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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/03/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 02/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 1 should be re-written as following:
A computer-implemented method for controlling sawing of logs, comprising:
obtaining a timber lot order configured to be produced from logs configured to be sawn;
obtaining an optimization objective for a statistical optimization model configured to be used for producing the timber lot, wherein the optimization objective is a combination of two or more of a following: a max quality, a min production capacity, a max material use efficiency, a min costs, or a max line speed so that the timber lot is produced as desired; and
determining a sawing configuration for the timber lot, the sawing configuration comprises sawing patterns for a saw, and wherein the sawing configuration is determined based on at least the optimization objective and sawing properties of said sawing patterns, and wherein the sawing patterns are configured to be used for sawing the logs to timber according to the timber lot order and the optimization objective.
Regarding claims 2-9, in line 1 the phrase “A method according to” should be changed to “The method according to”.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “at least one of the following sawing properties” should be changed to “at least one of following sawing properties”.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “used for sawing” should be changed to “for sawing”.
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 1-9 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, in lines 4-5 the phrase “determined based on at least the optimization objective, logs, and sawing properties of said sawing patterns” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “logs” is the same as or different from “logs” that recited in line 2 of the same claim 1.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “logs” is the same as “logs” that recited in line 2 of the same claim 1.
Claims 2-9 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the least one sawing pattern" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, in line 2 the phrase "one or more sawing pattern" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “one or more sawing pattern" is the same as or different from “sawing patterns” that recited in claim 1 which claim 4 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “one or more sawing pattern" is the same as or different from “sawing patterns” that recited in claim 1; and provide prior art rejection as best as understood.
Regarding claim 4, in line 3 the phrase "the least one sawing pattern" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the least one sawing pattern" is the same as or different from “one or more sawing pattern” that recited in line 2 of the same claim 4.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “the least one sawing pattern" is the same as “one or more sawing pattern” that recited in line 2 of the same claim 4; and provide prior art rejection as best as understood.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the least one sawing pattern" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, in line 2 the phrase " sawing properties" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “sawing properties" is the same as or different from “sawing properties” that recited in claim 1 which claim 5 depends from.
Regarding claim 5, in line 2 the phrase "the least one sawing pattern" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the least one sawing pattern" is the same as or different from “sawing patterns” that recited in claim 1 which claim 5 depends from.
Regarding claim 5, in line 2 the phrase " the at least two optimization objectives" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the at least two optimization objectives" is the same as or different from “optimization objective” that recited in claim 1 which claim 5 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted claim 5 is depended from claim 4; “the at least two optimization objectives" is the same as “optimization objective” that recited in claim 1; and provide prior art rejection as best as understood.
Regarding claim 7, in line 2 the phrase "sawing properties" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “sawing properties" is the same as or different from “sawing properties” that recited in claim 1 which claim 7 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “sawing properties" is the same as “sawing properties” that recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, in line 2 the phrase "a sawing pattern" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a sawing pattern" is the same as or different from “sawing patterns” that recited in claim 1 which claim 7 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “a sawing pattern" is the same as “sawing patterns” that recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Andrew (WO2016172763A1).
Regarding claim 1, Andrew discloses a computer-implemented method for controlling sawing of logs (page 9 lines 6-10, claims 1 and 6), comprising:
obtaining a timber lot order configured to be produced from logs configured to be sawn (claim 7);
obtaining an optimization objective for a statistical optimization model configured to be used for producing the timber lot (page 24 last 13 lines 23-30), which optimization objective is a combination of two or more of the following max quality, min production capacity, max material use efficiency, min costs, or max line speed so that the timber lot can be produced as desired (claims 37-38); and
determining a sawing configuration for the timber lot, which sawing configuration comprises sawing patterns for a saw (figs.2a-4a, 8, 10a-12, 22a-27), and which sawing configuration is determined based on at least the optimization objective, logs, and sawing properties of said sawing patterns, and which sawing patterns are configured to be used for sawing the logs to timber according to the timber lot order and the optimization objective (figs.2a-4a, 8, 10a-12, 22a-27, page 2 lines 1-3 and claim 5:target quality product, page 5 lines 27-28).
Regarding claim 2, Andrew discloses wherein the method further comprises configuring the saw for sawing the logs based on the sawing configuration (page 9 lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 3, Andrew discloses wherein the logs configured to be sawn comprises logs from one or more log classes (page 10 line 23-page 11 line 6; and page 24 lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 4, Andrew discloses wherein the sawing configuration comprises one or more sawing pattern for logs of one log class (page 24 lines 5-21) or information of a number of logs for which the at least one sawing pattern is configured to be used for sawing (page 5 lines 23-24 and page 12 lines 20-21 and figs.2a-4a, 8, 10a-12, 22a-27).
Regarding claim 5, Andrew discloses wherein sawing properties of the at least one sawing pattern are according to the at least two optimization objectives (page 10 line 35-page 11 line 1 and fig.8).
Regarding claim 6, Andrew discloses wherein the method further comprises sawing the logs to timber according to the sawing configuration (abstract and fig.1).
Regarding claim 7, Andrew discloses wherein the method further comprises monitoring at least one of the following sawing properties of a sawing pattern used for sawing (page 24 line 21; claim 6; claims 7-8 and page 9 lines 6-10):
quality of sawn timber,
processing time of the sawn timber,
material use efficiency of the sawn timber, or
processing efficiency of the sawn timber.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the closet prior art is Andrew (WO2016172763A1), however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the claim as recited.
Claim 9 is depended from claim 8.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725