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 . This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-20 filed on 03/07/2025 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based on Application No. DE10 2022 123 023.6 filed on 09/09/2022. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received.
It is noted that no certified English translation is in the official record for the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 03/07/2025 and 04/15/2025 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: 250.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: 240, 205, 231.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference characters in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification filed on 03/07/2025 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
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 4, 7-10, 12-15 and 17-18 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “the recommended action” on line 3 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “A recommended action” is not introduced in claim 4 or in claim 1 upon which claim 4 depends. For the purpose of examination: Claim 4 will be interpreted as depending on claim 3 which introduces “at least one recommended action” on line 4.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “the recommended action” on line 3 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “A recommended action” is not introduced in claim 8 or in claim 1 upon which claim 7 depends. For the purpose of examination: Claim 7 will be interpreted as depending on claim 3 which introduces “at least one recommended action” on line 4.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “the time course” on line 3 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “A time course” is not introduced in claim 8 or in claim 1 upon which claim 8 depends. For the purpose of examination: “the time course” will be interpreted as “a time course.”
The claim recites “the recommended actions” on line 3 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “A recommended action” is not introduced in claim 8 or in claim 1 upon which claim 8 depends. For the purpose of examination: Claim 8 will be interpreted as depending on claim 3 which introduces “at least one recommended action” on line 4.
The claim recites “the action sequence” on line 4 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “An action sequence” is not introduced in claim 8 or in claim 1 upon which claim 8 depends. For the purpose of examination: “The action sequence” on line 4 will be interpreted as “an action sequence.”
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “the recommended actions” on line 3 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “Recommended actions” is not introduced in claim 9 or in claim 1 upon which claim 9 depends. For the purpose of examination: Claim 9 will be interpreted as depending on claim 3 which introduces “at least one recommended action” on line 4.
The claim recites “the action sequence” on line 3 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “An action sequence” is not introduced in claim 9 or in claim 1 upon which claim 9 depends. For the purpose of examination: “The action sequence” on line 3 will be interpreted as “an action sequence.”
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “the process course” on line 3 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “A process course” is not introduced in claim 10 or in claim 1 upon which claim 10 depends. For the purpose of examination: Claim 10 will be interpreted as depending on claim 5 which introduces “at least one process course” on line 4.
The claim recites “the action sequence” on line 3 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “An action sequence” is not introduced in claim 10 or in claim 1 upon which claim 10 depends. For the purpose of examination: “The action sequence” on line 3 will be interpreted as “an action sequence.”
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “the recommended action” on line 3 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “A recommended action” is not introduced in claim 12 or in claim 1 upon which claim 12 depends. For the purpose of examination: Claim 12 will be interpreted as depending on claim 3 which introduces “at least one recommended action” on line 4.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “the history data” on line 4 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “History data” is not introduced in claim 13 or in claim 1 upon which claim 13 depends. For the purpose of examination: “The history data” on line 4 will be interpreted as “history data.”
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “the recommended action” on line 5 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “The recommended action” is not introduced in claim 14 or in claim 1 upon which claim 14 depends. For the purpose of examination: Claim 14 will be interpreted as depending on claim 3 which introduces “at least one recommended action” on line 4.
The claim recites “the implementation data” on line 5 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “The implementation data” is not introduced in claim 14 or in claim 1 upon which claim 14 depends. For the purpose of examination: “The implementation data” on line 4 will be interpreted as “implementation data.”
The claim recites “the history data” on line 6 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “History data” is not introduced in claim 14 or in claim 1 upon which claim 14 depends. For the purpose of examination: “The history data” on line 6 will be interpreted as “history data.”
The claim recites “the sensor data” on line 6 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “Sensor data” is not introduced in claim 14 or in claim 1 upon which claim 14 depends. For the purpose of examination: “The sensor data” on line 6 will be interpreted as “sensor data.”
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “the recommended action” on line 4 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “The recommended action” is not introduced in claim 15 or in claim 1 upon which claim 15 depends. For the purpose of examination: claim 15 will be interpreted as depending on claim 3 which introduces “at least one recommended action” on line 4.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “the recommended action” on line 3 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “The recommended action” is not introduced in claim 17 or in claim 1 upon which claim 17 depends. For the purpose of examination: Claim 17 will be interpreted as depending on claim 3 which introduces “at least one recommended action” on line 4.
The claim recites “the balancing” on line 4 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “The balancing” is not introduced in claim 17 or in claim 1 upon which claim 17 depends. For the purpose of examination: “The balancing” on line 4 will be interpreted as “a balancing.”
The claim recites “the process completion” on line 4 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “The process completion” is not introduced in claim 17 or in claim 1 upon which claim 17 depends. For the purpose of examination: “The process completion” on line 4 will be interpreted as “a process completion.”
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “the process change” on line 3 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “The process change” is not introduced in claim 18 or in claim 1 upon which claim 18 depends. For the purpose of examination: “The process change” on line 3 will be interpreted as “a process change.”
The claim recites “the target process parameter” on line 4 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “The target process parameter” is not introduced in claim 18 or in claim 1 upon which claim 18 depends. For the purpose of examination: “The target process parameter” on line 4 will be interpreted as “a target process parameter.”
The claim recites “the process course” on line 5 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “The process course” is not introduced in claim 18 or in claim 1 upon which claim 18 depends. For the purpose of examination: “The process course” on line 5 will be interpreted as “a process course.”
The claim recites “the recommended action” on line 6 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “The recommended action” is not introduced in claim 18 or in claim 1 upon which claim 18 depends. For the purpose of examination: Claim 18 will be interpreted as depending on claim 3 which introduces “at least one recommended action” on line 4.
The claim recites “the material flow” on line 6 which is indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). “The material flow” is not introduced in claim 18 or in claim 1 upon which claim 18 depends. For the purpose of examination: “The material flow” on line 6 will be interpreted as “a material flow.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites “determining a setpoint subsequent parameter set of the subsequent process assigned to the process parameter set” and “identifying of comparative data of a comparison of the process parameter set with the setpoint subsequent parameter set for detecting deviations of the setpoint subsequent parameter set from the process parameter set”.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, the it falls within “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation the determining and identifying limitations are mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement.
[Page 2 lines 23-25] and [page 4 lines 19-22] of the Specification of the present application describe determining a setpoint subsequent parameter by retrieving the parameter from a memory device or database. [Page 2 lines 26-28] of the Specification of the present application describes identifying comparative data using a control system. [Page 14 lines 1-8] of the Specification of the present application describes identifying the comparative data through analytical or numerical means.
Therefore, a person may determine or identify, through observation, evaluation, calculation and judgement, the arrangement of the parts as claimed using the display receives information from a memory or control system.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “capturing a set of process parameters of the manufacturing process for manufacturing the first film material”, “outputting of display data for joint display of a plurality of comparison elements for displaying the deviations on the basis of the comparative data during the manufacturing process”, “capturing a user interaction for controlling the extrusion device to at least partially adjust the process parameter set” and “updating the display data depending on the adjustment of the process parameter set”
The “capturing”, “outputting” and “updating” limitations are data gathering activities which are insignificant extra-solution activities under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing a meaningful limit. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
The additional features including “display” and “extrusion device” as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used to identify and determine as recited in claim 1, but recited so generically (no details are provided other than to “display”, “adjust” or “capturing” data) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic electronic component, as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
As discussed above, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed toward a judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Specifically, with respect to “capturing a set of process parameters of the manufacturing process for manufacturing the first film material” and “capturing a user interaction for controlling the extrusion device to at least partially adjust the process parameter set”, (Harburda, [0025]: “During a production line check, which occurs when a QA lab test occurs, the operator enters appropriate information into the computerized system. This causes a "snap shot" of the production process to be captured. The production readings are the sensor readings for production: temperatures, pressure, motor speeds, motor amps, humidity, feeder rates, feeder selection, production rates, etc. The QA lab test data are the results of the required product tests: rheology measurement, appearance, compositional analysis, strength tests, color, etc. This information is captured with the additional capability to record operator comments. The QA lab test data is stored electronically in LIMS 52 and can be updated at any time. Thus, the operators can add comments following the QA lab test entry whenever they want or are required to (for example, 10 minutes later or even 10 days later). The date/time stamp of the production data report will include all updates to the database system up to that date/time.”; [0026] “The data captured by the LIMS is displayed using SQC graphs to indicate quality of the product and/or process. The data can be captured each time a QA lab test occurs (or at other convenient times), also known as a production line check.”)
Furthermore, (Backmann-2, [0013]: “It can be advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, for the step of pre-determining the production stability, the influence on the production stability for the feedstock and a subsequent material are read out from a database. It is thus conceivable that in a control device or else in the extrusion device itself a corresponding database is provided which has material data of the feedstock and of the subsequent material. These material data can furthermore be correlated with corresponding percentage percentage fraction factors, so that the database contains a statement as to which percentage fraction of a feed recipe or subsequent recipe the respective material correlates with which influence on the production stability. It is thus possible to read from the database how the removal of a feed material or the addition of a corresponding subsequent material behaves with regard to an effect on production stability. This is a particularly simple and cost-effective solution in order to provide a method according to the invention. The production stability can be provided with a corresponding database in the form of a two-dimensional structure. Clearly more complex databases, which take into account in particular the correlation of different multicomponent master devices, are of course also conceivable within the scope of the present invention. Thus, in particular, the influence of individual materials on other materials within a layer in such a database can also be taken into account.”)
In addition, (Avermeyer,[0027]: “The above non-exhaustive list is a list of possible sensors of the sensor device according to the invention. This leads to a level measurement being possible at the respective position. The detection of the state of the respective component with respect to the material contained therein in a manner other than the fill level is also conceivable in the sense of the present invention. For example, the material density, the bulk density, the weight or other parameters can be determined to determine the corresponding state.”)
Specifically, with respect to “outputting of display data for joint display of a plurality of comparison elements for displaying the deviations on the basis of the comparative data during the manufacturing process”, (Harburda, [0026]: “The data captured by the LIMS is displayed using SQC graphs to indicate quality of the product and/or process. The data can be captured each time a QA lab test occurs (or at other convenient times), also known as a production line check.”; [0031]: “Feeder rate settings of the extruder can be displayed from database 54 due to VB API and the database 54 RDBMS interface. Generic production settings (such as feeders, temperatures, etc.) can be downloaded from other system databases, such as database 54. This could be sent to the PLC interface 56 or to the electronic production run sheet 80 via the MES interfaces.”; [0032] “RDBMS 70 also allows for the operator to manually enter operator comments for each line check. This is also accomplishable by the VB API access to RDBMS 70 and other databases. The VB API is a visual basic program, which allows for an additional field in the database system, which can store the operator comments. There is a control function, or button on the electronic production run sheet 80 which will allow the operator to enter and to display comments for each line check of for the entire production run. The VB API program will prompt the operator to enter his/her data and will then send it to the appropriate database system.”)
Furthermore, (Backmann-2, [0016]: “It is furthermore advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, the steps of predetermination and comparison are carried out for all the feed apparatuses and a sequence of the feed apparatuses is subsequently predefined for carrying out the material change. This means that the complete changeover path and thus the complete changeover strategy for all the presentation devices are predefined within the scope of the present invention. In particular, this specification for carrying out the material change is carried out visually, so that, for example, in the form of a display device, a corresponding guidance of the machine operator is provided.”)
In addition, (Avermeyer, [0012] “For those parts of the method or the preparation step which do not have to be carried out automatically but manually, the operating personnel are preferably guided. Thus, for example, with the aid of a software application or a visual display device, the current status of the preparation step or the current status of the material change can be displayed on the extrusion device. In addition, it is possible for indications or detailed operating instructions to be output via such software or a display device, which instructions are directed by the operating personnel for carrying out the preparation step and/or the material change.”)
Specifically with respect to “updating the display data depending on the adjustment of the process parameter set”, (Harburda, [0025]: “During a production line check, which occurs when a QA lab test occurs, the operator enters appropriate information into the computerized system. This causes a "snap shot" of the production process to be captured. The production readings are the sensor readings for production: temperatures, pressure, motor speeds, motor amps, humidity, feeder rates, feeder selection, production rates, etc. The QA lab test data are the results of the required product tests: rheology measurement, appearance, compositional analysis, strength tests, color, etc. This information is captured with the additional capability to record operator comments. The QA lab test data is stored electronically in LIMS 52 and can be updated at any time. Thus, the operators can add comments following the QA lab test entry whenever they want or are required to (for example, 10 minutes later or even 10 days later). The date/time stamp of the production data report will include all updates to the database system up to that date/time.”)
Furthermore, (Backmann-2, [0016]: “It is furthermore advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, the steps of predetermination and comparison are carried out for all the feed apparatuses and a sequence of the feed apparatuses is subsequently predefined for carrying out the material change. This means that the complete changeover path and thus the complete changeover strategy for all the presentation devices are predefined within the scope of the present invention. In particular, this specification for carrying out the material change is carried out visually, so that, for example, in the form of a display device, a corresponding guidance of the machine operator is provided. Of course, this can also include parallel or partially parallel processing within the scope of the material change, so that two or more feeding devices can be processed in parallel or overlapping fashion in time and thus simultaneously with regard to the material change. This is a particularly simple and cost-effective solution to reduce the total duration of the material change even further and nevertheless to ensure the high level of safety by means of a method according to the invention.”)
In addition, (Avermeyer, [0012]: “For those parts of the method or the preparation step which do not have to be carried out automatically but manually, the operating personnel are preferably guided. Thus, for example, with the aid of a software application or a visual display device, the current status of the preparation step or the current status of the material change can be displayed on the extrusion device. In addition, it is possible for indications or detailed operating instructions to be output via such software or a display device, which instructions are directed by the operating personnel for carrying out the preparation step and/or the material change.”)
The additional features of “display” and “extrusion device” do not amount to significantly more, as they do not add any inventive concept to the claim as they refer to generic computer components, which amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”)
In view of the foregoing, in accord with MPEP 2106.05(d), simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception does not qualify the claim as reciting “significantly more”. Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the “Mental Process” abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites “wherein at least the process parameter set or the comparison elements comprise at least material data from material ingredients or sensor data from sensors of the extrusion device.” The claim recites mere data gathering and does not recite additional limitations to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the “Mental Process” abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites “wherein the method comprises the following stage: - determining at least one recommended action for adjusting the process parameter set, for the subsequent process depending on the comparative data, whereby the recommended action is output with the display data.”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, the it falls within “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation the determining and identifying limitations are mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement.
[Page 3 lines 20-21] and [page 6 lines 22-36] of the Specification of the present application describe determining at least one recommended action for adjusting the process parameter set for the subsequent process depending on comparative data whereby the recommended action is output with the display.
Therefore, a person may determine or identify, through observation, evaluation, calculation and judgement, the arrangement of the parts as claimed using the display receives information from a memory or control system.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 3 recites the additional element of “whereby the recommended action is output with the display data.”
The “output” limitation is a data gathering activity which is insignificant extra-solution activities under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing a meaningful limit. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
The additional feature of “display” as recited in the claim that is configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used to identify and determine as recited in claim 2, but recited so generically (no details are provided other than to “display”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic electronic component, as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
As discussed above, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed toward a judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Specifically with respect to “whereby the recommended action is output with the display data.”, (Harburda, [0026]: “The data captured by the LIMS is displayed using SQC graphs to indicate quality of the product and/or process. The data can be captured each time a QA lab test occurs (or at other convenient times), also known as a production line check.”; [0031]: “Feeder rate settings of the extruder can be displayed from database 54 due to VB API and the database 54 RDBMS interface. Generic production settings (such as feeders, temperatures, etc.) can be downloaded from other system databases, such as database 54. This could be sent to the PLC interface 56 or to the electronic production run sheet 80 via the MES interfaces.”; [0032] “RDBMS 70 also allows for the operator to manually enter operator comments for each line check. This is also accomplishable by the VB API access to RDBMS 70 and other databases. The VB API is a visual basic program, which allows for an additional field in the database system, which can store the operator comments. There is a control function, or button on the electronic production run sheet 80 which will allow the operator to enter and to display comments for each line check of for the entire production run. The VB API program will prompt the operator to enter his/her data and will then send it to the appropriate database system.”)
