Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and 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.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as
applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations
are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the
individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from
the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially
teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by
the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 1, 9, 17, and 25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Chang, et al. (US 9,635,908 B2).
With regard to claim 1, Chang, et al. disclose a system for generating an image of a modified, i.e., adjusted, desired cutting die (See for example, the Abstract), the system comprising: at least one data storage device storing a set of cutting edge specifications; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one data storage device, the at least one processor operable to: receive at least one images of a desired cutting die (See for example, col. 4, lines 6-25; col. 4, lines 46-48; and item 310 in Fig. 3 and the associated text); identify an entire cutting edge of the desired cutting die as shown in the at least one images of the desired cutting die, the cutting edge being positioned around a perimeter of the cutting die (See for example, col. 4, lines 6-25); identify at least one feature of the cutting edge of the desired cutting die as shown in the least one images of the desired cutting die; retrieve a set of cutting edge specifications from the data storage device, the set of cutting edge specifications including a desired tolerance for differences between a shape of the desired cutting die and a shape of a provided cutting die (See for example, col. 6, line 61- col. 7, lines 18-25); based the on the desired tolerance, calculate an offset distance between the cutting edge of the desired cutting die and a cutting edge of the provided cutting die (col. 4, lines 6-25; col. 9, line 33 – col. 10, line 3) ; and generate an image of a modified desired cutting die based on the offset distance (See for example, col. 4, lines 6-25; and Fig. 6 and the associated text). Thus, each of the requirements of claim 1 is met.
With regard to claim 9, the system of claim 1, at least one bending, i.e., pliable, flexible, folding and/or bending, machine operable to provide the provided cutting die based on the generated image of the modified desired cutting die (See for example, col. 1, lines 41-62; col. 4, lines 6-25; and Fig. 3 and the associated text).
Claim 25 is rejected the same as claim 1 except claim 25 is a method claim. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 25.
With regard to claim 17, the method of claim 25 further comprising the at least one bending machine operable to provide the provided cutting die based on the generated image of the modified desired cutting die (See for example, col. 1, lines 41-62; col. 4, lines 6-25; and Fig. 3 and the associated text).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 7, 26 and 31 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang ‘908 in view of Riggio (US 6,003,228).
With regard to claim 2, Chang, et al. (hereinafter “Chang”) discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 6, and incorporated herein by reference. Chang further discloses wherein the processor is operable to, when generating the image of the modified desired cutting die, apply the offset distance to the cutting edge of the desired cutting die (See for example, col. 2, line 58- col. 3, line 3). Chang does not expressly call for the shape of the modified desired cutting die is smaller than the shape of the desired cutting die. However, Riggio (See for example, col. 6, line 11-16) teaches this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching as taught by Riggio into the system of Chang, if for no other reason than to transform the initial shape image to a new smaller image version of the initial shape image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chang with Riggio to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
With regard to claim 7, the system of claim 6, wherein the offset distance is less than about 75% of the desired tolerance, or less than about 60% of the desired tolerance, or about 50% of the desired tolerance (See for example, col. 6, lines 15-17 of Riggio).
Claims 26 and 31 are rejected the same as claims 2 and 7 respectively, except claims 26 and 31 are method claims. Thus, arguments similar to those presented above for claims 2 and 7 are respectively applicable to claims 26 and 31.
Claims 3-6, 8, 27-30, and 32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang ‘908
With regard to claim 3, the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is operable to, when generating the image of the modified desired cutting die, modify a position of the one or more features of the cutting edge of the desired cutting die based on the desired tolerance (See for example, col. 2, line 58- col. 3, line 3; col. 4, lines 6-25; and Fig. 4 of Chang). While Chang does not specify modifying a position of the one or more features, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious, if not inherent, to interpret the various alignments carried out in Fig. 4 exhibits modifying the position of one or more of the pattern features
With regard to claim 4, the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is operable to, when generating the image of the modified desired cutting die, modify a position of the one or more features of the cutting edge of the desired cutting die based on the offset distance . See for example, col. 2, line 58- col. 3, line 3 of Chang).
With regard to claim 5, the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is operable to, when generating the image of a modified desired cutting die, modify a feature of the cutting edge of the desired cutting die based on one or more of the offset distance and the desired tolerance (See for example, col. 2, line 58- col. 3, line 3 of Chang).
With regard to claim 6, the system of claim 1, wherein the offset distance is less than the desired tolerance (Broadly reads on col. 8, lines 22-61 of Chang) .
With regard to claim 8, the system of claim 1, wherein the offset distance is greater than the desired tolerance (See for example, col. 8, lines 22-35 of Chang).
Claims 27, 28, 29, 30, and 32 are rejected the same as claims 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 respectively, except claims 27, 28, 29, 30, and 32 are method claims. Thus, arguments similar to those presented above for claims 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 are respectively applicable to claims 27, 28, 29, 30, and 32.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of Chang, et al. do not disclose or fairly suggest generating a plurality of images of modified desired cutting dies, each image being based on one respective image of the plurality of images of the desired cutting dies, each modified desired cutting die having a modified boundary being offset inwardly relative to a boundary of the desired cutting die by a calculated offset distance, the calculated offset distance being based on a desired tolerance for differences between a position of the boundary of the desired cutting die and a position of the modified boundary of the modified desired cutting die; providing, using a bending machine, a plurality of provided cutting dies, each provided cutting die being based on one of the plurality of generated images of the modified desired cutting dies and having a modified footprint that is smaller than a footprint of its respective desired cutting die; arranging each of the plurality of provided cutting dies on a die board, the total footprint of the plurality of provided cutting dies being smaller than the footprint of the respective desired cutting dies; and arranging the material with respect to the cutting dies to provide for the cutting machine to cut the material and create the plurality of pieces of the material. It is for this reason and in combination with all the other elements of the claim that claim 33 is allowable over the closest prior art of Chang, et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. European Patent No. EP 0798086 A1 (See entire document).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, Mathew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/DANIEL G MARIAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
