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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on January 29, 2026. These drawings are accepted.
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 1-5 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwigson et al (US Patent 6,060,679), herein referred to as Ludwigson, in view of Anderson (US Patent 4,356,043) and Gevers (BE455667). Regarding claim 1, Ludwigson discloses a method of trimming and sizing a metal piece (10), the method comprising: a) providing a trimming and sizing apparatus (e.g., fig. 1) comprising: a travel way (14); a cutting assembly (12) comprising: a carriage (13) that travels along the travel way; a boom (15) extending from the carriage in a direction perpendicular to the travel way (fig. 2); and at least one cutting torch assembly (20; col. 3, lines 5-8) extending from the boom and comprising a first trimming cutting torch (22) and a second sectioning cutting torch (23); and at least one table (11) for holding the metal piece (10) that is being cut; b) placing a metal piece that is substantially rectangular on the table (col. 2, lines 48-50); c) traversing the carriage along the travel way (14) such that the cutting torch assembly is moved in a direction parallel to a longitudinal direction of the table (col. 2, lines 55-57 and lines 59-63), wherein the first trimming cutting torch (22) makes a longitudinal cut (24) in the metal piece (10) which removes a scrap piece (25) from a longitudinal edge (col. 3, lines 10-11) of the metal piece (10) as the cutting assembly is moved in the direction parallel to the longitudinal direction of the table (col. 3, lines 9-14); d) at predetermined intervals (col. 3, lines 19+) during the movement of the cutting torch assembly and simultaneous with the cutting of the metal piece (10) by the first trimming cutting torch (22), wherein as the second sectioning cutting torch is moved along crosscut track (27) at a selected speed with the crosscut track arranged at a selected angle with respect to the cutting direction (col. 2, lines 18-22) of the first trimming cutting torch (22) such that the second sectioning cutting torch is simultaneously moved in the direction parallel to the longitudinal direction of the table (both torches are mounted on torch carriage 20; figs. 3A and 3B) and along crosscut track (27), the second sectioning cutting torch creates a cut (26) in the scrap piece that is formed as the first trimming cutting torch cuts the metal piece such that a sized scrap piece having a desired length or weight is completely removed from the scrap piece (col. 3, lines 19-41). • Ludwigson fails to specifically disclose the method includes the step of lighting the second sectioning cutting torch at predetermined intervals during movement of the cutting torch assembly to create a cut in the scrap piece that is formed as the first trimming cutting torch cuts the metal piece such that a sized scrap piece having a desired length of weight is completely removed from the scrap piece; e) when the sized scrap piece has been completely removed from the scrap piece, extinguishing the second sectioning cutting torch; and f) after the predetermined interval has passed, lighting the second sectioning cutting torch and repeating steps d) and e). However, Ludwigson describes the following aspects of their invention that are pertinent to the aforementioned claim limitations: Ludwigson states in the Abstract, “[b]oth torches are mounted on the same carriage and the crosscutting torch is periodically activated to move along an acute angular path with respect to the edge trim cut, resulting in an effective crosscut transverse to the main trim cut. The crosscutting operation may be carried out without interruption of the edge trim torch, thereby enhancing productivity and trim cut quality” [emphasis added]. The words “periodically activated” appears to modify the function of “to move along an acute angular path…” Conversely, Ludwigson states in col. 4, lines 28-39, “[t]he apparatus and method of its operation of the present invention may also be applied to a conventional shape cutting machine in which programmed operation of a main cutting torch over a workpiece comprising a horizontal plate produces desired torch-cut shapes... An auxiliary crosscutting torch of the type described above may be mounted on the main torch cutting head and operated in the manner described above to periodically cut the edge trim piece laterally into manageable lengths” [emphasis added]. In this case, the word “periodically” in the emphasized phrase appears to broadly describe a periodic operation of crosscut torch 23 in general, wherein at some point, crosscutting torch (23) is lit; especially in a situation in which a “programmed operation of a main cutting torch over a workpiece [to form] desired torch-cut shapes,” where the desired torch-cut shape is not a simple scrap piece along an edge of a rectangular metal piece. Moreover, Ludwigson states in col. 4, lines 14-24 “[i]t is important to prevent the crosscutting torch 23 from moving laterally inwardly over the slab beyond the trim cut 24 in order to avoid undesired damage to the trim cut edge of the slab. Appropriate stops on the crosscut track 27 may be provided to prevent movement of the crosscut torch 23 inwardly beyond the approximate position of the vertical pivot 28. The wide variability in angular adjustment of the crosscut track 27 and in the selected actual crosscutting torch velocity Vc permits the system to be adapted to address other considerations. For example, if the crosscut trim pieces have value beyond mere scrap value” [emphasis added]. While this teaching notes it is important to “avoid undesired damage to the trim cut edge of the slab,” the teaching also suggests it may be desirable to avoid damage to “the cross cut trim pieces [if they] have value beyond mere scrap value.” It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the method of Ludwigson such that the method includes the step of lighting the second sectioning cutting torch at predetermined intervals during movement of the cutting torch assembly to create a cut in the scrap piece that is formed as the first trimming cutting torch cuts the metal piece such that a sized scrap piece having a desired length of weight is completely removed from the scrap piece; e) when the sized scrap piece has been completely removed from the scrap piece, extinguishing the second sectioning cutting torch; and f) after the predetermined interval has passed, lighting the second sectioning cutting torch and repeating steps d) and e) in order to prevent unwanted cutting of scrap pieces in the event the operator wants to recycle or reuse the trimmed material, particularly, “if the crosscut trim pieces have value beyond mere scrap value” (col. 4, lines 23-24). ● The method of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose the second sectioning cutting torch rotates in arc around the first trimming cutting torch, such that the second sectioning cutting torch is simultaneously moved in the longitudinal direction and in an arc around the first trimming cutting torch. However, the following references provide teaching is pertinent to this limitation: A. Ludwigson states in col. 1, lines 62-65, “[m]eans are also provided for adjusting one or both of the angle of movement and the speed of the crosscutting torch to provide a cross cut which is generally transverse to the cut edge” [emphasis added]. This suggests the second sectioning cutting torch could be adjusted in such a way that only the angle of crosscut track is adjusted with the second torch located at a fixed point thereon. Additionally, Ludwigson states in col. 4, lines 20-23, “[t]he wide variability in angular adjustment of the crosscut track 27 and in the selected actual crosscutting torch velocity Vc permits the system to be adapted to address other considerations.” The teaching of Ludwigson suggests the trimming and sizing apparatus is capable of performing the aforementioned cutting operation with the second sectioning cutting torch, particularly when considering “the wide variability in angular adjustment of the crosscut track 27 and the selected actual crosscutting torch velocity Vc.” Varying the crosscut speed with respect to a selected angle will adjust the angle of the parallelogram scrap that is formed. B. Anderson teaches it is known in the art of trimming and cutting apparatus to provide a cutting assembly with a first cutting torch (28) and a second cutting torch (30) configured to operate in conjunction with one another (i.e., the second cutting torch is configured to follow the path of the first cutting torch, as shown in fig. 1), wherein the second cutting torch rotates with respect to the first cutting torch in an arc around the first cutting torch (fig. 14 and col. 2, lines 40-43). Moreover, Anderson teaches the distance between the first trimming cutting torch (28) and the second sectioning cutting torch (30) is fixed and remains fixed during cutting (fig. 14). C. Gevers teaches it is known in the art of trimming devices to provide multiple cutting torches (13, 14, 15) on an arm (12) pivotally attached to the boom (6) of a cutting assembly (fig. 1) by a cutting holder head (8), wherein one of said cutting torches (i.e., cutter 14) is positioned proximate to the rotational axis (fig. 2) of the arm (12) and associated cutting holder head (8). Another cutting torch (i.e., either one of cutting torches 13 or 15) is offset from the first at a distal end of the arm (12), wherein “the torch cutter holders heads 7 and 8 can rotate around their axes in order to cut on demand” (translation, page 2, lines 13-14) [emphasis added]. The phrase “in order to cut on demand” suggests at any point in time during a cutting operation, any one of the cutting torches (13, 14, 15) or all of the cutting torches (13, 14, 15) of the trimming device taught by Geyers can be utilized. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the method of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above in view of the further teaching set forth in Ludwigson, and in view of the teaching of Anderson and Gevers, such that the second sectioning cutting torch rotates in arc around the first trimming cutting torch such that the second sectioning cutting torch is simultaneously moved in the longitudinal direction and in an arc around the first trimming cutting torch in order to increase the modes of operation of the trimming and sizing apparatus of Ludwigson. In other words, the apparatus of Ludwigson notes that the various portions of the cross-cutting cutter are independently adjustable, and while Ludwigson generally refers to making transverse cuts, this is only one way the apparatus could potentially operate to perform the function set forth therein. Anderson provides teaching of alternative modes of operation for using a trimming and cutting assembly with a plurality of cutting torches mounted on a carriage to move relative to a workpiece in which the first and second cutting torches are remain at a fixed distance with respect to one another during cutting. Thus, since all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results. Regarding claim 2, the modified method of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above includes the sized scrap piece has a shape that is substantially a parallelogram with two opposing first parallel sides and two opposing second parallel sides (i.e., a rectangular scrap shape since Ludwigson discloses crosscuts 27 are transverse to the moving direction of the first trimming cutting torch). The modified modified method of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose the second parallel sides extend diagonally between the first parallel sides. However, Ludwigson states in col. 3, lines 34-40, “the slide mechanism operator may be adjusted to operate at selected speeds and, in combination with the angular adjustability of the crosscut track 27 on its pivot 28, the cross cutting torch 23 may be set to provide a true transverse crosscut 26 simultaneously with continuous operation of the edge cutting torch 28 creating the main trim cut 24.” Since both of the slide mechanism operator and the angular orientation of the crosscut track can be adjusted “to provide a true transverse crosscut,” a slight deviation from the aforementioned adjustments would result in a scrap piece with a parallelogram shape with two opposing first parallel sides and two opposing second parallel sides, wherein the second parallel sides extend diagonally between the first parallel sides. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the method of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above such that the second parallel sides extend diagonally between the first parallel sides since the adjustability of Ludwigson allows for the formation a sized scrap piece having any reasonable shape and because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e., scrap piece shape resultant of adjustable apparatus parameters) involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, the modified method of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above includes the rotation of the second sectioning cutting torch starts in a position in which the second sectioning cutting torch is in a position that is offset from and behind the first trimming cutting torch in the travel direction of the first trimming cutting torch (Ludwigson, fig. 3A) and ends when a cut has been made in the scrap piece that extends from the cut made by the first trimming cutting torch to a longitudinal edge of the metal piece (Ludwigson, fig. 3C)
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the modified method of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above fails to disclose the following: In claim 4, the second sectioning cutting torch rotates in a 90° arc around the first trimming cutting torch; and In claim 5, the second sectioning cutting torch rotates in an arc around the first trimming cutting torch that is 90°-180°. However, in col. 2, lines 1-3, Ludwigson states, “[t]he cross cutting torch is mounted to trail the edge cutting torch in the direction of the edge cut path.” This statement suggests that depending on which direction the carriage is moving with respect to the workpiece, the position of the second sectioning cutting torch is adjusted by rotating the crosscut track (27) about the vertical axis (28) so as to position the second sectioning cutting torch in a position that trails the first trimming cutting torch. Additionally, as noted above in the rejection for Claim 1, Ludwigson refers to the “[t]he wide variability in angular adjustment of the crosscut track 27 and in the selected actual crosscutting torch velocity Vc permits the system to be adapted to address other considerations” (col. 4, lines 20-23). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the method of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above such that the second sectioning cutting torch rotates in an arc around the first trimming cutting torch of any reasonable angular range as there are a limited number of values for the angular range of movement for the sectioning cutting torch relative to the first cutting torch. It would have been obvious to try any reasonable angular range, including an angular range that moves the second sectioning cutting torch in a 90 º arc around the first cutting torch (as per claim 4) or through an arc of 90º-180º arc around the first trimming cutting torch (as per claim 5). Moreover, in view of the aforementioned teaching and modifications set forth above in the rejection for Claim 1, allowing the second sectioning cutting torch to move through a 90º-180º arc allows for greater adjustability and increases the width of trim piece that can be separated since the crosscut track can be configured to swing out to position the second sectioning cutting torch at a distance farther from the first cutting torch than is possible with the angular orientation of the crosscut track 27 depicted in, e.g., fig. 3C. Regarding claim 8, the modified method of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above includes fails to disclose the corresponding trimming and sizing apparatus for performing the method comprises a plurality of cutting torch assemblies (Ludwigson, col. 3, lines 5-8), such that material may simultaneously be removed from both longitudinal sides of the metal piece (i.e., if the first cutting assembly cuts the one side, and another cutting assembly is provided “in place of the guide wheel carriage 16,” the second cutting assembly is positioned on the opposite