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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s 11-7-2025 Amendment was received. Claims 1-23 are pending. Claims 10-23 are withdrawn. Claims 1-9 are examined in this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0095378 to Barker in view of JP H0921626 A.
In re Claim 1, Barker teaches a method for monitoring and controlling a bandsaw blade having a first side, a second side and a cutting edge (see Figs. 1-5, blade #102 which has first side, second side and a cutting edge), comprising steps of:
projecting light on the first side of the bandsaw blade (see Figs. 1-4, #108; see also Para. 0032-34);
capturing at least one image of the second side of the bandsaw blade (see Figs. 1-5, #110 and Para. 0032-34 – which states “For example, the light source 108 may be displaced in any direction with respect to the central axes S and W but angled to produce the line of laser light along the saw blade 102 and the piece of wood 106” - the examiner notes that any direction includes the opposite side of the first side),
measuring a position of a boundary line of each image of the least one image (see Figs. 1-4, #112/114 and Para. 0036-0040); and
determining a position of the cutting edge of the bandsaw blade, while the bandsaw blade is moving, based on the position of the boundary line (see Para. 0040).
Barker is silent as to the at least one image having a dark area where the light is blocked by the bandsaw blade and a light area where the light is unimpeded and measuring a position of a boundary line between the light area and the dark area.
However, JP H0921626 A teaches that it is known in the art of camera measuring systems to provide a system for correcting the posture of an object and correcting the position of the object by detecting a shadow line created by light being cast upon the object with cameras and such data processed to determine if the object is in the correct position and to correct the position of the object if out of position (see JP H0921626 A, abstract, Figs 1-7 and JP H0921626 A translation, Pgs. 4, ll. 35 – Pg. 7, ll. 40).
In the same field of invention, systems for measuring and object to correct the objects position using a camera and processor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the system of Barker with a system that measures a shadow line, as taught by JP H0921626 A. Doing so is the substation of one known object measuring system for another know object measure system to ensure that the object is in the correct position. Doing so provides correcting system with high accuracy (see JP H0921626 A, translation, Pg. 7, last line to Pg. 8, line 3).
In re Claim 2, modified Barker, in re Claim 1, teaches further comprising: diffusing the light before projecting on the first side of the bandsaw blade (see Para. 0056 teaching “a very diffuse light source” and Para. 0034 teaching a “diffuse light”) .
In re Claim 3, modified Barker, in re Claim 1, teaches further comprising: defining a bounding box before measuring the position of the boundary line (see e.g., Fig. 4 of JP H0921626 A, showing the image as a box), wherein the bounding box has a center location, an upper edge and a lower edge (the image in Fig. 4 of JP H0921626 A has a center location, an upper edge and a lower edge).
In re Claim 4, modified Barker, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the step of measuring the position of the boundary line comprising measuring a value along a first axis of the center location of the bounding box when the center location of the bounding box aligns with the center of the boundary line (see JP H0921626 A, Fig. 4, showing measuring line #11b which in in the center of the image #37).
In re Claim 5 modified Barker, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the step of measuring the position of the boundary line comprising measuring a value along a first axis of the center location when the upper edge and the lower edge of the bounding box align with an upper edge and a lower edge of the light area of each image respectively (see JP H0921626 A, Fig. 4 in view of Barker, Fig. 1C, #112/114 measuring the blade of Barker with the system of JP H0921626 A would measure the boundary line between the upper edge and lower edge of the image).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0095378 to Barker in view of JP H0921626 A, and further in view of US 2015/0158097 to Myrfield.
In re Claim 6, modified Barker, in re Claim 1, does not teach automatically adjusting the position of the bandsaw blade when the position of the cutting edge of the bandsaw blade deviates from a standard working position to move the blade back towards the standard working position. However, Myrfield teaches that it is known to utilize sensed signals to adjust the position of the band saw blade (see Myrfield, Para. 0017, 0023-0030). Doing so allows the controller to detect errors or deflection is real-time and adjust the saw dynamically to prevent wasted products or damage to the blade (see Myrfield, Para. 0030).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0095378 to Barker in view of JP H0921626 A, and further in view of US 2017/0368622 to Krebber.
In re Claim 7, modified Barker, in re Claim 1, does not teach further comprising: determining the oscillation of the bandsaw blade by monitoring the position of the bandsaw blade as the bandsaw blade is moving; and, providing an indication when the oscillation of the bandsaw blade increases more than an allowable amount.
However, Krebber teaches that it is known in the art of bandsaws to determine the oscillation of the bandsaw blade by monitoring the position of the bandsaw blade as the bandsaw blade is moving (see Krebber, Para. 0006, 0009, 0018-0020). In the same field of invention, saw blades, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to monitor the saw blade to measure and determine the oscillation of the saw blade, as taught by Krebber. Doing so provides for a system to correct imprecise cuts (see Krebber, Para. 0006).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0095378 to Barker in view of JP H0921626 A, US 2017/0368622 to Krebber, and further in view of TW M563316 U.
In re Claim 8, modified Barker, in re Claim 7, teaches further comprising: determining an initial standard deviation of the position of the bandsaw blade determined from a plurality of images as the bandsaw blade is moving (See Para. 0040 teaching determining a position of the bandsaw); continuing to determine the standard deviation of the position of the bandsaw blade (see Para. 0039 teaching the computing device determining geometric characteristics continuously).
However, modified Barker, in re Claim 7, does not teach providing an indication when the standard deviation of the position of the bandsaw blade increases more than an allowable among from the initial standard deviation.
TW M563316 U teaches that it is known in the band saw art to provide an indication when comparing images created by a camera that do not meet the standard feature and outputting a warning signal (TW M563316 U, abstract). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a warning signal to the controller of modified Barker, in re Claim 7, when the images do not meet the standard features. Doing so warns the user that something is amiss and to check on the saw to improve cutting and avoiding costly waste (see TW M563316 U, abstract).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0095378 to Barker in view of JP H0921626 A, US 2017/0368622 to Krebber, TW M563316 U, and further in view of DE 102018118369 A1.
In re Claim 9, modified Barker, in re Claim 8, is silent as to wherein the indication is a warning comprising at least one of: a light; and a sound.
However, DE 102018118369 A1 teaches that it is known to provide a warning light as a warning indication (see DE 102018118369 A1, translation, Pg. 8, ll. 32-38 teaching a yellow warning light). In the same field of invention, band saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide a yellow warning light in order to alert the user that something is amiss.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11-07-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Barker teaches projecting a light with a light source 108 on a first side of a saw blade 102 and taking an image of this same first side of the saw blade 102 with an image generator 110 "positioned to generate an image of the illuminated surface". Barker is not projecting a light on a first side of the saw blade 102 and generating an image of a second side of the saw blade 102, but rather, it teaches capturing an image of the same side of the saw blade 102 that the light is shining on to capture an "illuminated image".
The Examiner agrees that the figures of Barker illustrate this. However, Barker Para 0034 states that “For example, the light source 108 may be displaced in any direction with respect to the central axes S and W but angled to produce the line of laser light along the saw blade 102 and the piece of wood 106.” The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of any direction includes 360 degrees, which in some angles would place the light source on the opposite side of that illustrated in the figures.
Additionally, Barker teaches “In other embodiments, the light source 108 may illuminate different portions of the saw blade 102 and the sawn portion 104 of the piece of wood 106.” (See Para. 0034). The Examiner notes that there are only four sides of the saw blade. One of ordinary skill in the art, understands that “different portions of the saw blade 102,” includes the different sides of the saw blade. As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Barker teaches projecting a light on a first side of the saw blade and generating an image of a second side of the saw blade.
Because Barker teaches that the light can illuminate the blade from any side, including the “opposite” side than what is illustrated in the Figures, Applicants argument that JP H 0921626 fails to teach this limitation is moot.
No further independent arguments were presented and therefore no additional arguments were responded to.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724