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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Action of the instant application 18/122,168 (hereinafter the ‘168 application). The ‘168 application claims priorities from Indian patent application 202311005177 filed January 25, 2023.
A certified foreign priority document has been placed on the record to support the priority claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fagan, U.S. Publication No. 2016/0271718 and Bulle, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0197689.
With regard to claims 1, 7, and 13, which teach “A method (system / instructions) for nesting parts in 2-dimensional (2D) sheets, the method comprising: receiving, by a nesting device, one or more part drawing copies corresponding to each of at least one 2D part and a sheet drawing corresponding to a 2D sheet, from a user device;” Fagan teaches a system / method / instructions for efficiently nesting parts in sheets to be cut via a cutting device, where the parts are received as part drawings for further processing and the development of an effective tool path (see paragraphs 8, 25-27, and 162 and figures 12 and 13).
With regard to claims 1, 7, and 13, which teach “generating, by the nesting device, a sheet pixel map corresponding to the sheet drawing;” Fagan teaches receiving part drawings and processing them for use on a cutting machine, but is not specific about what format is used. Bulle teaches a method of forming a cut path for parts (see paragraphs 10, 11, and 46), similar to that of Fagan, but further taches drawings being in a raster format (pixel map) prior to conversion to vector form for use in cutting (see paragraphs 34-35 and 67-68 and figures 24-26).
With regard to claims 1, 7, and 13, which teach “for each part drawing copy of the one or more part drawing copies, generating, by the nesting device, a plurality of pixel map pairs corresponding to the part drawing copy on the sheet pixel map, each of the plurality of pixel map pairs comprising a non-superimposable pixel map and a superimposable pixel map, wherein the non-superimposable pixel map comprises the part drawing and a non-superimposable associated toolpath, and wherein the superimposable pixel map comprises the part drawing and a superimposable associated toolpath; and determining, by the nesting device, a position of the part drawing copy on the sheet pixel map where the part drawing in the superimposable pixel map is non-overlapping with respect to part drawings in superimposable pixel maps of remaining of the one or more part drawing copies corresponding to each of at least one 2D part”; Fagen teaches generating an efficient nesting of the multiple copies of the drawing element where an initial mapping including actual product edges and preprogramed spacing can be adapted to a more efficient part spacing that takes into account the cut width of the tool and allows adjacent parts to overlap one another’s tool path, thereby more efficiently using the sheet and allowing one cut to form edges of multiple parts (see paragraphs 130, 142, 161-163, and 167-168 and figures 6, 7, and 11-13).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the pixel maps of part images in the early planning, before converting them into a vector image for use in final cutting, as this is a common native image standard.
With regard to claims 2, 8, and 14, which teach “wherein generating the plurality of the part pixel map pairs comprises: extracting geometric data of each of the one or more part drawing copies corresponding to each of at least one 2D part, wherein the geometric data comprises part drawing information and toolpath information; and discretizing the geometric data to generate the plurality of pixel map pairs”; Fagan teaches receiving the parts as part drawings and using the geometry of the parts to develop of an effective tool path (see paragraphs 8, 25-27, 114, and 162 and figures 12 and 13). Bulle teaches drawings being discretized between formats to better process the image for cutting (see paragraphs 34-35 and 67-68 and figures 24-26).
With regard to claims 3, 9, and 15, which teach “further comprising: optimizing the position of the superimposable pixel map of the part drawing copy on the sheet pixel map using a finer fitting algorithm to obtain an optimal position of the superimposable pixel map; and updating the position of the non-superimposable pixel map of the part drawing copy on the sheet pixel map in accordance with the optimal position of the superimposable pixel map”; Fagan teaches using the geometry of the parts to develop of an effective tool path via a nesting optimization program that fits parts closer together to maximize the toolpaths (see paragraphs 130, 142, 161-163, and 167-168 and figures 6, 7, and 11-13). This tool is further capable of updating positions of parts to better utilize the toolpath, as in 1304 from figure 13.
With regard to claims 4, 10, and 16, which teach “wherein each of the plurality of part pixel map pairs is positioned at a unique orientation from a plurality of permissible orientations”; Fagan teaches orienting the parts so that they share common edges (see paragraphs 130, 142, 161-163, and 167-168 and figures 6, 7, and 11-13).
With regard to claims 5, 11, and 17, which teach “wherein determining the position of the part drawing copy on the sheet pixel map comprises determining an optimal orientation of each of the one or more part drawing copies by computing value of an optimizing function for each of a plurality of permissible orientations on the sheet pixel map”; Fagan teaches orienting the parts so that they share common edges, where kerf compensation is calculated via the NC control (see paragraphs 130, 142, 161-163, and 167-168 and figures 6, 7, and 11-13).
With regard to claims 6, 12, and 18, which teach “wherein determining the position of the part drawing copy on the sheet pixel map comprises determining whether the part drawing in the superimposable pixel map overlaps with, at least one of: part drawings in superimposable pixel maps of remaining of the one or more part drawing copies corresponding to each of at least one 2D part; and contours of the sheet pixel map”; Fagan teaches orienting the parts so that they share common edges but where the actual parts do not overlap one another or interfere with the kerf of and adjacent piece, where kerf compensation is calculated via the NC control (see paragraphs 130, 142, 161-163, and 167-168 and figures 6, 7, and 11-13).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “The Examiner relies on Fagan as teaching efficient nesting by adapting the spacing between adjacent parts to account for the cutting width of a cutting tool, thereby allowing common-line cutting and reducing material wastage. Applicant respectfully submits that Fagan is directed to contour-based nesting in which adjacent parts are positioned such that neighbouring parts share a common cutting edge. However, Fagan neither teaches nor suggests the claimed generation and use of a plurality of pixel map pairs for determining placement of part drawing copies on a sheet.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits that Fagen teaches generating an efficient nesting of the multiple copies of the drawing element where an initial mapping including actual product edges and preprogramed spacing can be adapted to a more efficient part spacing that takes into account the cut width of the tool and allows adjacent parts to overlap one another’s tool path, thereby more efficiently using the sheet and allowing one cut to form edges of multiple parts (see paragraphs 130, 142, 161-163, and 167-168 and figures 6, 7, and 11-13). In the argument, the Applicant appears to agree that there is a planning of part images used for organizing parts to minimalize waste and utilize overlapping cut paths, but that the Fagen reference only lacks use of “pixel maps” for this step. The Examiner previously noted that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use pixel maps of part images in the early planning, before converting them into a vector image for use in final cutting, as this is a common native image standard.
Use of pixel maps is very common in the art, and as used here merely provides an alternate well-known standard for part representation. This is evidenced by the use of Bulle in there obviousness rejection. Bulle teaches a method of forming a cut path for parts (see paragraphs 10, 11, and 46), similar to that of Fagan, but further taches drawings being in a raster format (pixel map) prior to conversion to vector form for use in cutting (see paragraphs 34-35 and 67-68 and figures 24-26).
Simply using a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) is an acceptable rational to support a conclusion of obviousness. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that if the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, then using the technique would not have been obvious. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
The Applicant does not address the use of Bulle in the argument even though it is relied upon to make up a portion of the rejection for the argued element. It appears that the Applicant’s arguments here are directed against the references individually, where one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that “Replacing the contour representation of Fagan with a pixel representation would merely alter the format in which the part geometry is represented. Such a modification neither teaches nor suggests the claimed generation of two different pixel maps for each part drawing copy nor the claimed placement determination based upon the superimposable pixel map.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits that two different geometries are evaluated for each part in Fagen when efficiently evaluating nesting of the multiple copies of the drawing element where (1) an initial mapping including actual product edges and preprogramed spacing can be (2) adapted to a more efficient part spacing that takes into account the cut width of the tool and allows adjacent parts to overlap one another’s tool path, thereby more efficiently using the sheet and allowing one cut to form edges of multiple parts (see paragraphs 130, 142, 161-163, and 167-168 and figures 6, 7, and 11-13).
Here there is both (1) an initial known product edge and (2) a product + cut width spacing that are used together to determine optimal organization / layout for manufacturing.
Applicant additionally argues on both pages 10 and 14 of the response the language of the entire claim without articulation, to which the Examiner would direct the Applicant to the above rejection.
Summary
Claims 1-18 are REJECTED.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DENNIS G BONSHOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-4047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:15 - 4:45.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571) 272-3744. 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.
/DENNIS G BONSHOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights