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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 15-21) in the reply filed on 02/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/28/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03/06/2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the NPL document is listed on the IDS using a language other than English. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “each operation Opi, i being an integer between 1 and 9, is performed before operation Opi+1” should state that “i” is an integer between 1 and 8 as there is no Opi10 to satisfy the Opi+1 when i is 9. Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-21 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 15 recites a number of instances of “n” while the preamble states “n being an integer strictly greater than 1.” It is unclear if n being strictly greater than 1 applies to all instances of “n” or only to the “trimmed sub-blanks.” For instance, the claim also states “the cutting table including n laths arranged….” Should “n” is this limitation also be construed to be strictly greater than 1 or can “n” be greater than or equal to 1?
Claim 15 recites “Op1/,” “Op2/,” “Op3/,”, etc. which creates ambiguity as to what such terms represent. For instance, it is unclear if such terms are a short hand representation for “an operation for,” or of a similar phrase, or if such terms are intended to have some specific meaning. As an illustrative example, the limitation of “Op1/ positioning the mother blank on a cutting table…” could be understood to have the same meaning as a limitation of “positioning the mother blank on the cutting table…” which would make “Op1/” superfluous. As each term in a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is unclear if the aforementioned terms should be considered superfluous or if some meaning should be assigned.
Claim 15 recites “…laths arranged to be movable relative to one another in a transverse direction…” followed by “…separating the n laths of the cutting table from one another in a transverse direction…” which creates confusion as to whether the direction in which the laths are arranged and in which the laths are separated is the same direction. In other words, it is unclear if the laths are arranged to be moveable relative to one another in a transverse direction and the laths are separated from one another in the same transverse direction or if the laths are arranged to be moveable relative to one another in a first transverse direction and the laths are separated from one another in a second transverse direction wherein the second transverse direction is different from the first transverse direction.
Claim 17 recites “m being an integer between 1 and n-1” which creates ambiguity as claim 15 recites several “n” parameters (e.g., n trimmed sub-blanks, n laths, n untrimmed sub-blanks) and it is unclear which “n” is being referenced. Additionally, it is unclear what “m last untrimmed sub-blanks” is referencing. Specifically, it is unclear how “last untrimmed sub-blanks” pertains to the sub-blanks formed from cutting the mother bank.
Claims 16 and 18-21 depend from claim 15 and, accordingly, inherent the above deficiencies.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 15-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caristan (US2010/0122971) in view of Burton (US4269130).
Regarding claim 15, Caristan teaches a laser cutting process to produce n trimmed sub-blanks, n being an integer strictly greater than 1, from a mother blank made of metallic material (Abstract; process for laser cutting a metal plate), the process comprising the following steps:
Op1/ positioning the mother blank (metal sheet 10) on a cutting table (7/8), the cutting table including n laths (rails 1) arranged to be moveable relative to one another in a transverse direction (para. 0022);
Op2/ clamping (via magnetic holding modules 2-para. 0018) at least part of the mother blank (10) to the cutting table (para. 0018);
Op3/ cutting, using a laser source, n untrimmed sub-blanks from the mother blank in a longitudinal cutting direction (Abstract and para. 0016);
Op4/ separating the n laths of the cutting table from one another in a transverse direction (para. 0022);
Op6/ clamping the n untrimmed sub-blanks to the n laths (Abstract; para. 0016, claim 1. The metal sheet is clamped, then cut into peripheral blanks, which are then cut into smaller pieces);
Op7/ laser trimming the n untrimmed sub-blanks to form n trimmed sub-blanks (as detailed above, the peripheral blanks, taken as corresponding to the untrimmed sub-blanks, is cut again to form smaller final pieces;
Op8/ releasing the clamping (in order to remove the final pieces, the clamps must be released); and
Op9/ discharging the n trimmed sub-blanks from the cutting table;
for a given mother blank, a given untrimmed sub-blank or a given trimmed sub-blank, each operation Opi, i being an integer between 1 and 9, is performed before operation Opi+1 (for a given blank (i.e., sheet 10), the above steps are performed sequentially, in that the metal sheet is placed on the cutting table, the metal sheet is clamped via holding devices mounted on moveable laths, the metal sheet is cut into peripheral blanks, the peripheral blank is cut into final pieces, the clamping is released and the final pieces are removed).
Caristan teaches substantially the claimed invention except for Op5/ releasing the clamping.
