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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/01/25 has been acknowledged and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a cutting/grooving unit in claims 1, 6, and 15 (6 @ figure 3).
a sensor unit in claim 1 (12 @ figure 3).
control unit in claim 16 (82 @ figure 3).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-17 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 claims 1, 6, and 17; The term “by means of” in claim 1 lines 3 and 10; claim 6 line 5; and claim 17 line 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “by means of” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “by means of” does not clear.
Regarding claim 4 recites the limitation "the ReLu function" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims, which are dependent from rejected claims inherit the problem of these claims, and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non- statutory subject matter because the claim is directed to "A computer program product comprising commands which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer", not one of the statutory subject matter categories. See MPEP 2016. Gottschalk V. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72 (1972).
This rejection may be overcome by amending the claims to read "A non-transitory computer program product comprising commands which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer" or the like.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 17 rejected because it recites an abstract idea as indicated in bold and underlined below:
A computer program product comprising commands which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to
identify a number of anomalies and thus also actual machining positions in a measured height profile of a web by identifying as an anomaly such portions of the height profile where the height profile reaches a predefined threshold value,
classify a respective anomaly means of classification by assigning the anomaly to a cut type and/or groove type which this anomaly most closely resembles.
STEP 2a: The abstract idea (bold and underlined above) falls in the category of mental processes concepts:
The claim 17 appears to be directed toward a judicial exception, namely the abstract idea of acquires a computer program product comprising identify a number of anomalies and actual machining positions in a measured height profile of a web, the height profile reaches a predefined threshold value, and classify a respective anomaly means of classification by assigning the anomaly to a cut type and/or groove type which this anomaly most closely resembles. Such limitations are considered to set forth the abstract idea, because the claims are directed toward an idea in and of itself.
The claims only recite and describe gathering, combining and manipulating data by reciting steps of organizing information through mental process and/or algorithms concepts. The gathering and combining steps merely employ mental process and mathematical concepts to manipulate existing information to generate additional information in the form of "a computer program product comprising identify a number of anomalies and actual machining positions in a measured height profile of a web, the height profile reaches a predefined threshold value, and classify a respective anomaly means of classification by assigning the anomaly to a cut type and/or groove type which this anomaly most closely resembles". Therefore, a claim is performing a mental process and mathematical concepts on a generic computer.
Thus, claim 17 is drawn to an abstract idea.
STEP 2b: The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons:
Claim 17 recites additional elements that include: the "cutting/grooving unit", “sensor unit”, “computer”, "learning machine", "neural network", and “control unit". The claimed additional elements do not make the claim a practical application because they are performing to recite at a high-level generality and generic computer functions or software routinely used in generic computer components or software in the claim. (They may also be considered as an abstract idea because, in this instance it functions to describe the data).
The additional elements further include at least one processor and at least one memory, all of which can be implemented as generic computer components which are merely used as tools to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The claimed general purposed "cutting/grooving unit", “sensor unit”, “computer”, "learning machine", "neural network", and “control unit" are a well- understood, routine, conventional computer function as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
There is no particular machine (discounting the generic computer components) applying the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and there Is no real-world transformation in the claim (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)).
The remaining consideration is whether the claim constitutes an improvement to a particular technology (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)) or whether it just generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field-of-use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The claim is generally in the field of acquires a computer program product comprising identify a number of anomalies and actual machining positions in a measured height profile of a web, the height profile reaches a predefined threshold value, and classify a respective anomaly means of classification by assigning the anomaly to a cut type and/or groove type which this anomaly most closely resembles. However, no evidence is provided to show that a particular technological process is being improved.
The underlying process that is supposed to be improved is not stated in this claim. It is not clear what the purpose of the claim is what is expected to be achieved.
For reasons stated above, it has been determined that claims 1 and 8 are directed to an abstract idea/judicial exception with additional generic computer elements, and the generically recited additional computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea/judicial exception because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea/judicial exception on a computer.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (also known as an "Inventive concept") to the exception. The rationale detailed in the above paragraphs apply mutatis mutandis. Identify and classify are all well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim 17 drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims, which are dependent from rejected claims inherit the problem of these claims and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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, 8, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Floeder et al (US 2014/0369591 hereinafter “Floeder”).
Regarding claim 1 and 17; Floeder discloses a method comprising of steps:
a web (81 @ figure 5) is provided in which a number of machining operations (83a, 83b, 85a, 85b @ figure 5) have been made by a cutting/grooving unit (86 @ figure 5 and paragraph [0054]: e.g., web 81 is fed into slitter 86 where slitting knives are used to cut the web into slit rolls 83A, 83B and wed rolls 85A, 85B of discard material. Fiducial mark printers 89A and 89B down web from the slitter may be a known distance D from fiducial mark reader 80 that is upstream from slitter 86), in each case on the basis of a height machining position (figure 5, e.g., the jumbo web 81 is slitting or cutting three dash line) and a predefined cut type (abstract: e.g., a web roll is converted into intermediate smaller rolls prior to cutting the web into individual parts… a web roll is converted into intermediate smaller rolls prior to cutting the web into individual parts) or groove type,
a height profile of the web (81 @ figure 5 and paragraph [0042]: e.g., a coordinate system may be defined such that the x dimension represents a distance across web 20, a y dimension represents a distance along a length of the web, and the z dimension represents a height of the web, which may be based on the number of coatings, materials or other layers previously applied to the web) is measured using a sensor unit (26A-26N @ figure 2) on at least one side of the web (81 @ figure 5) and transversely to a conveying direction (figures 4-5 and paragraphs [0008] and [0055]: e.g., position monitoring system 45 may be programmed with the crossweb (transverse) directional position of each slitting knife of slitter 86. In one example, when the downweb or machine direction position of a jumbo fiducial mark on web 81 reaches the distance, "D") of the web (81 @ figure 5),
wherein a number of anomalies (94 @ figure 6) and thus also actual machining positions (97a-97c @ figure 6: e.g., the jumbo web 90 is slitting or cutting three dash line) are identified in the height profile (figures 6-8 and paragraph [0042]) by identifying as an anomaly (94 @ figure 6) such sections of the height profile (figure 6 and paragraph [0042]) where the height profile reaches a predefined threshold value (32 @ figure 2 and paragraph [0043]: e.g., analysis computer 28 records in database 32 the spatial location of each anomaly with respect to the coordinate system of the process line, this information being referred to herein as local anomaly information. That is, analysis computer 28 stores the local anomaly information for web 20, including roll information for the web 20 and position information for each anomaly, within database 32),
wherein a respective anomaly (94 @ figure 6) is classified by a classification (analysis computer 28 @ figure 2 and paragraph [0041]: e.g., analysis computer 28 may classify an anomaly into different defect classes if necessary. For instance, there may be unique defect classes to distinguish between spots, scratches, and oil drips. Other classes may distinguish between further types of defects.) by assigning the anomaly (94 @ figure 6) to the cut type or groove type which the anomaly (94 @ figure 6) most closely resembles (paragraph [0026]: e.g., the local anomaly information obtained during the production for each of web rolls 7 is spatially registered with other local anomaly information for the same web roll. That is, the position information associated with the local anomaly is translated to a common coordinate system to align position information from different manufacturing processes applied to the same web roll 7 or a segment of web roll 7. The anomaly information is referred to herein as "aggregate" anomaly information once collected and aligned with anomaly information for at least one or possibly all of the manufacturing processes for the same web roll 7). See figures 1-8
Regarding claim 8; Floeder discloses a respective actual machining position (figure 5: e.g., the jumbo web 81 is slitting or cutting three dash line) is assigned the predefined machining position (97a-97c @ figure 6: e.g., the jumbo web 90 is slitting or cutting three dash line) which most closely resembles the actual machining position (figure 5: e.g., the jumbo web 81 is slitting or cutting three dash line).
Regarding claim 16; Floeder discloses a system (2 @ figure 1) having a control unit (4 @ figures 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Floeder et al (US 2014/0369591 hereinafter “Floeder”) in view of Celli (US 2021/0261374).
Regarding claim 2; Floeder discloses all of features of claimed invention except for a learning machine, is used in the classification, which receives an anomaly as input parameter and then outputs the associated cut or groove type as output parameter. However, Celli teaches that it is known in the art to provide a learning machine (paragraphs [0361]-[0363]: e.g., The processing system is designed to create one or more machine learning models that describe the behavior of the systems in each step, predicting the defects, in order to: operate on the process variables to avoid the formation of defects; reject the defective portions or indicate the rolls that contain potentially defective positions for the process downstream) is used in the classification (paragraph [0043]-[0445]: e.g., The principal classification algorithms to be tested are: PLS-DA, Random Forest, SVM and ANN…The classification algorithm has two outputs: the predictive model), which receives an anomaly (paragraph [0132]: e.g., a visual inspection module 32B of defects and/or of the type that detects metal particles, also of known type, which can also comprise viewing systems) as input parameter and then outputs the associated cut or groove type (paragraph [0133]: e.g., Typically, “defect” is meant as holes (also smaller than 1 mm in diameter), chipped edges, dark stains, water, oil marks, thickening of the material, presence of foreign bodies, joins in the material (i.e. the position of these joins along the extension of the thin product created by cutting the product crosswise upstream and downstream of defective zones and splicing the remaining ends)) as output parameter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Floeder with limitation above as taught by Celli for the purpose of improving process parameters (advantageously, defects and qualities) associated with the finished product.
Regarding claim 3; Floeder discloses all of features of claimed invention except for a learning machine is used to calculate a respective representative of a groove type or cut type, which is then used for classification by a respective anomaly being compared with the representative. However, Celli teaches that it is known in the art to provide a learning machine (paragraphs [0361]-[0363]) is used to calculate a respective representative (Y, h @ figure 2) of a groove type or cut type with a cutting device (23 @ figure 2), which is then used for classification by a respective anomaly (paragraphs [0135]: e.g., the quality control module QCS 32A, the visual inspection module of the defects and/or of the type that detects metal particles 32B, in the database system 31) being compared with the representative (Y, h @ figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Floeder with limitation above as taught by Celli for the purpose of improving process parameters (advantageously, defects and qualities) associated with the finished product.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Floeder et al (US 2014/0369591 hereinafter “Floeder”) in view of Hellstrom et al (US 2009/0088889 hereinafter “Hellstrom”).
Regarding claim 12; Floeder discloses all of features of claimed invention except for the threshold value is a standard deviation of the height profile. However, Hellstrom teaches that it is known in the art to provide the threshold value (paragraph [0078]) is a standard deviation (paragraph [0079]) of the height profile. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Floeder with limitation above as taught by Hellstrom for the purpose of reducing the computational search effort and also increases matching accuracy and to utilize the full improvement of the labeled point usage.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Floeder et al (US 2014/0369591 hereinafter “Floeder”) in view of Stadele et al (US 2019/0084288 hereinafter “Hellstrom”).
Regarding claim 15; Floeder discloses all of features of claimed invention except for the cutting/grooving unit and the sensor unit are part of a corrugated cardboard system and wherein the web is a corrugated cardboard web which is produced and processed by the corrugated cardboard system, wherein the height profile is measured inline in the corrugated cardboard system and downstream of the cutting/grooving unit. However, Stadele teaches that it is known in the art to provide the cutting/grooving unit (70, 71 @ figures 1-2) and the sensor unit (inspection assembly 47 @ figure 2) are part of a corrugated cardboard system (paragraph [0064]: e.g., a corrugated cardboard plant) and wherein the web (1 @ figure 1) is a corrugated cardboard web (paragraph [0064]) which is produced and processed by the corrugated cardboard system (paragraphs [0064]-[0065]: e.g., the corrugated cardboard plant comprises a first device 4 for producing a first corrugated cardboard web 5 laminated on one side), wherein the height profile is measured inline in a measuring device (54 @ figure 2) of the corrugated cardboard system (figures 1-2 and paragraph [0064]) and downstream of the cutting/grooving unit (70, 71 @figure 1 and paragraphs [0100], [0127]-[0128]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine method of Floeder with limitation above as taught by Stadele for the purpose of improving to product corrugated cardboard more quality and satisfactory.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 9-11, and 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-7, 9-11, and 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 112(f), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious method comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including of the learning machine is a neural network with a plurality of neurons, wherein the ReLu function is used as the activation function for the individual neurons, wherein the neural network has an input layer and an output layer, wherein the neural network has several hidden layers, with the number of neurons decreasing toward the output layer in set forth of claim 4.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious method comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including of a respective anomaly is compared for purposes of classification with a representative of a respective cut or groove type and the resemblance of the anomaly and the cut or groove type is calculated using a distance standard, wherein the representative of a respective cut or groove type is determined on the basis of previous measured values by recording a plurality of height profiles for a respective cut or groove type and then determining therefrom the representative for this cut type or groove type in set forth of claim 5.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious method comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including of a respective anomaly is compared for purposes of classification with a representative of a respective cut or groove type and the resemblance of the anomaly and the cut or groove type is calculated using a distance standard, wherein the representatives are determined by [[means of]] a physical model that simulates the generation of grooves and/or cuts on the basis of a geometry of a respective grooving body or cutting body of the cutting/grooving unit in set forth of claim 6.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious method comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including of the resemblance of a respectively detected cut and/or groove type to the respectively predefined cut and/or groove type is calculated and then the resemblance for each predefined machining position is compared separately with a further threshold value, wherein the classification is considered valid if the resemblance reaches the threshold value; otherwise, it is considered invalid in set forth of claim 7.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious method comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including of a limit value for resemblance is defined which must at least be reached in order to carry out an assignment in order to prevent a forced assignment in set forth of claim 9.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious method comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including of distances between a respective actual machining position and the assigned predefined machining position are calculated, wherein a measure is determined from all distances, which measure is compared with a further threshold value, wherein the assignment is considered valid if the measure does not reach this further threshold value; otherwise, it is considered invalid in set forth of claim 10.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious method comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including of the height profile is filtered with a bandpass filter before the anomalies are identified therein, wherein the bandpass filter releases a frequency range which is selected such that those parts of the height profile which are generated either by cuts or by groove are specifically retained in set forth of claim 11.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious method comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including of anomalies are identified separately in an upper height profile on a top side of the web and in a lower height profile on a bottom side of the web, wherein an anomaly is identified as a cut at a machining position if an anomaly has been identified at this machining position in both the upper and lower height profile, and/or wherein an anomaly is identified as a cut at a machining position if there is a gap in the upper or lower height profile at said machining position in set forth of claim 13.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious method comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including of a differential height profile is calculated from an upper height profile on a top side of the web and a lower height profile on a bottom side of the web, wherein, if the differential height profile reaches the threshold value at a machining position, an anomaly is identified at said machining position in set forth of claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Nagahara (US 2014/0292983) discloses an inspection unit that inspects the image printed onto the medium; and a post-processing unit that cuts the first base material based on an inspection result from the inspection unit.
2) Uesugi et al (US 2002/0154308) discloses the defect marking method comprises the steps of: installing a surface defect tester to detect surface flaw and a marker device to apply marking at defect position, in a continuous processing line of steel sheet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
October 7, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights