DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-40 are pending. Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/2/25, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘First, the Office has not explained the proposed modification… For example, it is not clear whether the proposed modification involves replacing circular or band saws of the primary breakdown machine 124 of Barker2009 with saw blades or a set of upper and lower saw blade assemblies as taught by Kotesovec (e.g., upper and lower saw blade assembly A, Fig. 10), and replacing circular saw blades of gangsaw 128 with additional saw blades or another upper and lower saw blade assembly as taught by Kotesovec (e.g., upper and lower saw blade assembly B).’ (pages 8-9).
It is respectfully submitted that these issues were addressed in the last office action that states ‘One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification, i.e. applying the 2 part cutting process as taught by Kotesovec, to the two cutting elements of Barker2009 (precut and saw module), to facilitate removing chips, particularly relatively long chips, as taught by Kotesovec [col. 3 lines 10-33, col. 6 lines 1-16]. In addition, it would be obvious to simply substitute the known circular saw of Kotesovec for any of the saws described by Barker2009, e.g. in the primary breakdown machine 124 (precut module), for the predictable result of a method for processing a workpiece that utilizes one or more circular saws’ (page 7). Applicant’s argument is there not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘Nor is it clear how the modified method/system could be further modified with the teachings of Hart - e.g., whether this would involve incorporating the vertical adjustment mechanism of Hart into the modified gang saw 128 to balance the cut depth between upper and lower saw blades - to achieve the claimed subject matter. Therefore, the Office has not provided a reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill’ (page 9).
It is respectfully submitted that Hart was merely cited for teaching that a desired depth of cut is associated with a first throughput speed through the saw module; and cutting the workpiece to thereby enable the saw module to cut the workpiece at an actual throughput speed that is equal to or greater than the first throughput speed’ (page 7 of the last office action) and no specific ‘adjustment mechanism’ was required to be attributed to Hart. Further, the broad claim recitations, e.g. merely cutting a workpiece at specific throughput speed, could be achieved with different types of saws, as would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart and "It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012), see MPEP 2145 III, i.e. it is not necessary to physically combine each aspect of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart but ‘ Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.’ (MPEP 2145 III). Applicant’s argument is there not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘Assuming for the sake of argument that the proposed modification is to replace saws of the primary breakdown machine 124 and saws of the gangsaw 128 with the saw blades or upper and lower saw blade assemblies taught by Kotesovec, and to incorporate the vertical adjustment mechanism of Hart into the modified gangsaw 128, the proposed modification would not result in the subject matter of claim 21. The primary breakdown machine 124 and the gangsaw 128 would be cutting along different planes. (See e.g., Figs. 4-6 showing the primary breakdown machine cutting sideboards 406 from cant 428, forming flat faces along the cant; in Figs. 7-11, the flat faces are parallel or perpendicular to the cuts made by the gangsaw.) Thus, even if modified as suggested, the primary breakdown machine 124 and gangsaw 128 of Barker2009 would not cut along a "first portion" and a "remaining portion" of a "through-cut to be made longitudinally through the workpiece."’ (pages 9-10).
It is respectfully submitted that, as indicated above, it is not necessary to physically combine each and every aspect of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart but ‘Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.’ (MPEP 2145 III). Each of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart is only cited as teaching specific aspects of the claimed invention. Kotesovec is cited as teaching the first cut pattern defines a first portion of the through-cut; causing the precut module to cut only partially through the workpiece according to the first cut pattern; and causing the saw module to cut the workpiece along a remaining portion of the through-cut according to a second cut pattern to thereby sever a first piece from a remaining portion of the workpiece, wherein the remaining portion of the through-cut has a depth that is less than or equal to the desired depth of cut (page 6 of the last office action). Applicant’s argument is there not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘Barker2009 teaches that the primary breakdown machine 124 processes the log segments 204 to form cants (see paragraph [0075]). The primary breakdown machine must make through-cuts through the log segments to cut the log segments into cants (compare, e.g., Fig. 3 with Figs. 4-6). As such, operating the modified primary breakdown machine "to cut only partially through" the log or cant would be counterintuitive, as it would presumably result in the incomplete processing of the log segments into cants’ (page 10).
It is respectfully submitted that, as detailed in the last office action, the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart would result in a through cut based on the teaching of Kotesovec that describe progressively deeper cuts resulting in a through cut [see Fig. 10 and the explanation in col. 2 lines 45-55, Figs. 1-3]. Applicant’s argument is there not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘However, even in combination, the cited references do not teach or suggest determining a "first cut pattern" - which is configured to be implanted by primary breakdown machine 124 (equated by the Office with the "precut module" - based on a "cut solution" for the "workpiece" and a "desired depth of cut" for gangsaw 128 (equated by the Office with the "saw module"). Even if the dashed horizontal lines shown in Fig. 10 of Kotesovek could be fairly equated with a "desired depth of cut" for saw assemblies A and B as asserted by the Office (this is not conceded), and the saw assembly(ies) of Fig. 10 were somehow incorporated into the gangsaw 128, there is simply no teaching or suggestion in the combined references of determining a cut pattern/or the primary breakdown machine based on both a "cut solution" for a workpiece and a "desired depth of cut" for the gangsaw 128’ (pages 10-11).
