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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation "the blade being made of metal or other suitable material and selectively fixed to a side of an edge of a belt of the cutting machine or cutting table". Examiner suggests Applicant positively recite these limitations, if Applicant wishes to have them considered as structural limitations of the claimed device.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitation "compressed air is supplied into the base through a duct". Examiner suggests "compressed air is configured to be supplied into the base through a duct".
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation "a seat". Examiner suggests "a second seat".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
Ln 4-5, the limitation "a blade…selectively fixed to a side of an edge of a belt of the cutting machine or cutting table" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the metes and bounds of the claims, since the term "selectively" is recited without context or further limitation. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, all references to these elements have been interpreted to mean the blade may or may not be fixed as recited;
Ln 7-8, the limitation "a seat extending into the first body so as to partially divide the first body into two sectors" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the metes and bounds of the claims, since the term "partially" is recited without context or further limitation. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, all references to these elements have been interpreted to mean any division of the first body by the seat;
Ln 9-10, the limitation "wherein at least part of the blade is selectively inserted into the seat' is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the metes and bounds of the claims, since the term "selectively" is recited without context or further limitation. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, all references to these elements have been interpreted to mean any part of the blade may, or may not, be inserted into the seat.
Examiner notes Applicant fails to positively recite all references to the cutting table/machine/blade. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, all references to these elements have been interpreted as intended use and not required structural elements of the device for the cleaning and dimensional detection of a blade.
Regarding Claim 2:
Ln 2-3, the limitation "a second body placed adjacent to the first body, fixed thereto and to a base at least in part hollow" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim which element is hollow, whether the second body or the base. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, all references to these elements have been interpreted to mean the XX is hollow;
Ln 3, the limitation "a base" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether the base is an element of the second body, the first body or the cutting table or cutting machine. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, all references to these elements have been interpreted to mean the base is an element of the cutting table or cutting machine, and therefore intended use of the device for the cleaning and dimensional detection of a blade, as previously recited in Claim 1, and therefore not a required element of the device.
Regarding Claim 5, Ln , the limitation "which protrudes upwards from the second body itself" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim a frame of reference for "upwards ". In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, all references to these elements have been interpreted to mean the brush protrudes from the second body, in any direction.
Regarding Claim 6, Ln 2-4, the limitation "compressed air is supplied into the base through a duct" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether the compressed air is a required element of the device for the cleaning and dimensional detection of a blade, or not. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, all references to these elements have been interpreted to mean the compressed air is not a required element and is instead intended use of the device.
Regarding Claim 7, Ln 2-4, the limitation "a seat" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether the seat is the same as the seat previously recited in Claim 1, or another seat. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, all references to these elements have been interpreted to mean the seat claimed in Claim 7 is distinct from the seat previously recited in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Ln 2-4, the limitation "a programmable controller configured and arranged for executing on or more functional operations of the cutting table or cutting machine" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether or not the programmable controller is a structural element of the device previously recited in Claim 1, or of the cutting table or cutting machine, which has been interpreted as intended use of the device and not a structural element of the device. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claims to mean the programmable controller is a structural element of the cutting table or cutting machine, and as such intended use of the device and not a required element of the device.
Regarding Claim 10, Ln 1-3, the limitation "a second cutting head having a second blade, the second cutting head being positioned on an opposite side of the first cutting head and the belt of the cutting machine or cutting table" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether or not the second cutting head is a structural element of the device previously recited in Claim 1, or of the cutting table or cutting machine, which has been interpreted as intended use of the device and not a structural element of the device. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claims to mean the second cutting head is a structural element of the cutting table or cutting machine, and as such intended use of the device and not a required element of the device.
Examiner notes that the above recited rejected claims, excepting Claims 5 & 7, contain references to a cutting machine or table. If Applicant wishes these elements to be considered as part of the patentable subject matter claimed, Examiner strongly suggests Applicant positively recite these elements.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer, et alia (US 6,375,114 ) hereinafter Mayer, in view of Oliver (US 1,861,412), hereinafter Oliver and Roach, et alia (US 2008/0134851), hereinafter Roach.
Regarding Claim 1, Mayer discloses a device (4) (Col 7, Ln 32-33; as illustrated in at least Fig 4) for the cleaning and dimensional detection of a blade (150) of a first cutting head (15) of a cutting machine or cutting table (Col 1, Ln 5-12 [first paragraph, in its entirety]), the blade being made of metal or other suitable material and selectively fixed to a side of an edge of a belt of the cutting machine or cutting table.
Examiner notes the limitations "blade", "first cutting head", "cutting machine" and "cutting table" are not positively recited as required structural elements of the claimed device for the cleaning and dimensional detection of a blade, and have been interpreted as intended use of the device. Examiner further notes that such cutting machines and cutting tables, fitted with cutting heads having blades are well known in the art, as evidenced by Mayer. Examiner further notes the recitation of "[a] blade being made of metal or other suitable material" is so broad that any blade in any art would suffice to illustrate its eponymous existence.
Mayer further discloses the device (4) comprising a first body, provided with at least one compressed air blowing nozzle (40) (Col 7, Ln 36-37). Mayer is silent to details of the device pertaining to a seat and optical sensor.
Oliver teaches a device for the cleaning of a blade (1), comprising a first body (13), provided with at least one compressed air blowing nozzle (12) (as illustrated in at least FIG 5). Oliver further teaches a seat (between [12] and [13], as illustrated in at least FIG 5) extending into the first body so as to partially divide the first body into two sectors, each of the two sectors in turn being provided with a recess which is orthogonal with respect to said seat (as illustrated in at least FIG 5). The advantage of Oliver is that air is directed onto both sides of the blade simultaneously (as illustrated in at least FIG 5), thereby improving the cleaning action (Col 1, Ln 6-10).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as disclosed by Mayer, to include a first body, provided with at least one compressed air blowing nozzle, and a seat extending into the first body so as to partially divide the first body into two sectors, each of the two sectors in turn being provided with a recess which is orthogonal with respect to said seat, as taught by Oliver, in order to improve the cleaning action.
Roach teaches a cutter head comprising a blade (22) (Para [0018], Ln 8), having a blade sensor (24) (Para [0018], Ln 9) utilized for setting the blade position (Para [0018], Ln 10-11) using measurements and adjustments, requiring the dimensional size of the blade (Para [0003], Ln 1-3, Para [0004], Ln 1-6, Para [0005], Ln 1-10), a related art. Roach further teaches at least part of the blade is selectively inserted into the seat (82) (Para [0023], Ln, 3) whereupon the dimensional detection is provided thereon by an optical sensor (Para [0024], Ln 1-2) arranged adjacent to the seat. Roach further teaches the advantage of this arrangement in that automatic adjustments may be made (Para [0007], Ln 1-3).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by combined Mayer/Oliver, to include at least part of the blade is selectively inserted into the seat whereupon the dimensional detection is provided thereon by an optical sensor, as taught by Roach, in order to dimensionally orient the blade.
Examiner notes the limitation "cleaning" is recited without detail and has therefore been interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation, namely any configuration which could be used to remove material not intrinsic to the blade.
Examiner further notes the limitation "dimensional detection" is recited without detail and has therefore been interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation, namely an optical sensor is configured to determine the presence, or detection, of a blade.
Regarding Claim 2, combined Mayer/Oliver/Roach teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Mayer is silent to a second body, but as this limitation is not critically recited, Examiner has interpreted this limitation to be a result affected variable, resulting from routine engineering and experimentation, in order to optimize the device. Examiner further notes Oliver teaches many optional construction details pertaining to the compressed air delivery system, as illustrated in Fig.s 1-2 & 5-11, including a hollow base (11) (as illustrated in Fig 1).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by combined Mayer/Oliver/Roach, to include a second body placed adjacent to the first body, fixed thereto and to a base at least in part hollow, and two blowing nozzles at least one of which communicates with said seat, in order to provide additional functionality.
Regarding Claim 3, combined Mayer/Oliver/Roach teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Mayer is silent to details of the seat, however Oliver teaches each recess which is orthogonal with respect to said seat. Additionally Examiner notes the seat may be configured to accommodate the termination of the optical sensor, without limiting the intended functionality of the design.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by combined Mayer/Oliver/Roach, to include each recess which is orthogonal with respect to said seat which may be configured to accommodate the termination of the optical sensor, extending the functionality of the combination.
Regarding Claim 4, combined Mayer/Oliver/Roach teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Mayer is silent to details of the seat, however Oliver teaches an element which is at least in part hollow, fixed to the first body and arranged to supply air to the first body. A skilled Artisan would recognize the availability of this element to provide for integration of the optical sensor cables, the orientation, dimensions and mounting requirements of which would be the result of routine engineering and experimentation.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by combined Mayer/Oliver/Roach, to include an element which is at least in part hollow, fixed to the first body and arranged to integrate respective cables of the optical sensor, said element being provided with longitudinally extended through holes configured to receive screws for connection of the element to the first body, and exit holes configured to receive the respective cables of the optical sensor, to allow for further integration of the optical sensor.
Regarding Claim 5, combined Mayer/Oliver/Roach teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Mayer further discloses a brush used to provide additional cleaning for the blade. Mayer is silent to the details of the orientation of the brush, however Examiner notes this limitation is not critically recited and has been interpreted as intended use and would be recognized by a skilled Artisan as the result of routine engineering and experimentation, in order to optimize the device.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by combined Mayer/Oliver/Roach, to include the second body comprises at least one brush, fixed or motorized, which protrudes upwards from the second body itself in a position close to an opening communicating with one of the two blowing nozzles, in order to optimize the device.
Regarding Claim 6, combined Mayer/Oliver/Roach teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Mayer is silent to details of the compressed air supply, however Oliver teaches compressed air is supplied into the base through a duct, the two blowing nozzles extending developing vertically from holes formed in the base. Examiner notes the orientation of the nozzles depend entirely upon the orientation of the cutting head, which has not been critically recited and has been interpreted as a result affected variable.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by combined Mayer/Oliver/Roach, to include compressed air supplied into the base through a duct, the two blowing nozzles extending developing vertically from holes formed in the base, as taught by Oliver, in order to optimize the design.
Regarding Claim 7, combined Mayer/Oliver/Roach teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Mayer is silent to details of cable routing, however a skilled Artisan would recognize the necessity to protect the cabling of operation management sensors, and would take appropriate steps to ensure their protection, such as housing in inside a protein enclosure, such as the at least one of the first body and/or the second body.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by combined Mayer/Oliver/Roach, to include the cables of the optical sensor are housed in a seat formed inside at least one of the first body and/or the second body, in order to provide adequate protection for these vital components.
Regarding Claim 8, combined Mayer/Oliver/Roach teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Mayer is silent to details of the compressed air supply, however Oliver teaches the two sectors are removable and connected to the first body by couplings (as illustrated in at least Fig 5).
Regarding Claim 9, combined Mayer/Oliver/Roach teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Mayer is silent to details controlling the functional operations of the cutting table or cutting machine, however Roach teaches this limitation (Para [0020], Ln 3-10), namely a programmable controller configured and arranged for executing on or more functional operations of the cutting table or cutting machine.
Regarding Claim 10, combined Mayer/Oliver/Roach teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Mayer is silent to a second cutting head having a second blade, the second cutting head being positioned on an opposite side of the first cutting head and the belt of the cutting machine or cutting table, however as stated above the limitations relating to the blade, cutting head, cutting table or cutting machines have been interpreted as intended use and nothing in the disclosures of Mayer, Oliver or Roach preclude additional cutting heads, and a skilled Artisan would recognize the improved functionality of a machine having multiple cutting heads, compared to a single cutting head, improving efficiency of the design.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by combined Mayer/Oliver/Roach, to include a second cutting head having a second blade, the second cutting head being positioned on an opposite side of the first cutting head and the belt of the cutting machine or cutting table, in order to improve the efficiency of the design.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2,375,231 to Kottmann teaches blade cleaning.
US 4,574,817 to Suzuki, et alia teaches blade cleaning.
US 5,062,334 to Killilea, et alia teaches blade cleaning.
US 5,911,849 to Bradshaw, et alia teaches blade cleaning.
US 10,994,444 to Lee teaches blade cleaning.
US 2009/0272403 to Yamamoto, et alia teaches blade cleaning.
EP 0 202 676 to Becerra, et alia teaches a cutting machine using a programmable controller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred C Hammers whose telephone number is (571)272-9870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0080-1700.
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.
/FRED C HAMMERS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724