DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 8/04/2025 has been entered. Claims 19-30 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-18 were cancelled.
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 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jans (US 8763873) in view of Shill (US 5791539) and Mitsuboshi (WO 2020090179 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Jans teaches a bundle breaker comprising:
an upstream breaking support (121) having an input end and an output end (right and left ends relative to Fig. 1, respectively; as is evident from Fig. 1 and col. 11, lines 45-47, the ‘upstream’ and ‘input’ directions are toward the right relative to Fig. 1, whereas the ‘output’ and ‘downstream’ directions are toward the left relative to Fig. 1),
a first platen (125, see Figure 1) located above the upstream breaking support (see Figure 1),
a first actuator (423) operably connected to the first platen and configured to shift the first platen toward a raised position above the upstream breaking support and toward a lowered position above the upstream breaking support to selectively clamp a first portion of a log between the first platen and the upstream breaking support (See Figure 1, col. 8 lines 66-67 and col. 9 lines 55-65),
a downstream breaking support (111) having an input end and an output end,
a second platen located above (115) the downstream breaking support (see Figure 1),
a second actuator (413, see Figure 1) operably connected to the second platen and configured to shift the second platen toward a raised position above the downstream breaking support and toward a lowered position above the downstream breaking support to selectively clamp a second portion of the log between the second platen and the downstream breaking support (see Figure 1, col. 8 lines 64-65 and col. 10lines 6-19),
a third actuator (601, see Figure 1) configured to apply a shifting force (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation the rotational direction of the motor move the downstream breaking support about a single axis 300 meet a shifting force) to the downstream breaking support to shift the downstream breaking support and the second platen relative to the upstream breaking support from a first position toward a second position until the second portion of the log from the first portion of the log is broken (see Fig. 1 showing the ‘second position’ that breaks the log; col. 11, lines 3-17 and lines 29-33 describe the movement from the first position, aka the original position, toward the second position and back to the first position).
Jans fails to teach a controller configured to control the first actuator and the second actuator and the third actuator, the controller is configured to stop or reduce the application of the shifting force in response to a determination that the second portion of the log has broken off the first portion of the log.
Shill teaches a bundle breaker including a controller (86) configured to control the first actuator (64) and the second actuator (71) and the third actuator (42, see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Jans to add a controller for controlling the three actuators, as taught by Shill. As one of ordinary skill in the art understand that having a controller would better automate the bundle breaking device.
Mitsuboshi is in the field of breaking devices and is also pertinent to the problem of controlling a device for breaking an object (see the first paragraph on page 1 of Mitsuboshi). Mitsuboshi teaches a servo motor (4) that is configured to stop or reduce the application of the shifting force in response to a determination that the second portion of the log has broken off the first portion of the log (see Fig. 2, where the output from the motor 4 to the unit 22 includes a signal indicative of a torque produced by the motor; see the paragraph beginning ‘The torque detection unit 22…’ on page 3) and to send the signal to a controller 20 (see Fig. 2, where the signal is sent to the torque detection unit 22), and that a method includes to stop or reduce the application of the shifting force in response to a determination that the second portion of the work piece has broken off the first portion of the work piece (see the second paragraph on page 5). Mitsuboshi teaches that variations in breaking torque result from variations in the workpiece, such as the thickness of the workpiece, sometimes cause breaks to not be performed properly (see the paragraph beginning, ‘However, in practice, …’ on page 1). Mitsuboshi further teaches that by monitoring the torque of the servo motor that drives the breaking operation, and controlling the servo motor based on this torque, a suitable break can be performed in each time. (see the final two paragraph of page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jans, as modified, to change the motor (601 of Jans) into a servo motor with sensing system and the controller to be configured to stop or reduce the application of the shifting force in response to a determination that the second portion of the log has broken off the first portion of the log (including stopping the breaking operation in response to a decrease in torque) in view of the teachings of Mitsuboshi. This modification is advantageous because it avoids ensures a suitable break is performed each time, even when the workpiece includes variations from piece to piece.
Regarding claim 20, modified Jans further teaches the downstream breaking support comprises a downstream breaking conveyor (112, see Figure 1 of Jans).
Regarding claim 21, modified Jans further teaches the upstream breaking support comprises an upstream breaking conveyor (112, see Figure 1 of Jans).
Regarding claim 22, modified Jans further teaches the third actuator comprises a servo moto (as modified in claim 19, servo 4 of Mitsuboshi).
Regarding claim 23, modified Jans further teaches the determination that the second portion of the log has broken off the first portion of the log is based on a signal indicating a torque produced by the third actuator (as modified by Mitsuboshi, see Fig. 2, where the output from the motor 4 to the unit 22 includes a signal indicative of a torque produced by the motor; see the paragraph beginning ‘The torque detection unit 22…’ on page 3 of Mitsuboshi).
Regarding claim 24, modified Jans further teaches a sensor (as modified in claim 19, detector 22 of Mitsuboshi) configured to detect that the second portion of the log has broken off the first portion of the log and to send a signal to the controller to indicate that the second portion of the log has broken off the first portion of the log (see Fig. 2, where the signal is sent to the torque detection unit 22 of Mitsuboshi).
Regarding claim 25, modified Jans further teaches a method comprising: providing the bundle breaker according to claim 19,
positioning the log on the bundle breaker such that the second portion of the log is supported by the downstream breaking support and the first portion of the log is supported by the upstream breaking support,
controlling the first actuator to shift the first platen toward the lowered position of the first platen (as modified in claim 19, see Figure 3 of Shill),
controlling the second actuator to shift the second platen toward the lowered position of the second platen (as modified in claim 19, see Figure 3 of Shill),
controlling the third actuator to apply the shifting force to the downstream breaking support (as modified in claim 19, see Figure 3 of Shill), and
stopping or reducing the application of the shifting force in response to the determination that the second portion of the log has broken off the first portion of the log (as modified in claim 1, see Fig. 2, where the signal is sent to the torque detection unit 22 of Mitsuboshi).
Regarding claim 26, modified Jans further teaches a method comprising:
providing the bundle breaker according to claim 24,
positioning the log on the bundle breaker such that the second portion of the log is supported by the downstream breaking support and the first portion of the log is supported by the upstream breaking support,
controlling the first actuator to shift the first platen toward the lowered position of the first platen (as modified in claim 19, see Figure 3 of Shill),
controlling the second actuator to shift the second platen toward the lowered position of the second platen (as modified in claim 19, see Figure 3 of Shill),
controlling the third actuator to apply the shifting force to the downstream breaking support (as modified in claim 19, see Figure 3 of Shill), and
stopping or reducing the application of the shifting force in response to the signal (as modified in claim 1, see Fig. 2, where the signal is sent to the torque detection unit 22 of Mitsuboshi).
Regarding claim 27, modified Jans further teaches the second platen and the downstream breaking support are pivotable together about a common pivot axis (300, see Figure 1 of Jans).
Regarding claim 28, modified Jans further teaches the common pivot axis is located at a junction of the upstream breaking support and the downstream breaking support (Figure 1 of Jans).
Claims 19-27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shill (US 5791539) in view of Jans (US 8763873) and Mitsuboshi (WO 2020090179 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Shill teaches a bundle breaker comprising:
an upstream breaking support (58) having an input end and an output end (right and left end in Figure 4 via the direction of 93),
a first platen (50, see Figure 3) located above the upstream breaking support (see Figure 1),
a first actuator (64) operably connected to the first platen and configured to shift the first platen toward a raised position above the upstream breaking support and toward a lowered position above the upstream breaking support to selectively clamp a first portion of a log between the first platen and the upstream breaking support (see Figure 3),
a downstream breaking support (48) having an input end and an output end,
a second platen located above (44) the downstream breaking support (see Figure 3),
a second actuator (72, see Figure 4) operably connected to the second platen and configured to shift the second platen toward a raised position above the downstream breaking support and toward a lowered position above the downstream breaking support to selectively clamp a second portion of the log between the second platen and the downstream breaking support (see Figure 1, col. 8 lines 64-65 and col. 10lines 6-19),
a third actuator (42, see Figure 3) configured to apply a shifting force (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation the rotational direction of the motor move the downstream breaking support about a single axis 38 meet a shifting force) to the downstream breaking support to shift the downstream breaking support and the second platen relative to the upstream breaking support from a first position toward a second position until the second portion of the log from the first portion of the log is broken (see Figures 3-5 describe the movement from the first position, aka the original position, toward the second position and back to the first position),
a controller (86) configured to control the first actuator and the second actuator and the third actuator (col. 10 lies 5-35 of Shill).
Shill fails to teach the controller is configured to stop or reduce the application of the shifting force in response to a determination that the second portion of the log has broken off the first portion of the log.
Jans teaches a bundle breaker including the first actuator (423) and the second actuator (413) and the third actuator (601, see Figure 3), wherein each of the first/second/third actuator are all motors (col. 9 lines 44 - col. 11, line 17).
Shill differs from the claimed device due to Shill’s actuator are hydraulic actuator arrangement, whereas Jans teaches motors as actuator for the breaking of stack work piece. Both Shill and Jans teaches a type of actuator for moving a bundle break. Such modification will achieve the predictable result of providing a type of actuator, since both actuator of Shill and Jans are known for the same purpose in the art. See MPEP § 2143 I. (B). Therefore, it would have been an obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one type of actuator arrangement for another in order to provide an actuator arrangement for the purpose of moving a bundle breaker device.
Mitsuboshi is in the field of breaking devices and is also pertinent to the problem of controlling a device for breaking an object (see the first paragraph on page 1 of Mitsuboshi). Mitsuboshi teaches a servo motor (4) that is configured to stop or reduce the application of the shifting force in response to a determination that the second portion of the log has broken off the first portion of the log (see Fig. 2, where the output from the motor 4 to the unit 22 includes a signal indicative of a torque produced by the motor; see the paragraph beginning ‘The torque detection unit 22…’ on page 3) and to send the signal to a controller 20 (see Fig. 2, where the signal is sent to the torque detection unit 22), and that a method includes to stop or reduce the application of the shifting force in response to a determination that the second portion of the work piece has broken off the first portion of the work piece (see the second paragraph on page 5). Mitsuboshi teaches that variations in breaking torque result from variations in the workpiece, such as the thickness of the workpiece, sometimes cause breaks to not be performed properly (see the paragraph beginning, ‘However, in practice, …’ on page 1). Mitsuboshi further teaches that by monitoring the torque of the servo motor that drives the breaking operation, and controlling the servo motor based on this torque, a suitable break can be performed in each time. (see the final two paragraph of page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shill, as modified, to change the motor (as modified by Jans, 601 of Jans) into a servo motor with sensing system and the controller to be configured to stop or reduce the application of the shifting force in response to a determination that the second portion of the log has broken off the first portion of the log (including stopping the breaking operation in response to a decrease in torque) in view of the teachings of Mitsuboshi. This modification is advantageous because it avoids ensures a suitable break is performed each time, even when the workpiece includes variations from piece to piece.
Regarding claim 20, modified Shill further teaches the downstream breaking support comprises a downstream breaking conveyor (66, see Figure 3 of Shill).
Regarding claim 21, modified Shill further teaches the upstream breaking support comprises an upstream breaking conveyor (60, see Figure 3 of Shill).
Regarding claim 22, modified Shill further teaches the third actuator comprises a servo moto (as modified in claim 19, servo 4 of Mitsuboshi).
Regarding claim 23, modified Shill further teaches the determination that the second portion of the log has broken off the first portion of the log is based on a signal indicating a torque produced by the third actuator (as modified by Mitsuboshi, see Fig. 2, where the output from the motor 4 to the unit 22 includes a signal indicative of a torque produced by the motor; see the paragraph beginning ‘The torque detection unit 22…’ on page 3 of Mitsuboshi).
Regarding claim 24, modified Shill further teaches a sensor (as modified in claim 19, detector 22 of Mitsuboshi) configured to detect that the second portion of the log has broken off the first portion of the log and to send a signal to the controller to indicate that the second portion of the log has broken off the first portion of the log (see Fig. 2, where the signal is sent to the torque detection unit 22 of Mitsuboshi).
Regarding claim 25, modified Shill further teaches a method comprising: providing the bundle breaker according to claim 19,
positioning the log on the bundle breaker such that the second portion of the log is supported by the downstream breaking support and the first portion of the log is supported by the upstream breaking support,
controlling the first actuator to shift the first platen toward the lowered position of the first platen (see Figure 3 of Shill),
controlling the second actuator to shift the second platen toward the lowered position of the second platen (see Figure 3 of Shill),
controlling the third actuator to apply the shifting force to the downstream breaking support (see Figure 3 of Shill), and
stopping or reducing the application of the shifting force in response to the determination that the second portion of the log has broken off the first portion of the log (as modified in claim 1, see Fig. 2, where the signal is sent to the torque detection unit 22 of Mitsuboshi).
Regarding claim 26, modified Shill further teaches a method comprising:
providing the bundle breaker according to claim 24,
positioning the log on the bundle breaker such that the second portion of the log is supported by the downstream breaking support and the first portion of the log is supported by the upstream breaking support,
controlling the first actuator to shift the first platen toward the lowered position of the first platen (see Figure 3 of Shill),
controlling the second actuator to shift the second platen toward the lowered position of the second platen (see Figure 3 of Shill),
controlling the third actuator to apply the shifting force to the downstream breaking support (see Figure 3 of Shill), and
stopping or reducing the application of the shifting force in response to the signal (as modified in claim 1, see Fig. 2, where the signal is sent to the torque detection unit 22 of Mitsuboshi).
Regarding claim 27, modified Shill further teaches the second platen and the downstream breaking support are pivotable together about a common pivot axis (38, see Figure 2A of Shill).
Regarding claim 29, modified Shill further teaches the second platen is configured to be movable toward and away from the downstream breaking support without changing of a location of the common pivot axis (38, see Figure 2A of Shill).
Regarding claim 30, modified Shill further teaches the common pivot axis and second platen are configured such that a position of the common pivot axis relative to the upstream breaking support remains fixed during movement of the second platen toward and away from the downstream breaking support (38, see Figure 2A of Shill).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 3/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 29 and 30 under Jans (US 8763873) in view of Shill (US 5791539) and Mitsuboshi (WO 2020090179 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shill (US 5791539) in view of Jans (US 8763873) and Mitsuboshi (WO 2020090179 A1). The new rejection uses Shill as the base of the device which includes better details for the limitations of claims 29-30 as claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that Mitsuboshi is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See /n re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Mitsuboshi teaches a sensor on a servo motor that is used to break an object, then once the sensor detect the break, based on the reaction signal of the servo motor, the motor will stop, which is also pertinent to the problem of controlling a device for breaking an object (see the first paragraph on page 1 of Mitsuboshi), as Jan and the current applicant teaches the problem of controlling servo motor powered device to stop when breaking of a work is detected, therefore Misuboshi is analogous art.
In response to applicant’s argument that Mitsuboshi would not help Jans. Examiner disagrees and notes that with the different work piece in Jans, one of ordinary skill can understand stopping the motor once the break operation is complete can increase effectiveness of the device, since stopping earlier can reduce the energy used in the system. As the current claim is an apparatus claim, the operation of the device is not based on any special type of work piece in the system, therefore the device of modified Jans meets the claimed limitation.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the system in Mitsuboshi can help better monitor the breaking of Jans, one of ordinary skill can understand stopping the motor once the break operation is complete can increase effectiveness of the device, since stopping earlier can reduce the energy used in the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 PM.
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, Ashley Boyer 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 3/31/2026