DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to invent provisions. 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 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.
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) 1 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pommier (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 2007/0107572 A1; “Pommier”) in view of Watanabe et al. (EP 0951968 A2; “Watanabe”).
Pommier discloses:
Regarding claim 1:
A process for separating (via cutting table 10), collecting (via unloading tool 80; ¶ 80) and storing cut pieces (into bins 72a, 74a, 72b, 74b, 76; ¶ 75) from one or more sheets produced with at least one cutting step (¶ 61) during which one or more uncut pieces, variously arranged and configured (FIG. 5A depicts various arrangements and configurations of the pieces A-K), have been cut from the one or more sheets (¶ 74, “12, the lay-up 20 comprising the stacks of cut-out pieces 24 and the complementary portion or "skeleton"26, is brought progressively onto the horizontal surface 61 of the unloading table 60, without modifying the relative positions of the stacks of pieces 24 and of the 25 skeleton 26”), the process comprising:
(a) transferring a first sheet (in stack 20, e.g. 2nd from the top sheet) from an exit plane (12) of a cutting machine (10) onto a stacking plane (60; ¶ 123) where the first sheet is transferred while still comprising cut pieces (24) and any remaining portion of the sheet forming a skeleton (26; ¶ 74);
(d) storing the theoretical design data related to the first sheet (step 407 as seen in FIG. 4; ¶ 116), wherein the theoretical design data comprise at least: dimensions of a theoretical sheet theoretical geometry, arrangement of the cut pieces and of the skeleton (¶ 116, “The locations and shapes of the cutting-up lines 28 constitute skeleton fragmentation information which is stored in the computer 18 with piece lay-out information for subsequently controlling the cutting tool (step 407)”);
(f) for each of the correctly positioned pieces or of the pieces collectable without the skeleton or other pieces hindering collection, programming, configuring and handling at least one gripping member (80; ¶ 80 “The stacks 24 of cut-out pieces are unloaded successively by means of the unloading tool 80, once they have reached the table 60 and can be taken off from the lay-up without interfering with the remaining other stacks of pieces, either directly or via fragments of skeleton 26 of the lay-up. To this end, the unloading tool is brought vertically above each new stack of pieces to be unloaded, by using the information relating to the layout of the pieces in the lay-up, as stored in the memory of the computer 18”), and collecting the correctly positioned and collectable piece, wherein the programming, configuring, and handling takes place according to the stored theoretical design data and to the obtained data processed during determining (¶ 80);
(g) unloading the collected pieces onto one or more unloading areas (¶ 80, “The movements of the unloading tool for the purposes of taking off each stack of pieces without interfering with the remaining stacks in the lay-up, and of unloading it into the corresponding collector bin are controlled on the basis of predetermined take-off and removal information stored in the memory of the computer 18 together with the piece lay-out information and the skeleton fragmentation information”; see also ¶ 76); and
(h) after the cut pieces meeting step (f) have been collected, if one or more cut pieces remain which are positioned so that the skeleton of the first sheet prevents the one or more cut pieces from being collected, removing the skeleton and positioning the skeleton in the one or more unloading areas, and successively repeating steps (f) and (g) (¶ 86, “The cutting-up lines along which the skeleton of the lay-up is to be cut up are predetermined so that the skeleton is fragmented in a manner such that, at the unloading stage, the stacks of cut-out pieces and cut-out portions of skeleton can be taken off successively by being moved parallel to the surface of the lay-up without interfering with the remainder of the lay-up.”).
Although Pommier discloses that the invention therein may relate to “non-textile sheet materials in other sectors of industry” (¶ 2), it does not expressly disclose the sheets being metal sheets. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pommier, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that its invention, specifically its sheets, relates to metal sheets since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (sheet metal is a “non-textile” material) as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Although Pommier discloses storing theoretical design data related to the first metal sheet including dimensions/arrangements of the first sheet, cut pieces, and skeleton (¶ 116), it does not expressly disclose such data including the thickness thereof.
In certain circumstances where appropriate, an examiner may take official notice of facts not in the record or rely on "common knowledge" in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2144.03. Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence should only be taken by the examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970). Here, the Examiner takes official notice that storing design data including thickness information of a sheet/cut out piece/skeleton is instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Pommier such that its design data includes thickness information of the first sheet/cut out pieces/skeleton as such combination of elements are instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art.
Pommier discloses/teaches scanning the first sheet in its entirety and each of the cut pieces and the skeleton and comparing the stored theoretical design data and data obtained from the scanning and determining whether one or more of the cut pieces are correctly positioned in precise positions from where the one or more of the cut pieces can be collected (¶ 87-93 describe “looking” or “searching” for special pieces in the lay-out which inherently require scanning the entire sheet and determine correct positioning). However, it does not expressly disclose determining whether the one or more of the pieces are entirely or partially covered by other pieces
Watanabe teaches determining whether one or more of the pieces are entirely or partially covered by other pieces (¶ 9; ¶ 34; see FIG. 6) so as to give proper physical action to the pieces so that they are no longer covered and thus collectable (¶ 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Pommier to include determining whether the one or more of the pieces are entirely or partially covered by other pieces, as taught by Watanabe, so as to give proper physical action to the pieces so that they are no longer covered and thus collectable.
Pommier as modified above further teaches the following:
Regarding claim 3:
The process according to claim 1, wherein the skeleton is cut into two or more pieces before step (a) or( b) to facilitate a removal of the skeleton and/or of the cut pieces (¶ 69, “the locations of cutting-up lines 28 along which the skeleton of the lay-up is to be cut up are defined on the surface of the lay-up. These locations are chosen so that, during the cutting-out operation, the skeleton is split up such that the stacks of pieces can be subsequently and successively separated from the portions of skeleton merely by moving them parallel to the surface of the lay-up.”).
Regarding claim 4:
The process according to claim 1, wherein the scanning is a 2D/3D scanning, or scanning with a sensor/camera system (¶ 11 in Watanabe, “As the visual sensor, either a two-dimensional visual sensor or a three-dimensional visual sensor may 15 be used that it is very difficult for the robot to hold and pick up an article one by one from many articles piled up disorderly. [0004] For example, in the case where many (for example, five) workpieces W1 to WS (for example, bolts) 20 are piled up disorderly on a tray TR as shown in Fig. 1”).
Regarding claim 5:
A system configured to implement a process according to claim 1 (depicted in FIG. 1) for separating (via cutting table 10), collecting (via unloading tool 80; ¶ 80) and storing one or more pieces (into bins 72a, 74a, 72b, 74b, 76; ¶ 75) cut from one or more metal sheets using a cutting step during which the one or more pieces (¶ 61), variously arranged and configured (FIG. 5A depicts various arrangements and configurations of the pieces A-K), have been cut from the one or more metal sheets (¶ 74, “12, the lay-up 20 comprising the stacks of cut-out pieces 24 and the complementary portion or "skeleton"26, is brought progressively onto the horizontal surface 61 of the unloading table 60, without modifying the relative positions of the stacks of pieces 24 and of the 25 skeleton 26”), the system comprising:
a stacking plane (60; FIG. 1), on which a stack formed by the one or more of the metal sheets is to be created (¶ 123);
a gripping member (80) for gripping and handling at least one piece at a time from the one or more pieces from a metal sheet (¶ 80); and a mechanical system (including inter alia screw 87 motor 88 and rack and pinion 89, see in FIG. 1) configured to manage a configuration and handling of the gripping member according to preset commands (¶ 79).
Regarding claim 6:
The system according to claim 5, wherein the mechanical system comprises a CAS (controlled-axis sorting) system comprising a Cartesian robot with three or more axes (¶ 79, “Via links and drive members (not shown), the computer 18 controls the movements of the unloading tool 80 along the X' and Y' axes, the raising and the lowering of the end of the tool by means of the rod 92, and the rotation of the tool about its axis A”) or one or more anthropomorphic robots with four or more coordinate axes each.
Regarding claim 7:
The system according to claim 5, wherein the stacking plane is an area on a floor, a flatbed (60; FIG. 1), or a pallet having a fixed or movable support.
Regarding claim 8:
The system according to claim 5, further comprising one or more unloading areas (bins 72a, 72b, 74a, 74b, 76; FIG. 1) where cut and collected pieces can be unloaded which may be of a same order or of a plurality of orders (¶ 159).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL D YABUT whose telephone number is (571)270-5526. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 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 John Olszewski can be reached on (571) 272-2706. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights