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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 9/12/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/12/2025.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office 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.
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) 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saez (US 2011/0036461) in view of Staacks (DE 3921455)(machine translation provided) and Singh (US 4439249).
With respect to Claim 1, Saez teaches a method for flame cutting a metal workpiece, in particular, a steel workpiece (and thus containing iron), wherein each workpiece is subjected to a heating flame and an oxygen cutting jet applied by a nozzle connected to a blowtorch, the blowtorch fed by a fuel gas supply line and oxygen supply line having pressure regulating means (and thus, constituting pressurized supply lines) and means for moving the blowtorch relative to each workpiece, for example, moving the blowtorch in a cutting direction. (para. 1-7, 13-30, 48-66).
Saez teaches controlling the pressure and/or flow rate of the gas so as to optimize the flow of gas to the workpiece during preheating and cutting steps and to stop the flow when appropriate, the control configured to avoid molten metal splatter by operating under a maximum pressure value and by further controlling the movement speed of the torch relative to the workpiece when operating, in particular, when the thickness of the workpiece is greater. (para. 7-26, 29-30, 43). Thus, the reference is deemed to teach determining optimum parameters in terms of the pressure and flow rate of the fuel gas and of the oxygen and in terms of the position and speed of travel oaf the blowtorch relative to the workpiece that is to be flame cut, based on parameters including the thickness and temperature of the workpiece, in order to minimize molten metal splatter.
Saez further teaches that the pressure and flow rate may be automatically controlled by computer means. (para. 61-63). Thus, Saez teaches automating, with computer means, steps of controlling the pressurized gas and oxygen and the means of moving the blowtorch based on an implementation of the predetermined optimum parameters; however, the reference does not explicitly discuss executing a program, storing in memory, and selecting a control program as recited in claim 1.
Staacks teaches a method of flame cutting, the method comprising control means for controlling the heating and cutting gas parameters (pg. 1-3) and in particular teaches:
“From this controller 43 stored in the memory stored control data, the proportional solenoid valves (not shown in detail) of the gas quantity control 30 for the fuel gas, the heating oxygen and / or the cutting oxygen pressure are set or changed.
The controller 43 is assigned a device 44 for changing the respective fuel gas 33 and 34. The device 44 may for example consist of a switch 45 which is arranged on the control panel of the controller 43 and is manually set by an operator to the cutting torch / combustible gas combination 13, 34 or 14, 33 required for the cutting task. However, the controller 43 is preferably designed as a programmable logic controller by means of which a software-based, addressable change of the fuel gas 33 or 34 assigned to a cutting torch 13 or 14 is carried out.
At the start of flame cutting, the cutting torch 13 provided for the flame cutting insert is adjusted from a predetermined parking height, on which the cutting torch 14 is arranged in the drawing, to a working height. For this purpose, the collar 16 is ver. About the drive motor of the torch assembly 10, not shown in detail, the torch 13 is then moved, for example in dependence on an intended piercing method, to the working height 46 above the workpiece 18. On the control panel of the controller 43, the switch 45 of the device 44 is set to the fuel gas acetylene and, for example, the actuator 42 for the fuel gas propane is locked against unintentional opening in terms of programming. The actuators 35 to 38 are opened by the control 43 after the adjustment of the gas quantities via the gas quantity control 30 and the acetylene-heating oxygen mixture emerging from the cutting nozzle 19 is ignited. A to about 100 millimeters thick workpiece 18 is heated with the flame 21 which has a flame temperature of 3170 ° C to ignition temperature, and then turns the cutting oxygen fed and the feed in the cutting direction on.” (pg. 3 of translation).
Thus, Staacks is deemed to teach executing a program for controlling a flame-cutting method, in particular, controlling fuel gas and oxygen supply parameters, the program stored in memory means for automatically running the program, wherein at least one such control program may be selected and the use of means for automatically sending control setpoints to the relevant systems.
Singh teaches a method for automated flame cutting a metal workpiece, in particular, a steel workpiece (and thus containing iron), wherein each workpiece is subjected to a heating flame and an oxygen cutting jet applied by a nozzle connected to a blowtorch, the blowtorch fed by a fuel gas supply and oxygen supply lines fed by pressurized supplies and thus constituting pressurized supply lines, and controlled by means for moving the blowtorch relative to each workpiece that is to be flame-cut, (col. 1, ln. 51 to col. 2, ln. 7; col. 3, ln. 14-37). Singh teaches using sensors, such as temperature sensors, to optimize the cut process and quality, including creating automated programs to carry out the flame-cutting method and in real-time, sense and respond to sensor data to improve the process parameters. (col. 2, ln. 7-51; Figs. 1-4, 7). Thus, Singh teaches executing automated programs, and the structure and algorithms for carrying out the method/programs, for controlling flame cutting processing parameters having control setpoints based on an implementation of predetermined optimum parameters.
Staacks and Singh make clear that the steps of the instant claim drawn to automation/computer control, including selecting, storing, and executing a control program for controlling a flame cutting process based on optimum parameters, and the associated structure and processes associated with such steps, are known in the art.
Accordingly in view of the teachings of Staacks and Singh, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Saez, teaching computer automated flame-cutting method based on predetermined optimum parameters, to execute at least one program controlling the pressurized fuel gas supply line and the pressurized oxygen supply line and the means for moving the blowtorch, said program providing control setpoints based on an implementation of the predetermined optimum parameters, storing in memory means of means for automatically running at least one program for controlling the pressurized fuel gas supply line and the pressurized oxygen supply line and the means for moving the blowtorch, and selecting at least one control program, and the use of means for automatically sending corresponding control setpoints to the pressurized fuel gas supply line and the pressurized oxygen supply line and to the means for moving the blowtorch, in order to more easily and consistently carry out the method of Saez, resulting in flame-cutting with minimized molten metal splatter.
With respect to Claim 2, Saez in view of Staacks and Singh teach a method comprising selecting a control program, wherein the control program may comprise automatically selecting inform relating to parameters for flame cutting, and thus, deemed to teach or render obvious selecting a control program comprising providing the automatic running means to the automatic selection means for selecting at least one item of information, wherein the information/parameters may include workpiece thickness. (see rejection of claim 1 above). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform such a step comprising by means of a conventional tool/element, a user interface, in order to efficiently and effectively allow an operator to select the program, with a predictable result of success.
With respect to Claim 6, Saez is silent as to a step of checking for the presence of a flame at the blowtorch in an automated manner. Singh teaches a method of flame-cutting with automated controls, the method comprising sensors and automated systems for checking, in an automated and real time manner, whether the torch is lit (i.e. the presence of a flame at the blowtorch). (see Fig. 4; col. 8, ln. 28 to col. 9, ln. 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Saez in view of Staacks and Singh, to perform a step of checking whether the flame of the blowtorch is lit in an automated and real-time manner, as taught by Singh, in order improve the reliability and safety of the cutting process.
Claim(s) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saez (US 2011/0036461) in view of Staacks (DE 3921455) and Singh (US 4439249), as applied to claim 1 (with respect to Claim 3), further in view of Sjoeoe (CN 103831666A)(machine translation provided)
With respect to Claim 3, Saez in view of Staacks and Singh teach a method wherein data related to flow rate and/or pressure of a pressurized fuel gas and/or oxygen is obtained, as well as means for obtaining data related to the position and speed of the blowtorch relative to the workpiece and Singh teaches wherein real-time data corresponding to process parameters is obtained and may be used to adjust process parameters (see rejection of claims 1-2 above; Singh, Figs. 1-4, 7); but the references silent as to verifying matching between control setpoints within a defined interval such that an adjustment may be made, as recited in Claim 3.
Sjoeoe teaches a method of monitoring and controlling a cutting method (pg. 2 of translation), teaching in part:
“The arrangement of the invention can provide rotary chip-removing machining of feedback control, such as control system can be arranged to process data feedback to take action or control processing. using the arrangement provides a safe, can be predicted and efficient closed loop processing technique, the arrangement also can be combined from different components, such as cutting tool and wherein there are data of machine cutting tool. based on the sensor data and, for example, machine cutting tool force, torque and power combination is calculated or determined such as contact time and/or force on the cutting tool, processing the data in the processing unit and/or process monitoring unit. then, in the processing unit and/or process monitoring unit transmits the processed data to a threshold value to evaluate the processed data, wherein by the control system and/or control/mobile unit to trigger the possible response range. combination of suggests a response can be alarm and manual adjustment. another response can be semi-automatically or automatically adjusts the cutting data and/or other parameters associated with the machine, such as the cutting tool is transferred to a position more advantageous relative to the work piece. is also possible using this arrangement from the cutting tool/machine collects data and transmits data to, for example, remote location of the cutting tool or machine manufacturer to provide extended support and service of the cutting tool/machine to an operator or customer is possible. Because the manufacturer has professional knowledge also can provide more advanced data analysis and processing, thus providing improved monitoring/control the processing operation. based at least in part on the at least one parameter of the detected rotary chip removing machining of the workpiece to control the example disclosed in the detailed description of the embodiment.” (pg. 5 of translation).
Thus, the reference a method providing a control system including feedback means for monitoring cutting device processes and parameters, wherein data is collected, sent to a processing unit, the data is evaluated with respect to predetermined setpoints with a predetermined threshold (defined interval) such that it may trigger a response, such as an alarm, manual response, and/or automatic adjustment to the cutting data and/or other parameters associated with the apparatus and method, in order to correct for deviations.
Saez, Staacks, Singh, and Sjoeoe are therefore, all drawn to the problem of enhanced control and/or automation of process parameters in a cutting method. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flame-cutting method of Saez in view of Staacks, teaching computer automated control of the cutting apparatus process and parameters, to further comprise steps of recording the process parameters data and providing the data to a processor to verify matching between the data recorded and the control setpoints of the selected control program, and to adjust the relevant parameter(s) if such recorded data deviates from the a defined threshold/interval around the control setpoints, as taught by Sjoeoe, in order to better correct for any deviations from the desired cutting and thereby, improve the quality of the cut workpiece(s). Furthermore, as the process parameters of Saez in view of Staacks include the pressure and/or flow rate of fuel gas and/or oxygen, as well as the speed and position of the blowtorch relative to the workpiece, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply such a modified method to these parameters.
With respect to Claim 4, Sjoeoe teaches that an alarm (i.e. alert) may be sent/provided when the data recorded in real time deviates from an interval defined around the control setpoints. (see rejection of claim 3). Similarly, Singh, teaches that an alarm may be sent in response to deviation from desired parameters. (see Figs. 1 and 7). Accordingly, in view of Singh and Sjoeoe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to activate a means for sending an alert when the data recorded in real time deviates from an interval defined around the control setpoints of the selected program.
With respect to Claim 5, Saez, Staacks, Singh, and Sjoeoe teach a method with the appropriate computer memory means, processing, and controls, for saving/storing real time process data and parameters such that it may be used to adjust from deviations as well as carry out automated operations. (see rejections of claims 1-4 above). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to perform a step of saving the data received in real time in the memory means of the automatic running means and are used to activate means for automatic planning of maintenance operations, in order to enable improved reliability and results through the conventional use of predetermined maintenance operations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735