CTFR 18/728,000 CTFR 82072 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 4/1 3/2026 hav e been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Ame ndment to claim 12 provides antecedent basis and obviates the 112(b) indefiniteness rejection, which is withdrawn. Applicant argues that the selection of a 45 degree angle is not “routine” but is an “optimization” and therefore not obvious. This is not persuasive, since persons of ordinary skill are expected to optimize. Applicant has neither shown that the art does not show a similar angle—or that the adjustment of the angle would have been outside the scope of what a person of ordinary skill would reasonably be adjusting—based on the disclosed prior art. Nor has applicant shown a deficiency of motivation or other infirmity with the assertion that adjusting the angle would have been a matter of design choice from a limited number of possible solutions all of which are available in the prior art. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 13 to include new subject matter—requiring that the actuator be “hydraulic” and alleging that since Stubbins did not disclose a hydraulic actuator, that the claims are patentable. This is not persuasive, since as shown infra, hydraulic actuators are old and well known in the art, and every person of ordinary skill would know how to select and use such an actuator in place of the actuator shown in Stubbings. Applicant makes no additional arguments, but alleges that the additional cited art does not “cure the deficiency” with respect to the selection of the angle, and the selection of Hydraulic as the motive force driving the blade that allegedly distinguishes the claims presented from Stubbings. As such, there is no infirmity in the prima facie case of indefiniteness presented below, and all claims are rejected for being obvious in light of the most relevant art (cited infra) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 1 1 and 12 are rejecte d under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbin gs (US 4,255,993; Stubbings or Stubbings’993 herein) as set forth in the non-fianl action dated 1/12/26 and incorporated by reference in view of Stubbings (US 4,265,156; Stubbings’156 herein). Stubbin gs discloses each feature of claims 1, 5-7, 11, and 12 as previously discussed under an anticipation rejection in the action dated 1/12/26 and incorporated here by reference. Regarding claim 1, Stubbings discloses A shearing machine configured to shear one of a plurality of struts (See figures 8 – 10 showing cutter 16 and shearing assembly for each struct type: “An exemplary cutting arrangement according to the present invention is shown in FIGS. 9 and 10, although other conventional cutters can be employed. The cutter 16 includes a body portion 80 with distinct means for cutting at least two differently-shaped angle irons. The body 80 includes a first cutting blade 81 and at least another, second, cutting blade 82. The cutting blades 81,82 are generally linearly movable to affect cutting of angle irons fed thereto and guide means 83,84 respectively (see FIG. 10) may be provided for guiding operation of the blades 81,82.” Column 5 line 65+). Furthermore Stubbings discloses the shearing machine comprising: Stubbings discloses a support frame (Figures 2 and 3 shows support by 23, undergirding, and also providing other surfaces containing and supporting the struts to be sheared); a magazine (21/25 figure 2, inter alia) including a platform (25) having a top surface extending between a processing end and a loading end (left to right figure 2), the magazine configured to support the plurality of struts on the top surface(example strut shown in figure 2 on 25; also a stack of struts on 25 figure 3); Stubbings discloses a separator assembly (‘gripper 12 figure 1; also see figure 4) configured to separate a separated strut from the plurality of struts(“The transporting means comprises a plurality of powered gripper wheels for engaging an angle iron and longitudinally moving the angle iron upon rotation thereof” Col. 2 line 17+), the separated strut defining a strut width (this is claiming that struts have width—this is shown in e.g. figure 3); Stubbings discloses a feed assembly configured to move the separated strut relative to the support frame along a feed axis defining a feed direction(After the initial movement of a first wheel in the separator—the subsequent movement is along the feed direction, and is per se a feed assembly—alternatively the motor is the feed assembly, and the wheels are the separator). Stubbings discloses a shearing assembly disposed at the processing end, the shearing assembly including a die assembly operable to shear a strut segment from the separated strut (See cutter 16 in figures 1 and 9-10; “The cutting means comprises a common cutter housing with the distinct means for cutting at least two differently shaped angle irons and a common crankshaft is provided for mounting at least two cutting blades to affect generally linear movement thereof in response to rotation of the crankshaft….” Column 2 lines 33+) Stubbings discloses a controller configured to control the separator assembly, the feed assembly, and the shearing assembly to automatically separate the separated strut, move the separated strut, and shear the strut segment from the separated strut to a predetermined length (“Computer control means may provide for control and operation of all of the power means associated with the apparatus for truly automatic control of the angle irons from the stack prior to cutting to another stack after cutting” Column 2 line 37+. Regarding claim 5 Stubbings discloses the die assembly is a first die assembly having a first profile, wherein the shearing assembly further includes a second die assembly having a second profile different than the first profile (See figure 9 showing two different profiles, left 90 and right 91), and wherein the first die assembly and the second die assembly are interchangeable (along screw thread 92 which shifts between the choice of interchangeable dies). Regarding claim 6, Stubbings discloses the shearing assembly includes a die support table (seen beneath 93 figure 9) that is slidable relative to the support frame (by screw thread 92 figure 9) , the die support table supporting the first die assembly and the second die assembly with the first die assembly arranged adjacent the second die assembly in a lateral direction perpendicular to the feed direction such that the first die assembly or the second die assembly are selectively alignable with the feed axis (As plainly shown in figure 9). Regarding claim 7, Stubbings discloses first die assembly and the second die assembly each include an actuator coupled to a shearing die (81, 82), and wherein the actuator is arranged at an angle relative to the top surface of the platform (Shown in figure 9 to be about 45 degrees offset left or right). Regarding claim 11, Stubbings discloses a punch assembly (14 figure 1) including a punch tool configured to form one or more holes in the separated strut (“The punching means comprises a plurality of male dies, each of a different size, means for selecting one of said plurality of male dies for punching a hole in an angle iron at the punching position,”). Regarding claim 12, As noted above, Stubbings discloses a single controller for controlling all the feeding and cutting and punching as well—thus meeting the clause “wherein the controller is configured to control the punch assembly to form one or more holes in the separated strut prior to operation of the shearing assembly, and wherein, after operation of the shearing assembly, the one or more holes are located on the strut segment (this is inherent to the disclosure—the punch takes place before shearing, so holes punched will be on the cut segment—as discussed in Stubbings, above, inter alia). Applicant has incorporated new material – the use of “hydraulic” actuator and claim 8 subject matter of the 45 degree angle into claim 1. Neither feature in combination makes out a case of patentable subject matter. The discussion under the 103 heading, which makes out a prima facie case of obviousness of the 45 degree angle is likewise incorporated by reference. Stubbings’156 states “An actuator element 18, which is operatively connected to a hydraulic piston 22 or the like, is connected to the male die 10 for moving the cutting blade 12 in the given linear direction A (see FIG. 3), and control means 23 are provided for positively controlling the length of the stroke of the actuator element 18. For instance, where the power source 22 for the actuator element 18 is a hydraulic piston, a conventional valving means may be utilized as the control 23,” (Col. 2 line 55+) In other words, hydraulic pistons are known in the art of shearing devices to be suitable for driving blades to shear angle iron and the like, as taught by Stubbings’156. It would have been obvious to replace the drive gearing arrangement of Stubbings with the hydraulic arrangement of Stubbings’156 since it is used in the same art for the same purpose, and there would be no unexpected result or undue experimentation required to implement the known expedient of a hydraulic, rather than gear based, drive for a blade. Regarding the choice of applicant to angle their drive at 45 degrees, this choice was available to all those of skill in the art at the time it was filed, and should remain so. It has been held that a motivation to try constitutes a motivation, unless it is shown that one of ordinary skill would have been unable to make the combination. See KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc. et al. US Supreme Court, No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. ___ (2007), which states “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his of her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” Slip op. at 17. Here, the angle which is possible to select must be between 0 and 360 degrees; and while the drawings of Stubbings are not to scale— is apparently around 45 degrees offset from vertical or horizontal. This is the overwhelming impression one of ordinary skill would take from the disclosure. To say there is an invention in pinning down a particular angle, where some angle must be selected to achieve the functions shown in Stubbings, and the choices for what angle to pick are constrained to ~ about 0 – 90 degrees, and there is no evidence that a person of ordinary skill could not functionally achieve cutting in the whole range of angles, there is no patentability in selecting a single value, absent secondary considerations of non-obviousness, such as evidence of unexpected result . 07-21-aia AIA Claim(s) 2-3, 13-14 and 18-20 is/ are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stu bbings (US 4,255,993; Stubbings or Stubbings’993 herein) in view of Stubbings (US 4,265,156; Stubbings’156 herein) as set forth above, including incorporated discussion from the action of 1/12/26, further in view of HOSHOR (US 20090178521) and Richards (US 5,043,907). Reg arding claim 2, Stubbings does not disclose a user interface configured to receive a user input, but does disclose the automatic control by the controller of the separator assembly, the feed assembly, and the shearing assembly (as noted above: “The operation is substantially continuous (being arrested only momentarily during punching and cutting where necessary) and the computer control means 117 can be programmed to provide completely automatic operation.”) and therefore does not note or discuss how this is “based upon the user input, and wherein the user input includes the predetermined length”. Stubbings is evidence that an ordinary computer can be programmed to implement process control over the feeding, cutting, punching process in a device designed for that purpose. Stubbings probably did not discuss the nature of the ordinary computer as having a user interface, since it is self evident that such a computer would have user input (at least for the purposes of uploading and maintaining the program which purports to achieve the ‘automatic’ cutting etc. including size measuring of the struts, etc. as disclosed in Stubbings). COMPUTERS THAT CONTROL PROCESSES HAVE USER INPUT MEANS For example, Richards (US 5,043,907) discloses a controller (39) which controls the processing of work being cut by bandsaw automatically has an input device (62) and a display (64) which function in a system to permit user intervention, control, uploading of software/ programming etc. which are necessary to carry out the functions of automatic control in a controlled cutting system generally. The inputs can be given by user in this type of system, and then the resultant process variables (cutting force, for instance) can be displayed to a user who can take in this information, and do routine types of optimizations with that data so exchanged. Richards notes: “(8) Band saw 21 also includes a user input device 62, such as a keyboard and/or optical scanner, which is coupled for a transmission of input signals to controller 39 through conductor means 63. Optionally, the saw of the present invention also includes a display device, such as a video display or liquid crystal display 64, coupled by conductor means 66 for driving by controller 39. (9) As will be apparent, therefore, the band saw of the present invention includes means for controlling and sensing various operating parameters of the saw, including blade speed, blade cutting force and blade feed rate. All of these operations and sensing functions preferably are controlled by control means or controller 39, which advantageously can take the form of a digital computer.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add input user interface into the system of Stubbings, since doing so is taught by Richards to provide the old known benefit of providing users with information about the process of cutting that is taking place, and permitting the adjustment or inclusion of directions from a user through the intermediary of software and computers to effect the desired result of a controlled process for cutting. Regarding claim 3 and 13, the details of claim 13 are met by the above discussion of claim 2 which clearly substantially overlaps with the subject matter thereof. The term “cut list” is met by Stubbings, which discloses the cutting to predetermined lengths by automatic means (programming). Programming which causes a set of produced items (even two items) is per se creating a set list, since there is a set of created items with predetermined length. Also, See 20090178521, which discloses the old known expedient of providing computer cutter systems with per se “cutlists” : “1) An electronic cutlist file is generated either manually or by some third party design software. 2) The cutlist is converted from a comma separated ascii file into a database file, such as Microsoft Excel. This step may be performed by either a desktop computer or integrated into the optimization system. 3) The database is sorted into groups according to criteria established by the user. 4) The operator chooses which group he wishes to process. 5) The operator puts the optimization system into DEFECT MODE and presses MOVE TO SCAN START. 6) The optimization system positions a pusher at the SCAN START position.” The level of ordinary skill and the evidence from HOSHOR (US 20090178521) shows that it would have been routine to contain a ‘cutlist’ in an automated cutting system like that of Stubbings. Regarding claim 14—the discussion in the references cited does not particularly announce that a cut order is being determined—rather this is an inherent feature of automatic processing--- which operates to start cutting and then eventually finish cutting. There is inherently an order as claimed. Alternatively, given the features of the above combination, the art as a whole shows that computers are known to be used to automatically cut a series of measured sensed struts with predetermined length—the selection of the order is trivial and can be done by any ordinary skilled artisan. Claims 18 – 20 are clearly met by the above discussion regarding Stubbings and the additional art showing the obviousness of feeding and cutting an optimized cutlist based on the ability to finish a cut from a partially cut piece . 07-22-aia AIA 6. Claim(s) 1 4-16 are reje cted under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stub bings (US 4,255,993; Stubbings or Stubbings’993 herein) in view of Stubbings (US 4,265,156; Stubbings’156 herein) and HOSHOR (US 20090178521) and Richards (US 5,043,907) as ap plied to claim 14 ab ov e, and further in view of Idel sohn (US 4,149,089). Clai ms 14-16 as now presented alleges that a computer knowing how much stock is present and then coordinating the production so that it cuts pieces from stock that have enough length to accommodate the length required by some piece needed in the cutlist. This is the automation of an old well known process that cutters have always used (if they have any common sense) to not just waste a cut piece—but to try and locate a needed piece length which can be made from what is an off-cut. For example, Idelsohn discusses letting a computer analyze boards and automatically adjusting the cutting steps to make sure there is minimum wastage: “ The computer then optimizes the utilization of the board by comparing the sections of the board, as determined from the data contained in the flaw buffer with the type and size of boards desired from the order list buffer and generates cut line data indicative of where the board is to be cut to produce the optimum piece yield, as indicated by block 320.” IN a technologically similar manner, US 5,444,635 discusses the same optimization and interaction with a cutlist: “When such information is automatically entered into the computer of the saw system, the computer proceeds through an algorithm to determine the most efficient cuts that can be made of the clear portions of the lumber to satisfy one or more lengths required in the cut list, with minimum waste.” Idelsohn therefore is evidence that at the time of the application, it was routine to permit a computer to have a cut list (of desired ‘type’ and ‘size’) and to have that data produce the automated “where the [work] is to be cut” determination. As applied to Stubbings, this would result in the same things as claimed by applicant—the determination that a desired size from the cutlist could be made in the ‘waste’ cut from an earlier strut being processed—and as Idelsohn demonstrates, adding this functionality in an automated process is a routine implementation with no unexpected results or need for undue experimentation. It is clearly evident that an optimized program would eliminate the cutlist item once the item was made—that is the point of the optimization, so the claim limitation about deleting the item from the list is not understood to be meaningfully different, or even physically relevant, as the claims are to the device capable of making these programs function, and not to a thing itself . 07-22-aia AIA 7. Claim(s ) 17 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over St ubbings (US 4,255,993; Stubbings or Stubbings’993 herein) in view of Stubbings (US 4,265,156; Stubbings’156 herein) and HOSHOR (US 20090178521) and Richards (US 5,043,907) further in view of Idelsohn (US 4,149,089) as applied to claims 1 4-16 ab ove, and further in view of US 5,862,584. Re garding claim 17—the disclosed art does not specifically discuss the discarding of waste, but it is clearly present in the actions of the device of Stebbins, and would be a necessary and ordinary part of any machine automated as seen in the combination above. When cut pieces are not usable, they are waste, and cutters typically accommodate disposal of waste away from the production of other parts—as seen in e.g. hopper of US 5,862,584 . 07-22-aia AIA 8. Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbings (US 4,255,993) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kondo US 4,778,044 . Regarding claim 10, Stubbings does not disclose the same type of lateral actuator disposed between the processing end and the loading end, the lateral actuator configured to move the plurality of struts in a lateral direction substantially perpendicular to the feed direction. This is used by applicant to provide a way to move stock laterally during a processing flow (to move the stock/work into a position for further processing). This is obvious. In Kondo a work is moved and supported laterally before subsequent processing, as shown at 21 figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a lateral actuator like that of Kondo into a process flow leading to a magazine like Stubbings, since doing so permits automated feed of work into operative position . 07-22-aia AIA 9. Claim( s) 4 and 9 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S tubbings (US 4,255,993) in view of Stubbings (US 4,265,156; Stubbings’156 herein) a s applied to claim 1 a bove, and further in view of E P 2 412 456. R egarding claim 4 and 9, Stubbings does not use a wedge or jaws as the separator and the feeding element. Stubbings uses rollers for their embodiment. In general, it is known to provide wedges to separate stock from adjacent stock, and ‘grippers’ with ‘jaws’ to grab and move stock. This is shown in EP 2 412 456 at 70, which is a gripper with jaws (73, figure 13) and which also haas a separator wedge 75 figure 13 which permits the insertion into the set of stock and the gripping of single stock items for subsequent movement. Generally, in item manipulation undertaken by automated systems, it is known to implement gripping and movement to achieve the desired end movement of the items in question. See, for example, Genefke (US 2017/0173800) which shows a robot end effector with both wedge portions and jaw actuation ability to variously spread items apart from each other (wedge) and grip the item for moving (jaws). It would have been obvious to replace the magazine and wheel feeders of Stubbings with a robot to grab, wedge, and move the items being processed, since doing so allows more precision and flexibility in the path of the items movement, including placing to the side—which is not possible in the Stubbins direct wheel outfeed magazine. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time. 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. SEAN M. MICHALSKI Primary Examiner Art Unit 3724 /SEAN M MICHALSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/728,000 Page 2 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/728,000 Page 3 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/728,000 Page 4 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/728,000 Page 5 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/728,000 Page 6 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/728,000 Page 7 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/728,000 Page 8 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/728,000 Page 9 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/728,000 Page 10 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/728,000 Page 11 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/728,000 Page 12 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/728,000 Page 13 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/728,000 Page 14 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/728,000 Page 15 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/728,000 Page 16 Art Unit: 3724
Prosecution Insights