It is respectfully submitted Barker teaches a cutting pattern/solution because Barker shows a cross-sectional view of a sawn cant showing the optimized cutting pattern/solution [0030, Figs. 7-11] and Kotesovec shows various cutting patterns for saws [col. 3 lines 10-33, Figs. 7, 9-11; col. 5 lines 31-50, Fig. 10]. Note that the claims, including cutting patterns/solutions, are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in accord with MPEP 2111. Also note that neither primary breakdown machines nor gangsaws are specifically claimed. And, it is not necessary to physically combine each and every element of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart but ‘Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.’ (MPEP 2145 III). Applicant’s argument is there not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that ‘Hart cannot remedy the deficiencies of Barker2009 and Kotesovek. Even if Hart's vertical adjustment device for a saw box were to be incorporated in some way into the modified gangsaw 128, Hart still cannot be said to teach or suggest determining a "first cut pattern" for the primary breakdown machine 124 based on both a "cut solution" for a workpiece and a "desired depth of cut" for the gangsaw 128’ (page 11) is moot because Hart is not cited as teaching these features.
Applicant’s comments on independent claim 31 and the respective dependent claims (page 11) are moot given the continued rejection of claim 21.
Applicant’s comments regarding Millwide and Barker2013 (page 11) are moot because neither Millwide nor Barker2013 is cited as teaching elements of independent claims 21 and 31.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 21, 26, 30-31, 36 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barker U.S. Patent Publication No. 20090255607 (hereinafter Barker2009) in view of Kotesovec et al. U.S. Patent No. 3347289 (hereinafter Kotesovec) and further in view of Hart U.S. Patent Publication No. 20060021677 (hereinafter Hart).
Regarding claim 21, Barker2009 teaches a method of processing a workpiece to obtain a desired cut product, wherein the workpiece is a log or a cant and the desired cut product is a board [0075, Figs. 1-11 — log segments 204 may then be transported the rest of the way to the primary breakdown machine 124. The primary breakdown machine 124 processes the log segments 204 to produce cants and may include chip heads for removing slab wood as well as one or more saws (e.g., round saws or band saws) for sawing sideboards from the cants.], the method comprising:
determining a first cut pattern based at least on a cut solution for the workpiece, wherein the first cut pattern is configured to be implemented by a precut module with at least one cutting member located upstream of the saw module [0068-0078, Fig. 1 — the functionality of the primary breakdown computer optimizer may be incorporated into the computing device 116, and the log segment scan zone 106 may provide image data to the computing device 116 for the primary breakdown optimization; 0030, Figs. 7-11— cross-sectional view of a sawn cant showing the optimized cutting pattern/solution; 0075, Fig. 1 — The primary breakdown machine 124 (precut module upstream of gangsaw 128 (saw module)) processes the log segments 204 to produce cants and may include chip heads for removing slab wood as well as one or more saws (e.g., round saws or band saws) for sawing sideboards from the cants.; 0096, Fig. 1 — After processing at the primary breakdown machine 124, the cants 428 may be transported for further processing at a gangsaw 128 (saw module)],
wherein the cutting members are profiling heads or saws [0075 — The primary breakdown machine 124 processes the log segments 204 to produce cants and may include chip heads for removing slab wood as well as one or more saws (e.g., round saws or band saws) for sawing sideboards from the cants.],
the cut solution defines a through-cut to be made longitudinally through the workpiece and the first cut pattern defines a through-cut [0030, Figs. 7-11— cross-sectional view of a sawn cant showing the optimized longitudinal through cuts] and cut is associated with a first throughput speed through the saw module; to thereby enable the saw module to cut the workpiece at an actual throughput speed that is equal to or greater than the first throughput speed [0089 — the primary breakdown computer optimizer to adjust the speed at which log segments 204 are transported through the primary breakdown machine 124 (saw module) — the throughput speed through the first saw module is equal to the actual throughput speed].
But Barker2009 fails to clearly specify a first cut pattern based at least on a desired depth of cut for a saw module; a pair of cutting members are circular saw; and the first cut pattern defines a first portion of the through-cut and the desired depth of cut is associated with a first throughput speed through the saw module; causing the precut module to cut only partially through the workpiece according to the first cut pattern; and causing the saw module to cut the workpiece along a remaining portion of the through-cut according to a second cut pattern to thereby sever a first piece from a remaining portion of the workpiece, wherein the remaining portion of the through-cut has a depth that is less than or equal to the desired depth of cut.
However, Kotesovec teaches a first cut pattern based at least on a desired depth of cut for a saw module [col. 5 lines 31-50, Fig. 10 — a sawing apparatus may be provided, as in FIG. 10, which apparatus is operative to successively produce the saw kerfs of incrementally increasing depth during a single pass of the log or timber 1 through such sawing apparatus. More specifically, the apparatus illustrated in FIG. 10 includes three sets of upper and lower saw blade assemblies, as indicated generally at A, B and C, with each set of saw blade assemblies being adjustably mounted in the manner described above with respect to FIG. 9 so that the successively located saw blade assemblies at A, B and C can be adjusted to make successively increasing depths of cuts in the log or timber 1 during a single pass of the latter through the sawing apparatus — Desired depth of cut is marked (dashed horizontal lines) for saw blade assemblies A and B]; a pair of cutting members are circular saws [col. 3 lines 10-33, Figs. 7, 9-11 — rotary saw blade 12 and the other circular saw blades shown]; and the first cut pattern defines a first portion of the through-cut; causing the precut module to cut only partially through the workpiece according to the first cut pattern; and causing the saw module to cut the workpiece along a remaining portion of the through-cut according to a second cut pattern to thereby sever a first piece from a remaining portion of the workpiece, wherein the remaining portion of the through-cut has a depth that is less than or equal to the desired depth of cut [col. 5 lines 31-50, Fig. 10 — a sawing apparatus may be provided, as in FIG. 10, which apparatus is operative to successively produce the saw kerfs of incrementally increasing depth during a single pass of the log or timber 1 through such sawing apparatus. More specifically, the apparatus illustrated in FIG. 10 includes three sets of upper and lower saw blade assemblies, as indicated generally at A, B and C, with each set of saw blade assemblies being adjustably mounted in the manner described above with respect to FIG. 9 so that the successively located saw blade assemblies at A, B and C can be adjusted to make successively increasing depths of cuts in the log or timber 1 during a single pass of the latter through the sawing apparatus].
Barker2009 and Kotesovec are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to lumber processing systems.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method for processing a workpiece, as taught by Barker2009, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Kotesovec.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification, i.e. applying the 2 part cutting process as taught by Kotesovec, to the two cutting elements of Barker2009 (precut and saw module), to facilitate removing chips, particularly relatively long chips, as taught by Kotesovec [col. 3 lines 10-33, col. 6 lines 1-16]. In addition, it would be obvious to simply substitute the known circular saw of Kotesovec for any of the saws described by Barker2009, e.g. in the primary breakdown machine 124 (precut module), for the predictable result of a method for processing a workpiece that utilizes one or more circular saws.
But the combination of Barker2009 and Kotesovec fails to clearly specify the desired depth of cut is associated with a first throughput speed through the saw module.
However, Hart teaches the desired depth of cut is associated with a first throughput speed through the saw module; and cutting the workpiece to thereby enable the saw module to cut the workpiece at an actual throughput speed that is equal to or greater than the first throughput speed [0026-0027 — the feed speed to process an 8 inch cant may be in the order of 33% faster when saw box 5 is vertically adjusted to equalize the depth of cut between bottom arbor saw 10a and top arbor saw 15a… if the thickness of the cant is 10 inches, saw box 5 may be adjusted vertically downwards by 1 inch such that bottom arbor saw 10a would process the bottom 5 inches of the cant (as opposed to 6 inches if saw box 5 is not vertically adjusted), top arbor saw 15a would process the top 5 inches of the cant (as opposed to 4 inches if saw box 5 is not vertically adjusted), and the feed speed would be 20% faster if saw box 5 is vertically adjusted. Because of the uneven distribution of horsepower usage between bottom arbor saw 10a and top arbor saw 15a, the efficiency of the feed speed is compromised if saw box 5 is in a position such that the depth of cut of bottom arbor saw 10a is disproportionate to the depth of cut of top arbor saw 15a. By equally sharing the depth of cut required to process work piece 20 between top arbor saw 15a and bottom arbor saw 10a, the horsepower required to process work piece 20 is also equally distributed between bottom arbor saw 10a and top arbor 15, thereby increasing the feed speed; 0009-0012 — The object of the present invention is to provide a double arbor gang saw adapted to distribute the usage of horsepower connected to the bottom arbor saws and the top arbor saws such that the feed speed may be increased to achieve greater throughput].
Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to lumber processing systems.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method for processing a workpiece, as taught by the combination of Barker2009 and Kotesovec, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Hart.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification to take account of the depth of the cut in order to obtain an optimal feed/throughput speed, as suggested by Hart [0009-0012, 0026-0027].
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Kotesovec teaches the precut module has a pair of circular saws [col. 3 lines 10-33, Figs. 7, 9-11 — rotary saw blades 12 and the other circular saw blades shown], the first portion of the through-cut has a first section along one side of the workpiece and another section along an opposite side of the workpiece, and the remaining portion of the through-cut is between said sections [col. 5 lines 31-50, Fig. 10 — a sawing apparatus may be provided, as in FIG. 10, which apparatus is operative to successively produce the saw kerfs of incrementally increasing depth during a single pass of the log or timber 1 through such sawing apparatus. More specifically, the apparatus illustrated in FIG. 10 includes three sets of upper and lower saw blade assemblies, as indicated generally at A, B and C, with each set of saw blade assemblies being adjustably mounted in the manner described above with respect to FIG. 9 so that the successively located saw blade assemblies at A, B and C can be adjusted to make successively increasing depths of cuts in the log or timber 1 during a single pass of the latter through the sawing apparatus — Upper and lower saw blade assemblies A leave a remaining portion of the through-cut between the upper and lower cuts to be cut by the other rotary saws].
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method for processing a workpiece, as taught by the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Kotesovec.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification to facilitate removing chips, particularly relatively long chips, as taught by Kotesovec [col. 3 lines 10-33, col. 6 lines 1-16]. In addition, it would be obvious to simply substitute the known circular saw of Kotesovec for the saw of Barker2009 for the predictable result of a method for processing a workpiece that utilizes a circular saw.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Kotesovec teaches determining the first cut pattern includes comparing a total depth of the through-cut to the desired depth of cut, and wherein the first portion of the through-cut is equal to or greater than a difference between the total depth and the desired depth of cut [col. 5 lines 31-50, Fig. 10 — a sawing apparatus may be provided, as in FIG. 10, which apparatus is operative to successively produce the saw kerfs of incrementally increasing depth during a single pass of the log or timber 1 through such sawing apparatus. More specifically, the apparatus illustrated in FIG. 10 includes three sets of upper and lower saw blade assemblies, as indicated generally at A, B and C, with each set of saw blade assemblies being adjustably mounted in the manner described above with respect to FIG. 9 so that the successively located saw blade assemblies at A, B and C can be adjusted to make successively increasing depths of cuts in the log or timber 1 during a single pass of the latter through the sawing apparatus — The various cuts are equal to a difference between the total depth and the desired depth of the other cuts.].
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method for processing a workpiece, as taught by the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Kotesovec.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification to facilitate removing chips, particularly relatively long chips, as taught by Kotesovec [col. 3 lines 10-33, col. 6 lines 1-16].
Regarding claim 31, Barker2009 teaches a system for processing a workpiece to obtain a desired cut product, wherein the desired cut product is a log or a cant and the desired cut product is a board [0048, Fig. 1 — a schematic view of an example sawmill 100 incorporating a system 102; 0075, Figs. 1-11 — log segments 204 may then be transported the rest of the way to the primary breakdown machine 124. The primary breakdown machine 124 processes the log segments 204 to produce cants and may include chip heads for removing slab wood as well as one or more saws (e.g., round saws or band saws) for sawing sideboards from the cants.], the system comprising:
a precut module having at least one cutting member, wherein the cutting members are profiling heads or saws [0075, Fig. 1 — The primary breakdown machine 124 (precut module upstream of gangsaw 128 (saw module)) processes the log segments 204 to produce cants and may include chip heads for removing slab wood as well as one or more saws (e.g., round saws or band saws) for sawing sideboards from the cants.; 0096, Fig. 1 — After processing at the primary breakdown machine 124, the cants 428 may be transported for further processing at a gangsaw 128 (saw module)];
a saw module downstream of the precut module [0075, Fig. 1 — The primary breakdown machine 124 (precut module upstream of gangsaw 128 (saw module)) processes the log segments 204 to produce cants and may include chip heads for removing slab wood as well as one or more saws (e.g., round saws or band saws) for sawing sideboards from the cants.; 0096, Fig. 1 — After processing at the primary breakdown machine 124, the cants 428 may be transported for further processing at a gangsaw 128 (saw module)]; and
an optimizer operatively coupled with the precut module, the optimizer programmed with instructions operable, upon execution by one or more computer processors of the optimizer, [0068-0078, Fig. 1 — the functionality of the primary breakdown computer optimizer may be incorporated into the computing device 116, and the log segment scan zone 106 may provide image data to the computing device 116 for the primary breakdown optimization; 0030, Figs. 7-11— cross-sectional view of a sawn cant showing the optimized cutting pattern/solution; 0124-0127 — computer system configurations, including handheld devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based… processing unit 1906],
wherein the cut solution defines a through-cut to be made longitudinally through the workpiece, and the first cut pattern defines a through-cut [0030, Figs. 7-11— cross-sectional view of a sawn cant showing the optimized longitudinal through cuts] and a cut is associated with a first throughput speed through the saw module; to thereby enable the saw module to cut the workpiece at an actual throughput speed that is equal to or greater than the first throughput speed [0089 — the primary breakdown computer optimizer to adjust the speed at which log segments 204 are transported through the primary breakdown machine 124 (saw module) — the throughput speed through the first saw module is equal to the actual throughput speed].
But Barker2009 fails to clearly specify a first cut pattern based at least on desired depth of cut for a saw module; a pair of cutting members are circular saws; and the first cut pattern defines a first portion of the through-cut and the desired depth of cut is associated with a first throughput speed through the saw module; causing the precut module to cut only partially through the workpiece according to the first cut pattern; and causing the saw module to cut the workpiece along a remaining portion of the through-cut according to a second cut pattern to thereby sever a first piece from a remaining portion of the workpiece, wherein the remaining portion of the through-cut has a depth that is less than or equal to the desired depth of cut.
However, Kotesovec teaches a first cut pattern based at least on a cut solution for the workpiece and a desired depth of cut for a saw module [col. 5 lines 31-50, Fig. 10 — a sawing apparatus may be provided, as in FIG. 10, which apparatus is operative to successively produce the saw kerfs of incrementally increasing depth during a single pass of the log or timber 1 through such sawing apparatus. More specifically, the apparatus illustrated in FIG. 10 includes three sets of upper and lower saw blade assemblies, as indicated generally at A, B and C, with each set of saw blade assemblies being adjustably mounted in the manner described above with respect to FIG. 9 so that the successively located saw blade assemblies at A, B and C can be adjusted to make successively increasing depths of cuts in the log or timber 1 during a single pass of the latter through the sawing apparatus — Desired depth of cut is marked (dashed horizontal lines) for saw blade assemblies A and B]; a pair of cutting members are circular saws [col. 3 lines 10-33, Figs. 7, 9-11 — rotary saw blade 12 and the other circular saw blades shown]; and the first cut pattern defines a first portion of the through-cut; causing the precut module to cut only partially through the workpiece according to the first cut pattern; and causing the saw module to cut the workpiece along a remaining portion of the through-cut according to a second cut pattern to thereby sever a first piece from a remaining portion of the workpiece, wherein the remaining portion of the through-cut has a depth that is less than or equal to the desired depth of cut [col. 5 lines 31-50, Fig. 10 — a sawing apparatus may be provided, as in FIG. 10, which apparatus is operative to successively produce the saw kerfs of incrementally increasing depth during a single pass of the log or timber 1 through such sawing apparatus. More specifically, the apparatus illustrated in FIG. 10 includes three sets of upper and lower saw blade assemblies, as indicated generally at A, B and C, with each set of saw blade assemblies being adjustably mounted in the manner described above with respect to FIG. 9 so that the successively located saw blade assemblies at A, B and C can be adjusted to make successively increasing depths of cuts in the log or timber 1 during a single pass of the latter through the sawing apparatus].
Barker2009 and Kotesovec are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to lumber processing systems.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system for processing a workpiece, as taught by Barker2009, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Kotesovec.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification, i.e. applying the 2 part cutting process as taught by Kotesovec, to the two cutting elements of Barker2009 (precut and saw module), to facilitate removing chips, particularly relatively long chips, as taught by Kotesovec [col. 3 lines 10-33, col. 6 lines 1-16]. In addition, it would be obvious to simply substitute the known circular saw of Kotesovec for any of the saws described by Barker2009, e.g. in the primary breakdown machine 124 (precut module), for the predictable result of a system for processing a workpiece that utilizes one or more circular saws.
But the combination of Barker2009 and Kotesovec fails to clearly specify the desired depth of cut is associated with a first throughput speed through the saw module.
However, Hart teaches the desired depth of cut is associated with a first throughput speed through the saw module; and cutting the workpiece to thereby enable the saw module to cut the workpiece at an actual throughput speed that is equal to or greater than the first throughput speed [0026-0027 — the feed speed to process an 8 inch cant may be in the order of 33% faster when saw box 5 is vertically adjusted to equalize the depth of cut between bottom arbor saw 10a and top arbor saw 15a… if the thickness of the cant is 10 inches, saw box 5 may be adjusted vertically downwards by 1 inch such that bottom arbor saw 10a would process the bottom 5 inches of the cant (as opposed to 6 inches if saw box 5 is not vertically adjusted), top arbor saw 15a would process the top 5 inches of the cant (as opposed to 4 inches if saw box 5 is not vertically adjusted), and the feed speed would be 20% faster if saw box 5 is vertically adjusted. Because of the uneven distribution of horsepower usage between bottom arbor saw 10a and top arbor saw 15a, the efficiency of the feed speed is compromised if saw box 5 is in a position such that the depth of cut of bottom arbor saw 10a is disproportionate to the depth of cut of top arbor saw 15a. By equally sharing the depth of cut required to process work piece 20 between top arbor saw 15a and bottom arbor saw 10a, the horsepower required to process work piece 20 is also equally distributed between bottom arbor saw 10a and top arbor 15, thereby increasing the feed speed; 0009-0012 — The object of the present invention is to provide a double arbor gang saw adapted to distribute the usage of horsepower connected to the bottom arbor saws and the top arbor saws such that the feed speed may be increased to achieve greater throughput].
Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to lumber processing systems.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method for processing a workpiece, as taught by the combination of Barker2009 and Kotesovec, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Hart.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification to take account of the depth of the cut in order to obtain an optimal feed/throughput speed, as suggested by Hart [0009-0012, 0026-0027].
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Barker2009 and Kotesovec teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above and this claim is otherwise rejected under the same rationale as claim 26.
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Barker2009 and Kotesovec teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above and this claim is otherwise rejected under the same rationale as claim 30.
Claims 22-25, 27, 32-35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart and further in view of Millwide Insider, Issue #2 2013, U.S. Natural Resources, Inc., published 2013 (hereinafter Millwide).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Barker2009 teaches the cutting members and the first piece is a block that is wider than the desired cut product [0068-0078, Fig. 1 — the functionality of the primary breakdown computer optimizer may be incorporated into the computing device 116, and the log segment scan zone 106 may provide image data to the computing device 116 for the primary breakdown optimization; 0030, Figs. 7-11— cross-sectional view of a sawn cant showing the optimized cutting pattern/solution; 0075, Fig. 1 — The primary breakdown machine 124 (precut module upstream of gangsaw 128 (saw module)) processes the log segments 204 to produce cants and may include chip heads for removing slab wood as well as one or more saws (e.g., round saws or band saws) for sawing sideboards from the cants.; 0096, Fig. 1 — After processing at the primary breakdown machine 124, the cants 428 may be transported for further processing at a gangsaw 128 (saw module); 0109-0111, Figs. 1 and 13-14 — the boards 708 from the gangsaw 128 and the sideboards 406 from the primary breakdown machine 124 may be further processed by an edger 130… the edging strips 1306 (waste piece)],
the method further including determining a third cut pattern configured to be implemented by an edger downstream of the saw module to cut the block longitudinally into at least a second piece and a waste piece, wherein the second piece corresponds to the desired cut product and the waste piece includes a longitudinal edge of the block [0068-0078, Fig. 1 — the functionality of the primary breakdown computer optimizer may be incorporated into the computing device 116, and the log segment scan zone 106 may provide image data to the computing device 116 for the primary breakdown optimization; 0030, Figs. 7-11— cross-sectional view of a sawn cant showing the optimized cutting pattern/solution; 0075, Fig. 1 — The primary breakdown machine 124 (precut module upstream of gangsaw 128 (saw module)) processes the log segments 204 to produce cants and may include chip heads for removing slab wood as well as one or more saws (e.g., round saws or band saws) for sawing sideboards from the cants.; 0096, Fig. 1 — After processing at the primary breakdown machine 124, the cants 428 may be transported for further processing at a gangsaw 128 (saw module); 0109-0111, Figs. 1 and 13-14 — the boards 708 from the gangsaw 128 and the sideboards 406 from the primary breakdown machine 124 may be further processed by an edger 130… the edging strips 1306 (waste piece)].
But the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart fails to clearly specify the cutting members are profiling heads.
However, Millwide teaches the cutting members are profiling heads [pages 8-9 — profiling heads can include a saw blade to produce a sawn finish… left and right profiling heads — see figures].
Barker2009, Kotesovec, Hart and Millwide are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to lumber processing systems.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method for processing a workpiece, as taught by the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Millwide.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification to increase processing speed, as taught by Millwide [page 8]. In addition, it would be obvious to simply substitute the known profiling heads of Millwide for the saw of Barker2009 for the predictable result of a method for processing a workpiece that utilizes profiling heads.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Barker2009 teaches the precut module is a first precut module and the cutting members [0068-0078, Fig. 1 — the functionality of the primary breakdown computer optimizer may be incorporated into the computing device 116, and the log segment scan zone 106 may provide image data to the computing device 116 for the primary breakdown optimization; 0030, Figs. 7-11— cross-sectional view of a sawn cant showing the optimized cutting pattern/solution; 0075, Fig. 1 — The primary breakdown machine 124 (precut module upstream of gangsaw 128 (saw module)) processes the log segments 204 to produce cants and may include chip heads for removing slab wood as well as one or more saws (e.g., round saws or band saws) for sawing sideboards from the cants.; 0096, Fig. 1 — After processing at the primary breakdown machine 124, the cants 428 may be transported for further processing at a gangsaw 128 (saw module)].
Further, Kotesovec teaches determining a third cut pattern configured to be implemented by a second precut module with a pair of circular saws located between the first precut module and the saw module, wherein the third cut pattern defines a second portion of the through-cut [col. 5 lines 31-50, Fig. 10 — a sawing apparatus may be provided, as in FIG. 10, which apparatus is operative to successively produce the saw kerfs of incrementally increasing depth during a single pass of the log or timber 1 through such sawing apparatus. More specifically, the apparatus illustrated in FIG. 10 includes three sets of upper and lower saw blade assemblies, as indicated generally at A, B and C, with each set of saw blade assemblies being adjustably mounted in the manner described above with respect to FIG. 9 so that the successively located saw blade assemblies at A, B and C can be adjusted to make successively increasing depths of cuts in the log or timber 1 during a single pass of the latter through the sawing apparatus — Desired depth of cut is marked (dashed horizontal lines) for saw blade assemblies A and B — first precut module A, second precut module B].
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method for processing a workpiece, as taught by the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Kotesovec.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification to facilitate removing chips, particularly relatively long chips, as taught by Kotesovec [col. 3 lines 10-33, col. 6 lines 1-16]. In addition, it would be obvious to simply substitute the known circular saw of Kotesovec for the saw of Barker2009 for the predictable result of a method for processing a workpiece that utilizes a circular saw.
But the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart fails to clearly specify the cutting members are profiling heads.
However, Millwide teaches the cutting members are profiling heads [pages 8-9 — profiling heads can include a saw blade to produce a sawn finish… left and right profiling heads — see figures].
Barker2009, Kotesovec Hart and Millwide are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to lumber processing systems.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method for processing a workpiece, as taught by the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Millwide.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification to increase processing speed, as taught by Millwide [page 8]. In addition, it would be obvious to simply substitute the known profiling heads of Millwide for the saw of Barker2009 for the predictable result of a method for processing a workpiece that utilizes profiling heads.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec, Hart and Millwide teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Barker2009 teaches the first piece is a block that is wider than the desired cut product [0068-0078, Fig. 1 — the functionality of the primary breakdown computer optimizer may be incorporated into the computing device 116, and the log segment scan zone 106 may provide image data to the computing device 116 for the primary breakdown optimization; 0030, Figs. 7-11— cross-sectional view of a sawn cant showing the optimized cutting pattern/solution; 0075, Fig. 1 — The primary breakdown machine 124 (precut module upstream of gangsaw 128 (saw module)) processes the log segments 204 to produce cants and may include chip heads for removing slab wood as well as one or more saws (e.g., round saws or band saws) for sawing sideboards from the cants.; 0096, Fig. 1 — After processing at the primary breakdown machine 124, the cants 428 may be transported for further processing at a gangsaw 128 (saw module); 0109-0111, Figs. 1 and 13-14 — the boards 708 from the gangsaw 128 and the sideboards 406 from the primary breakdown machine 124 may be further processed by an edger 130… the edging strips 1306 (waste piece)],
the method further including determining a fourth cut pattern configured to be implemented by an edger downstream of the saw module to cut the block into at least a second piece and a waste piece, wherein the second piece has a width and a thickness equal to a width and a thickness of the desired cut product and the waste piece includes a longitudinal edge of the block [0068-0078, Fig. 1 — the functionality of the primary breakdown computer optimizer may be incorporated into the computing device 116, and the log segment scan zone 106 may provide image data to the computing device 116 for the primary breakdown optimization; 0030, Figs. 7-11— cross-sectional view of a sawn cant showing the optimized cutting pattern/solution; 0075, Fig. 1 — The primary breakdown machine 124 (precut module upstream of gangsaw 128 (saw module)) processes the log segments 204 to produce cants and may include chip heads for removing slab wood as well as one or more saws (e.g., round saws or band saws) for sawing sideboards from the cants.; 0096, Fig. 1 — After processing at the primary breakdown machine 124, the cants 428 may be transported for further processing at a gangsaw 128 (saw module); 0109-0111, Figs. 1 and 13-14 — the boards 708 from the gangsaw 128 and the sideboards 406 from the primary breakdown machine 124 may be further processed by an edger 130… the edging strips 1306 (waste piece)].
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec, Hart and Millwide teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Barker2009 teaches the first piece has a width and a thickness equal to a width and a thickness of the desired cut product [0030, Figs. 7-11— cross-sectional view of a sawn cant showing the optimized cutting pattern/solution; 0075, Fig. 1 — The primary breakdown machine 124 (precut module upstream of gangsaw 128 (saw module)) processes the log segments 204 to produce cants and may include chip heads for removing slab wood as well as one or more saws (e.g., round saws or band saws) for sawing sideboards from the cants.; 0109-0111, Figs. 1 and 13-14 — the boards 708 from the gangsaw 128 and the sideboards 406 from the primary breakdown machine 124 may be further processed by an edger 130… the edging strips 1306 (waste piece); 0050 — sideboards… finished lumber; 0110, Fig. 13 — an edged board 1304 has a width and thickness].
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec, Hart and Millwide teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Barker2009 teaches determining, based at least on the cut solution, a fourth cut pattern configured to be implemented by the precut module, wherein the fourth cut pattern defines a profile of the desired cut product to be formed along the workpiece [0068-0078, Fig. 1 — the functionality of the primary breakdown computer optimizer may be incorporated into the computing device 116, and the log segment scan zone 106 may provide image data to the computing device 116 for the primary breakdown optimization; 0030, Figs. 7-11— cross-sectional view of a sawn cant showing the optimized cutting pattern/solution; 0075-0079, Fig. 1 — The primary breakdown machine 124 (precut module upstream of gangsaw 128 (saw module)) processes the log segments 204 to produce cants and may include chip heads for removing slab wood as well as one or more saws (e.g., round saws or band saws) for sawing sideboards from the cants.; 0006-0007, 0148 — The primary breakdown machine 124 processes the log segments 204 to produce cants 428 and may include chip heads for removing slab wood (forming a profile) as well as one or more saws].
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above and this claim is otherwise rejected under the same rationale as claim 22.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec and Hart teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above and this claim is otherwise rejected under the same rationale as claim 23.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec, Hart and Millwide teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above and this claim is otherwise rejected under the same rationale as claim 24.
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec, Hart and Millwide teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above and this claim is otherwise rejected under the same rationale as claim 25.
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec, Hart and Millwide teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above and this claim is otherwise rejected under the same rationale as claim 27.
Claims 28-29 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec, Hart and Millwide and further in view of Barker U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130199672 (hereinafter Barker2013).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec, Hart and Millwide teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Barker2009 teaches the precut module [0075, Fig. 1 — The primary breakdown machine 124 (precut module upstream of gangsaw 128 (saw module)) processes the log segments 204 to produce cants and may include chip heads for removing slab wood as well as one or more saws (e.g., round saws or band saws) for sawing sideboards from the cants].
But the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec, Hart and Millwide fails to clearly specify determining a first difference, if any, in wood volume recovery for the first cut pattern relative to the fourth cut pattern; determining a second difference, if any, in throughput for the fourth cut pattern relative to the first cut pattern; comparing a value of the first difference to a value of the second difference and sending the first cut pattern to the module based on said comparing.
However, Barker2013 teaches determining a first difference, if any, in wood volume recovery for the first cut pattern relative to the fourth cut pattern; determining a second difference, if any, in throughput for the fourth cut pattern relative to the first cut pattern; comparing a value of the first difference to a value of the second difference [Abstract — a cant optimizer which optimizes sawing patterns… simulate alternative sawing patterns, determining a theoretical amount of recovery that would have resulted from each and comparing such to actual recovery from the log or cant; 0046-0050 — the cant optimizer computer 120 simulates thousands of different ways to cut the cant 103 into lumber, and picks a solution intended to maximize a value or volume of lumber 105 produced from the cant 103… The optimizer auditing system 130 may determine whether the boards 105 actually coming from the gangsaw 108 (FIG. 1) are optimized, for example of a highest value or volume possible given certain defined criteria — picking an optimum solution to maximize volume implies comparing the differences between the various possible solutions; 0016 — at least one processor that computationally determines at least one geometric characteristic of a log from which the pieces of lumber were sawn based at least in part on an acquired set of geometrical information, computationally simulates a plurality of simulated sawing solutions, each of at least some of the simulated sawing solutions different from an actual sawing solution used in the sawing operation; and computationally determines a simulated amount of recovery from the log for each of at least some of the simulated sawing solutions]; and sending the first cut pattern to the cutting module based on said comparing [0053 — scanning may be used to derive information regarding the geometry of the cants 103, and the cant optimizer computer 120 may use this information to determine an optimal way to saw each cant 103 into a plurality of boards 105. Based on the determined optimal sawing process, the gangsaw optimizer computer 120 may send appropriate commands to a PLC that then directly controls the gangsaw 108 during sawing].
Barker2009, Kotesovec, Hart, Millwide and Barker2013 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to lumber processing systems.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method for processing a workpiece, as taught by the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec, Hart and Millwide, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Barker2013.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification to realize optimum lumber value from natural resources, as taught by Barker2013 [0010-0017].
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec, Hart and Millwide teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec, Hart and Millwide fails to clearly specify calculating an increase in wood volume recovery or a decrease, if any, in throughput speed through the saw module for the first cut pattern relative to the fourth cut pattern.
However, Barker2013 teaches calculating an increase in wood volume recovery or a decrease, if any, in throughput speed through the saw module for the first cut pattern relative to the fourth cut pattern [Abstract — a cant optimizer which optimizes sawing patterns… simulate alternative sawing patterns, determining a theoretical amount of recovery that would have resulted from each and comparing such to actual recovery from the log or cant; 0046-0050 — the cant optimizer computer 120 simulates thousands of different ways to cut the cant 103 into lumber, and picks a solution intended to maximize a value or volume of lumber 105 produced from the cant 103… The optimizer auditing system 130 may determine whether the boards 105 actually coming from the gangsaw 108 (FIG. 1) are optimized, for example of a highest value or volume possible given certain defined criteria — picking an optimum solution to maximize volume implies comparing the differences between the various possible solutions, i.e. increase or decreases in wood volume; 0016 — at least one processor that computationally determines at least one geometric characteristic of a log from which the pieces of lumber were sawn based at least in part on an acquired set of geometrical information, computationally simulates a plurality of simulated sawing solutions, each of at least some of the simulated sawing solutions different from an actual sawing solution used in the sawing operation; and computationally determines a simulated amount of recovery from the log for each of at least some of the simulated sawing solutions].
Barker2009, Kotesovec, Hart, Millwide and Barker2013 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to lumber processing systems.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method for processing a workpiece, as taught by the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec, Hart and Millwide, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Barker2013.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification to realize optimum lumber value from natural resources, as taught by Barker2013 [0010-0017].
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec, Hart and Millwide teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above and this claim is otherwise rejected under the same rationale as claim 28.
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Barker2009, Kotesovec, Hart and Millwide teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above and this claim is otherwise rejected under the same rationale as claim 29.
Note that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
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 BERNARD G. LINDSAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571)272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call the examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/BERNARD G LINDSAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights