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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 14-15, “a respective ID tag” should say “the respective ID tag” for claim language consistency.
Claim 12, line 2, “wherein a said marking element” should say “wherein said marking element” to correct a minor grammatical error.
Claim 13, line 2, “the identification steps” should say “the at least two identification steps” for claim language consistency.
Claim 13, line 6, “such extend” should say “such extent” to correct a minor grammatical error.
Claim 15, lines 1-2, “wherein marking elements” should say “wherein the marking elements” for claim language consistency.
Claim 15, lines 4-5, “with marking elements” should say “with said marking elements” for claim language consistency.
Claim 18, line 2, “wherein a said production unit” should say “wherein said production unit” to correct a minor grammatical error.
Claim 20, line 3, “said device” should say “said measuring device” for claim language consistency.
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 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13 and 19 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 3 recites the limitation “for example said board shaped half products” in lines 2-3. The phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 recites the limitation “parameters with regard to other production step conditions, measured characteristics of half products, measured characteristics of boards” in lines 4 and 5. It is unclear if the parameters include other production step conditions, measured characteristics of half products and measured characteristics of boards or if the parameters include other production step conditions, measured characteristics of half products or measured characteristics of boards. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be read as the parameters include other production step conditions, measured characteristics of half products or measured characteristics of boards as line 2 of the claim recites the parameters are selected from the group consisting of.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “such as transport belts” in line 2. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11 recites the limitation “said last mentioned production step” in line 3 and “the corresponding ID tags” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the broad recitation “a following sequence”, and the claim also recites “whether or not immediately consecutive” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the electronic device” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jaschke et al. (DE 102016008608 B3; hereafter Jaschke; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Jaschke discloses a method for producing boards ([0001]; producing wood-based panels), wherein raw material ([0001]; wood-based material) is provided and production steps are performed to obtain said boards ([0001]; stages to produce the wood-based panels), with half products ([0001, 0037]; intermediate products formed during the production) formed during said production steps, wherein the productions steps comprise at least production steps of:
a basic step wherein at least said raw material is brought together ([0001, 0003]; dosing-adjustable spreading for feeding wood-based material) and transported to a shaping unit ([0004]; conveying to a press);
a shaping step, wherein said brought together raw material is formed into plate shaped material ([0004]; pressing into a board) by said shaping unit to form a plate shaped half product ([0004]; pressing into a board);
a sawing step ([0005, 0037]; cutting by sawing) wherein said plate shaped half product is sawn or cut by a sawing unit ([0037]; sawing station) to board shaped half products ([0005, 0037]; cutting/sawing into panels);
wherein the board shaped half products are formed into respective boards ([0005, 0037]; panels), wherein, at least during the production of said boards, a number of boards or each board, is linked to a respective ID tag or comprises the respective ID tag ([0025]; boards are marked for identification using color markings, barcode prints, numbering or RFID chips), wherein said ID tags comprise individual data about parameters relating to production steps of said respective boards ([0012, 0025]; boards can be verified with their associated measurement data, which includes geometric data like dimensions and physical data taking into account manipulated variables in the spreading, pressing and cutting stages).
Regarding claim 2, Jaschke discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the shaping step comprises a pressing step ([0004]; pressing into a board) and the shaping unit comprises a pressing device or a continuous press ([0004]; press can be double-belt press).
Regarding claim 3, Jaschke discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, during the production of said boards, said half product corresponding to said boards that are linked to said ID tags or comprise said ID tags, are also linked to said respective ID tags or comprise said respective ID tags (Fig. 1; [0025, 0037, 0040]; boards and intermediate products thereof are marked for identification using color markings, barcode prints, numbering or RFID chips, as evidenced by the plurality of identification points in the overall production process).
Regarding claim 5, Jaschke discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said parameters comprise parameters from the group consisting of parameters with regard to shaping conditions during the shaping step ([0012, 0025]; boards can be verified with their associated measurement data, which includes geometric data like dimensions and physical data taking into account manipulated variables in the spreading, pressing and cutting stages) and parameters with regard to other production step conditions ([0012, 0025]; boards can be verified with their associated measurement data, which includes geometric data like dimensions and physical data taking into account manipulated variables in the spreading, pressing and cutting stages), measured characteristics of half products or measured characteristics of boards ([0012, 0025]; boards can be verified with their associated measurement data, which includes geometric data like dimensions and physical data taking into account manipulated variables in the spreading, pressing and cutting stages).
Regarding claim 6, Jaschke discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein one or several measuring devices ([0001]; measuring stations) are used to measure characteristics of the half products and/or boards ([0005, 0011]), wherein said characteristics are added as parameters to respective ID tags.
Regarding claim 9, Jaschke discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the productions steps comprise at least one identification step ([0025]; identification), wherein one or more marking elements are applied during said identification step ([0025]; boards are marked for identification using color markings, barcode prints, numbering or RFID chips), and wherein said marking elements are linked to said ID tags or comprise said ID tags ([0025]; boards are marked for identification using color markings, barcode prints, numbering or RFID chips).
Regarding claim 11, Jaschke discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the production steps comprise at least one production step that takes place after said identification step ([0037-0039]; placing in cold storage after identification point), wherein a last mentioned production step comprises a substep of detecting and/or reading the marking elements ([0037-0039]; identifying at identification point before placing in cold storage) and one or more subsequent substeps ([0040]; removing from cold storage and subsequent identification and control), wherein said one or more subsequent substeps are performed based on the data of corresponding ID tags ([0040]; data from subsequent identification is supplied to central computer and central computer actuates variables in the spreading, pressing and cutting devices).
Regarding claim 14, Jaschke discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the marking element comprises an ID tag or an RFID chip ([0025]; boards are marked for identification using color markings, barcode prints, numbering or RFID chips).
Regarding claim 16, Jaschke discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein substantially each board is linked to a respective ID tag or comprises a respective ID tag ([0025]; boards are marked for identification using color markings, barcode prints, numbering or RFID chips).
Regarding claim 17, Jaschke discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the boards are wood based boards ([0002]), wood fiber boards ([0002]; HDF board), oriented strand boards ([0002]; OSB board) or particle boards ([0002]).
Regarding claim 18, Jaschke discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein one or more production units (Fig. 1; [0001]) are present to perform said productions steps, wherein said production unit is capable of coupling to said ID tag ([0038, 0040]; captured data from identification markings is captured and sent to central computer to control the spreading, pressing and cutting devices).
Regarding claim 19, Jaschke discloses the method according to claim 18, wherein at least one of the one or more production units are provided for sending signals to an electronic device relating to production parameters ([0038, 0040]; production devices are connected to central computer via control lines).
Regarding claim 20, Jaschke discloses the method according to claim 18, wherein at least one production unit comprises a measuring device for measuring product characteristics of half products and/or boards ([0005]), and measured characteristics generated by said measuring device are stored in respective ID tags ([0012, 0025]; boards can be marked with their associated measurement data, which includes geometric data like dimensions and physical data taking into account manipulated variables in the spreading, pressing and cutting stages).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaschke et al. (DE 102016008608 B3; hereafter Jaschke; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation), in view of Dustmann et al. (EP 2230626 A1; hereafter Dustmann; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, Jaschke discloses the method according to claim 3.
Jaschke does not explicitly disclose the ID tags are updated during the production.
However, in the analogous art Dustmann teaches a method of producing wood-based boards ([0001]) by processing raw material ([0015]) through a plurality of production steps ([0025]), wherein the wood-based boards are marked with ID tags ([0039]; marking with RFID tag) that are updated during production ([0054]; RFID tag is written with further information by means of another reader for further process sequence).
Jaschke and Dustmann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of producing wood-based boards using ID tags. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jaschke with the teachings of Dustmann to provide the ID tags are updated during the production. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow relevant production data to be constantly checked for completeness and be outputted to manufacturing control systems (Dustmann [0056]).
Regarding claim 10, Jaschke discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the identification step takes place upon half products ([0025]; boards are marked for identification using color markings, barcode prints, numbering or RFID chips).
Jaschke does not explicitly disclose the ID tags, after the appliance of said marking elements, comprise data relating to production steps of respective half products, that took place prior to said identification step.
However, in the analogous art Dustmann teaches a method of producing wood-based boards ([0001]) by processing raw material ([0015]) through a plurality of production steps ([0025]), wherein the wood-based boards are marked with ID tags ([0039]; marking with RFID tag) that are updated during production ([0054]; RFID tag is written with further information by means of another reader for further process sequence). The ID tags comprise data relating to previously applied production steps ([0024]; storing information comprehensively about the processing operation on the RFID tag).
Jaschke and Dustmann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of producing wood-based boards using ID tags. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jaschke with the teachings of Dustmann to provide the ID tags, after the appliance of said marking elements, comprise data relating to production steps of respective half products, that took place prior to said identification step. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow relevant production data to be constantly checked for completeness and be outputted to manufacturing control systems (Dustmann [0056]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Jaschke discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein Jaschke further discloses said marking element is an ID code linked to said respective ID tag ([0025]; boards are marked for identification using color markings, barcode prints, numbering or RFID chip) and wherein the identification step is a printing step wherein ID codes are printed upon half products ([0025]; implicit to bar code prints).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaschke et al. (DE 102016008608 B3; hereafter Jaschke; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation), in view of Rompe (US 20110240439 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Jaschke discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein for the basic step, one or several transporting devices ([0005]; conveyor belt), are used to transport the said raw material, and with ID tags being linked to their corresponding measured parameters ([0025]; boards are marked for identification using color markings, barcode prints, numbering or RFID chips and verified with their associated measurement data).
Jaschke does not disclose at fixed places measuring points are present to measure parameters of said raw material, wherein time intervals for measuring said parameters are based on a transport speed of the transporting devices.
However, Rompe teaches a method of transporting material via a conveyor belt (Fig. 1; [0012]), wherein at fixed places measuring points are present to measure parameters of said material (Fig. 1; [0039]; plurality of measurement sectors), wherein time intervals for measuring said parameters are based on a transport speed of the conveyor belt ([0038]; the frequency of the taking of photographs is preferably set in such a manner that the frequency is proportional to the transport speed of the conveyor component).
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2141.01(a). In the present case, Rompe is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned as it concerns transporting material during production and measuring parameters thereof. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jaschke with the teachings of Rompe to provide at fixed places measuring points are present to measure parameters of said raw material, wherein time intervals for measuring said parameters are based on a transport speed of the transporting devices. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would allow parameters of the raw material to be accurately measured even when otherwise not possible (Rompe [0012]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Jaschke discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein Rompe further teaches several measuring points are present at constant distance intervals (Fig. 1; [0039, 0104]; plurality of measurement sectors), wherein the time intervals for measuring at said measuring points are chosen based upon a distance moved by said one or several transport devices, with said distance corresponding to said distance intervals ([0038]; the frequency of the taking of photographs is preferably set in such a manner that the frequency is proportional to the transport speed of the conveyor component, wherein transport speed is proportional to distance moved).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaschke et al. (DE 102016008608 B3; hereafter Jaschke; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation), in view of Dustmann et al. (EP 2230626 A1; hereafter Dustmann; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Hutchinson (US 20230158661 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Jaschke discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein Jaschke further discloses the production steps comprise at least two said identification steps ([0025]; identification of two different boards can be considered at least two identification steps), with the at least two identification steps being printing steps ([0025]; implicit to bar code prints).
Modified Jaschke does not disclose the production steps also comprise a sanding step, with a following sequence a first said identification step wherein ID codes are printed upon half products, the sanding step, wherein half products are sanded to such extent that the ID codes, printed in the first identification step, are at least partially removed, and a second said identification step, wherein the ID codes are reprinted upon half products, such that obtained boards comprise respective ID codes.
However, in the analogous art Hutchinson teaches a method of producing wood-based boards ([0030]), wherein the wood-based boards are printed with markings ([0031]) and then maybe sanded to remove the markings ([0031]).
Jaschke and Hutchinson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of producing wood-based boards using markings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Jaschke with the teachings of Hutchinson to provide the production steps also comprise a sanding step, with a following sequence a first said identification step wherein ID codes are printed upon half products, the sanding step, wherein half products are sanded to such extent that the ID codes, printed in the first identification step, are at least partially removed. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would make the final product look clean (Hutchinson [0031]).
Modified Jaschke does not explicitly disclose a second said identification step, wherein the ID codes are reprinted upon half products, such that obtained boards comprise respective ID codes.
However, modified Jaschke discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication of the printing step to provide the reprinting. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the printing step to provide the reprinting of the ID codes, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI). One would have been motivated to duplicate the printing step to provide the reprinting for the purposes of correcting errors in the printing of the ID codes.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaschke et al. (DE 102016008608 B3; hereafter Jaschke; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation), in view of Ghirelli et al. (WO 2020245778 A1 from IDS filed on 11/19/2024).
Regarding claim 15, Jaschke discloses the method according to claim 14.
Jaschke does not disclose the marking elements are applied to the raw material in the basic step, wherein said raw material and said marking elements are transported to said shaping unit during said basic step, wherein said shaping unit forms said raw material with said markings elements, to said plate shaped material, wherein said formed plate shaped material extends according to a length direction, wherein said marking elements are applied to the raw material in said basic step such that the marking elements in the plate shaped material extend successively one after another according to the length direction.
However, Ghirelli teaches a method for producing boards (claim 1; realizing slabs or tiles), wherein raw material (claim 1; soft layer of granular or powder ceramic material) is provided and production steps are performed to obtain said boards (claim 1; laying and pressing to realize slabs or tiles), comprising applying marking elements (claim 1; Fig. 2; identification marks M) to the raw material in a basic step (claim 1; applying identification marks M before pressing), shaping the raw material with the marking elements to form a plate shaped material (claim 1; pressing soft layer with identification marks M), wherein in the formed plate shaped material the marking elements extend successively one after another according to a length direction (Fig. 2; identification marks M are arranged successively in a length direction).
Jaschke and Ghirelli are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of producing boards using ID tags. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jaschke with the teachings of Ghirelli to provide the marking elements are applied to the raw material in the basic step, wherein said raw material and said marking elements are transported to said shaping unit during said basic step, wherein said shaping unit forms said raw material with said markings elements, to said plate shaped material, wherein said formed plate shaped material extends according to a length direction, wherein said marking elements are applied to the raw material in said basic step such that the marking elements in the plate shaped material extend successively one after another according to the length direction. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow each board in the production line to be identified and retroactively compensate for surface deformations (Ghirelli Pg. 2, Ln. 6-19).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/VIPUL MALIK/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights