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 . 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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 20-21 are objected.
Claim 20, line 1 should be amended or revised to read as for example: “the method comprises one or more”
claim 21, “wherein the method the one or more internal parameters…” should be amended to read as for example “wherein
Appropriate action is required.
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 11-16 , 18-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
2019 Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG): Step 1:
Claims 11-16 , 25 are directed to an apparatus, and claims 18-23 are directed to a method . Accordingly, claims 11-16, 18-23, 25 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
2019 PEG: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groupings of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Representative independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea.
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
Claim 11. An apparatus for generating an estimation of a drying shrinkage of a veneer sheet, the apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code;
the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
receive data from a density measurement device the data received from the density measurement device representing a density of the veneer sheet; and
receive data from at least one other entity, the data received from the at least one other entity representing at least one characteristic of the veneer sheet,
generate an estimation of a drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet based on the received data.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute:
a) receiving data which are certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or b) generating an estimation that are mental processes or can be done with the aid of pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C.
Accordingly, the claim is directed toward at least one abstract idea.
Claim 18 is not eligible, because of the same reason.
Claim 18. A method for generating an estimation of a drying shrinkage of a veneer sheet, the method, performed by an apparatus, comprises:
receiving data from a density measurement device the data received from the density measurement device representing a density of the veneer sheet; and
receiving data from at least one other entity, the data received from the at least one other entity representing at least one characteristic of the veneer sheet,
generating an estimation of a drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet based on the received data.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 12-16 , and 19-22, and 25 include limitations that merely further define the abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) or fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
2019 PEG: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim11. An apparatus for generating an estimation of a drying shrinkage of a veneer sheet, the apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code;
the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
receive data from a density measurement device the data received from the density measurement device representing a density of the veneer sheet; and
receive data from at least one other entity, the data received from the at least one other entity representing at least one characteristic of the veneer sheet,
generate an estimation of a drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet based on the received data.
The examiner finds that each of the above identified additional limitations merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
claim 18: additional “apparatus” in claim 18 merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) because they merely invoke machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process and the acquisition control processor is being used in its ordinary capacity of acquiring information.
dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore are not eligible.
2019 PEG: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claims 11 and 18 and dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 1-8, 11-15, 18-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Floyd, US 20070137323 A1 in view of Kairi, US 20030042180 A1.
Claim 1
Floyd teaches:
A system for generating an estimation of a drying shrinkage (E.G., ¶0037¶0040¶0056-¶0058and predicting models given with different Examples (e.g., 1 and 2) which their comparison with measurements given in e.g., fig.4 ) of a wood sheet (¶0037: any type of wood product including board), the system comprising:
a density measurement device (e.g., ¶0038¶0049: group of multiple sensors including density measurement device) for generating data representing a density of the wood sheet (e.g., Example 1 in ¶0049),
at least one other entity (e.g., moisture ¶0049¶0061) suitable to generate data representing at least one characteristic (e.g., ¶0049) of the wood sheet (10),
an apparatus (not shown but to develop and training the classification algorithm using data signals from sensors as cited in ¶0040¶0050 ¶0062there should be done in a processor of a computing device) for receiving data from the density measurement device (e.g., ¶0049¶0050¶0061) and data from the at least one other entity (moisture e.g., ¶0049), the apparatus arranged to generate an estimation of a drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet based on the received data (e.g.,¶0057-¶006¶0131).
Floyd does not teach veneer sheet.
In the similar field of endeavor, Kairi teaches: a density measurement device (figs.1-2: TEM 7) for generating data representing a density of (e.g., ¶0015) the veneer sheet (10),
at least one other entity (15) suitable to generate data representing at least one characteristic (e.g., ¶0017)1 of the veneer sheet (10),
an apparatus (11,12) for receiving data from the density measurement device (7) and data from the at least one other entity (15), the apparatus 11 arranged to generate an estimation of a drying of the veneer sheet based on the received data (e.g.,¶0015-¶0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for generating an estimation of a drying shrinkage of Floyd with the apparatus of Kairi arranged to generate an estimation of a drying of the veneer sheet based on the received data to yield the predictable result of a combined apparatus that generate an estimation of a drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet based on the received data. One of ordinary skill in the art knows veneers as a wood sample with practical applications would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use in an automated sorting system for wood veneers (e.g., Kairi ¶0005).
Claim 2
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the system of claim 1, Floyd wherein the other entity is at least one of the following: an image capturing device (e.g.,¶0067).
Claim 3
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the system of claim 1, Floyd teaches wherein the apparatus of the system is arranged to apply a classification function (class-specific equation e.g., ¶0131) to the data representing at least one characteristic of the sheet (using data from multi sensor e.g., ¶0131) for classifying the sheet to a class among a plurality of classes in accordance with the data representing at least one characteristic of the veneer sheet (e.g., ¶0131). Also Kairi teaches wherein the apparatus of the system is arranged to apply a classification function (e.g., fig.7A,7B: dry substance density (ρC) ) to the data representing (densities) at least one characteristic of the veneer sheet 10 for classifying the veneer sheet to a class (e.g., category A) among a plurality of classes (A,B,E,…) in accordance with the data (density) representing at least one characteristic(e.g., strength ¶0016) of the veneer sheet 10.
Claim 4
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the system of claim 3, Floyd teaches wherein the apparatus of the system is arranged to access to one or more internal parameters defined individually for each of the classes (e.g., ¶0131), Kairi teaches wherein the apparatus 11,12 of the system is arranged to access to one or more internal parameters (optical reflectivity or darkness value measured from the wood veneer surface 3 or 4 e.g., ¶0020) defined individually for each of the classes (A,B,E,…), wherein the one or more internal parameters (darkness) are combined with the data(density (ρ) received from the density measurement device 7 for generating the estimation (e.g., ¶0017¶0019) of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet 10 for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claim 5
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the apparatus of the system is arranged to combine the one or more internal parameters and the data received from the density measurement device by using internal parameters of a class as constants of formulas and using respective values representing density characteristics of the veneer sheet as parameters of respective formulas (these steps are inherent part of training algorithms to produce predicting and estimation models for shrinkage as cited by Floyd in e.g., ¶0040 and Q0060-¶0062.), also Kairi teaches wherein the apparatus 11,12 of the system is arranged to combine the one or more internal parameters (optical reflectivity or darkness value measured from the wood veneer surface 3 or 4 e.g., ¶0020) and the data received from the density measurement device ( (ρC) ρM) by using internal parameters of a class(A,B,E,…) as constants of formulas(figs.7A,7B) and using respective values representing density characteristics ( (ρC) ρM) of the veneer sheet 10 as parameters of respective formulas (figs.7A,7B) for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claim 6
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the system of claim 1, Kairi teaches wherein a measurement with one of: the density measurement device 7; the image capturing device 15 for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claim 7
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the system of claim 6, Kairi teaches wherein the measurement is arranged to be performed to a veneer ribbon by defining, by the apparatus 11,12 of the system, at least one veneer sheet generatable from the veneer ribbon and by generating a plurality of measurement values (for (ρC) ρM ) for the at least one veneer sheet10 with at least one of: the density measurement device (TEM 7); the image capturing device 15 for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claim 8
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the system of claim 1, Floyd further teaches wherein the apparatus of the system is configured to select an estimation model among a plurality of estimation models for estimating the drying shrinkage in accordance with a value representing of the moisture of the veneer sheet (e.g., (e.g., ¶0062 a model for each group and e.g., ¶00130-¶0131).
Claim 11
Floyd teaches:
An apparatus (not shown but to develop and training the classification algorithm using data signals from sensors as cited in e.g., ¶0040¶0050 ¶0062there should be done in a processor of a computing device) for generating an estimation of a drying shrinkage (¶0037¶0040¶0056-¶0058and predicting models given with different Examples (e.g., 1 and 2) which their comparison with measurements given in e.g., fig.4 ) of a wood sheet (¶0037: any type of wood product including board), the apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (e.g., ¶0040 not shown but process pre-processing data signals from multiple sensors to train data and produce algorithms and models e.g., ¶0050); and
at least one memory including computer program code (required for training data and algorithms models as cited e.g., ¶0040¶0042¶0050¶0051);
the at least one memory and the computer program code (related to data training and algorithms modeling’s) configured to, with the at least one processor (¶0040¶0042¶0050¶0051), cause the apparatus to:
receive data from a density measurement device (e.g., ¶0040) the data received from the density measurement device representing a density of the wood sheet (e.., Example 1 in ¶0049-¶0050); and
receive data from at least one other entity (e.g., moisture meter ¶0050¶0061 or near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy of Example 2), the data received from the at least one other entity representing at least one characteristic of the sheet (multiple sensor e.g., ¶0049),
generate an estimation of a drying shrinkage of the sheet based on the received data (e.g., Examples 1 and 2 with citations above).
Floyd does not teach veneer sheet.
In the similar field of endeavor, Kairi teaches: a density measurement device (figs.1-2: TEM 7) for generating data representing a density of (e.g., ¶0015)the veneer sheet (10),
at least one other entity (15) suitable to generate data representing at least one characteristic (e.g., ¶0017)2 of the veneer sheet (10),
an apparatus (11,12) for receiving data from the density measurement device (7) and data from the at least one other entity (15), the apparatus 11 arranged to generate an estimation of a drying of the veneer sheet based on the received data (e.g.,¶0015-¶0017).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for generating an estimation of a drying shrinkage of Floyd with the apparatus of Kairi arranged to generate an estimation of a drying of the veneer sheet based on the received data to yield the predictable result of a combined apparatus that generate an estimation of a drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet based on the received data. One of ordinary skill in the art knows veneers as a wood sample with practical applications would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use in an automated sorting system for wood veneers (e.g., Kairi ¶0005).
Claim 12
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the apparatus of claim 11, Floyd teaches wherein the apparatus is caused to apply a classification function (class-specific equation e.g., ¶0131) to the data representing at least one characteristic of the sheet (using data from multi sensor e.g., ¶0131) for classifying the sheet to a class among a plurality of classes in accordance with the data representing at least one characteristic of the veneer sheet (e.g., ¶0131). Also Kairi teaches wherein the apparatus of the system is arranged to apply a classification function (e.g., fig.7A,7B: dry substance density (ρC) ) to the data representing (densities) at least one characteristic of the veneer sheet 10 for classifying the veneer sheet to a class (e.g., category A) among a plurality of classes (A,B,E,…) in accordance with the data (density) representing at least one characteristic(e.g., strength ¶0016) of the veneer sheet 10
Claim 13
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the apparatus of claim 12, Floyd teaches wherein the apparatus of the system is arranged to access to one or more internal parameters defined individually for each of the classes (e.g., ¶0131), Kairi teaches wherein the apparatus 11,12 of the system is arranged to access to one or more internal parameters (optical reflectivity or darkness value measured from the wood veneer surface 3 or 4 e.g., ¶0020) defined individually for each of the classes (A,B,E,…), wherein the one or more internal parameters (darkness) are combined with the data(density (ρ) received from the density measurement device 7 for generating the estimation (e.g., ¶0017¶0019) of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet 10 for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claim 14
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the apparatus of the system is arranged to combine the one or more internal parameters and the data received from the density measurement device by using internal parameters of a class as constants of formulas and using respective values representing density characteristics of the veneer sheet as parameters of respective formulas (these steps are inherent part of training algorithms to produce predicting and estimation models for shrinkage as cited by Floyd in e.g., ¶0040 and Q0060-¶0062.), also Kairi teaches wherein the apparatus 11,12 of the system is caused to combine the one or more internal parameters (optical reflectivity or darkness value measured from the wood veneer surface 3 or 4 e.g., ¶0020) and the data received from the density measurement device ( (ρC) ρM) by using internal parameters of a class(A,B,E,…) as constants of formulas(figs.7A,7B) and using respective values representing density characteristics ( (ρC) ρM) of the veneer sheet 10 as parameters of respective formulas (figs.7A,7B) for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claim 15
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the apparatus of claim 11, Floyd further teaches wherein the apparatus is caused to select an estimation model among a plurality of estimation models for estimating the drying shrinkage in accordance with a value representing of the moisture of the veneer sheet (e.g., (e.g., ¶0062 a model for each group and e.g., ¶00130-¶0131).
Claim 18
Floyd teaches:
A method for generating an estimation of a drying shrinkage of a wood sheet (e.g., ¶0060), the method, performed by an apparatus (not shown but to develop and training the classification algorithm using data signals from sensors as cited in e.g., ¶0040¶0050 ¶0062there should be done in a processor of a computing device), comprises:
receiving data (e.g., sensor signals ¶0061) from a density measurement device (e.g., ¶0049-¶0050) the data received from the density measurement device representing a density of the wood sheet (e.g., ¶0049-¶0050); and
receiving data from at least one other entity (e.g., moisture meter of ¶0061 or near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy of ¶0067), the data received from the at least one other entity representing at least one characteristic of the wood sheet (e.g., ¶0067),
generating an estimation of a drying shrinkage of the wood sheet based on the received data (e.g., Example 1, ¶0061Example 2 fig.4).
Floyd does not teach veneer sheet.
In the similar field of endeavor, Kairi teaches: a density measurement device (figs.1-2: TEM 7) for generating data representing a density of (e.g., ¶0015)the veneer sheet (10),
at least one other entity (15) suitable to generate data representing at least one characteristic (e.g., ¶0017)3 of the veneer sheet (10),
an apparatus (11,12) for receiving data from the density measurement device (7) and data from the at least one other entity (15), the apparatus 11 arranged to generate an estimation of a drying of the veneer sheet based on the received data (e.g.,¶0015-¶0017). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for generating an estimation of a drying shrinkage of Floyd with the apparatus of Kairi arranged to generate an estimation of a drying of the veneer sheet based on the received data to yield the predictable result of a combined apparatus that generate an estimation of a drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet based on the received data. One of ordinary skill in the art knows veneers as a wood sample with practical applications would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use in an automated sorting system for wood veneers (e.g., Kairi ¶0005).
Claim 19
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the method of claim 18, Floyd teaches wherein the method comprises applying a classification function (class-specific equation e.g., ¶0131) to the data representing at least one characteristic of the sheet (using data from multi sensor e.g., ¶0131) for classifying the sheet to a class among a plurality of classes in accordance with the data representing at least one characteristic of the veneer sheet (e.g., ¶0131), Also Kairi teaches wherein the apparatus of the system is arranged to apply a classification function (e.g., fig.7A,7B: dry substance density (ρC) ) to the data representing (densities) at least one characteristic of the veneer sheet 10 for classifying the veneer sheet to a class (e.g., category A) among a plurality of classes (A,B,E,…) in accordance with the data (density) representing at least one characteristic(e.g., strength ¶0016) of the veneer sheet 10
Claim 20
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the method of claim 19, Floyd teaches wherein the method one or more internal parameters defined individually for each of the classes (e.g., ¶0131), Kairi teaches wherein the apparatus 11,12 of the system is arranged to access to one or more internal parameters (optical reflectivity or darkness value measured from the wood veneer surface 3 or 4 e.g., ¶0020) defined individually for each of the classes (A,B,E,…), wherein the one or more internal parameters (darkness) are combined with the data(density (ρ) received from the density measurement device 7 for generating the estimation (e.g., ¶0017¶0019) of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet 10 for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claim 21
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the method of claim 20, wherein the method one or more internal parameters and the data received from the density measurement device by using internal parameters of a class as constants of formulas and using respective values representing density characteristics of the veneer sheet as parameters of respective formulas (these steps are inherent part of training algorithms to produce predicting and estimation models for shrinkage as cited by Floyd in e.g., ¶0040 and Q0060-¶0062.), also Kairi teaches wherein the method the one or more internal parameters (optical reflectivity or darkness value measured from the wood veneer surface 3 or 4 e.g., ¶0020) and the data received from the density measurement device ( (ρC) ρM) by using internal parameters of a class(A,B,E,…) as constants of formulas(figs.7A,7B) and using respective values representing density characteristics ( (ρC) ρM) of the veneer sheet 10 as parameters of respective formulas (figs.7A,7B) for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claim 22
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the method of claim 18, wherein an estimation model for estimating the drying shrinkage is selected among a plurality of estimation models in accordance with a value representing of the moisture of the veneer sheet (e.g., (e.g., ¶0062 a model for each group and e.g., ¶00130-¶0131).
Claim 25
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the method according to claim 18. Floyd teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium on which is stored a computer program product for generating an estimation of a drying shrinkage of a veneer sheet (not shown but to develop and training the classification algorithm using data signals from sensors as cited in e.g., ¶0040¶0050 ¶0062there should be done in a processor of a computing device) , which computer program product, when executed by at least one processor, cause an apparatus to perform the method according to claim 18.
Claims 9, 16, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Floyd, US 20070137323 A1in view of Kairi, US 20030042180 A1. And in view of Watanabe , Watanabe, Ken, et al. "Predicting oven-dry density of Sugi (Cryptomeria japonica) using near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy and its effect on performance of wood moisture meter." Journal of wood science 58.5 (2012): 383-390.
Claim 9
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the system of claim 1, Floyd teaches wherein the apparatus (processors in computing devices and multiple sensors as pre-processed signals e.g., ¶0061) of the system is configured to perform the generation of the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet (e.g., fig.4) but does not specifically teach by scaling a value representing a preliminary drying shrinkage with a value derivable from at least one measurement value representing moisture.
In the similar field of endeavor, Watanabe develops a model using NIR spectral data 4from samples with known density to predict density (Abstract), and model performance was evaluated by comparing model vs measurements (e.g., section results,fig.3 and associated discussion on page 387 col.1 2nd para) by scaling a value representing a preliminary density with a value derivable (calibrate moisture measurements by the devices e.g., page 387 col.1 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Watanabe‘s scaling for Taylor‘s models the modified Taylor’s apparatus of the system is configured to perform the generation of the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet by scaling a value representing a preliminary drying shrinkage with a value derivable from at least one measurement value representing moisture as taught by Watanabe. One of ordinary skill in the art knows how a perdition model (for example from NIR) can be used to scale or adjust another measurement system and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to calibrate a measurement device. Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143 (C), courts have ruled that Use of known technique (scaling a value representing a preliminary parameter as taught by Watanabe) to improve similar devices (Floyd’s predicted estimation of shrinkage) in the same way is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 16
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the apparatus of claim 11, Floyd teaches wherein the apparatus (processors in computing devices and multiple sensors as pre-processed signals e.g., ¶0061) is caused to perform the generation of the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet (e.g., fig.4 besides the other citations above) but does not specifically teach by scaling a value representing a preliminary drying shrinkage with a value derivable from at least one measurement value representing moisture.
Watanabe develops a model using NIR spectral data 5from samples with known density to predict density (Abstract), and model performance was evaluated by comparing model vs measurements (e.g., section results,fig.3 and associated discussion on page 387 col.1 2nd para) by scaling a value representing a preliminary density with a value derivable (calibrate moisture measurements by the devices e.g., page 387 col.1 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Watanabe‘s scaling for Taylor‘s models the modified Taylor’s apparatus of the system is configured to perform the generation of the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet by scaling a value representing a preliminary drying shrinkage with a value derivable from at least one measurement value representing moisture as taught by Watanabe. One of ordinary skill in the art knows how a perdition model (for example from NIR) can be used to scale or adjust another measurement system and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to calibrate a measurement device. Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143 (C), courts have ruled that Use of known technique (scaling a value representing a preliminary parameter as taught by Watanabe) to improve similar devices (Floyd’s predicted estimation of shrinkage) in the same way is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 23
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the method of claim 18, Floyd teaches the generation of the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet (e.g., fig.4 besides the citations above) is performed by scaling a value representing a preliminary drying shrinkage with a value derivable from at least one measurement value representing moisture.
Watanabe develops a model using NIR spectral data 6from samples with known density to predict density (Abstract), and model performance was evaluated by comparing model vs measurements (e.g., section results,fig.3 and associated discussion on page 387 col.1 2nd para) by scaling a value representing a preliminary density with a value derivable (calibrate moisture measurements by the devices e.g., page 387 col.1 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Watanabe‘s scaling for Taylor‘s models the modified Taylor’s apparatus of the system is configured to perform the generation of the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet by scaling a value representing a preliminary drying shrinkage with a value derivable from at least one measurement value representing moisture as taught by Watanabe. One of ordinary skill in the art knows how a perdition model (for example from NIR) can be used to scale or adjust another measurement system and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to calibrate a measurement device. Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143 (C), courts have ruled that Use of known technique (scaling a value representing a preliminary parameter as taught by Watanabe) to improve similar devices (Floyd’s predicted estimation of shrinkage) in the same way is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 10,17,24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Floyd, US 20070137323 A1 in view of Kairi, US 20030042180 A1 and in view of Bossen, US 3244206 A.
Claim 10
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the system of claim 1, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein the apparatus of the system is arranged to generate a control signal to a cutting device in accordance with the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet to cause a cutting of the veneer sheet from the veneer ribbon.
In the similar field of endeavor, Bossen (in figs. 1-3) teaches wherein the apparatus of the system is arranged to generate a control signal (from 24,26/e.g., col.2 lines 1-11 and e.g., 44 col.2 lines 30-32) to a cutting device (18,14) in accordance with the estimation of the moisture content (e.g., col.1 lines 23-30) of the veneer sheet (10 from 12) to cause a cutting of the veneer sheet from the veneer ribbon 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bossen‘s control signal to a cutting device for the modified Floyd‘s apparatus wherein the modified Taylor’s apparatus of the system is arranged to generate a control signal to a cutting device in accordance with the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet to cause a cutting of the veneer sheet from the veneer ribbon . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to compensating the total weight per unit area measurements with the moisture percentage measurements of a moisture detector and to produce a sheet of substantially uniform thickness (e.g., col.1 lines 23-30 of Bossen).
Claim 17
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the apparatus of claim 11, but the combination does not teach the apparatus is further caused to generate a control signal to a cutting device in accordance with the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet to cause a cutting of the veneer sheet from the veneer ribbon.
Bossen (in figs. 1-3) teaches wherein the apparatus is further caused to generate a control signal (from 24,26/e.g., col.2 lines 1-11 and e.g., 44 col.2 lines 30-32) to a cutting device (18,14) in accordance with the estimation of the moisture content (e.g., col.1 lines 23-30) of the veneer sheet (10 from 12) to cause a cutting of the veneer sheet from the veneer ribbon 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bossen‘s control signal to a cutting device for the modified Floyd‘s apparatus wherein the modified Taylor’s apparatus of the system is arranged to generate a control signal to a cutting device in accordance with the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet to cause a cutting of the veneer sheet from the veneer ribbon . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to compensating the total weight per unit area measurements with the moisture percentage measurements of a moisture detector and to produce a sheet of substantially uniform thickness (e.g., col.1 lines 23-30 of Bossen).
Claim 24
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the method of claim 18, but the combination does not teach the method further comprising: generating a control signal to a cutting device in accordance with the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet to cause a cutting of the veneer sheet from the veneer ribbon.
Bossen (in figs. 1-3) teaches wherein the method further comprising generating a control signal (from 24,26/e.g., col.2 lines 1-11 and e.g., 44 col.2 lines 30-32) to a cutting device (18,14) in accordance with the estimation of the moisture content (e.g., col.1 lines 23-30) of the veneer sheet (10 from 12) to cause a cutting of the veneer sheet from the veneer ribbon 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bossen‘s control signal to a cutting device for the modified Floyd‘s apparatus wherein the modified Taylor’s apparatus of the system is arranged to generate a control signal to a cutting device in accordance with the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet to cause a cutting of the veneer sheet from the veneer ribbon . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to compensating the total weight per unit area measurements with the moisture percentage measurements of a moisture detector and to produce a sheet of substantially uniform thickness (e.g., col.1 lines 23-30 of Bossen).
Claims 10,17,24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as also being unpatentable over Floyd, US 20070137323 A1 in view of Kairi, US 20030042180 A1 and in view of GLUKHIKH7, RU2488482C1.
Claim 10
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the system of claim 1, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein the apparatus of the system is arranged to generate a control signal to a cutting device in accordance with the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet to cause a cutting of the veneer sheet from the veneer ribbon.
In the similar field of endeavor, GLUKHIKH teaches which teaches selecting cutting pattern based on control signal of initial and final moisture of samples from logs, to allow minimum losses in quality caused by buckling, cracking and poly thickness (at least abstract); GLUKHIKH in e.g., figs.6b-10 teaches wherein the apparatus of the system is arranged to generate a control signal to a cutting device (e.g.,¶0093 also Example 1 starting ¶0115) in accordance with the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the sheet (e.g., Examples starting ¶0126) to cause a cutting of the sheet from the ribbon (e.g., ¶0039¶0093¶0108). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use GLUKHIKH‘s cutting device for the modified Floyd‘s system wherein the modified Floyd’s apparatus of the system is arranged to generate a control signal to a cutting device in accordance with the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet to cause a cutting of the veneer sheet from the veneer ribbon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to take into account possible losses of sawn timber (boards) during their subsequent drying due to change in warping, cracking and thickness, which reduces the quality of the sawn timber (GLUKHIKH:¶0005¶0006).
Claim 17
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the apparatus of claim 11, but the combination does not teach the apparatus is further caused to generate a control signal to a cutting device in accordance with the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet to cause a cutting of the veneer sheet from the veneer ribbon.
GLUKHIKH in e.g., figs.6b-10 teaches wherein the apparatus of the system is arranged to generate a control signal to a cutting device (e.g.,¶0093 also Example 1 starting ¶0115) in accordance with the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the sheet (e.g., Examples starting ¶0126) to cause a cutting of the sheet from the ribbon (e.g., ¶0039¶0093¶0108). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use GLUKHIKH‘s cutting device for the modified Floyd‘s system wherein the modified Floyd’s apparatus of the system is arranged to generate a control signal to a cutting device in accordance with the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet to cause a cutting of the veneer sheet from the veneer ribbon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to take into account possible losses of sawn timber (boards) during their subsequent drying due to change in warping, cracking and thickness, which reduces the quality of the sawn timber (GLUKHIKH:¶0005¶0006).
Claim 24
Floyd in view of Kairi teaches the method of claim 18, but the combination does not teach the method further comprising: generating a control signal to a cutting device in accordance with the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet to cause a cutting of the veneer sheet from the veneer ribbon. GLUKHIKH in e.g., figs.6b-10 teaches wherein the apparatus of the system is arranged to generate a control signal to a cutting device (e.g.,¶0093 also Example 1 starting ¶0115) in accordance with the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the sheet (e.g., Examples starting ¶0126) to cause a cutting of the sheet from the ribbon (e.g., ¶0039¶0093¶0108). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use GLUKHIKH‘s cutting device for the modified Floyd‘s system wherein the modified Floyd’s apparatus of the system is arranged to generate a control signal to a cutting device in accordance with the estimation of the drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet to cause a cutting of the veneer sheet from the veneer ribbon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to take into account possible losses of sawn timber (boards) during their subsequent drying due to change in warping, cracking and thickness, which reduces the quality of the sawn timber (GLUKHIKH:¶0005¶0006).
Conclusion
The prior art of recorded is related but not used in the rejections:
Taylor, Taylor, Adam M., et al. "Wood shrinkage prediction using NIR spectroscopy." Wood and Fiber Science (2008): 301-307.
Taylor teaches:
a density measurement device for generating data representing a density of the veneer sheet (results shown in table 1 and e.g., page 302, col.2)8,
at least one other entity suitable to generate data representing at least one characteristic of the veneer sheet (e.g., page 302, col.2:Two separate NIR spectra were collected for each wood sample and page 303 col.1: The spectral data set (57 samples×2 scans per block) was randomly divided into two subsets for model building and testing),
an apparatus for receiving data from the density measurement device and data from the at least one other entity (described in e.g., page 303 col.1for developing models using data of three variables: shrinkage, basic relative density, and extractives or water content given in table 1 ), the apparatus arranged to generate an estimation of a drying shrinkage of the veneer sheet based on the received data (e.g., page 303 col.1-2 ). wherein the apparatus of the system is configured to select an estimation model among a plurality of estimation models (e.g., table 2 different models for different groups, also page 303 col.2) for estimating the drying shrinkage (e.g., tables 1,2) in accordance with a value representing of the moisture of the veneer sheet (e.g., table 2 : shrinkage for two different groups and models, see also conclusion for mahogany and other sample with higher contents ).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 15, which is connected for example to the computer 11, to which the individual measured values or darkness values received from the camera 19 are transferred and stored for performing required calculations and for compiling control quantities for a sorting process.
2 15, which is connected for example to the computer 11, to which the individual measured values or darkness values received from the camera 19 are transferred and stored for performing required calculations and for compiling control quantities for a sorting process.
3 15, which is connected for example to the computer 11, to which the individual measured values or darkness values received from the camera 19 are transferred and stored for performing required calculations and for compiling control quantities for a sorting process.
4 Watanabe apples a model and then uses its output to scale or adjust another measurement system to improve the results and accuracy.
5 Watanabe apples a model and then uses its output to scale or adjust another measurement system to improve the results and accuracy.
6 Watanabe apples a model and then uses its output to scale or adjust another measurement system to improve the results and accuracy.
7 Prior art of record
8 The volume of each swollen block was determined by water displacement. The blocks were then oven-dried, weighed, and the volume was re-measured by water displacement. The dry-volume readings were recorded immediately after immersion to avoid interference in the measurements due to water uptake by the wood. Specific gravity was calculated as the dry mass over the swollen volume. Total volumetric shrinkage was calculated as the change in volume after drying over the original (swollen) volume.