Furthermore, (Backmann-2, [0016]: “It is furthermore advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, the steps of predetermination and comparison are carried out for all the feed apparatuses and a sequence of the feed apparatuses is subsequently predefined for carrying out the material change. This means that the complete changeover path and thus the complete changeover strategy for all the presentation devices are predefined within the scope of the present invention. In particular, this specification for carrying out the material change is carried out visually, so that, for example, in the form of a display device, a corresponding guidance of the machine operator is provided.”)
In addition, (Avermeyer, [0012] “For those parts of the method or the preparation step which do not have to be carried out automatically but manually, the operating personnel are preferably guided. Thus, for example, with the aid of a software application or a visual display device, the current status of the preparation step or the current status of the material change can be displayed on the extrusion device. In addition, it is possible for indications or detailed operating instructions to be output via such software or a display device, which instructions are directed by the operating personnel for carrying out the preparation step and/or the material change.”)
The additional feature of “display” does not amount to significantly more, as it does not add any inventive concept to the claim as it refers to generic computer components, which amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”)
In view of the foregoing, in accord with MPEP 2106.05(d), simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception does not qualify the claim as reciting “significantly more”. Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the “Mental Process” abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites “wherein the recommended action comprises at least a manual activity or a recommendation for controlling the extrusion device.” which is simply using a computer tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the “Mental Process” abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites “wherein the method comprises the following stages: - planning of at least one process course at least for the manufacturing process or the subsequent process depending on the comparative data.”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, the it falls within “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation the determining and identifying limitations are mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement.
[Page 7 lines 30-36] and [page 8 lines 1-2] of the Specification of the present application describe planning at least one process course. [Page 8 lines 23-26] of the Specification of the present application describe planning the process course relative to temporal modification. [Page 10 lines 10-15] of the Specification of the present application describe planning the process course relative to user interaction. [Page 11 lines 22-26] of the Specification of the present application describe planning the process course with artificial intelligence. [Page 13 lines 1-7] of the Specification of the present application describe planning the process course relative to balancing. [Page 14 lines 1-5] of the Specification of the present application describe planning the process course relative to material flow.
Therefore, a person may determine or identify, through observation, evaluation, calculation and judgement, the arrangement of the parts as claimed using the display receives information from a memory or control system.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 5 recites the additional element of “depending on the comparative data”
The “comparative data” limitation is a data gathering activity which is insignificant extra-solution activities under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing a meaningful limit. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Specifically with respect to “depending on the comparative data”, (Harburda, [0025]: “During a production line check, which occurs when a QA lab test occurs, the operator enters appropriate information into the computerized system. This causes a "snap shot" of the production process to be captured. The production readings are the sensor readings for production: temperatures, pressure, motor speeds, motor amps, humidity, feeder rates, feeder selection, production rates, etc. The QA lab test data are the results of the required product tests: rheology measurement, appearance, compositional analysis, strength tests, color, etc. This information is captured with the additional capability to record operator comments. The QA lab test data is stored electronically in LIMS 52 and can be updated at any time. Thus, the operators can add comments following the QA lab test entry whenever they want or are required to (for example, 10 minutes later or even 10 days later). The date/time stamp of the production data report will include all updates to the database system up to that date/time.”; [0026] “The data captured by the LIMS is displayed using SQC graphs to indicate quality of the product and/or process. The data can be captured each time a QA lab test occurs (or at other convenient times), also known as a production line check.”)
Furthermore, (Backmann-2, [0013]: “It can be advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, for the step of pre-determining the production stability, the influence on the production stability for the feedstock and a subsequent material are read out from a database. It is thus conceivable that in a control device or else in the extrusion device itself a corresponding database is provided which has material data of the feedstock and of the subsequent material. These material data can furthermore be correlated with corresponding percentage percentage fraction factors, so that the database contains a statement as to which percentage fraction of a feed recipe or subsequent recipe the respective material correlates with which influence on the production stability. It is thus possible to read from the database how the removal of a feed material or the addition of a corresponding subsequent material behaves with regard to an effect on production stability. This is a particularly simple and cost-effective solution in order to provide a method according to the invention. The production stability can be provided with a corresponding database in the form of a two-dimensional structure. Clearly more complex databases, which take into account in particular the correlation of different multicomponent master devices, are of course also conceivable within the scope of the present invention. Thus, in particular, the influence of individual materials on other materials within a layer in such a database can also be taken into account.”)
In addition, (Avermeyer, [0027]: “The above non-exhaustive list is a list of possible sensors of the sensor device according to the invention. This leads to a level measurement being possible at the respective position. The detection of the state of the respective component with respect to the material contained therein in a manner other than the fill level is also conceivable in the sense of the present invention. For example, the material density, the bulk density, the weight or other parameters can be determined to determine the corresponding state.”)
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the “Mental Process” abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites “wherein the process course for defining temporal modifications comprises at least a temporal course of the process parameter set, the output of the display data or the determination of the recommended action taking place depending on the temporal course” which is simply states the idea of a solution or outcome to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the “Mental Process” abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites “wherein when determining the recommended action, a plurality of recommended actions for defining an action sequence are identified.”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, the it falls within “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation the determining and identifying limitations are mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement.
[Page 8 lines 26-33] of the Specification of the present application describe determining a recommended action depending on several recommended actions or an actions sequence.
Therefore, a person may determine or identify, through observation, evaluation, calculation and judgement, the arrangement of the parts as claimed using the display receives information from a memory or control system.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 7 recites the additional element of “a plurality of recommended actions for defining an action sequence are identified.”
The “a plurality of recommended actions for defining an action sequence are identified.” limitation is a data gathering activity which is insignificant extra-solution activities under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing a meaningful limit. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Specifically with respect to “a plurality of recommended actions for defining an action sequence are identified.”, (Harburda, [0025]: “During a production line check, which occurs when a QA lab test occurs, the operator enters appropriate information into the computerized system. This causes a "snap shot" of the production process to be captured. The production readings are the sensor readings for production: temperatures, pressure, motor speeds, motor amps, humidity, feeder rates, feeder selection, production rates, etc. The QA lab test data are the results of the required product tests: rheology measurement, appearance, compositional analysis, strength tests, color, etc. This information is captured with the additional capability to record operator comments. The QA lab test data is stored electronically in LIMS 52 and can be updated at any time. Thus, the operators can add comments following the QA lab test entry whenever they want or are required to (for example, 10 minutes later or even 10 days later). The date/time stamp of the production data report will include all updates to the database system up to that date/time.”; [0026] “The data captured by the LIMS is displayed using SQC graphs to indicate quality of the product and/or process. The data can be captured each time a QA lab test occurs (or at other convenient times), also known as a production line check.”)
Furthermore, (Backmann-2, [0013]: “It can be advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, for the step of pre-determining the production stability, the influence on the production stability for the feedstock and a subsequent material are read out from a database. It is thus conceivable that in a control device or else in the extrusion device itself a corresponding database is provided which has material data of the feedstock and of the subsequent material. These material data can furthermore be correlated with corresponding percentage percentage fraction factors, so that the database contains a statement as to which percentage fraction of a feed recipe or subsequent recipe the respective material correlates with which influence on the production stability. It is thus possible to read from the database how the removal of a feed material or the addition of a corresponding subsequent material behaves with regard to an effect on production stability. This is a particularly simple and cost-effective solution in order to provide a method according to the invention. The production stability can be provided with a corresponding database in the form of a two-dimensional structure. Clearly more complex databases, which take into account in particular the correlation of different multicomponent master devices, are of course also conceivable within the scope of the present invention. Thus, in particular, the influence of individual materials on other materials within a layer in such a database can also be taken into account.”)
In addition, (Avermeyer, [0027]: “The above non-exhaustive list is a list of possible sensors of the sensor device according to the invention. This leads to a level measurement being possible at the respective position. The detection of the state of the respective component with respect to the material contained therein in a manner other than the fill level is also conceivable in the sense of the present invention. For example, the material density, the bulk density, the weight or other parameters can be determined to determine the corresponding state.”)
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the “Mental Process” abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites “wherein the time course of the process parameter set is taken into account when identifying the recommended actions in order to define the action sequence” which is simply states the idea of a solution or outcome to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the “Mental Process” abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites “wherein the recommended actions for defining the action sequence are divided into groups in order to allow intermediate intervals between the groups” which is simply states the idea of a solution or outcome to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the “Mental Process” abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites “wherein at least the process course or the action sequence is updated depending on the user interaction” which is simply states the idea of a solution or outcome to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the “Mental Process” abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites “wherein when determining the setpoint subsequent parameter set, parameter sets of a plurality of planned manufacturing processes are identified, a prioritization operation taking place in which the planned manufacturing processes are compared on the basis of at least one target variable in order to determine one of the planned manufacturing processes as the subsequent process.”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, the it falls within “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation the determining and identifying limitations are mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement.
[Page 10 lines 19-35] of the Specification of the present application describe determining a recommended action depending on the planned manufacturing process taking into account the prioritization operation.
Therefore, a person may determine or identify, through observation, evaluation, calculation and judgement, the arrangement of the parts as claimed using the display receives information from a memory or control system.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 11 recites the additional element of “parameter sets of a plurality of planned manufacturing processes are identified, a prioritization operation taking place in which the planned manufacturing processes are compared on the basis of at least one target variable in order to determine one of the planned manufacturing processes as the subsequent process.”
The “parameter sets of a plurality of planned manufacturing processes are identified, a prioritization operation taking place in which the planned manufacturing processes are compared on the basis of at least one target variable in order to determine one of the planned manufacturing processes as the subsequent process” limitation is a data gathering activity which is insignificant extra-solution activities under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing a meaningful limit. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Specifically with respect to “parameter sets of a plurality of planned manufacturing processes are identified, a prioritization operation taking place in which the planned manufacturing processes are compared on the basis of at least one target variable in order to determine one of the planned manufacturing processes as the subsequent process”, (Harburda, [0025]: “During a production line check, which occurs when a QA lab test occurs, the operator enters appropriate information into the computerized system. This causes a "snap shot" of the production process to be captured. The production readings are the sensor readings for production: temperatures, pressure, motor speeds, motor amps, humidity, feeder rates, feeder selection, production rates, etc. The QA lab test data are the results of the required product tests: rheology measurement, appearance, compositional analysis, strength tests, color, etc. This information is captured with the additional capability to record operator comments. The QA lab test data is stored electronically in LIMS 52 and can be updated at any time. Thus, the operators can add comments following the QA lab test entry whenever they want or are required to (for example, 10 minutes later or even 10 days later). The date/time stamp of the production data report will include all updates to the database system up to that date/time.”; [0026] “The data captured by the LIMS is displayed using SQC graphs to indicate quality of the product and/or process. The data can be captured each time a QA lab test occurs (or at other convenient times), also known as a production line check.”)
Furthermore, (Backmann-2, [0013]: “It can be advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, for the step of pre-determining the production stability, the influence on the production stability for the feedstock and a subsequent material are read out from a database. It is thus conceivable that in a control device or else in the extrusion device itself a corresponding database is provided which has material data of the feedstock and of the subsequent material. These material data can furthermore be correlated with corresponding percentage percentage fraction factors, so that the database contains a statement as to which percentage fraction of a feed recipe or subsequent recipe the respective material correlates with which influence on the production stability. It is thus possible to read from the database how the removal of a feed material or the addition of a corresponding subsequent material behaves with regard to an effect on production stability. This is a particularly simple and cost-effective solution in order to provide a method according to the invention. The production stability can be provided with a corresponding database in the form of a two-dimensional structure. Clearly more complex databases, which take into account in particular the correlation of different multicomponent master devices, are of course also conceivable within the scope of the present invention. Thus, in particular, the influence of individual materials on other materials within a layer in such a database can also be taken into account.”)
In addition, (Avermeyer, [0027]: “The above non-exhaustive list is a list of possible sensors of the sensor device according to the invention. This leads to a level measurement being possible at the respective position. The detection of the state of the respective component with respect to the material contained therein in a manner other than the fill level is also conceivable in the sense of the present invention. For example, the material density, the bulk density, the weight or other parameters can be determined to determine the corresponding state.”)
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the “Mental Process” abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites “wherein at least the output of the display data or the determination of the recommended action takes place at least depending on history data, which comprise at least process parameter sets or user interactions of previous manufacturing processes, and/or of reference data, which at least comprise at least one process parameter set or user interactions of a reference change for the process change” which is simply states the idea of a solution or outcome to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the “Mental Process” abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites “wherein implementation data of the user interaction, is stored as part of the history data for provision for further subsequent processes” which is simply states the idea of a solution or outcome to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the “Mental Process” abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites “at least wherein an artificial intelligence is provided, to which the process parameter set and the setpoint subsequent parameter set are fed as input data in order to receive at least the comparative data or the recommended action as output data, or wherein at least the implementation data or the history data are fed to the artificial intelligence as training data together with the sensor data, the process parameter set and the setpoint subsequent parameter set” which is simply using an artificial intelligence on a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the “Mental Process” abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites “wherein an authentication operation for identifying an authorization of an operator is carried out, wherein at least the output of the display data or the determination of the recommended action being carried out depending on the authentication operation” which is simply using an artificial intelligence on a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the “Mental Process” abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites “wherein a balancing of at least a quantity of the first film material or a quantity of a material ingredient introduced into the extrusion device is carried out” which is simply states the idea of a solution or outcome to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the “Mental Process” abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites “wherein in order to determine the recommended action, a process inflection point is determined at least on the basis of the balancing or on the basis of the process completion, from which point it is no longer possible to continue the manufacturing process while maintaining a quality criterion of the first film material” which is simply states the idea of a solution or outcome to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the “Mental Process” abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites “wherein a material flow within the extrusion device for the process change is identified depending on the process parameter set and the target process parameter set, wherein at least the identification of the comparative data, the planning of the process course or the determination of the recommended action being carried out depending on the material flow” which is simply states the idea of a solution or outcome to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the “Mental Process” abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites “a computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed by a control system, the control system to execute a method according to claim 1.”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") it is not directed towards a statutory category. With regard to “a method according to claim 1”, the rejection applied in claim 1 also applies to claim 19. With regard to “a computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed by a control system, the control system to execute”, the claim is directed toward subject matter which does not fall within a statutory category -see MPEP 2106.03. The claim is not patent eligible.
Applicant could consider amending claim 19 to direct the claim towards a non-transitory computer readable medium instead of a computer program per se as a product without and structural recitations.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits the “Mental Process” abstract idea from claim 1. The claim recites “a System for user guidance for a process change comprising: an extrusion device for implementing a manufacturing process for manufacturing a first film material, and a control system for implementing a method according to claim 1.” Independent claim 20 incorporates claim 1 by including the language “implementing a method according to claim 1.” Therefore, the rejection applied to claim 1 above also applies to claim 20. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kulgemeyer et. al. (DE 102015108972 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kulgemeyer discloses a Method for user guidance for a process change from a manufacturing process for manufacturing a first film material to a subsequent process for manufacturing a second film material in an extrusion device, comprising: ([0001]: “The present invention relates to a method for the step-by-step guidance of a machine operator of an extrusion device for a film machine when changing from one feed recipe to another.”, where each feed recipe is a film material for the film machine)
- capturing a set of process parameters of the manufacturing process for manufacturing the first film material, ([0023] “It is further advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, at least one of the following operating aids is provided on a display device is made available to the machine operator: - Deployment formula - Operating parameters of the extrusion device - Follow-up prescription - Subsequent parameters of the extrusion device - Changeover status of at least one extruder and/ or at least one material - Rinsing status of a material used”; [0040] “The changeable fill level WF is, for example, measured by an associated fill level sensor 42 detectable, which can recognize the corresponding current fill level F when this changeable fill level WF is undershot.”, where relevant parameters are captured by associated sensors)
- determining a setpoint subsequent parameter set of the subsequent process assigned to the process parameter set, ([0002]: “A series of different orders with different recipes are processed sequentially. The transition between two recipes involves switching from the currently used recipe to the subsequent one.”; [0018]: “For example, a cleaning step can be carried out within a defined time period, especially in relation to a previously performed finishing or preparatory step. In this process, the Time specifications can be provided in an absolute manner or in relative reference points.” [0023] “It is further advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, at least one of the following operating aids is provided on a display device is made available to the machine operator: - Deployment formula - Operating parameters of the extrusion device - Follow-up prescription - Subsequent parameters of the extrusion device - Changeover status of at least one extruder and/ or at least one material - Rinsing status of a material used”, where a reference point is a set point)
- identifying of comparative data of a comparison of the process parameter set with the setpoint subsequent parameter set for detecting deviations of the setpoint subsequent parameter set from the process parameter set, ([0016]: “method according to the invention offers several advantages. In particular, a machine operator with significantly less experience can work at high speed and switch from one initial formulation to a subsequent formulation can be carried out with a high degree of certainty. In particular, incorrect strategies or faulty sequences of individual switchover steps within the process are prevented the change of the recipes was avoided or The risk of such an incorrect assignment is significantly reduced. In other words, a feedback loop is implemented. Guidance for the machine operator is provided, enabling regular interaction between the actions of the machine operator, automatically performed steps of the changeover and associated feedback from the execution the steps are provided.”; [0018]: “For example, a cleaning step can be carried out within a defined time period, especially in relation to a previously performed finishing or preparatory step. In this process, the Time specifications can be provided in an absolute manner or in relative reference points.”; [0023] “It is further advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, at least one of the following operating aids is provided on a display device is made available to the machine operator: - Deployment formula - Operating parameters of the extrusion device - Follow-up prescription - Subsequent parameters of the extrusion device - Changeover status of at least one extruder and/ or at least one material - Rinsing status of a material used”, where change of recipes are a deviation of the setpoint subsequent parameter and a reference point is a set point)
- outputting of display data for joint display of a plurality of comparison elements for displaying the deviations on the basis of the comparative data during the manufacturing process, ([0023] “It is further advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, at least one of the following operating aids is provided on a display device made available to the machine operator: - Deployment formula - Operating parameters of the extrusion device - Follow-up prescription - Subsequent parameters of the extrusion device - Changeover status of at least one extruder and/or at least one material - Rinsing status of a material used”; [0027] “It is further advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, a display of the remaining time of a main material is provided. This allows for temporal control, in particular of the necessary speed for carrying out manual operations. Steps for the machine operator. For example, the remaining time or total duration of the The operating order is displayed, thus providing the machine operator with a high density of information. Naturally, a time strategy for each individual task is also included.”, where the display of the parameters and subsequent parameters are data elements that can be compared)
- capturing a user interaction for controlling the extrusion device to at least partially adjust the process parameter set, ([0012]: “According to the invention, for each step to be carried out, i.e., each completion step and each preparation step, a corresponding display is provided for the machine operator. This display is, in particular, sensorially accessible to the machine operator. perceptible and can be, for example, visual or in an audibly perceptible manner. Similarly, the machine operator can confirm the execution or completion of the task. of the respective step. This can involve a Sensors support the recognition of the machine operator's confirmation. This makes it possible that for example by pressing a corresponding button A button that allows the machine operator to directly recognize the confirmation of the completion step. Sensors can also be used to indirectly confirm this through a corresponding action of the The machine operator can recognize the confirmation of the completion step or the preparation step.”; [0013]: “Once the specified preparation and completion steps have been finalized and confirmed, the following will take place. the step of completing the change, so that a control device in a corresponding manner now in a normal operating mode for the production of can switch to the next prescription. This can be done both sensory input as well as active input into manually by the machine operator.”; [0016] “In other words, a feedback loop is implemented. Guidance for the machine operator is provided, enabling regular interaction between the actions of the machine operator, automatically performed steps of the changeover and associated feedback from the execution the steps are provided.”)
- updating the display data depending on the adjustment of the process parameter set. (Kulgemeyer, [0023] “It is further advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, at least one of the following operating aids is provided on a display device made available to the machine operator: - Deployment formula - Operating parameters of the extrusion device - Follow-up prescription - Subsequent parameters of the extrusion device - Changeover status of at least one extruder and/or at least one material - Rinsing status of a material used”; [0027] “It is further advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, a display of the remaining time of a main material is provided. This allows for temporal control, in particular of the necessary speed for carrying out manual operations. Steps for the machine operator. For example, the remaining time or total duration of the The operating order is displayed, thus providing the machine operator with a high density of information. Naturally, a time strategy for each individual task is also included.”, where the remaining time or total duration is one process parameter which is being adjusted and displayed).
Regarding claim 2, Kulgemeyer teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kulgemeyer further teaches wherein at least the process parameter set or the comparison elements comprise at least material data from material ingredients or sensor data from sensors of the extrusion device. ([0023] “It is further advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, at least one of the following operating aids is provided on a display device is made available to the machine operator: - Deployment formula - Operating parameters of the extrusion device - Follow-up prescription - Subsequent parameters of the extrusion device - Changeover status of at least one extruder and/ or at least one material - Rinsing status of a material used”; [0040] “The changeable fill level WF is, for example, measured by an associated fill level sensor 42 detectable, which can recognize the corresponding current fill level F when this changeable fill level WF is undershot.”, where relevant parameters are captured by associated sensors).
Regarding claim 3, Kulgemeyer teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kulgemeyer further teaches wherein the method comprises the following stage: - determining at least one recommended action for adjusting the process parameter set, for the subsequent process depending on the comparative data, whereby the recommended action is output with the display data. ([0020] “Another advantage can be if, in In a method according to the invention, the sequence of processing the change of the individual materials is specified as a changeover strategy. A changeover strategy can take a wide variety of aspects into account. The specification of the Switching strategy in correlation with a visual Guiding the machine operator leads to the fact that essentially entirely independent of his personal experience and his knowledge of the actual explicit extrusion device, an optimal and, in particular, the best possible switching strategy can be pursued.”; [0023] “It is further advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, at least one of the following operating aids is provided on a display device made available to the machine operator: - Deployment formula - Operating parameters of the extrusion device - Follow-up prescription - Subsequent parameters of the extrusion device - Changeover status of at least one extruder and/or at least one material - Rinsing status of a material used”; [0027] “It is further advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, a display of the remaining time of a main material is provided. This allows for temporal control, in particular of the necessary speed for carrying out manual operations. Steps for the machine operator. For example, the remaining time or total duration of the The operating order is displayed, thus providing the machine operator with a high density of information. Naturally, a time strategy for each individual task is also included.”; [0039] “A control device 40 , equipped with a display device 12, is provided here for carrying out a method according to the invention .”, where the display of the parameters and subsequent parameters are data elements that can be compared).
Regarding claim 4, Kulgemeyer teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kulgemeyer further teaches wherein the recommended action comprises at least a manual activity or a recommendation for controlling the extrusion device. ( [0011]: “Preparation steps include, in particular, correlations between the extrusion device and subsequent materials of the subsequent formulation. For example, the connection of associated conveying devices to the subsequent formulation or feed containers of Subsequent materials in the subsequent formulation can be understood as a preparatory step. This can also include... Modified valve positions, additional cleaning options or new directions of rotation of metering screws can also be used as part of preparatory steps for a method according to the invention.”; [0012] “According to the invention, for each step to be carried out, i.e., each completion step and each preparation step, a corresponding display is provided for the machine operator. This display is, in particular, sensorially accessible to the machine operator.”; [0020] “Another advantage can be if, in In a method according to the invention, the sequence of processing the change of the individual materials is specified as a changeover strategy. A changeover strategy can take a wide variety of aspects into account. The specification of the Switching strategy in correlation with a visual Guiding the machine operator leads to the fact that essentially entirely independent of his personal experience and his knowledge of the actual explicit extrusion device, an optimal and, in particular, the best possible switching strategy can be pursued.”; [0039] “A control device 40 , equipped with a display device 12, is provided here for carrying out a method according to the invention” ).
Regarding claim 5, Kulgemeyer teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kulgemeyer further teaches wherein the method comprises the following stages: - planning of at least one process course at least for the manufacturing process or the subsequent process depending on the comparative data. ([0007]: “According to a method according to the invention for the step-by-step guidance of a machine operator at an extrusion device for a film machine when changing from one feed recipe to another The following steps are performed for a subsequent prescription followed: - Detecting a recipe change request, - Displaying the prescription change request for the machine operator, - Display at least one to be carried out - Final step for the application formula, - Recognition of confirmation from the machine operator for at least one completion step, - Display at least one to be carried out Preparatory step for the subsequent formulation, - Recognition of confirmation from the machine operator for at least one preparatory step, - Completion of the switch from the initial prescription to the subsequent prescription.”; [0016] “method according to the invention offers several advantages. In particular, a machine operator with significantly less experience can work at high speed and switch from one initial formulation to a subsequent formulation can be carried out with a high degree of certainty. In particular, incorrect strategies or faulty sequences of individual switchover steps within the process are prevented the change of the recipes was avoided or The risk of such an incorrect assignment is significantly reduced. In other words, a feedback loop is implemented. Guidance for the machine operator is provided, enabling regular interaction between the actions of the machine operator, automatically performed steps of the changeover and associated feedback from the execution the steps are provided.”; [0018]: “For example, a cleaning step can be carried out within a defined time period, especially in relation to a previously performed finishing or preparatory step. In this process, the Time specifications can be provided in an absolute manner or in relative reference points.”; [0023] “It is further advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, at least one of the following operating aids is provided on a display device is made available to the machine operator: - Deployment formula - Operating parameters of the extrusion device - Follow-up prescription - Subsequent parameters of the extrusion device - Changeover status of at least one extruder and/ or at least one material - Rinsing status of a material used”, where the performed steps are a process course for the manufacturing process and the display of the parameters and subsequent parameters are data elements that can be compared).
Regarding claim 6, Kulgemeyer teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kulgemeyer further teaches wherein the process course for defining temporal modifications comprises at least a temporal course of the process parameter set, the output of the display data or the determination of the recommended action taking place depending on the temporal course. ([0018]: “Last but not least, there can also be temporal interfaces defined between manual and automatic steps. For example, a cleaning step can be carried out within a defined time period, especially in relation to a previously performed finishing or preparatory step. In this process, the Time specifications can be provided in an absolute manner or in relative reference points.”; [0023] “It is further advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, at least one of the following operating aids is provided on a display device is made available to the machine operator: - Deployment formula - Operating parameters of the extrusion device - Follow-up prescription - Subsequent parameters of the extrusion device - Changeover status of at least one extruder and/ or at least one material - Rinsing status of a material used”, where time specifications are a process parameter and temporal interfaces are a temporal modification).
Claims 7-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulgemeyer et. al. (DE 102015108972 A1), in view of Herbert (US 20160121532 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kulgemeyer teaches the method according to claim 1.
While Kulgemeyer discloses determining recommended actions for an action sequence, Kulgemeyer does not explicitly state “wherein when determining the recommended action, a plurality of recommended actions for defining an action sequence are identified.”
Addressing the same problem, Herbert further teaches wherein when determining the recommended action, a plurality of recommended actions for defining an action sequence are identified. ([0025]: “A human-machine interface I is provided for interactive contact with the operator, which is made available for example by a screen with keyboard, a (multi-)touch screen or also other suitable means, such as for example speech input.”; [0027] “If the injection molding cannot be manufactured using this information, an interaction with the operator takes place, i.e. the operator is requested by the human-machine interface Ito provide further information which enables manufacture of the injection molding 13 optionally with modification of the plant and process parameters or also components of the plant. If the operator is able to provide further information in response to the request in step 103, steps 100 to 102 are repeated. If the operator is unable to provide further information, the operator is notified in step 104 that the component is not manufacturable or is manufacturable only to a limited extent as an injection molding using the data, models and plant components available in this optimization step. Under certain circumstances, suggestions may be made to the operator as to changes which need be made to the plant for it nevertheless to be possible to manufacture the injection molding.”, where repeating steps results in a plurality of recommended actions being identified)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Kulgemeyer to incorporate the teachings of Herbert so as to include when determining the recommended action, a plurality of recommended actions for defining an action sequence are identified. Doing so would allow non-experts to operate manufacturing equipment ([0010]: “This enables a non-expert to start up the machine without setting parameters in such a manner that an injection molding with the specified geometric data may be manufactured, i.e. without offline simulation calculations or test parts.”).
Regarding claim 8, Kulgemeyer teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kulgemeyer does not explicitly teach “wherein the time course of the process parameter set is taken into account when identifying the recommended actions in order to define the action sequence.”
Addressing the same problem, Herbert further teaches wherein the time course of the process parameter set is taken into account when identifying the recommended actions in order to define the action sequence. ([0027]: “If the operator is unable to provide further information, the operator is notified in step 104 that the component is not manufacturable or is manufacturable only to a limited extent as an injection molding using the data, models and plant components available in this optimization step. Under certain circumstances, suggestions may be made to the operator as to changes which need be made to the plant for it nevertheless to be possible to manufacture the injection molding.”; [0030] “It is in principle possible to specify further process parameters which are of relevance to the injection molding process to the controller 11 by data transfer or also by the operator, such as for example pressure, temperature, quantity of material, speed, position, time, core pulling activity, demolding or ejection of the injection molding, opening paths or speeds of the moulid closing unit F or other individual components of the injection molding machine or of peripheral devices P. This information may already be known to the controller 11 or be requested by interactive contact with the operator in step 103. Such information does not arise solely from the component geometry, but is capable of influencing the manufacturing process in such a way that it should be present to ensure a stable process sequence.”)
The reasons to combine Kulgemeyer into Herbert are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 10, Kulgemeyer teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kulgemeyer does not explicitly teach “wherein at least the process course or the action sequence is updated depending on the user interaction.”
Addressing the same problem, Herbert further teaches wherein at least the process course or the action sequence is updated depending on the user interaction. ([0030] “It is in principle possible to specify further process parameters which are of relevance to the injection molding process to the controller 11 by data transfer or also by the operator, such as for example pressure, temperature, quantity of material, speed, position, time, core pulling activity, demolding or ejection of the injection molding, opening paths or speeds of the moulid closing unit F or other individual components of the injection molding machine or of peripheral devices P. This information may already be known to the controller 11 or be requested by interactive contact with the operator in step 103. Such information does not arise solely from the component geometry, but is capable of influencing the manufacturing process in such a way that it should be present to ensure a stable process sequence.”)
The reasons to combine Kulgemeyer into Herbert are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 11, Kulgemeyer teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kulgemeyer further teaches wherein when determining the setpoint subsequent parameter set, ([0002]: “A series of different orders with different recipes are processed sequentially. The transition between two recipes involves switching from the currently used recipe to the subsequent one.”; [0023] “It is further advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, at least one of the following operating aids is provided on a display device is made available to the machine operator: - Deployment formula - Operating parameters of the extrusion device - Follow-up prescription - Subsequent parameters of the extrusion device - Changeover status of at least one extruder and/ or at least one material - Rinsing status of a material used”, where a reference point is a set point)
Kulgemeyer does not explicitly teach “parameter sets of a plurality of planned manufacturing processes are identified, a prioritization operation taking place in which the planned manufacturing processes are compared on the basis of at least one target variable in order to determine one of the planned manufacturing processes as the subsequent process.”
Addressing the same problem, Herbert further teaches parameter sets of a plurality of planned manufacturing processes are identified, a prioritization operation taking place in which the planned manufacturing processes are compared on the basis of at least one target variable in order to determine one of the planned manufacturing processes as the subsequent process. ([0013] “The molding assistant preferably tests the parameters calculated in this way for plausibility as to whether a component or injection molding can be manufactured therefrom, and finally adopts it as a setting. Plausibility testing also includes the limits applicable to the machine, such as for example exceeding possible injection speeds or possible travel paths, for example of parts of the moulid closing unit or the injection moulid.”, [0016] “All the assistants, i.e. molding assistant, injection moulid assistant and quality assistant, may be associated alone or together with just one portion of the process sequence, one plant part of the injection molding machine or also one characteristic or geometric feature of the injection molding, in order to generate the best possible manufacturing process sequence on the associated production plant while requiring the operator to have little detailed knowledge of the plant.”)
The reasons to combine Kulgemeyer into Herbert are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 12, Kulgemeyer teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kulgemeyer does not explicitly teach “wherein at least the output of the display data or the determination of the recommended action takes place at least depending on history data, which comprise at least process parameter sets or user interactions of previous manufacturing processes, and/or of reference data, which at least comprise at least one process parameter set or user interactions of a reference change for the process change.”
Addressing the same problem, Herbert further teaches wherein at least the output of the display data or the determination of the recommended action takes place at least depending on history data, which comprise at least process parameter sets or user interactions of previous manufacturing processes, and/or of reference data, which at least comprise at least one process parameter set or user interactions of a reference change for the process change. ([0025]: “A human-machine interface I is provided for interactive contact with the operator, which is made available for example by a screen with keyboard, a (multi-)touch screen or also other suitable means, such as for example speech input.”; [0040] “Thanks to the presence of component, moulid and quality data, for example from moulid design or the technical specification of the component as the starting point for the various assistants, the operator's decisions are ideally reduced to simple yes/no inputs into the human-machine interface I, while the expert knowledge is stored by the controller 11 and presented in preselected manner.”; [0041] “In principle, the suggestions arising in the course of the processing according to the method may also be fed back plant-specifically to the operator. As is shown schematically in FIG. 3, the human-machine interface may for example create a connection to the picture of the machine or a pictorial connection to the machine components for the operator. Accordingly, once the plant and process parameters and the operating parameters have been prepared, the operator may be presented with further components which could appropriately be used on the machine for selection and subsequent optional further parameterization, by the molding assistant FTA for example offering specific nominal values.”, where the stored expert knowledge is history data of user interactions)
The reasons to combine Kulgemeyer into Herbert are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 13, Kulgemeyer teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kulgemeyer does not explicitly teach “wherein implementation data of the user interaction, is stored as part of the history data for provision for further subsequent processes.”
Addressing the same problem, Herbert further teaches wherein implementation data of the user interaction, is stored as part of the history data for provision for further subsequent processes. ([0040] “Thanks to the presence of component, moulid and quality data, for example from moulid design or the technical specification of the component as the starting point for the various assistants, the operator's decisions are ideally reduced to simple yes/no inputs into the human-machine interface I, while the expert knowledge is stored by the controller 11 and presented in preselected manner.”; [0041] “In principle, the suggestions arising in the course of the processing according to the method may also be fed back plant-specifically to the operator. As is shown schematically in FIG. 3, the human-machine interface may for example create a connection to the picture of the machine or a pictorial connection to the machine components for the operator. Accordingly, once the plant and process parameters and the operating parameters have been prepared, the operator may be presented with further components which could appropriately be used on the machine for selection and subsequent optional further parameterization, by the molding assistant FTA for example offering specific nominal values.”; [0037] “A quality assistant QA may furthermore be associated with the controller, wherein the required quality features of the injection molding 13 to be manufactured with the associated information tolerance ranges are then made available to the controller 11. In this case too, further information may be requested by interactive contact with the operator. On the basis of these specifications, the quality assistant QA influences the plant and process parameters and/or the operating parameters to optimize the stability of the process sequences, this being shown in steps 120 and 121.”, where the stored expert knowledge is history data of user interactions)
The reasons to combine Kulgemeyer into Herbert are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulgemeyer et. al. (DE 102015108972 A1) in view of Backmann (US 20180093405 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kulgemeyer teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kulgemeyer further teaches wherein the recommended actions ([0020] “Another advantage can be if, in In a method according to the invention, the sequence of processing the change of the individual materials is specified as a changeover strategy. A changeover strategy can take a wide variety of aspects into account. The specification of the Switching strategy in correlation with a visual Guiding the machine operator leads to the fact that essentially entirely independent of his personal experience and his knowledge of the actual explicit extrusion device, an optimal and, in particular, the best possible switching strategy can be pursued.”)
Kulgemeyer does not explicitly teach “
Backmann further teaches ([0024]: “It may also be advantageous, when, in the case of a method according to the invention, the steps of predetermining and of comparing are carried out for a manual proposal of an order. A manual proposal is to thereby in particular be understood as the input by the operating personnel. A machine operator, for example, can thus input his corresponding own proposal for a change strategy, which is subsequently verified in terms of the impact and the course of the production stability by the predetermination in the context of the method according of the invention. This input and verification can for example be made at a terminal, which is provided as part of the machine control. Implicit actions, however, are also conceivable as input, so that for example the start of changing the material in a supply device is assessed as being a step of a change strategy, which accordingly triggers the steps of predetermining and comparing.”, where actions and their associated implicit actions are an action sequence group)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Kulgemeyer to incorporate the teachings of Backmann so as to include defining the action sequence are divided into groups in order to allow intermediate intervals between the groups. Doing so would allow ([0005]: “It is the object of the present invention to at least partially eliminate the above-described disadvantages. It is in particular the object of the present invention to improve changing the material in a cost-efficient and simple manner or to make it safer, respectively.”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulgemeyer et. al. (DE 102015108972 A1), in view of Lettowsky (EA 037650 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Kulgemeyer teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kulgemeyer does not explicitly teach “at least wherein an artificial intelligence is provided, to which the process parameter set and the setpoint subsequent parameter set are fed as input data in order to receive at least the comparative data or the recommended action as output data, or wherein at least the implementation data or the history data are fed to the artificial intelligence as training data together with the sensor data, the process parameter set and the setpoint subsequent parameter set.”
Lettowsky further teaches at least wherein an artificial intelligence is provided, to which the process parameter set and the setpoint subsequent parameter set are fed as input data in order to receive at least the comparative data or the recommended action as output data, or wherein at least the implementation data or the history data are fed to the artificial intelligence as training data together with the sensor data, the process parameter set and the setpoint subsequent parameter set. ([Page 23 paragraph 11]: “It is also here specifically, inter alia, proposed that during ongoing operation it is possible to switch between two extrusion products with different requirements for the achieved manifestations of the properties of individual extrusion products. To this end, it is also proposed that a continuously produced extrusion product is marked as soon as the transition begins and a second mark is applied as soon as the product change is completed.”; [Page 24 paragraph 14] “Preferably, in order to influence the quality of the extrusion product, the setpoint of the controlled parameter during the production of the extrusion product is determined using a self-learning optimization method.”; [Page 24 paragraph 15] “So, here specifically, among other things, it is proposed to use an algorithm that has features of an algorithm from the machine learning class to determine the set value of the controlled parameter. Due to this, the algorithm is able to derive a systematic relationship between parameters based on some empirical values of one operator or several operators, or on the basis of empirical values of one operator in combination with measured parameters.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Kulgemeyer to incorporate the teachings of Lettowsky so as to include at least wherein an artificial intelligence is provided, to which the process parameter set and the setpoint subsequent parameter set are fed as input data in order to receive at least the comparative data or the recommended action as output data, or wherein at least the implementation data or the history data are fed to the artificial intelligence as training data together with the sensor data, the process parameter set and the setpoint subsequent parameter set. Doing so would allow for a person without a significant amount of experience to handle the production process (Lettowsky, [Page 24 paragraph 16]: “Advantageously, this can ensure that, thanks to the use of self-learning optimization methods, complex tasks can be adapted by a person without great expense to new conditions, for example, in the form of changing technological parameters of the production process.”).
Claims 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulgemeyer et. al. (DE 102015108972 A1), in view of Harburda (US 20020077717 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Kulgemeyer teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kulgemeyer does not explicitly teach “wherein an authentication operation for identifying an authorization of an operator is carried out, wherein at least the output of the display data or the determination of the recommended action being carried out depending on the authentication operation.”
Harburda further teaches wherein an authentication operation for identifying an authorization of an operator is carried out, wherein at least the output of the display data or the determination of the recommended action being carried out depending on the authentication operation. ([0014]: “Furthermore, the information contained in the electronic production run sheet 80 helps to improve accountability in the raw material delivery (where a human operator is involved), insure that only the right raw materials are added to the correct production equipment, improve the analysis of the product (such as providing useful information for determining the root cause of a problem), and optimize the production process through improved "real time" knowledge of the raw materials that are actually used in the product. Furthermore, manual entry systems, such as logbooks, are not needed. Again, therefore, errors associated with manual entry are eliminated. Also, operator accountability will allow for optimizing human resources by identifying problem operators, identifying operators who could be utilized in other capacities and identifying operators who can handle additional tasks.”; [0044] “In step 130, whether an operator is involved in transferring the raw material(s) to the production equipment is determined. If an operator is involved, then in step 132, the operator's identification is obtained. Operator identities may also be stored in the relational database to allow for accountability and human resource analysis. Note that the operator's identity may be obtained at an earlier step, such as prior to transferring the actual raw material(s) and actual quantities to the production equipment. Again, the operator's identity may be obtained several ways, such as via keyed entry, voice input, bar-code type scanning of the operator's identification badge, and the identity may even be automatically entered based on production information previously entered to the MES computer system 30.”; [0029] “The VB API program also allows the operator to retrieve the production run data in the snap shot format by entering the line number, product number or date in the appropriate windows of the electronic production run sheet 80 screen.”, where identifying operators who could be utilized in other capacities or handle additional tasks is a determination of the recommended action)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Kulgemeyer to incorporate the teachings of Harburda so as to include an authentication operation where the output of the display data or determination of the recommended action depends on the authentication operation. Doing so would allow the reduction of errors in the manufacturing process (Harburda, [0002]: “Many production lines, such as in the plastics industries, involve numerous processes to create an end product. In production lines where intricate or otherwise information-sensitive manufacturing is performed, correctly transferring critical production information is essential. Any number of factors may be significant to the proper running of the production line at any given time, but without the efficient, fast and accurate transfer of this information, numerous errors may occur.”).
Regarding claim 19, Kulgemeyer discloses
Kulgemeyer does not explicitly teach “a computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed by a control system, the control system to execute
Harburda further teaches a computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed by a control system, the control system to execute ([0027]: “The MES computer system 30 includes a variety of features. Data exchange between the database server 40 and the different databases, such as LIMS 52, can occur due to the use of the MES integration system 50. This acts as an interface between the database server 40 and LIMS 52, database 54, process control operations (PCO) system 55 for controlling the production equipment operations, programmable logic controller (PLC) interface 56 with production real-time data or distributed control system (DCS) 57”; [0046] “The description applying the above embodiments is merely illustrative. As described above, embodiments in the form of computer-implemented processes and apparatuses for practicing those processes may be included. Also included may be embodiments in the form of computer program code containing instructions embodied in tangible media, such as floppy diskettes, CD-ROMs, hard drives, or any other computer-readable storage medium,…”)
The reasons to combine Kulgemeyer into Harburda are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 20, Kulgemeyer discloses a System for user guidance for a process change comprising: an extrusion device for implementing a manufacturing process for manufacturing a first film material, and ([0001]: “The present invention relates to a method for the step-by-step guidance of a machine operator of an extrusion device for a film machine when changing from one feed recipe to another.”, where each feed recipe is a film material for the film machine)
Kulgemeyer does not explicitly teach “a System for user guidance for a process change comprising: an extrusion device for implementing a manufacturing process for manufacturing a first film material, and a control system for implementing a method according to claim 1.”
Harburda further teaches ([0027]: “The MES computer system 30 includes a variety of features. Data exchange between the database server 40 and the different databases, such as LIMS 52, can occur due to the use of the MES integration system 50. This acts as an interface between the database server 40 and LIMS 52, database 54, process control operations (PCO) system 55 for controlling the production equipment operations, programmable logic controller (PLC) interface 56 with production real-time data or distributed control system (DCS) 57”).
The reasons to combine Kulgemeyer into Harburda are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulgemeyer et. al. (DE 102015108972 A1), in view of Avermeyer (DE 102013100812 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kulgemeyer teaches he method according to claim 1.
Kulgemeyer does not explicitly teach “wherein a balancing of at least a quantity of the first film material or a quantity of a material ingredient introduced into the extrusion device is carried out.”
Avermeyer further teaches wherein a balancing of at least a quantity of the first film material or a quantity of a material ingredient introduced into the extrusion device is carried out. ([0013] “Preferably, at least one feed container and a feed balance are present for each feed material on the extrusion device.”; [0015]: “During this production from the supply of the feed balance, the feed container is thus already empty and can be filled with the subsequent material. As soon as the fill level of the feed scale has been reduced to such an extent that there would be a risk of the extruder running idle, the feed container can be opened again and the feed scale can be filled with the following material. Thus, even in the feed balance during the material change, there is only very little mixing between the feedstock and the subsequent material. Thus, a relatively sharp-edged delimitation is produced between the follow-up material and the feed material at the feed end of the feed balance and thus also over the course of the extruder.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Kulgemeyer to incorporate the teachings of Avermeyer so as to include a balancing of at least a quantity of the first film or a quantity of a material ingredient introduced into the extrusion device. Doing so would allow for a more cost effective material change (Avermeyer, [0004]: “It is an object of the present invention to at least partially eliminate the disadvantages described above. In particular, it is the object of the present invention to be able to carry out the material change, in particular automatically, in a cost-effective and simple manner.”).
Regarding claim 17, Kulgemeyer teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kulgemeyer does not explicitly teach “wherein in order to determine the recommended action, a process inflection point is determined at least on the basis of the balancing or on the basis of the process completion, from which point it is no longer possible to continue the manufacturing process while maintaining a quality criterion of the first film material.”
Avermeyer further teaches wherein in order to determine the recommended action, a process inflection point is determined at least on the basis of the balancing or on the basis of the process completion, from which point it is no longer possible to continue the manufacturing process while maintaining a quality criterion of the first film material. ([0013]: “Preferably, at least one feed container and a feed balance are present for each feed material on the extrusion device. The feed container and the feed balance are connected to one another, for example, with the aid of a downcomer, so that, in a method according to the invention, the data from sensor devices relating to these individual components can be used. In particular, the sensor device has individual sensors which communicate the fill level of the feed balance, the fill level of the feed container and the current operating status and/or the fill level of the downcomer. Such sensors can also be referred to as initiators. It is thus possible to draw a conclusion between the current recipe situation of the feedstock and the expected recipe situation for the further course during the production of the extrusion product with this recipe. In particular, a preliminary calculation can take place at which point in time and under which conditions the production of the extrusion product with the first recipe is ended. Based on this knowledge and prediction, a preparation step can be performed even more accurately, as will be explained later.”; [0014]: “One of the objects of the present invention is to make the transition between the feedstock and the follow-up material as short as possible. The transition phase described in the introduction of this application should accordingly turn out to be as short as possible. This leads to a particularly short time, which does not provide a usable manner of the extrusion product. Rather, waste during the material change can be reduced in this way.”, where the point in time decided by the preliminary calculation is the inflection point)
The reasons to combine Kulgemeyer into Avermeyer are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulgemeyer et. al. (DE 102015108972 A1), in view of Backmann-2 (DE 102015108979 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kulgemeyer teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kulgemeyer does not explicitly teach “wherein a material flow within the extrusion device for the process change is identified depending on the process parameter set and the target process parameter set, wherein at least the identification of the comparative data, the planning of the process course or the determination of the recommended action being carried out depending on the material flow.”
Backmann-2 further teaches wherein a material flow within the extrusion device for the process change is identified depending on the process parameter set and the target process parameter set, wherein at least the identification of the comparative data, the planning of the process course or the determination of the recommended action being carried out depending on the material flow. ([0020]: “It is further advantageous if, in a method according to the invention, at least one production parameter of the associated extruders is adapted for at least one feed device as a function of the comparison result during the execution of the material change, in particular at least one of the following: temperature of the extruders - film thickness - Production speed extruder output - Inflation Ratio”; [0021] “The above list is a non-exhaustive list. By adapting the control or regulation of the extrusion device, an effect on the expected production stability that is too low is possible. This can furthermore lead to the fact that even low production stability levels are permitted, since a drop in production stability is avoided by a corresponding action in an automated manner such that an adverse effect on operation can take place accordingly.”; “By acting on production parameters, an improved changeover strategy can thus be achieved from the point of view of the flushing time, because a corresponding action on operating parameters reacts to the reduction in production stability.”, where extruder output is material flow)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Kulgemeyer to incorporate the teachings of Backmann-2 so as to include a material flow within the extrusion device for the process change is identified depending on the process parameter set and the target process parameter set, wherein at least the identification of the comparative data, the planning of the process course or the determination of the recommended action being carried out depending on the material flow. Doing so would allow for a more cost effective material change (Backmann-2, [0004] “It is an object of the present invention to at least partially eliminate the disadvantages described above. In particular, it is the object of the present invention to improve or make the material change more secure in a cost-effective and simple manner.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKOLAOS PHILLIP ZERVOS whose telephone number is (571)270-7767. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30am-5:00pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert E Fennema can be reached at 540-566-5633. 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.
/N.P.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
