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 . 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/14/2023 and 04/19/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 02/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/23/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “a processor; and a non-transitory storage medium that stores a program for the processor to generate the processing job, wherein the processor searches for at least one candidate for the cutting position based on layout information that is information regarding a position of the product disposed on the sheet, from among the at least one candidate for the cutting position, selects a candidate that can be processed by the first machining device and the second machining device and has a small number of cutting positions based on a maximum size of a first margin region between a contour of the sheet and a contour of the product in the first direction, the first margin region being dischargeable by the first machining device, and a maximum size and a minimum size of the intermediate sheet in the first direction, the intermediate sheet being conveyable by the second machining device, and generates a processing job for performing processing at the selected cutting position”. As currently claimed, the decision process could be performed as a mental thought process that could be cut by hand from a user’s perspective. The further elements relate to searching and planning a cut based on the workpiece. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor and non-transitory medium when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. For example, the additional limitations (processor and non-transitory storage medium) only store and retrieve information in memory, and these components are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Examiner notes claims 2-6 are also rejected under 101 as provided above, because the limitations of the dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea presented in claim 1. As currently claimed, each of claims 2-6 provide further generic processing information as described in detail above for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by de Jonge (US 11,210,043).
Regarding claim 1, DeJonge teaches a device for generating processing job in a sheet processing system, the sheet processing system including a first machining device that conveys a sheet on which at least one product is disposed in a first direction that is a conveyance direction of the first machining device, cuts the sheet at least one cutting position according to a processing job, and discharges an intermediate sheet; and a second machining device that processes the intermediate sheet discharged from the first machining device according to the processing job, and discharges the product, the device for generating processing job generating the processing job that gives an instruction on processing contents to be performed by each of the first machining device and the second machining device, the device for generating processing job (Abstract) comprising:
a processor (100, 110) and a non-transitory storage medium that stores a program for the processor to generate the processing job (Col. 3, Lines 37-57), wherein the processor searches for at least one candidate for the cutting position based on layout information that is information regarding a position of the product disposed on the sheet, from among the at least one candidate for the cutting position, selects a candidate that can be processed by the first machining device and the second machining device and has a small number of cutting positions based on a maximum size of a first margin region between a contour of the sheet and a contour of the product in the first direction, the first margin region being dischargeable by the first machining device, and a maximum size and a minimum size of the intermediate sheet in the first direction, the intermediate sheet being conveyable by the second machining device, and generates a processing job for performing processing at the selected cutting position (Figure 4; Col. 5, Lines 11-60, Col. 6, Lines 59-67 and Col. 7, Lines 1-36).
Regarding claim 2, DeJonge teaches the device for generating processing job according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the sheet is divided into a plurality of the intermediate sheets in the first machining device, based on layout information that is given and is information regarding a position of the product disposed on the sheet, a maximum size and a minimum size of the intermediate sheets in the first direction, the intermediate sheets being conveyable by the second machining device, a maximum size and a minimum size in the first direction of a second margin region between a contour of the intermediate sheets that can be processed by the second machining device and a contour of the product, and a size of the product, the processor creates new layout information, searches for at least one candidate for the cutting position based on the new layout information, and generates the processing job (Abstract; Col. 5, Lines 11-67 and Col. 6, Lines 1-17) .
Regarding claim 3, DeJonge teaches the device for generating processing job according to claim 2, wherein the processor generates the new layout information such that a layout of each of products on the plurality of intermediate sheets becomes a same among the plurality of intermediate sheets (Col. 8, Lines 33-42).
Regarding claim 4, DeJonge teaches the device for generating processing job according to claim 1, wherein the processor corrects candidates for the cutting position based on a maximum size in the first direction that can be discharged by the first machining device, a maximum size and a minimum size in the first direction of the intermediate sheet that can be conveyed by the second machining device, and a maximum size and a minimum size in the first direction of a second margin region between a contour of the intermediate sheet that can be processed by the second machining device and a contour of the product, and selects a candidate having a small number of cutting positions that can be processed by the first machining device and the second machining device from among the candidates for the cutting position (Abstract; Col. 5, Lines 11-67 and Col. 6, Lines 1-17).
Regarding claim 5, DeJonge teaches the device for generating processing job according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the sheet is divided into a plurality of the intermediate sheets in the first machining device, based on layout information that is given and is information regarding a position of the product disposed on the sheet, a maximum size and a minimum size of the intermediate sheets in the first direction, the intermediate sheets being conveyable by the second machining device, a maximum size and a minimum size in the first direction of the second margin region of the intermediate sheets that can be processed by the second machining device, a maximum size and a minimum size in the first direction of a third margin region between products disposed on the one intermediate sheet that can be processed by the second machining device and disposed at adjacent positions, and a size of the products, the processor creates new layout information, searches for at least one candidate for the cutting position based on the new layout information, and generates the processing job (Abstract; Col. 5, Lines 11-67 and Col. 6, Lines 1-17).
Regarding claim 6, DeJonge teaches the device for generating processing job according to claim 1, wherein the processor generates a processing job in which a cutting position is set between a front end of the sheet and a product on a most front-end side in the first direction (Col. 8, Lines 11-43).
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references B-J, L-M on page 1 and A-D and F on Page 2 establish the state of the art with a variety of shaver and with different cutting elements/blades
using a variety of driving mechanisms for the cutting elements and blades.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 05/29/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights