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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11, 13, and 14-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, “Apparatus for feeding and cutting a metal product” should be changed to: --An apparatus for feeding and cutting a metal product--.
In claim 1, lines 13-14, “element and in that said control unit” should be changed to –element, and said control unit—.
In claims 2-10, line 1 of each claim respectively, “Feeding and cutting apparatus” should be changed to: --The apparatus for feeding and cutting a metal product--.
In claim 11, line 1, “Plant for producing metal coils” should be changed to –A plant for producing metal coils--.
In claim 13, line 1, “Method for feeding and cutting a metal product” should be changed to – A method for feeding and cutting a metal product…--.
In claims 14-19, line 1 of each claim respectively, “Method” should be changed to –The method--.
In claim 16, line 2, “is made to rotate” should be changed to –rotates--.
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 1-19 are 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. Any claims not directly addressed are only rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 1,
The phrase "so called" in line 8 of claim 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
It is unclear what structure is being claimed to activate within the limitation “to activate said cutting device in order to cut said metal product present on said second feed plane”
Regarding claim 2,
It is unclear if the last feed elements of said first, second, and third conveyor each consist of two facing cantilevered parts, or if the first, second, or third consist of two facing cantilevered parts within the limitation “wherein last feed elements of said first, second or third conveyor each consist respectively of two facing cantilevered parts.”
Regarding claim 6,
It is unclear what is meant by suitable space within the limitation “wherein at least one of said mobile portions is selectively rotatable to evacuate said cut portion of metal product into a suitable space.”
Regarding claim 10,
it is unclear if “cutting device” is a new cutting device or the same cutting device as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13,
It is unclear what is meant by “the latter” within the limitation “said third conveyor being disposed along said axis of feed aligned overlapping with said second conveyor at a lower height than the latter;”
Regarding claim 17,
It is unclear what it refers to within the limitation “wherein after said evacuation step it provides a return step”
Regarding claim 18,
It is unclear what is meant by “on the fly” within the limitation “wherein said cutting step occurs "on the fly"”
Regarding claim 19,
The term “substantially” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. (hereinafter “Morimoto”)(JP 2007152354 A) in view of Eichhorst et al. (hereinafter “Eichhorst”)(DE 4035192 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Morimoto discloses: An apparatus for feeding and cutting a metal product conformed into overlapping loops (fig. 1)[para. 0001, lines 1-3], comprising:
- at least a first, a second and a third conveyor (2, 3, 5)(fig. 2) which are aligned (modified fig. 2 above)(the conveyors are aligned in the x1-direction as shown in modified fig. 2 above.) and partly overlapping in succession, at different heights, along an axis of feed (x1-direction)(modified fig. 2 above) of said metal product (W)(fig. 2) (modified fig. 2 above)(The conveyors are partly overlapping in the x1-direction of said metal product (the x1-direction is also the axis of feed of metal product (W)) as shown in succession at different heights along the y1-direction.) and are provided with respective feed elements (2a, 3a, 5a)(fig. 2)(The successive feed elements 2a define a first feed plane, the successive feed elements 3a define a second feed plane, and the successive feed elements 5a define a third feed plane.) which define a respective first, second and third feed plane (x2, x3, x5)(modified fig. 2 above)(x2 defines the first feed plane, x3 defines the second feed plane, and x5 defines the third feed plane.) configured to support and allow the feed of said metal product, (W)(modified fig. 2 above)(The feed elements support and allow the feed of the metal product (W).) wherein said second conveyor (3)(fig. 2) is linearly mobile (figs. 6-10)(The figures show different positions of the second conveyor moving linearly.)[para. 0028, lines 1-7] parallel to said axis of feed (modified fig. 2 above)(The second conveyor moves linearly parallel to said axis of feed.) between a so-called zero position (fig. 7)(Figure 7 shows a zero position.) and an end-of-travel position; (fig. 9)(Figure 9 shows an end-of-travel position.) [para. 0029, lines 1-3](The standby position “6a” is the zero position, and the completed cutting position “6b” is the end of travel position.)
- a control unit [para. 0028, lines 6-7] configured at least to control the actuation of said feed elements; [para. 0028, lines 1-7](The controller controls the drive unit for the rails that linearly move the second conveyor. The feed elements are a part of the second conveyor that linearly moves, therefore the control unit is configured to at least control the actuation of said feed elements.)
wherein said second conveyor (3)(fig. 2) comprises a front end (front end of second conveyor (3))(modified fig. 2 above) downstream (fig. 2)(The front end of the second conveyor is downstream of the cutting device and separation element both contained within element (4).) of which there is installed a cutting device (4e, 4f)(fig. 4) and a separation element (4b)(fig. 4) and in that said control unit is configured at least to control the actuation of said feed elements in a synchronous and correlated manner, [para. 0028, lines 1-7](The controller (or control unit) controls the electric motor which controls the actuation of the second conveyor containing all of said feed elements on the second conveyor therefore the controller controls the actuation of said feed elements.)[para. 0030][para. 0031, lines 1-4](The feed elements of conveyors (2,3, and 5) operate in a synchronous and correlated manner as a result of the control unit.) together with a linear movement of said second conveyor, [para. 0030, lines 1-11] in order to separate, by means of said separation element, (4b)(fig. 4) a portion of metal product (W)(fig. 3) already fallen onto said third conveyor [para. 0032, lines 8-11](figs. 3-4)(The separation element 4b separates a portion of metal product wire already fallen onto said third conveyor from the portion still present on said third conveyor.) from the portion still present on said second conveyor, (figs. 5 and 9) and to activate said cutting device (4e, 4f)(fig. 4) in order to cut said metal product present on said second feed plane. [para. 0034, lines 5-9](fig. 3)(The metal product is cut with said cutting device already fallen onto said third conveyor, present on said second feed plane.)
Morimoto fails to disclose: said second conveyor comprises a front end upstream of which there is installed a cutting device and a separation element.
PNG
media_image2.png
592
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Eichhorst teaches: An apparatus for feeding and cutting a metal product (fig. 1) wherein a second conveyor (second conveyor)(modified fig. 3 above) comprises a front end (front end)(modified fig. 3 above) upstream of which there is installed a cutting device (3)(fig. 3) and a separation element. (2,4)(fig. 3)[para. 0013, lines 1-4](The cutting device and separation element are upstream of the front end of the second conveyor.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the cutting device and separation element of Morimoto upstream of the front end of the second conveyor as taught by Eichhorst in order to ensure safe removal of scraps. [para. 0006 line 1 - para. 0007 line 2](The arrangement of Eichhorst ensures safe removal of scraps.)
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose an apparatus for feeding and cutting a metal product. The combination of Morimoto and Eichhorst would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure safe removal of scraps.
After modification, Morimoto in view of Eichhorst teaches: said second conveyor comprises a front end upstream of which there is installed a cutting device and a separation element.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Morimoto in view of Eichhorst teaches: Feeding and cutting apparatus as in claim 1, wherein said separation element (4b)(fig. 4 of Morimoto) is a head feed element of said second conveyor.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Morimoto in view of Eichhorst teaches: Feeding and cutting apparatus as in claim 1, wherein said separation element is a striker bar. (4b)(fig. 4 of Morimoto)(The separation element 4b is a striker bar.)
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Morimoto in view of Eichhorst teaches: Feeding and cutting apparatus as in claim 1, wherein said cutting device is a guillotine shear. (4e, 4f)(fig. 4 of Morimoto)[para. 0032, lines 16-19 of Morimoto](The movable blade (4f) moves closer to and away from the fixed blade (4e) to perform cutting actions therefore the cutting device is a guillotine shear.)
PNG
media_image3.png
562
818
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Morimoto in view of Eichhorst teaches: Feeding and cutting apparatus as in claim 1, wherein cutting device has a vertical cutting plane, orthogonal to said second feed plane. (modified fig. 3 above)(The cutting device has a vertical cutting plane that is defined by the x-z axis (The z-axis going into and out of the page.) and a second feed plane defined by the y-z axis, wherein the vertical cutting plane is orthogonal to said second feed plane.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto in view of Eichhorst and Tsuzuki et al. (hereinafter “Tsuzuki”)(JP 2005081435 A).
PNG
media_image4.png
328
624
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Morimoto in view of Eichhorst discloses: Feeding and cutting apparatus as in claim 1, (see claim 1 rejection above) wherein the first, second, and third conveyor have last feed elements, (last feed elements)(modified fig. 2 above)(The last feed elements of the first, second, and third conveyor are shown.) wherein said separation element is disposed upstream of said last feed elements [of second conveyor]. (after modification, see claim 1 rejection above)
Morimoto in view of Eichhorst fails to disclose: wherein last feed elements of said first, second or third conveyor each consist respectively of two facing cantilevered parts, transversely distanced so that a hollow space is defined between them to direct the fall of said metal product downstream, wherein said separation element is disposed upstream of said cantilevered parts.
Tsuzuki teaches: A conveyor for feeding a metal product (figs. 1-3) wherein last feed elements (32,34)(figs. 1-2) of said first, second or third conveyor each consist respectively of two facing cantilevered parts, (32,34)(figs. 1-2) transversely distanced (fig. 2)(The two facing cantilevered parts are transversely distanced) so that a hollow space is defined between them (figs. 2-3)(There is a hollow space defined between the cantilevered parts to direct the fall of a metal product downstream) to direct the fall of a metal product downstream. [para. 0012, lines 11-21](figs. 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the last feed elements of the first, second, and third conveyor of Morimoto with the two facing cantilevered parts as taught by Tsuzuki in order to improve production efficiency. [para. 0008, lines 5-9]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a conveyor for feeding a coiled metal product. The combination of Morimoto, Eichhorst, and Tsuzuki would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to improve production efficiency.
After modification, Morimoto in view of Eichhorst and Tsuzuki teaches: wherein last feed elements of said first, second or third conveyor each consist respectively of two facing cantilevered parts, transversely distanced so that a hollow space is defined between them to direct the fall of said metal product downstream, wherein said separation element is disposed upstream of said cantilevered parts [of said second conveyor].
Claims 5-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto in view of Eichhorst in further view of Wiedemann et al. (hereinafter “Wiedemann”)(US 5988551 A).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Morimoto in view of Eichhorst discloses: Feeding and cutting apparatus as in claim 1, (see claim 1 rejection) with a third conveyor.
Morimoto in view of Eichhorst fails to disclose: wherein said third conveyor comprises two fixed portions and one mobile portion disposed between said fixed portions, at least said mobile portion being able to be moved in order to evacuate the portion of metal product cut by said cutting device from said third feed plane.
PNG
media_image5.png
477
712
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Wiedemann teaches: A similar apparatus for feeding and cutting a metal product conformed into overlapping loops (fig. 1) wherein a conveyor (7,2,4,1)(fig. 1) with a control unit (14)(fig. 1) and an actuator (19) comprises two fixed portions (7,1)(fig. 1)(The portion 7 is fixed in place, and the part of the conveyor of 1 does not move linearly so it is also fixed.) and one mobile portion (MP)(modified fig. 1 above) disposed between said fixed portions, (modified fig. 1 above)(The mobile portion (MP) is disposed between said fixed portions.) at least said mobile portion being able to be moved (figs. 1-3)(The mobile portion is able to be moved via rotation.) in order to evacuate the portion of metal product cut by said cutting device from a feed plane. (figs. 1-3)(The feed plane is the axis defined by (FP) in fig. 1. Once rotated, the mobile portion evacuates the portion of metal product cut by said cutting device from said feed plane onto element (18).)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the third conveyor of Morimoto with the conveyor containing a control unit and an actuator (7,2,4,19,14,1)(fig. 1 of Wiedemann) of Wiedemann in order to have more control over the conveyor and to decrease manual labor. [col. 2, lines 22-30, and lines 36-45 of Wiedemann]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose an apparatus for feeding and cutting a metal product conformed into overlapping loops. The combination of Morimoto, Eichhorst, and Wiedemann would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to decrease manual labor.
After modification, as best understood, Morimoto in view of Eichhorst and Wiedemann teaches: Feeding and cutting apparatus as in claim 1, with a third conveyor wherein said third conveyor comprises two fixed portions and one mobile portion disposed between said fixed portions, at least said mobile portion being able to be moved in order to evacuate the portion of metal product cut by said cutting device from said third feed plane.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Morimoto in view of Eichhorst and Wiedemann teaches: Feeding and cutting apparatus as in claim 5, wherein at least one of said mobile portions (MP)(modified fig. 1 above) is selectively rotatable (figs. 1-3 of Wiedemann)(The mobile portion is selectively rotatable) to evacuate said cut portion of metal product into a suitable space. (figs. 1-3 of Wiedemann)(Once rotated, said cut portion of metal product is evacuated into a suitable space.)
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Morimoto in view of Eichhorst and Wiedemann teaches: Feeding and cutting apparatus as in claim 5, wherein the feed elements of one or more mobile portions of said third conveyor are actuated. (14, 19)(figs. 2-3 of Wiedemann) in an independent manner with respect to the feed elements of one or more fixed portions of said third conveyor. (fig. 1 of Wiedemann) [col. 3, lines 45-49 of Wiedemann] [col. 3 line 65 - col. 4 line 1 of Wiedemann] (The mobile conveyor portion of the third conveyor is actuated independently of the feed elements of the fixed portion of said third conveyor because the control unit (14) transmits a command to actuate the lifting device (19) so that the mobile portions of the third conveyor are rotatably actuated, whereas the fixed portion (1) of the third conveyor still conveys and actuates but does not rotate therefore must be actuated independently.)
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Morimoto in view of Eichhorst and Wiedemann teaches: Feeding and cutting apparatus as in claim 5, wherein the feed elements of one or more mobile portions of said third conveyor are actuated (19)(figs. 1-5 of Wiedemann)[col. 3, line 65 – col. 4 line 15 of Wiedemann](The feed elements of the mobile portion are rotationally actuated by the lifting unit (19).) in a coordinated manner with respect to the feed elements of one or more fixed portions of said third conveyor, (7)(figs. 2-3)(Since the lifting unit (19) actuates the feed elements and rotatably moves the feed elements of the mobile portion of the third conveyor, and the lifting unit also actuates the fixed portion (7) by spinning the fixed portion in place, the feed elements of the mobile portion of said third conveyor and the feed elements of the fixed portion of the third conveyor are actuated in a coordinated manner by means of a common actuator.) by means of a common actuator or by means of two or more actuators driven in a coordinated manner.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Morimoto in view of Eichhorst discloses: A plant (fig. 2 of Morimoto) for producing metal coils comprising:
- a coil-forming apparatus (81)(fig. 12 of Morimoto) provided with a well (82)(fig. 12 of Morimoto) in the center of which there is a centering rod (83)(fig. 12 of Morimoto) configured to allow the automatic stacking of said metal product into loops, in order to define a coil; [para. 0005, lines 1-15](fig. 12 of Morimoto)(The part (83) is configured to allow the automatic stacking of said metal product into loops, in order to define a coil.)
- a feeding and cutting apparatus, as in claim 1. (see claim 1 rejection)
Morimoto in view of Eichhorst fails to disclose:
- a winding apparatus having a loop-forming head configured to conform, in a continuous or discontinuous manner, a metal product into loops; and a feeding and cutting apparatus disposed between said winding apparatus and said coil-forming apparatus.
Wiedemann teaches: A similar plant (fig. 1 of Wiedemann) for producing metal coils with a feeding and cutting apparatus, (7,2,4,13,1)(fig. 1) and a control unit with an actuator (14, 19)(fig. 1) the plant comprising:
- a winding apparatus (12)(fig. 1 of Wiedemann) having a loop-forming head configured to conform, in a continuous or discontinuous manner, a metal product into loops; (fig. 1)(The winding apparatus has a loop-forming head configured to conform, in a continuous manner, a metal product into loops.) wherein the feeding and cutting apparatus is disposed between a winding apparatus (12)(fig. 1) and a coil-forming apparatus. (18)(fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the winding apparatus as taught by Wiedemann to the invention of Morimoto in view of Eichhorst to provide an in-house wire winder to reduce manual labor. [col. 2, lines 27-29 of Wiedemann]
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the feeding and cutting apparatus of Morimoto in view of Eichhorst between a winding apparatus and a coil-forming apparatus as taught by Wiedemann in order to collect the coiled wire [col. 4, lines 35-41 of Wiedemann] and to reduce manual labor. [col. 2, lines 27-29 of Wiedemann]
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the functions of the controller and actuator (14, 19)(fig. 1 of Wiedemann) as taught by Wiedemann to the control unit of Morimoto in view of Eichhorst to in order to have more control over the conveyor and to decrease manual labor. [col. 2, lines 22-30, and lines 36-45 of Wiedemann]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a plant for producing metal coils. The combination of Morimoto in view of Eichhorst and Wiedemann would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to decrease manual labor.
After modification, Morimoto in view of Eichhorst and Wiedemann teaches:
- a winding apparatus having a loop-forming head configured to conform, in a continuous or discontinuous manner, a metal product into loops; and a feeding and cutting apparatus disposed between said winding apparatus and said coil-forming apparatus.
PNG
media_image6.png
557
786
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Morimoto in view of Eichhorst and Wiedemann teaches: Plant as in claim 11, (see claim 11 rejection) wherein said control unit (14)(fig. 1)(The functions of which were incorporated into the control unit of Morimoto via claim 11 rejection.) is configured to command the evacuation of said portion of metal product cut by said cutting device and remaining on said second or third conveyor, by activating the respective feed elements in order to move said portion of metal product in the direction of said winding apparatus, toward respective unloading zones. (unloading zones)(modified fig. 2 above) (figs. 1-5 of Wiedemann)[col. 4, lines 31-41 of Wiedemann]
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto in view of Wiedemann, Sylvester et al. (hereinafter “Sylvester”)(US 1856669 A), and Eichhorst .
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Morimoto discloses: A method for feeding and cutting a metal product conformed into overlapping loops [para. 0001, lines 1-3] comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
402
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- a supply step, in which a metal product (W)(modified fig. 2 above) on a first conveyor (2)(fig. 2 of Morimoto) is provided with a first feed plane (x2)(modified fig. 2 above) having respective first feed elements; (2a)(modified fig. 2 above)
- a first feed step, in which said first feed plane makes said metal product (W)(modified fig. 2 above) advance toward a second conveyor (3)(modified fig. 2 above) provided with a second feed plane (x3)(modified fig. 2 above) having respective second feed elements, (3a)(modified fig. 2 above) said second conveyor being disposed along an axis of feed (modified fig. 2 above)(The movement of the metal product (W) defines an axis of feed. The second conveyor is disposed along an axis of feed parallel to the metal product’s axis of feed.) aligned overlapping with said first conveyor at a lower height than the latter; (modified fig. 2 above)
- a second feed step, in which said second conveyor is in a zero position (fig. 7)(The second conveyor is in a zero position) and said second feed plane makes said metal product advance toward a third conveyor (5)(figs. 7-8)(Said second feed plane makes said metal product advance toward a third conveyor.) provided with a third feed plane (x5)(modified fig. 2 above) having respective third feed elements, (5a)(modified fig. 2 above) said third conveyor being disposed along said axis of feed (modified fig. 2 above)(The movement of the metal product (W) defines an axis of feed. The third conveyor is disposed along an axis of feed parallel to the metal product’s axis of feed.) aligned overlapping with said second conveyor at a lower height than the latter; (modified fig. 2 above)
- a third feed step, in which said second conveyor translates from said zero position (fig. 7) toward an end-of-travel position (fig. 9)(Figure 9 shows an end of travel position.) with a first acceleration, [para. 0039, lines 1-8] (In order for the second conveyor to move from the zero position wherein the second conveyor is stationary, toward an end-of-travel position, the second conveyor must have a first acceleration to begin movement.) while said second feed elements of said second feed plane gradually slow down their rotation in a manner that is synchronous and correlated to the movement of said second conveyor; [para. 0039, lines 1-8]
wherein said method comprises:
- a separation step, [para. 0034, lines 1-9] in which said second conveyor, before it reaches said end-of-travel position, (fig. 8)(This is a position before the second conveyor reaches the end-of-travel position.) is further accelerated with a second acceleration [para. 0040, lines 4-9](The second conveyor starts moving from standstill which requires a first acceleration, and then the second conveyor is further accelerated to lengthen the dropping pitch, therefore has a second acceleration.) in order to separate a portion of metal product already fallen onto said third conveyor from the portion still present on said second conveyor. [para. 0034, lines 5-9](fig. 3)(The metal product is separated with said separation element (hook portion 4b) already fallen onto said third conveyor, present on said second feed plane.) [para. 0040, lines 7-13](After the second acceleration, the separating element separates.)
- A cutting step, (figs. 3-4) in which a cutting device (4e, 4f)(fig. 4) present at the end of said second conveyor (figs. 3 and 7) is activated in order to cut said metal product in correspondence with said separation element. [para. 0034 line 1 – para. 0035, line 3]
Morimoto fails to disclose:
-A supply step, in which a winding apparatus lays a metal product on a conveyor.
-A separation step wherein said second feed elements rotate correspondingly in a direction opposite to that which allows the feed of said metal product.
-A separation step performed by interposing a separation element on board said second conveyor.
- A cutting step, in which a cutting device is present on board said second conveyor, upstream of a front end thereof.
Wiedemann teaches: A similar method [Abstract] for feeding and cutting a metal product conformed into overlapping loops [Abstract, lines 1-8] the method comprising:
-A supply step, in which a winding apparatus (12)(fig. 1) lays a metal product (30)(fig. 1) on a conveyor. (2)(fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the winding apparatus step as taught by Wiedemann to the method of Morimoto to provide an in-house wire winder to reduce manual labor. [col. 2, lines 27-29 of Wiedemann]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a method for feeding and cutting a metal product conformed into overlapping loops. The combination of Morimoto in view of Wiedemann would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to decrease manual labor.
After modification, Morimoto in view of Wiedemann teaches: -A supply step, in which a winding apparatus lays a metal product on a conveyor.
Sylvester teaches: a similar conveyor with a step in which the conveyor’s (fig. 1) feed elements (17)(fig. 1) rotate correspondingly in a direction opposite to that which allows the feed of a product. [pg. 6, lines 79-93 of Sylvester] in order for conveyed articles to have different rates of progression. [pg. 2, lines 4-8 of Sylvester]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rotate the second feed elements of Morimoto in a direction opposite to that which allows the feed of said metal product as taught by Sylvester in order to allow the conveyed articles to have different rates of progression. [pg. 2, lines 4-8 of Sylvester]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a method for conveying a product. The combination of Morimoto, Wiedemann, and Sylvester would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide continuous operation and movement of materials along a conveyor.
After modification, Morimoto in view of Wiedemann and Sylvester teaches: A separation step wherein said second feed elements rotate correspondingly in a direction opposite to that which allows the feed of said metal product.
PNG
media_image2.png
592
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Eichhorst teaches: A similar method for feeding and cutting a metal product (fig. 1) wherein a second conveyor (second conveyor)(modified fig. 3 above) comprises a cutting device (3)(fig. 3) and a separation element (2,4)(fig. 3)[para. 0013, lines 1-4](The cutting device and separation element are upstream of the front end of the second conveyor.) interposed on board said second conveyor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the cutting device and separation element of Morimoto interposed on board the second conveyor as taught by Eichhorst in order to ensure safe removal of scraps. [para. 0006 line 1 - para. 0007 line 2](The arrangement of Eichhorst ensures safe removal of scraps.)
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a method for feeding and cutting a product. The combination of Morimoto, Wiedemann, Sylvester, and Eichhorst would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure safe removal of scraps.
After modification, Morimoto in view of Wiedemann, Sylvester, and Eichhorst teaches: -A separation step performed by interposing a separation element on board said second conveyor, and
- A cutting step, in which a cutting device present on board said second conveyor upstream of a front end thereof is activated in order to cut said metal product in correspondence with said separation element.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Morimoto in view of Wiedemann, Sylvester, and Eichhorst teaches: Method as in claim 13, wherein after said cutting step, there follows an evacuation step in which the feed elements of said second or third feed plane are activated in order to evacuate the portion of metal product cut by said cutting device in the direction of said winding apparatus toward suitable unloading zones.
Morimoto in view of Wiedemann, Sylvester, and Eichhorst fails to teach: wherein after said cutting step, there follows an evacuation step in which the feed elements of said second or third feed plane are activated in order to evacuate the portion of metal product cut by said cutting device in the direction of said winding apparatus toward suitable unloading zones.
PNG
media_image6.png
557
786
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Wiedemann teaches: A similar method for feeding and cutting a metal product wherein after a cutting step, (fig. 2 of Wiedemann) there follows an evacuation step in which the feed elements of a conveyor are activated in order to evacuate the portion of metal product cut by said cutting device in the direction of said winding apparatus toward suitable unloading zones. (unloading zones)(modified fig. 2 above) (figs. 1-5 of Wiedemann)[col. 4, lines 31-41 of Wiedemann]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the third conveyor of modified Morimoto with the conveyor containing a control unit and an actuator (7,2,4,19,14,1)(fig. 1 of Wiedemann) of Wiedemann in order to have more control over the conveyor and to decrease manual labor. [col. 2, lines 22-30, and lines 36-45 of Wiedemann]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a method for feeding and cutting a metal product. The combination of Morimoto, Wiedemann, Sylvester, and Eichhorst would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to decrease manual labor.
After modification, Morimoto in view of Wiedemann, Sylvester, and Eichhorst teaches: wherein after said cutting step, there follows an evacuation step in which the feed elements of said second or third feed plane are activated in order to evacuate the portion of metal product cut by said cutting device in the direction of said winding apparatus toward suitable unloading zones.
PNG
media_image5.png
477
712
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Morimoto in view of Wiedemann Sylvester, and Eichhorst teaches: Method as in claim 14, wherein during said evacuation step, a mobile portion (MP)(modified fig. 1 of Wiedemann above) of said third conveyor (see claim 14 rejection above.) cooperates with a terminal part of said second conveyor in order to receive and evacuate the portion of metal product cut by said cutting device removing it from said third feed plane. (modified fig. 2 of Wiedemann above)(figs. 6-10 of Morimoto)(The second conveyor moves in the direction closer towards the third conveyor. After the end-of-motion position, the metal product gets transferred from the terminal part of said second conveyor onto the third conveyor. The modified third conveyor (see claim 14 rejection above) then receives the metal product and then evacuates the product cut by the cutting device (4e, 4f)(fig. 4 of Morimoto) removing it from said third feed plane onto a suitable unloading zone (see claim 14 rejection above.))
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Morimoto in view of Wiedemann, Sylvester, and Eichhorst teaches: Method as in claim 15, wherein during said evacuation step, said mobile portion is made to rotate in order to evacuate said cut portion of metal product into a suitable space. (modified fig. 1 above)(fig. 6 of Wiedemann)(The mobile portion MP is made to rotate to evacuate said cut portion of metal product into a suitable space.)
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Morimoto in view of Wiedemann, Sylvester, and Eichhorst teaches: Method as in claim 14, wherein after said evacuation step it provides a return step (fig. 10 of Morimoto) in which said second conveyor is returned to the zero position, (In fig. 10 of Morimoto, the second conveyor starts moving back and is returned to the zero position.) and during its translation to said zero position the feed elements of said second feed plane are driven so that said metal product can continue its travel with the desired linear speed. [para. 0044, lines 1-30 of Morimoto]
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Morimoto in view of Wiedemann, Sylvester, and Eichhorst teaches: Method as in claim 13, wherein said cutting step occurs "on the fly", while the cutting device moves together with the metal product. (fig. 3 of Morimoto)(The cutting step occurs “on the fly” while the cutting device moves together with the metal product.)
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Morimoto in view of Wiedemann, Sylvester, and Eichhorst teaches: Method as in claim 13, wherein in said first, second and third feed steps, in said separation step and in said cutting step, the absolute linear speed of said metal product remains substantially constant. [para. 0045, lines 5-8 of Morimoto]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
EP 1584433 A1 teaches a multi-layered conveying system.
WO 2017082908 A1 teaches a conveyor system for metal wire that cuts, separates, and has a control unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUEVARA SAOOD ISSA whose telephone number is (571)482-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5pm and every other Friday 9:00am-5pm.
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.
/J.S.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights