DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “generating, by the computing device, a cutting plan that comprises both (i) determining a sequence of the plurality of parts to be cut and (ii) selecting directions of pierce slag puddle formations on the workpiece for corresponding ones of the plurality of parts, such that for each part the selected direction is adapted to direct the pierce slag puddle formation for cutting that part onto processing paths of previously cut parts a processing path of another part that is earlier in the sequence of parts to be cut”, is not sufficiently described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention. The Specification, para. 0011, Detailed Description, recites: “choosing comprises ensuring that the first direction intersects the previous path such that the slag puddle formation is directed onto the previous cut part”, which does not sufficiently describe how to generate a cutting plan such "that for each part the selected direction is adapted to direct the pierce slag puddle formation for cutting that part onto processing paths of previously cut parts a processing path of another part that is earlier in the sequence of parts to be cut" is achieved as shown in Figs. 6 and 7. Further, para. 0027, Detailed Description, recites: “ensuring that the first direction intersects the previous path such that the slag puddle formation is directed onto the previous cut part”, which does not sufficiently describe how the cutting plan “ensures” the first direction intersects the previous path such that the slag puddle formation is directed onto the previous cut part. Undue experimentation would be necessary for one of ordinary skill to make the invention, because:
(A) The claim broadly recites that the computing device generates a cutting plan such that for each part the selected direction is adapted to direct the pierce slag puddle formation for cutting that part onto processing paths of previously cut parts a processing path of another part that is earlier in the sequence of parts to be cut, without reciting specifically in the claim and in the specification how the change is accomplished.
(B) The directions of the slag puddles shown in Fig. 6, and Fig. are shown with specific positions, without description in the claim and in the specification how to produce those specific positions.
(C ) The prior art before the effective filing date of the instance invention does not suggest that the generation of a cutting plan of the instance invention would be able to be achieved without undue experimentation, because the claim and the specification do not sufficiently describe how to achieve generation of a cutting plan as claimed.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill would not be able to make generate a cutting plan such that for each part the selected direction is adapted to direct the pierce slag puddle formation for cutting that part onto processing paths of previously cut parts a processing path of another part that is earlier in the sequence of parts to be cut, as claimed, without undue experimentation, because the claim and the specification do not sufficiently describe how to generate a cutting plan.
(E ) The prior art does not suggest that how to generate a cutting plan as claimed would be predictable, and would require a sufficient description as to how to generate such a cutting plan; the instance invention claim and specification do not contain sufficient description.
(F) The amount of direction provided in the claim and specification would not be sufficient to enable one of ordinary skill to generate a cutting plan, without undue experimentation.
(G) The specification does not provide a description of working samples of generating a cutting plan as claimed.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to generate a cutting plan, as claimed, would require undue experimentation, because the specification does not sufficiently describe how to generate a cutting plan
For the above factors, the subject matter of claim 1 is not sufficiently described in the specification for one of ordinary skill in the art to generate a cutting plan such that for each part the selected direction is adapted to direct the pierce slag puddle formation for cutting that part onto processing paths of previously cut parts a processing path of another part that is earlier in the sequence of parts to be cut, as claimed in the claim, without undue experimentation. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a processing path of another part that is earlier in the sequence of parts to be cut." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what “a processing path of another part that is earlier in the sequence of parts to be cut” refers to in the case whether there is not “another part that is earlier in the sequence of parts to be cut.” For purposes of examination, in the case where there is not “another part that is earlier in the sequence of parts to be cut,” the limitation does not affect the cutting path as claimed. Additionally, it is unclear if “the sequence of parts to be cut” is the same sequence as “as sequence of plurality of parts to be cut.” For purposes of examination, they are taken to be the same sequences.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Reference Yamaguchi (US10189110) is the closest prior art. Yamaguchi teaches a computerized method for controlling cutting of a plurality of parts from by a thermal processing torch (cutting out a plurality of cutout members from a plate blank by a plasma arc) the computerized method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device (4), information related to the plurality of parts to be cut from the workpiece by the thermal processing torch (Col. 5 lines 10-30 control unit includes a processing line data obtaining part that is configured to receive a set of data regarding a processing line, a piercing function part, and a cutting function part);
generating, by the computing device, a layout of the plurality of parts to be cut based on the information (Col. 8 lines 1-20 The automatic programming device 15, part of controller 4, is a device configured to program a set of data regarding a processing line as illustrated in FIG. 5, for instance, in accordance with the shape of a cutout member).
However, Yamaguchi does not teach or suggest the limitation generating, by the computing device, a cutting plan that comprises both (i) determining a sequence of the plurality of parts to be cut and (ii) selecting directions of pierce slag puddle formations on the workpiece for corresponding ones of the plurality of parts, such that for each part the selected direction is adapted to direct the pierce slag puddle formation for cutting that part onto processing paths of previously cut parts a processing path of another part that is earlier in the sequence of parts to be cut; and causing, by the computing device, the thermal processing torch to sequentially cut the plurality of parts from the workpiece in accordance with the cutting plan.
Additionally, none of the prior art references of record alone or in combination to meet all limitations in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 2/3/2025
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761