longitudinal side of the metal piece). However, Ludwigson states in col. 3, lines 5-8, “[a] second torch carriage (not shown) may be added in place of the guide wheel carriage 16. In this case, extensible guide wheels or guide rollers are carried by the truck 13 and take the place of the guide wheels 17.” The aforementioned “second torch carriage” teaches a second cutting torch assembly, such that Ludwigson has “a plurality of cutting torch assemblies.” As no other description appears to be provided for the aforementioned “second torch carriage,” it is interpreted as including the same features as are provided for “first torch carriage’ (20), i.e., a corresponding cutting torch assembly (torch carriage 20) with first trimming cutting torch (main edge cutting torch 22) and second sectioning cutting torch (secondary crosscutting torch 23) that are positioned in a symmetrical manner about the longitudinal axis of the workpiece with respect to the “at least one cutting torch assembly” (claim 1, line 8). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trimming and sizing apparatus of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above such that a plurality of cutting torch assemblies are provided such that the material simultaneously be removed from both longitudinal sides of the metal piece because Ludwigson specifically states that a second cutting torch assembly may be provided proximate to the opposing longitudinal side of the metal piece. • The modified trimming and sizing apparatus of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose each of the plurality of cutting torch assemblies is independently movable along the boom. However, Ludwigson states in col. 3, lines 10-11, “the torch carriage 20 is moved laterally along the carriage arm 15 to a selected edge position above the slab 10.” Since Ludwigson teaches the provision of “a second torch carriage,” and the disclosed ‘first’ torch carriage is movable to a selected edge position, it would be necessary to facilitate the selection movement of the second torch carriage to a corresponding edge position above the opposing longitudinal edge of slab (10). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the method of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above such that each of the plurality of cutting torch assemblies is independently movable along the boom in order to accommodate metal pieces of varying widths and placements beneath the boom.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwigson (US Patent 6,060,679), Anderson (US Patent 4,356,043), and Gevers (BE455667) in further view of Prioretti et al (US Patent 6,787,731), herein referred to as Prioretti-731.
Regarding claim 6, the modified method of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above fails to include the cutting torch assembly is movable in a direction perpendicular to the boom such that a distance between the first trimming cutting torch and the table and between the second sectioning cutting torch and the table may be changed. However, Prioretti-731 teaches it is known in the art of cutting torch assemblies to provide a cutting torch assembly (102) with vertical supports (e.g., 16, 17) that allow for the cutting torch assembly (or at least portions thereof) to be movable in a direction perpendicular to the boom (105) such that a distance between the cutting torch (5) and a workpiece (1) support (e.g., fig. 6) may be changed (col. 6, lines 46-63). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the method of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Prioretti-731 such that the cutting torch assembly is movable in a direction perpendicular to the boom such that a distance between the first trimming cutting torch and the table and between the second sectioning cutting torch and the table may be changed in order to accommodate metal pieces of varying thicknesses. Ludwigson states in col. 1, lines 17-18, “[s]labs may typically range in thickness from three to twelve inches (about 75 to 300 mm).” Regarding claim 7, the modified method of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose the first trimming cutting torch and/or the second sectioning cutting torch are independently movable within the cutting torch assembly in a direction perpendicular to the boom so that a distance between the first trimming cutting torch and the table and/or between the second sectioning cutting torch and the table may be changed. However, Prioretti-731 teaches it is known in the art of cutting torch assemblies to provide a cutting torch assembly (102) with vertical supports (e.g., 16, 17) that allow for a first cutting torch (5) and a second work performing means (10, 11) to be adjustable independently in a direction perpendicular to the boom (105) such that a distance between the cutting torch (5) and a workpiece (1) support (e.g., fig. 6) and/or between the second work performing means (10, 11) and the workpiece support may be changed (col. 6, lines 46-63).
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the method of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Prioretti-731 such that the first trimming cutting torch and/or the second sectioning cutting torch are independently movable within the cutting torch assembly in a direction perpendicular to the boom so that a distance between the first trimming cutting torch and the table and/or between the second sectioning cutting torch and the table may be changed in order to accommodate metal pieces of varying thicknesses and to improve the flexibility of the apparatus.
Claims 9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwigson (US Patent 6,060,679), Anderson (US Patent 4,356,043), and Gevers (BE455667) in further view of Rozot (US Publication 2017/0129119). Regarding claim 9, the modified trimming and sizing apparatus of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above fails to disclose a deburring assembly located on an opposite side of the table from the cutting assembly, wherein the deburring assembly comprises: a carriage that travels along the travel way on which the cutting assembly travels or along another travel way extending parallel to the travel way on which the cutting assembly travels; a boom extending from the carriage in a direction perpendicular to the travel way; and a deburring head extending from the boom, and the method further comprises: moving the deburring assembly along the travel way on which the cutting assembly travels or along another travel way extending parallel to the travel way on which the cutting assembly travels; and removing a burr that forms at the longitudinal cut created in the metal piece by the first trimming cutting torch using the deburring head. However, Rozot teaches it is known in the art of trimming and sizing apparatus to include a deburring assembly (20) located on an opposite side (e.g., fig. 6) of the table (12) from the cutting assembly (18), wherein the deburring assembly comprises: a carriage (30B) that travels along the travel way (32) on which the cutting assembly travels; a boom (36B) extending from the carriage in a direction perpendicular to the travel way (e.g., fig. 4); and a deburring head (manifold 90) extending from the boom (36B), and the method further comprises: moving the deburring assembly along the travel way on which the cutting assembly travels (para. 0039, lines 1-4); and removing a burr (para. 0040) that forms at the longitudinal cut created in the metal piece by the first trimming cutting torch using the deburring head (para. 0039, lines 4-12). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trimming and sizing apparatus of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Rozot such that the apparatus is provided with a deburring assembly located on an opposite side of the table from the cutting assembly, wherein the deburring assembly comprises: a carriage that travels along the travel way on which the cutting assembly travels or along another travel way extending parallel to the travel way on which the cutting assembly travels; a boom extending from the carriage in a direction perpendicular to the travel way; and a deburring head extending from the boom, and the method further comprises: moving the deburring assembly along the travel way on which the cutting assembly travels or along another travel way extending parallel to the travel way on which the cutting assembly travels; and removing a burr that forms at the longitudinal cut created in the metal piece by the first trimming cutting torch using the deburring head in order to provide an improved finish to the metal piece once the scrap has been removed.
Regarding claim 11, the modified trimming and sizing apparatus of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above includes the deburring head (i.e., manifold 90 of Rozot) comprises at least one nozzle (92a, 92b, 92c) that directs a gas stream at the burr and removes the burr via the gas stream (Rozot, para. 0041).
Regarding claim 12, the modified trimming and sizing apparatus of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above includes the gas stream exiting the at least one nozzle is directed toward a breakthrough point at a leading edge of the longitudinal cut created in the metal piece by the first trimming cutting torch (Rozot, para. 0039, lines 7-12).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the modified trimming and sizing apparatus of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above fails to disclose the following: In claim 13, the boom of the deburring assembly includes a track extending along a length of the boom of the deburring assembly and a carrier that travels along the track, and the deburring head is attached to the carrier, such that the deburring head moves in a direction parallel to the boom, perpendicular to the travel way, and perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the table; and In claim 14, the deburring head is movable in a direction perpendicular to the boom of the deburring assembly such that a distance between the deburring head and the table may be changed. However, Rozot teaches another embodiment of a trimming and sizing apparatus (i.e., fig. 20) that includes a track (para. 0044, lines 9-11) extending along a length of the boom (annotated fig. 20) of the deburring assembly and a carrier (carriage unit 130B) that travels along the track, and the deburring head is attached to the carrier (via 136B), such that the deburring head moves in a direction parallel to the boom, perpendicular to the travel way, and perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the table (as shown in fig. 20 and described in para. 0044); and
In claim 14, the deburring head (90) is movable in a direction perpendicular to the boom of the deburring assembly such that a distance between the deburring head and the table may be changed (para. 0044, lines 6-9).
PNG
media_image1.png
654
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trimming and sizing apparatus of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Rozot such that the boom of the deburring assembly includes a track extending along a length of the boom of the deburring assembly and a carrier that travels along the track, and the deburring head is attached to the carrier, such that the deburring head moves in a direction parallel to the boom, perpendicular to the travel way, and perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the table (as per claim 13); and the deburring head is movable in a direction perpendicular to the boom of the deburring assembly such that a distance between the deburring head and the table may be changed (as per claim 14) because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results. Regarding claim 15, the modified trimming and sizing apparatus of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above includes the trimming and sizing apparatus comprises a plurality of cutting torch assemblies (as set forth above in the 103 rejection for claim 8). The modified trimming and sizing apparatus of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above fails to disclose corresponding plurality of deburring heads, each cutting torch assembly and each deburring head independently movable along the respective booms such that material may simultaneously be removed from both longitudinal sides of the metal piece or simultaneously be removed from longitudinal sides of more than one metal piece. However, Rozot teaches it is known in the art of trimming and sizing apparatus to provide a plurality of cutting torch assemblies and a corresponding plurality of deburring heads (para. 0047), each cutting torch assembly and each deburring head independently movable along the respective booms (para. 0048, lines 3-7) such that material may simultaneously be removed from both longitudinal sides of the metal piece or simultaneously be removed from longitudinal sides of more than one metal piece (para. 0050). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trimming and sizing apparatus of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Rozot such that the trimming and sizing apparatus comprises a plurality of cutting torch assemblies and a corresponding plurality of deburring heads, each cutting torch assembly and each deburring head independently movable along the respective booms such that material may simultaneously be removed from both longitudinal sides of the metal piece or simultaneously be removed from longitudinal sides of more than one metal piece in order to facilitate increased production. Regarding claim 16, the modified trimming and sizing apparatus of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above includes the deburring head (90) is positioned behind the first trimming cutting torch relative to the travel direction of the deburring assembly and the cutting assembly along the travel way (Rozot, para. 0039-0041).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwigson (US Patent 6,060,679), Anderson (US Patent 4,356,043), Gevers (BE455667) and Rozot (US Publication 2017/0129119) in view of Kojo et al (US Publication 2016/0167149), herein referred to as Kojo. Regarding claim 10, the modified trimming and sizing apparatus of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above fails to disclose the deburring head is mechanical and removes the burr by scraping the metal piece. However, Kojo teaches it is known in the art of trimming devices to provide a mechanical deburring head (2) that removes the burr by scraping the metal piece (para. 0041). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trimming and sizing method of Ludwigson substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Kojo such that the deburring device is a mechanical deburring head that removes the burr by scraping the metal piece the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Jan. 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page page 13, lines 7-17 of the Remarks, “Applicant submits that it would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Ludwigson's method to include maintaining the fixed distance between the first cutting torch and the second cutting torch as disclosed in Anderson. In particular, Ludwigson does not disclose the simultaneous longitudinal and rotational movement of the second cutting torch relative to the first cutting torch of amended independent claim 1. Anderson discloses that pivoting motion is used to assure that the second torch follows the first torch. However, there would be no reason to modify Ludwigson's apparatus and method to include simultaneous movement of the second tool, as allegedly disclosed in Anderson, at least because the movement in Anderson merely ensures that the second torch follows the first torch and does not relate to creating scrap pieces. Furthermore, Ludwigson and Anderson do not envision creating pieces in the shape of a parallelogram as in the claimed invention”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In light of the teaching of the secondary reference to Anderson, wherein a secondary cutter can be pivotally or angularly adjusted with respect to a first cutter during a cutting operation, one having an ordinary skill in the art of torch cutting machines with multiple cutters that move in conjunction with one another, would recognize that Ludwigson’s second cutter does not rotate during cutting but that rotation is possible. Due to the adjustments that can be made to the Ludwigson device, further adjustments within the confines of the structures that are present in Ludwigson are possible with the consideration of the teaching provided by Anderson. On page 13 to 14 of the Remarks, Applicant argues the second torches (13, 15) are only rotated during set up to change from cutting a vertical cut to cutting a horizontal cut. Cutting does not occur during this pivoting movement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As best understood, fig. 1, which is tilted sideways on the page, shows a side view of the cutting device, such that workpieces (9, 10) are supported in a horizontal manner during a cutting operation. Examiner notes the pivot axes at (7, 8, 17) are vertical. Conversely, fig. 2 shows a top-down view of the cutting device, wherein the second torches (13, 15) are shown pivoting about the vertical axis at (8). Applicant’s arguments do not appear to identify where Gevers teaches that the second cutters are only rotated for adjustment from a vertical orientation to a horizontal orientation.
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 SAMUEL ALLEN DAVIES whose telephone number is (571)270-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9am-5pm EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. 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.
/SAMUEL A DAVIES/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724 May 29, 2026
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights