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 .
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 requires “the punch assembly” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Claim 12 is indefinite—it was probably meant (but is not) dependent on claim 11—rendering the clause indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stubbings (US 4,255,993).
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).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbings as set forth above, with respect to claim 7, and further as follows.
Regarding claim 8, Stubbings shows the actuator of the shearing die assembly at the angle is a 45 degree angle, but does not specifically label or announce the angle. It appears in the figures to be some angle—and is apparently 45 degrees. Additionally, the angle is not important to the function here—a 30 or 60 or 90 degree angle would work in the same manner, and therefore is not a basis for establishing patentability over Stubbings. It has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. Here the silence of Stubbings means the person of ordinary skill must pick some angle—and the drawings appear to show a 45 degree angle. The selection of angle here is routine and does not implicate any inventiveness.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 13-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbings as applied to claim 1, inter alia, above, and further in view of HOSHOR (US 20090178521) and Richards (US 5,043,907).
Regarding 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.
Claim(s) 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbings in view of HOSHOR (US 20090178521) and Richards (US 5,043,907) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Idelsohn (US 4,149,089).
Claims 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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbings in view of HOSHOR (US 20090178521) and Richards (US 5,043,907) further in view of Idelsohn (US 4,149,089) as applied to claims 14-16. above, and further in view of US 5,862,584.
Regarding 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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbings (US 4,255,993) as applied to claim1 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.
Claim(s) 4 and 9 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 EP 2 412 456.
Regarding 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
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