DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 21, the phrase should recite “a number of
Claim 33 (line 17), the phrase should recite “wherein step d) comprises the determination of a number of parts to be out according to an evaluation of
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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:
an acquisition module for receiving, due the cutting of the initial placement, a triggering event in claim 32.
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 § 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 17-20 and 23-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 20190018628 to Sloan et al.
In re claim 17, Sloan teaches a method for automatically cutting parts in a flexible material packaged in the form of a roll, comprising the successive steps of:
a) preparing an initial placement for a list of parts to be cut out in the flexible material (Paras 0063, 0065, 0069, 0070, 0076);
b) spreading at least one layer of flexible material on a cutting table (Para 0216);
c) starting the automatic cutting of the parts in the material spread on the cutting table according to the initial placement (Para 0134, 0216);
d) during the cutting of the initial placement, upon receipt of a triggering event for which the placement of at least one of the parts is no longer adapted to the cutting environment, preparing a list of parts to be maintained (Para 0125,126,130,134,137); and
e) automatically preparing a new placement taking into account the position of the parts to be maintained and calculating new positions for part of the other parts - without taking into account their positions in the initial placement (Para 0125), wherein the new positions are different from initial placement positions (Paras 0125, 0133, 0169-0175).
Per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term calculate has been defined as to design or adapt for a purpose. It has been interpreted Sloan teaches permitting the user to change the reel map (on the fly), which is adapted for the purpose of reducing waste. A second order can be added to an initial order without considering the initial placement and to provide new (cutting) positions.
In re claim 18, wherein step e) is followed by a step f) of automatically cutting the parts in the material spread on the cutting table according to the new placement (Para 0134).
In re claim 19, wherein the new placement prepared in step e) comprises part of the parts of the initial placement that are still to be cut out (Para 0134).
In re claim 20, wherein the new placement prepared in step e) further comprises one part for which the placement is no longer adapted to the cutting environment (Para 0134).
In re claim 23, wherein the selection of the parts of the new placement among all the parts of the initial placement that are still to be cut out is made by meeting any constraints of placement of said parts (Para 0125, 0134).
In re claim 24, wherein the triggering event is chosen among: a detection of a defect on the material spread on the cutting table (Para 0125).
Note, the Examiner has interpreted the phrase “is chosen among” to be consistent the with phrase “at least triggering event selected from the group consisting of,” in which the claim only requires one of the limitations to be met and taught by the prior art (rather than all three limitations).
In re claim 25, wherein, when the triggering event consists of the detection of the end of the roll on which the material spread on the cutting table is packaged, step e) comprises the establishment of a first placement of parts on the end of the roll, and a second placement of the remaining parts on another roll of material.
Note, this limitation was not selected from “the at least one triggering event” and has not been examined due to the requirements set forth in claim 24.
In re claim 26, wherein, when the triggering event consists of the detection of a defect on the material spread on the cutting table, the step e) comprises the exclusion of the area of the spread material on which the defect is present in order to establish the new placement (Para 0125).
In re claim 27, wherein, when the triggering event consists of the detection of a defect on a cut out part that needs to be recut, step e) comprises the addition of the defect part to the new placement.
Note, this limitation was not selected from “the at least one triggering event” and has not been examined due to the requirements set forth in claim 24.
In re claim 28, wherein the new placement of step e) is prepared so as to minimize any loss of productivity (Para 0125).
In re claim 29, wherein step e) is carried out without interrupting the cutting of the parts to be maintained that are still to be cut out according to the initial placement (Paras 0070,0125, 206).
In re claim 30, wherein step e) of preparing the new placement is carried out iteratively in order to obtain the highest possible efficiency rate (Para 0125).
In re claim 31, wherein step c) comprises a prior step of modifying the initial placement to generate an actual placement of the parts on the spread material which takes into account the actual characteristics of the material (Para 0124,0125).
In re claim 32, as best understood, Sloan teaches a system for automatically cutting parts in a flexible material packaged in the form of a roll, comprising:
a cutting table (Paras 0134,0216) on which at least one layer of flexible material can be spread;
means for automatically cutting (Para 0134, 0216) parts in the material spread on the cutting table according to an initial placement of a list of the parts to be cut out in the flexible material;
an acquisition module (145) for receiving, during the cutting of the initial placement, a triggering event for which the placement of at least one of the parts is no longer adapted to the cutting environment or for which the list of the parts of the initial placement needs to be modified (Para 0125, 126,130-134); and
means for automatically preparing a list of parts to be maintained and a new placement taking into account the position of the parts to be maintained and calculating new positions part of the other parts- without taking into account their positions in the initial placement (Paras 0125, 0133, 0169-0175).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 is allowed. Claims 21 and 22 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.
Sloan teaches a method of automatically cutting parts and a controller which is fed information direction, upon detecting a defect, to make on the fly updates to prevent waste. Sloan briefly mentions counting systems can be implemented in the manufacturing process to enable tracking and locking planning. Sloan does not teach the specifics of evaluating parts that still need to be cut out according to their cutting time and to the time allocated to the calculation of the new placement.
Bruder (EP 3528068) teaches in the art of performing a cutting process to cut bodies to the right size using a nesting process in order to place shapes relative to a flawed mark in order to reduce wasted material. Bruder further teaches flawed marks are detected by the user, a camera or an optical sensor and making on the fly adjustments (by placing the shapes on the body manually or via a system for cutting) to prevent waste. Bruder does not teach the specifics of evaluating parts that still need to be cut out according to their cutting time and to the time allocated to the calculation of the new placement.
Response to Arguments
The 112, second paragraph rejection in the Office Action mailed September 4, 2025 has been overcome by the amendments filed January 2, 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed January 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the new placement is not a mere optimization or adjustment of the initial placement, but a complete recalculation, which is not taught or suggested by Sloan.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the above action, the claim limitation recites “automatically preparing a new placement taking into account the position of the parts to be maintained and calculating new positions for part of the other parts - without taking into account their positions in the initial placement, wherein the new positions are different from initial placement positions.” Per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term calculate has been defined as to design or adapt for a purpose. Sloan teaches permitting the user to change the reel map (on the fly), upon a triggering event. The triggering event in this case, is that there is additional waste above the required threshold. Upon this trigger, the user can run a second order to utilize the waste for additional processing. Utilization of a second order does not require any dependence of the first order. Sloan details this process in Paras 0169-0176. It has been concluded Sloan teaches and suggests on the fly recalculations of cutting placements in response to real-time events.
Applicant further argues the amended claims 17 and 32 clarifies that the new positions for the parts to be repositioned are explicitly different from their initial placement positions.
Applicant has not presented any new arguments. See above response.
Applicant argues the amended claims further requires the system to prepare a list of parts to be maintained and then recalculate positions for remaining parts. Applicant further argues Sloan does not disclose a process where upon a triggering the system is categorized into “maintained” and “repositioned” groups.
Sloan teaches a user can input a reel map and change the reel map (on the fly). Specifically, Sloan teaches when a triggering event occurs, a second order can be input to reduce the amount of potential waste. In this instance, this is “a triggering event for which the placement of at least one part is no longer adapted to the cutting environment (due to the triggering event of there being too much waste), the at least one part (that was already been cut) is no longer adapted to the cutting environment, preparing a list of parts to be maintained.” The parts which will be maintained in Sloan are the parts that have already been cut. Sloan further teaches a user can input a second order, which is “automatically preparing a new placement taking into account the position of the parts to be maintained and calculating new positions (which is done via input of the second order) for part of the other parts-without taking into account their positions in the initial placement, wherein the new positions are different from the initial placement.” In other words, a second program is can continue cutting the “same” parts without any dependency on the first order and the placement can be in a new position (which would be the waste being utilized by the second order). As set forth above, in this particular instance, the term “calculation” per Merriam Webster Dictionary, is defined as to design or adapt for a purpose. The second order permits adaptation of the other parts to be placed in a different position than the initial placement.
After further consideration the rejection has been maintained. There are no details in the claim as to what is being calculated; therefore, the Examiner has relied on the BRI of the term calculate.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights