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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenichiro (JP 2000005964 A) in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0016779 A1). (Citations to Kenichiro are directed to attached machine translation.)
Regarding claim 1, Kenichiro discloses a product carrying-out device for a steel material cutting machine, comprising: a product information acquisition unit configured to acquire information on a product length and a product diameter of a product made by a cutting work of a steel material cutting machine (see at least paras. 0023, 0029); a product laying unit configured to judge, based on the information acquired by the product information acquisition unit, whether or not the product can be laid under a state in which a cut surface thereof is made perpendicular to a ground surface (see at least paras. 008, 0010, 0012); a storage box information acquisition unit configured to acquire information on a shape of a storage box corresponding to a carrying-out destination of the product made by the cutting work (see at least paras. 0028-0032); a carrying-out position determination unit configured to determine a carrying-out position of the product in the storage box corresponding to the carrying-out destination based on the information acquired by the product information acquisition unit, information judged by the product laying unit, and the information acquired by the storage box information acquisition unit (see at least paras. 0028-0032); and a carrying-out control unit configured to control a carrying-out mechanism to carry out the product made by the steel material cutting machine to the carrying-out position determined by the carrying-out position determination unit (see at least paras. 0028-0032). Kenichiro discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose a product laying-stability judgement unit configured to judge, based on the information acquired by the product information acquisition unit, whether or not the product can be laid stably; or that the carrying-out position determination unit is additionally configured to determine a carrying-out position of the product in the storage box corresponding to the carry-out destination based on the information acquired by the information judged by the product laying-stability judgement unit. However, Wang discloses a similar device which includes a product laying-stability judgement unit configured to judge, based on the information acquired by a product information acquisition unit, whether or not the product can be laid stably (see at least paras. 0027-0029 and 0068-0082); and that the carrying-out position determination unit is additionally configured to determine a carrying-out position of the product in the storage box corresponding to the carry-out destination based on the information acquired by the information judged by the product laying-stability judgement unit (see at least paras. 0027-0029 and 0068-0082) for the purpose of ensuring that products are properly stacked in a storage box. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to utilize a product laying-stability judgement unit configured to judge, based on the information acquired by the product information acquisition unit, whether or not the product can be laid stably; and have the carrying-out position determination unit additionally configured to determine a carrying-out position of the product in the storage box corresponding to the carry-out destination based on the information acquired by the information judged by the product laying-stability judgement unit, as disclosed by Wang, for the purpose of ensuring that products are properly stacked in a storage box.
Regarding claim 4, Kenichiro discloses A product carrying-out method for a steel material cutting machine, comprising: acquiring information on a product length and a product diameter of a product made by a cutting work of a steel material cutting machine (see at least paras. 0023, 0029); judging, based on the acquired information on the product length and the product diameter of the product, whether or not the product can be laid under a state in which a cut surface thereof is made perpendicular to a ground surface (see at least paras. 008, 0010, 0012); acquiring information on a shape of a storage box corresponding to a carrying-out destination of the product made by the cutting work (see at least paras. 0028-0032); determining a carrying-out position of the product in the storage box corresponding to the carrying-out destination based on the acquired information on the product length and the product diameter of the product, information on the shape of the storage box, and a judgement result of judging whether or not the product can be laid; and carrying out, by a carrying-out mechanism, the product made by the steel material cutting machine to the determined carrying-out position (see at least paras. 0028-0032). Kenichiro discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose judging, based on the acquired information on the product length and the product diameter of the product, whether or not the product can be laid stably; or a judgement result of judging whether or not the product can be laid stably. However, Wang discloses a similar method which includes judging, based on the acquired information on a product length and the product diameter of the product, whether or not the product can be laid stably (see at least paras. 0027-0029 and 0068-0082); and a judgement result of judging whether or not the product can be laid stably for the purpose of ensuring that products are properly stacked in a storage box (see at least paras. 0027-0029 and 0068-0082). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Kenichiro to include judging, based on the acquired information on the product length and the product diameter of the product, whether or not the product can be laid stably; and a judgement result of judging whether or not the product can be laid stably, as disclosed by Wang, for the purpose of ensuring that products are properly stacked in a storage box.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3 and 5 are 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.
The examiner reviewed the claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 101. Although the claims recite limitations directed toward an abstract idea, when analyzed in their entirety, the independent claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and recite elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cui et al. (CN 120841067 A), although not prior art, is pertinent because it discloses a guiding system for stacking items after cutting. Tanehara (JP 2002293426 A) discloses a device for determining a stacking location for an item after cutting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights