to each of the causes listed in the respective cause list, and wherein examiner interpreted determining whether the parameters are within tolerance or not as determining from the check of the presence or absence of the at least one criterion whether the respective cause applies or can apply).
CASALI, GRONEMANN, and Knapp are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They relate to production of tires.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above device for acquiring measurement data of tire curing press, as taught by CASALI, and GRONEMANN, and incorporating cause list of deviation, as taught by Knapp.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve reducing the number of defective products manufactured at a manufacturing plant, or to increasing the production rate of products that satisfy a tolerance specification or other quality specification, as suggested by Knapp. (see Paragraphs [0002-0004]).
Regarding claim 28, CASALI, and GRONEMANN teaches all of the features with respect to claim 24 as outlined above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to retrieve additional data in case of a detected deviation outside the tolerances so that, by the evaluation of the additional data, in conjunction with the detected time deviation, the cause can be automatically identified or at least further narrowed down.
However, Knapp teaches wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to retrieve additional data in case of a detected deviation outside the tolerances so that, by the evaluation of the additional data, in conjunction with the detected time deviation, the cause can be automatically identified or at least further narrowed down (Paragraph [0018] “The splices can be out of tolerance due to at least one parameter setting of the manufacturing equipment. The out of tolerance splices can trigger an alarm on the manufacturing equipment and delay operation time, or, if undetected, result in a defective tire or a tire not built to specification”, Paragraph [0043] “The historical matrix can include, for example, historically collected splice tolerance value corresponding to at least one assembled splice. The ideal splice can refer to a splice with standard values, such as pressure, dimensions, shape, weight, or other aspects of the tires determined to be an expected value. The splice tolerance metric can, for example, determine a delta difference of at least one parameter between the splice and the ideal splice, such as pressure, orientation, or load. The splice tolerance metric can further determine if the splice is in tolerance or out of tolerance. The in or out of tolerance can be a binary determination. The splice tolerance metric can determine a magnitude of which the splice exceed a tolerance level. The tolerance level can refer to a boundary value or a threshold for at least one parameter to determine, for example, if the splice is in tolerance or out of tolerance. The tolerance level can be based on at least one policy from the policy data structure 142”, Paragraph [0052] “The deviation can refer to a delta difference between the tolerance of the splice and an ideal tolerance value corresponding to the splices. The degree of tolerance can refer to various parameters, such as temperature, pressure, orientation, or position of the tire during manufacturing or assembly process”, Paragraph [0037] “The data processing system 110 can collectively extract the manufacturing equipment 104 information from the sensors 108, such as orientation data, pressure data, load/weight data, or proximity data, such as to measure the displacement between each splice”, Paragraph [0023] “The first one or more sensors can include, for example, a temperature sensor, proximity sensor, pressure sensor, speed sensor, torque sensor, or distance sensor. The sensor data structure 124 can categorize the sensor data based on various types of values obtained from the manufacturing equipment 104. The types of values can include at least, for example, temperature data, splice deviation data, pressure data, velocity data, thickness data, positional data, orientation data, or load data”, wherein examiner interpreted various data, and parameters of manufacturing equipment that are used to compare with tolerance levels as including the retrieving additional data in case of a detected deviation outside the tolerances so that, by the evaluation of the additional data, in conjunction with the detected time deviation, the cause can be automatically identified or at least further narrowed down).
CASALI, GRONEMANN, and Knapp are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They relate to production of tires.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above device for acquiring measurement data of tire curing press, as taught by CASALI, and GRONEMANN, and incorporating additional data, as taught by Knapp.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve reducing the number of defective products manufactured at a manufacturing plant, or to increasing the production rate of products that satisfy a tolerance specification or other quality specification, as suggested by Knapp. (see Paragraphs [0002-0004]).
Regarding claim 29, CASALI, GRONEMANN, and Knapp teaches all of the features with respect to claim 28 as outlined above.
CASALI further teaches wherein the additionally retrievable data comprises sensor data and/or machine messages and/or media consumption in relation to the at least one monitored tire curing press and/or corresponding tire curing presses ([Abstract] “Heat is supplied to a tyre (2) closed in a vulcanisation mould (3) in order to determine the vulcanisation thereof. During the heat supplying, the cross-linking degree reached in at least one detection zone (14a, 15a, 18a, 19a) located within the tyre (2) is monitored, in order to interrupt the heat supplying when the cross-linking degree reaches a predetermined reference value”, Page 1, Line 4-10 “The term "elastomeric" is herein used for indicating a material or a composition comprising at least one elastomeric polymer and at least one reinforcement filler. Preferably, such composition also comprises additives such as cross-linking agents and/or plasticising agents. Due to the presence of the cross-linking agents, such material can be cross-linked by heating, so as to form the final manufactured item”, Page 4, Line 5-7 “Preferably, provision is made for closing a green tyre in a vulcanisation mould. Preferably, provision is made for introducing, in the mould, a heating fluid at a predetermined operating temperature, for supplying heat to the tyre”, wherein examiner interpreted cross-linking temperature degree being monitored as additionally retrievable data comprises sensor data and/or machine messages and/or media consumption in relation to the at least one monitored tire curing press and/or corresponding tire curing presses).
Knapp further teaches wherein the additionally retrievable data comprises sensor data and/or machine messages and/or media consumption in relation to the at least one monitored tire curing press and/or corresponding tire curing presses (Paragraph [0037] “The data processing system 110 can collectively extract the manufacturing equipment 104 information from the sensors 108, such as orientation data, pressure data, load/weight data, or proximity data, such as to measure the displacement between each splice”, Paragraph [0023] “The first one or more sensors can include, for example, a temperature sensor, proximity sensor, pressure sensor, speed sensor, torque sensor, or distance sensor. The sensor data structure 124 can categorize the sensor data based on various types of values obtained from the manufacturing equipment 104. The types of values can include at least, for example, temperature data, splice deviation data, pressure data, velocity data, thickness data, positional data, orientation data, or load data”, wherein examiner interpreted sensor values as additionally retrievable data comprises sensor data and/or machine messages and/or media consumption in relation to the at least one monitored tire curing press and/or corresponding tire curing presses).
Regarding claim 30, CASALI, GRONEMANN, and Knapp teaches all of the features with respect to claim 29 as outlined above.
Knapp further teaches wherein the evaluation of the additionally retrieved data in the form of sensor data, machine messages and/or media consumption by the evaluation unit enables an automatic check of criteria for the presence or absence of specific causes for detected time deviation(s) (Paragraph [0018] “The splices can be out of tolerance due to at least one parameter setting of the manufacturing equipment. The out of tolerance splices can trigger an alarm on the manufacturing equipment and delay operation time, or, if undetected, result in a defective tire or a tire not built to specification”, Paragraph [0043] “The historical matrix can include, for example, historically collected splice tolerance value corresponding to at least one assembled splice. The ideal splice can refer to a splice with standard values, such as pressure, dimensions, shape, weight, or other aspects of the tires determined to be an expected value. The splice tolerance metric can, for example, determine a delta difference of at least one parameter between the splice and the ideal splice, such as pressure, orientation, or load. The splice tolerance metric can further determine if the splice is in tolerance or out of tolerance. The in or out of tolerance can be a binary determination. The splice tolerance metric can determine a magnitude of which the splice exceed a tolerance level. The tolerance level can refer to a boundary value or a threshold for at least one parameter to determine, for example, if the splice is in tolerance or out of tolerance. The tolerance level can be based on at least one policy from the policy data structure 142”, Paragraph [0052] “The deviation can refer to a delta difference between the tolerance of the splice and an ideal tolerance value corresponding to the splices. The degree of tolerance can refer to various parameters, such as temperature, pressure, orientation, or position of the tire during manufacturing or assembly process”, Paragraph [0037] “The data processing system 110 can collectively extract the manufacturing equipment 104 information from the sensors 108, such as orientation data, pressure data, load/weight data, or proximity data, such as to measure the displacement between each splice”, Paragraph [0023] “The first one or more sensors can include, for example, a temperature sensor, proximity sensor, pressure sensor, speed sensor, torque sensor, or distance sensor. The sensor data structure 124 can categorize the sensor data based on various types of values obtained from the manufacturing equipment 104. The types of values can include at least, for example, temperature data, splice deviation data, pressure data, velocity data, thickness data, positional data, orientation data, or load data”, wherein examiner interpreted determining whether the parameters are within tolerance or not as wherein the evaluation of the additionally retrieved data in the form of sensor data, machine messages and/or media consumption by the evaluation unit enables an automatic check of criteria for the presence or absence of specific causes for detected time deviation(s)).
Regarding claim 31, CASALI, GRONEMANN, and Knapp teaches all of the features with respect to claim 30 as outlined above.
Knapp further teaches further comprising at least one communication device for connection to at least one additional data source and/or for transmitting data to a higher-level storage and/or evaluation unit (Paragraph [0022] “The data processing system 110 can include hardware or a combination of hardware and software, such as communications buses, circuitry, processors, communications interfaces, among others. The data processing system 110 can reside on or within a computer or a cloud (e.g., remote device or system). For example, FIG. 1 shows a manufacturing equipment 104 in communication with the data processing system 110 via a network 101, such that the data processing system 110 can be remote to the manufacturing equipment 104”, Paragraph [0023] “The data repository 128 can include or store a sensor data structure 130, metrics data structure 132, a model data structure 134, a collected data structure 136, an equipment ID data structure 138, commands data structure 140, a policy data structure 142, and a historical data structure 144”).
Regarding claim 32, CASALI, GRONEMANN, and Knapp teaches all of the features with respect to claim 28 as outlined above.
CASALI further teaches wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to automatically generate suggestions for eliminating the cause and/or to carry out an automated cause elimination based on the determined at least one cause or the determined possible causes for the at least one detected deviation and/or to output suggestions or instructions for further cause determination ([Abstract] “An actual vulcanisation time, running between the beginning and the interruption of the heat supplying, is compared with a preset nominal vulcanisation time. When the difference between the actual vulcanisation time and the nominal vulcanisation time exceeds at least one predetermined attention threshold, a warning signal is recorded. Upon repeating a predetermined number of recorded warning signals, the operating temperature of the heating fluid is modified, in order to modify the actual vulcanisation time in the subsequent vulcanisation cycles”, [Page 5, Line 28 – Page 6, Line 13] “The timely modification of the operating temperature in response to the recording of the warning signals allows bringing the actual vulcanisation time back to values closer to the nominal value. The maintenance of the actual vulcanisation time close to the nominal value removes the risk of producing production defects or negatively affecting the quality following sudden changes of the surrounding conditions. In addition, when the actual vulcanisation time is greater than nominal value, the reduction of the same in order to bring it close to the actual vulcanisation time brings additional benefits in terms of productivity”, [Page 24, Line 28 – Page 25, Line 13], wherein examiner interpreted modifying operating temperature of the heating fluid to modify vulcanisation time to nominal vulcanisation as wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to automatically generate suggestions for eliminating the cause and/or to carry out an automated cause elimination based on the determined at least one cause or the determined possible causes for the at least one detected deviation and/or to output suggestions or instructions for further cause determination, additionally Knapp similarly teaches adjusting operation of equipment when splices are out of tolerance).
Claims 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CASALI et al. WO 2021/123974 A1 (hereinafter “CASALI”), in view of Knapp et al. USPGPUB 2022/0203637 (hereinafter “Knapp”).
Regarding claim 35, CASALI teaches all of the features with respect to claim 34 as outlined above.
CASALI does not explicitly teach further including automatically loading a cause list comprising possible causes for the detected deviation based on the at least one detected time deviation.
However, Knapp teaches further including automatically loading a cause list comprising possible causes for the detected deviation based on the at least one detected time deviation (Paragraph [0018] “The splices can be out of tolerance due to at least one parameter setting of the manufacturing equipment. The out of tolerance splices can trigger an alarm on the manufacturing equipment and delay operation time, or, if undetected, result in a defective tire or a tire not built to specification”, Paragraph [0043] “The historical matrix can include, for example, historically collected splice tolerance value corresponding to at least one assembled splice. The ideal splice can refer to a splice with standard values, such as pressure, dimensions, shape, weight, or other aspects of the tires determined to be an expected value. The splice tolerance metric can, for example, determine a delta difference of at least one parameter between the splice and the ideal splice, such as pressure, orientation, or load. The splice tolerance metric can further determine if the splice is in tolerance or out of tolerance. The in or out of tolerance can be a binary determination. The splice tolerance metric can determine a magnitude of which the splice exceed a tolerance level. The tolerance level can refer to a boundary value or a threshold for at least one parameter to determine, for example, if the splice is in tolerance or out of tolerance. The tolerance level can be based on at least one policy from the policy data structure 142”, Paragraph [0052] “The deviation can refer to a delta difference between the tolerance of the splice and an ideal tolerance value corresponding to the splices. The degree of tolerance can refer to various parameters, such as temperature, pressure, orientation, or position of the tire during manufacturing or assembly process”, wherein examiner interpreted wherein examiner interpreted parameters that are out of tolerance as automatically loading a cause list comprising possible causes for the detected deviation based on the at least one detected time deviation).
CASALI, and Knapp are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They relate to production of tires.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above device for acquiring measurement data of tire curing press, as taught by CASALI, and incorporating cause list of deviation, as taught by Knapp.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve reducing the number of defective products manufactured at a manufacturing plant, or to increasing the production rate of products that satisfy a tolerance specification or other quality specification, as suggested by Knapp. (see Paragraphs [0002-0004]).
Regarding claim 36, CASALI, and Knapp teaches all of the features with respect to claim 35 as outlined above.
Knapp further teaches including carrying out an automatic check of possible causes of the cause list for the detected time deviation using at least one criterion for unambiguous identification of the at least one cause or for narrowing down the cause list (Paragraph [0018] “The splices can be out of tolerance due to at least one parameter setting of the manufacturing equipment. The out of tolerance splices can trigger an alarm on the manufacturing equipment and delay operation time, or, if undetected, result in a defective tire or a tire not built to specification”, Paragraph [0043] “The historical matrix can include, for example, historically collected splice tolerance value corresponding to at least one assembled splice. The ideal splice can refer to a splice with standard values, such as pressure, dimensions, shape, weight, or other aspects of the tires determined to be an expected value. The splice tolerance metric can, for example, determine a delta difference of at least one parameter between the splice and the ideal splice, such as pressure, orientation, or load. The splice tolerance metric can further determine if the splice is in tolerance or out of tolerance. The in or out of tolerance can be a binary determination. The splice tolerance metric can determine a magnitude of which the splice exceed a tolerance level. The tolerance level can refer to a boundary value or a threshold for at least one parameter to determine, for example, if the splice is in tolerance or out of tolerance. The tolerance level can be based on at least one policy from the policy data structure 142”, Paragraph [0052] “The deviation can refer to a delta difference between the tolerance of the splice and an ideal tolerance value corresponding to the splices. The degree of tolerance can refer to various parameters, such as temperature, pressure, orientation, or position of the tire during manufacturing or assembly process”, Paragraph [0037] “The data processing system 110 can collectively extract the manufacturing equipment 104 information from the sensors 108, such as orientation data, pressure data, load/weight data, or proximity data, such as to measure the displacement between each splice”, Paragraph [0023] “The first one or more sensors can include, for example, a temperature sensor, proximity sensor, pressure sensor, speed sensor, torque sensor, or distance sensor. The sensor data structure 124 can categorize the sensor data based on various types of values obtained from the manufacturing equipment 104. The types of values can include at least, for example, temperature data, splice deviation data, pressure data, velocity data, thickness data, positional data, orientation data, or load data”, wherein examiner interpreted wherein examiner interpreted various data, and parameters of manufacturing equipment that are used to compare with tolerance levels, and determining whether the parameters are within tolerance or not as including carrying out an automatic check of possible causes of the cause list for the detected time deviation using at least one criterion for unambiguous identification of the at least one cause or for narrowing down the cause list).
Regarding claim 37, CASALI, and Knapp teaches all of the features with respect to claim 36 as outlined above.
Knapp further teaches including automatically retrieving suggestions for action and/or instructions for action for remedying the at least one identified cause and subsequently outputting the suggestions and/or instructions and/or carrying out an automated implementation of defined instructions for action for remedying the at least one cause ([Abstract] “An actual vulcanisation time, running between the beginning and the interruption of the heat supplying, is compared with a preset nominal vulcanisation time. When the difference between the actual vulcanisation time and the nominal vulcanisation time exceeds at least one predetermined attention threshold, a warning signal is recorded. Upon repeating a predetermined number of recorded warning signals, the operating temperature of the heating fluid is modified, in order to modify the actual vulcanisation time in the subsequent vulcanisation cycles”, [Page 5, Line 28 – Page 6, Line 13] “The timely modification of the operating temperature in response to the recording of the warning signals allows bringing the actual vulcanisation time back to values closer to the nominal value. The maintenance of the actual vulcanisation time close to the nominal value removes the risk of producing production defects or negatively affecting the quality following sudden changes of the surrounding conditions. In addition, when the actual vulcanisation time is greater than nominal value, the reduction of the same in order to bring it close to the actual vulcanisation time brings additional benefits in terms of productivity”, [Page 24, Line 28 – Page 25, Line 13], wherein examiner interpreted modifying operating temperature of the heating fluid to modify vulcanisation time to nominal vulcanisation as including automatically retrieving suggestions for action and/or instructions for action for remedying the at least one identified cause and subsequently outputting the suggestions and/or instructions and/or carrying out an automated implementation of defined instructions for action for remedying the at least one cause).
Regarding claim 38, CASALI, and Knapp teaches all of the features with respect to claim 35 as outlined above.
Knapp further teaches further including, parallel to the monitoring of the cycle and/or subcycle times or after the detection of a time deviation, automatically loading data from at least one additional data source and and using the data for automatic unambiguous identification of the at least one cause or for narrowing down the list of causes based on predetermined criteria (Paragraph [0018] “The splices can be out of tolerance due to at least one parameter setting of the manufacturing equipment. The out of tolerance splices can trigger an alarm on the manufacturing equipment and delay operation time, or, if undetected, result in a defective tire or a tire not built to specification”, Paragraph [0043] “The historical matrix can include, for example, historically collected splice tolerance value corresponding to at least one assembled splice. The ideal splice can refer to a splice with standard values, such as pressure, dimensions, shape, weight, or other aspects of the tires determined to be an expected value. The splice tolerance metric can, for example, determine a delta difference of at least one parameter between the splice and the ideal splice, such as pressure, orientation, or load. The splice tolerance metric can further determine if the splice is in tolerance or out of tolerance. The in or out of tolerance can be a binary determination. The splice tolerance metric can determine a magnitude of which the splice exceed a tolerance level. The tolerance level can refer to a boundary value or a threshold for at least one parameter to determine, for example, if the splice is in tolerance or out of tolerance. The tolerance level can be based on at least one policy from the policy data structure 142”, Paragraph [0052] “The deviation can refer to a delta difference between the tolerance of the splice and an ideal tolerance value corresponding to the splices. The degree of tolerance can refer to various parameters, such as temperature, pressure, orientation, or position of the tire during manufacturing or assembly process”, Paragraph [0037] “The data processing system 110 can collectively extract the manufacturing equipment 104 information from the sensors 108, such as orientation data, pressure data, load/weight data, or proximity data, such as to measure the displacement between each splice”, Paragraph [0023] “The first one or more sensors can include, for example, a temperature sensor, proximity sensor, pressure sensor, speed sensor, torque sensor, or distance sensor. The sensor data structure 124 can categorize the sensor data based on various types of values obtained from the manufacturing equipment 104. The types of values can include at least, for example, temperature data, splice deviation data, pressure data, velocity data, thickness data, positional data, orientation data, or load data”, wherein examiner interpreted various data, and parameters of manufacturing equipment that are used to compare with tolerance levels as further including, parallel to the monitoring of the cycle and/or subcycle times or after the detection of a time deviation, automatically loading data from at least one additional data source and using the data for automatic unambiguous identification of the at least one cause or for narrowing down the list of causes based on predetermined criteria).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
FRELLER et al. [EP 4137302 A1] teaches a method and an evaluation device for monitoring a vulcanization process of a vehicle tire (116, 126) in a tire heating and pressing device (100).
BOSCAINO et al. [USPGPUB 2019/0375174] teaches methods for controlling curing apparatuses for tyre production.
BOFFA et al. [USPGPUB 2017/0120549] teaches a system for controlling a parameter relative to the quality of a tyre being processed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHRUVKUMAR PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5814. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM to 5:30 AM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571)272-4105. 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.
/D.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