Burton relates to a system and method for cutting sheets of material (1:5-11; figs. 7-14, cutting station 31, sheet 21) and teaches clamping the sheet material prior to cutting, releasing the clamps, and re-clamping the cut sheet prior to secondary processing (2:1-29; “A gripper moves across the cutting station to the entrance of the cutting station to grip the previously cut leading edge of the sheet material, and then moves back across to the far side of the cutting station, pulling the sheet material over a pair of parallel conveyor tapes and into the cutting station. A slack bar moves down into the segment of sheet material between the parallel conveyor tapes at the cutting station, causing slack to be formed in the segment, and a clamp at the entrance of the cutting station grips and holds the segment in position while conveyor clamps move down toward the conveyor tapes to clamp the segment against the conveyor tapes. A disc cutter is then drawn across the sheet material at the entrance of the cutting station, to cut the segment away from the supply of sheet material. The gripper then releases the cut segment and the conveyor tapes move the cut segment in a direction parallel to its cut edges at a high velocity on into a hemming station and over a second pair of parallel conveyor tapes. A second pair of clamp members move down to clamp the segment of sheet material against the second pair of parallel conveyor tapes, and the second pair of parallel conveyor tapes move the cut segment of sheet material at a slower rate of movement on into the sewing machines of the hemming station in timed relationship with the sewing machines, where the cut edges of the segment are folded over and sewn into a hem.”) (claim 11; “ In a method of cutting and hemming sheet material in which the sheet material extends along its length toward a cutting station and the sheet material having been clamped adjacent its leading edge portion at the entrance to the cutting station with the leading edge portion protruding from the clamp and having been supported on a movable support member, comprising the steps of moving a gripping member from the other side of the cutting station toward the support member until the lower portion of the gripping member moves into abutment with the movable support member to urge the movable support member to a retracted position beneath the sheet material and to place the lower portion of the gripping member beneath the leading edge portion of the sheet material, moving the upper portion and lower portion of the gripping member together about the leading edge portion of the sheet material, releasing the clamp about the sheet material, pulling the leading edge portion of the sheet material with the gripping member from the entrance to the cutting station to the other side of the cutting station, and when the leading edge of the sheet material has reached the other side of the cutting station, clamping the sheet material again at the entrance to the cutting station, clamping the segment of the sheet material against parallel conveyor tapes in the cutting station, cutting the sheet material at the entrance to the cutting station, and supporting the leading edge portion at the entrance on the movable support member.”) (See also, 10:41-11:53 for clamping, cutting, and reclamping sequence.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Caristan with Burton, by adding to the sequence of operations of Caristan, specifically between the first cutting operation and the second cutting operation, the releasing of the clamps after cutting and re-clamping prior to secondary processing taught by Burton in order to ensure correct sheet placement during both cutting steps.
Regarding claim 16, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 15, including wherein the clamping operations Op2 and Op6 are performed using magnetic clamping (See para. 0018 of Caristan).
Regarding claim 17, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 15, including wherein the clamping operation Op2 is performed only on a part of the surface of the mother blank corresponding to m last untrimmed sub-blanks to be cut in the cutting operation Op3, m being an integer between 1 and n−1 (see claim 15 above. The clamping operation prior to cutting sheet 10 is performed only on a part of the surface of sheet 10 corresponding to a number of untrimmed sub-blanks to be cut. Here, the clamping is performed in a region that corresponds to a number of sub-blanks to be cut).
Regarding claim 18, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 15, including wherein the laser trimming operation Op7 is performed on each untrimmed sub-blank by laser cutting simultaneously both untrimmed cut edges of each untrimmed sub-blank (para. 0016; “With regard to the present invention, in order to yield equivalent throughput as mechanical cutting means, several laser cutting machines can be used in series or parallel configurations.”) (para. 0031; “Preferably, several second cutting machines 23 are used and work in parallel.”) (para. 0037; “Of course, several peripheral blanks 4 can also be cut in the same time in the workpiece by means of several laser cutting devices 24 working in parallel.”).
Regarding claim 19, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 15, except for the length of a trimmed sub-blank as measured in the longitudinal direction is at least twelve times the width of a trimmed sub-blank as measured in the transverse direction.
However, the relative size and shape of the trimmed sub-blank does not impart a patentable distinction over the prior art as such size and shape involves merely changing the size and shape of the final cut product. Here, changing such size and shape would amount to a mere modification that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious.
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Caristan with Burton, by modifying the length and width of the trimmed sub-blanks of Caristan to have a length as measured in the longitudinal direction of at least twelve times the width as measured in the transverse direction, for in doing so would amount to an obvious change in size and shape. Here, those of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the process of cutting blanks from a mother blank of Cartisan can be used to produce final blanks of various sizes and shapes.
Regarding claim 21, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 15, including wherein a longitudinal direction of the n trimmed sub-blanks is similar to a rolling direction of a coil from which the mother blank has been cut (Cartisan; a longitudinal direction of the final cut blanks is similar to the direction of the coil from which the sheet 10 is pulled. Abstract mentions that the metal sheet is cut from a metal coil).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caristan (US2010/0122971) in view of Burton (US4269130) and in further view of Steinebach (US2016/0244855) or Trojanowski (US2021/0362278, relying on earlier effective filing date).
Regarding claim 20, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 15, except for wherein the ultimate tensile strength of the mother blank is at least 980 MPa.
Steinebach relates to a method of manufacturing a steel part (para. 0003) and teaches forming such a part by heating and trimming, piercing, shearing, or otherwise cutting (para. 0036). Steinebach also teaches that the steel part can have an ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of 900-200 MPa (para. 0036; claim 18).
Trojanowski relates to methods and systems for laser cutting components (Abstract and para. 0002) and teaches steel sheets having a UTS of at least 1000 MPa (para. 0008, 0011, 0012, 0061).
Steinbach and Trojanowski, therefore, teach that it is known in the art to manufacture components from a steel blank having an UTS of at least 980 MPa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Caristan, as modified by Burton, with Steinbach or Trojanowski, by replacing the metal sheet material of Caristan, with the metal sheet having a UTS of at least 980 MPa taught by Steinbach or Trojanowski, for in doing so would amount to the mere selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07. Here, both Steinbach and Trojanowski teach that steel sheets having a UTS of at least 980 MPa is known in the art and known to be suitable materials for manufacturing components and laser cutting processes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 1:00-9:00 PM (ET).
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761