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 Status
An amendment, filed 5/22/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1-6 are amended; claims 7-19 are canceled.
Claim Interpretation
The claims, as amended 5/22/2026, recite in claim 1 “a control program comprised of control setpoints based on metal composition of said workpiece, thickness of said workpiece, temperature of said workpiece and parameters of said heating flame, said cutting jet, and the nozzle.” The claims provide no relevant scope, ranges, or algorithm related to the control program nor the control setpoints. Therefore, any value, measurement, data, etc. within a control program based, in any way, to the recited parameters/elements may deemed to meet the instant limitations.
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 1-6 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 1 recites the term “mover.” The specification does not specifically recite the term “mover,” but does recite, for example, “a device for moving.” (see abstract). Therefore, while the term is not considered new matter, the term is indefinite as to what structure and/or step is required of the term “mover.” In particular, it is unclear if the mover comprises a device for moving the blowtorch, for moving or workpiece, or both. Claims 2-6 are indefinite based on their dependency.
Claims 3, 4, and 5 each recite the term “actual” modifying one or more parameters, such as “actual oxygen pressure, actual oxygen flow rate, actual fuel pressure, actual fuel flow rate, actual position of said blowtorch, and actual speed of movement of said blowtorch relative to the workpiece.” The specification does provide a definition for the term nor does the specification appear to recite the terms in this context at all. It is unclear how the term “actual” modifies the limitations. For example, whether it is related to timing, accuracy, type of measurement or some other aspect differentiating, for example, an “oxygen pressure” to an “actual oxygen pressure.”
Claim 3 also recites a step of “comparing” but provides no scope or limitation to what the step of comparing comprises nor what or how the comparing is made in relation to. Therefore, the method of claim 3 is indefinite. (Note, the “adjusting” step, as written, has no connection to the comparing step and therefore, is not required to be based on said comparing.)
Claim 4 recites “sending an alert corresponding to said actual oxygen pressure, said actual oxygen flow rate…” but provides no basis for when or why an alert is sent, nor what the alert or corresponding requires. Therefore, it is unclear what method step, in particular, in relation to the method of claim 3 from which it depends, is required.
Claim 6 recites “comprises the step of: checking said heating flame.” The claim does not provide any scope or positive action as to what a step of “checking” comprises, rendering the limitation and claim indefinite.
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)(previously cited) in view of Staacks (DE 3921455)(machine translation previously provided) and Singh (US 4439249)(previously cited).
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). Thus, Saez teaches a method comprising connecting a pressurized oxygen supply line with an oxygen inlet and an oxygen outlet and a pressurized fuel gas supply line having a fuel inlet and a fuel outlet to a blowtorch having a flame-cutting nozzle so as to form a heating flame and a cutting jet at the nozzle with said oxygen outlet and said fuel outlet, and setting a workpiece relative to said blowtorch with a mover (interpreted as a device for moving the blowtorch relative to the workpiece) so as to set a position of said blowtorch and a speed movement of said blowtorch.
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). Saez further teaches that the choice of material to be cut is another factor for controlling cutting performance. (para. 6). Thus, the reference is deemed to teach determining optimum parameters, and thus control setpoints (i.e. 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 of the blowtorch relative to the workpiece that is to be flame cut, based on parameters including the composition, 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). Accordingly, Saez is deemed to teach wherein the oxygen supply line integrates oxygen adjustment members so as to set an oxygen pressure and an oxygen flow rate and wherein the fuel gas supply line integrates fuel adjustment members so as to set a fuel pressure and a fuel flow rate, and wherein said oxygen adjustment members, said fuel adjustment members, and said mover are in communication with an automatic control means comprising control setpoints based on metal composition of said workpiece, thickness of said workpiece, temperature of said workpiece and necessarily flowing and/or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art component parameters including those of the heating flame, cutting jet and the nozzle.
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 (i.e. a control program comprised of control setpoints); however, the reference does not explicitly discuss wherein the automatic control with computer means comprises “an automatic controller having a memory with 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 control setpoints, such as 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 control setpoints/parameters, to run oxygen adjustment members, fuel adjustment members, and said mover, according to the control setpoints of the control program, wherein said oxygen pressure, oxygen flow rate, fuel pressure, fuel flow rate, position of the blowtorch, and speed of movement of the blowtorch relative to the workpiece are based on control setpoints, storing the oxygen pressure, oxygen flow rate, fuel pressure, fuel flow rate, position of the blowtorch, and speed of movement of the blowtorch relative to the workpiece in memory in communication with an automatic controller, 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 information relating to parameters for flame cutting, and thus, deemed to teach or render obvious providing the automatic controller parameters including the composition of the workpiece, thickness of the workpiece, temperature of the workpiece, and parameters such as heating flame, cutting jet, and the nozzle. (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 connecting a conventional tool/element, a user interface, to the automatic controller, in order to efficiently and effectively allow an operator to select/inform the program/controller, with a predictable result of success.
With respect to Claim 6, Saez is silent as to a specific step of “checking said heating flame.” 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, and thus comprising “checking” the heating flame, as taught by Singh, in order improve the reliability and safety of the cutting process. It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform such a step as part of the adjusting the oxygen memers, fuel adjustment members, and mover, in other words, as part of the optimized and automatic control process that controls such elements, with a predictable result of successful obtaining the desired utility of the method.
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 previously 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). Thus, the combination is deemed to teach measuring and recording each of the claimed “actual” parameters for the purpose of adjusting the parameters of the method, wherein such adjustment would necessarily comprise “comparing” the value in some manner, for example, to a desired value or range, in order to optimize the process as detailed above.
In the alternative if the combination is not deemed to teach steps of comparing and adjusting, 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 compare/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 adjust/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 and other parameters, 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, encompassing the limitations of claim 4 which merely require “sending an alert corresponding to” a list of previously defined process parameters and having no scope to the alert sending condition(s).
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, including the oxygen pressure, oxygen flow rate, fuel pressure, fuel flow rate, position of the blowtorch, speed of movement of the blowtorch relative to the workpiece, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in view of the extensive amendments to the claims, the limitations of claim 1 are “no longer made obvious by the prior art combination.” (Remarks, p. 7). In particular, Applicant argues that while the prior art teaches optimizing process parameters, including those claimed, “One of ordinary skill in the art would not further modify the control setpoints, if the disclosed setpoints are already sufficient for optimization” and argues that the claim limitations are not an optimization of the prior art. (Remarks, pgs. 7-8). Applicant also makes conclusory arguments that the prior art fails to teach the amended limitations of claims 2-6. These arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
The claims do not provide any meaningful scope or limitations to the recited control setpoints and thus, make no distinction from the previous recited optimization limitations and in fact, may interpreted as broader than the previous limitations. As detailed in the claim interpretation section above, “[t]he claims provide no relevant scope, ranges, or algorithm related to the control program nor the control setpoints. Therefore, any value, measurement, data, etc. within a control program based, in any way, to the recited parameters/elements may deemed to meet the instant limitations.”
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., not further modify the control setpoints, if the disclosed setpoints are already sufficient for optimization) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 merely recites that the adjustment members are in communication with a controller having a control program comprised of control setpoints and “running” the members according to the control program. Any process carried out by a controller, whether it includes optimization steps or not, meets these limitations. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the rejections over Saez et al. continue to render obvious the amended limitations of claims 1-6.
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 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
Prosecution Insights