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 . This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-24 filed on 12/23/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 08/19/2025 has been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 1550.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 130a, 130b, 128, 10, 900, 1560, 1586.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The glyph 1550 is used but not included in the drawings.
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 1-24 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, “the determined or modified cut solution”, in line 10, which is indefinite. Claim 1 does not recite “a determined or modified cut solution” in the determining step in line 7. Claim 1 recites “a first portion of the cut solution” during the determining step in line 7. For the purpose of examination, “the determined or modified cut solution” will be interpreted as “the determined or modified first portion of the cut solution”.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites, “the determined or modified cut solution”, in line 14, which is indefinite. Claim 21 does not recite “a determined or modified cut solution” during the determining step in line 11. Claim 21 recites “a first portion of the cut solution” in the determining step in line 11. For the purpose of examination, “the determined or modified cut solution” will be interpreted as “the determined or modified first portion of the cut solution”.
Claims 2-24 are rejected due to their dependency upon rejected claims and are rejected for the same reasons as outlined above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 11-13, 17, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Middleton et. al. (US 20160031110 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Middleton discloses a method of cutting a log into a center cant and/or one or more secondary workpieces, ([0069]: “In other embodiments, workpiece 102 may be, but is not limited to, a log, a cant, a board, or the like.”) the method comprising: causing a first cutting device to cut the log longitudinally according to a cut solution ([0070]: “The computer system may also calculate a cut solution/pattern, determine a desired position for the workpiece, determine a predicted position of a downstream cutting member (e.g., cutting member 150, FIGS. 1-2), and/or perform other operations as described elsewhere herein.”; [0071] “Similarly, end view 156 may include a horizontal line that represents the generally horizontal plane of the transport (i.e., the plane of the upper surface), a vertical line that represents a generally vertical plane that extends longitudinally through the transport, the 3D model of the workpiece oriented relative to the planes, and projected cut lines 158.”;) to thereby form a first cant with at least one flat face; ([0035]: “Transport 110 may be configured to transport a workpiece 102 such as a log, a cant, a flitch, or a board.”; [0061] Once the workpiece is in the desired position, the infeed may be operated to convey the workpiece to the cutting member(s) 350.”; [0071] “For example, as shown in FIGS. 4-6, plan view 154 may show a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis of the transport, the 2D model of the workpiece oriented relative to the axes, and longitudinal orientation lines 158 that extend generally parallel to the a longitudinal axis of the 2D model.”, when a log is first cut longitudinally the result is a flitch and a cant with at least one flat face) obtaining, from at least one vision sensor, one or more images of the flat face; ([0036]: “In other embodiments, sensor 120 may include a vision camera (e.g., a video camera) configured to capture visual images of the workpiece.”, where a camera is a vision sensor) detecting a defect based at least in part on the one or more images; ([0041]: “Optionally, computer system 130 may be configured to determine one or more workpiece characteristics such as workpiece dimensions, wane, defects (e.g., knot, split, shake, check, warp, discoloration), and/or grade, based on data from sensor 120.”,) determining or modifying at least a first portion of the cut solution based at least in part on the detected defect; ([0041]: “Computer system 130 may be configured to determine the cut solution for a workpiece based at least in part on the identified defects and/or grade.”) and causing one or more second cutting devices ([0056] Referring first to FIG. 3A, a workpiece processing system 300 may include one or more of an infeed 310, conveyor(s) 386, and cutting member(s) 350. Cutting member(s) 350 may be one or more saws of a cutting assembly.; [0057]: “Optionally, computer system 330 may also be operatively coupled with, and operative to control, cutting member(s) 350.”) to cut the first cant into the center cant and/or the one or more secondary workpieces according to the determined or modified cut solution. ([0046]: “Alternatively, positioner 160 may be a human operator, and output device 140 may be configured to provide visual and/or auditory directions to the human operator in response to instructions from computer system 130 (FIGS. 1-3). The directions may be configured to guide the human operator in repositioning the workpiece toward the desired position on the transport, such that the workpiece can be cut by cutting member 150 according to the cut solution.”).
Regarding claim 2, Middleton teaches the method of claim 1.
Middleton further teaches wherein the first cutting device is a chipper or a saw, ([0044]: “Cutting member 150 can be, but is not limited to, a cutting member of an edger, a trimmer, a chipper, a profiler, a saw, or a planer. In various embodiments, cutting member 150 may be positioned upstream, downstream, or along transport 110. Other embodiments may lack cutting member 150.”) the at least one vision sensor is a plurality of vision sensors, ([0053]: “In some embodiments, sensor 220 may include a plurality of sensors arranged above the transport 210. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 2A, sensor 220 may include a plurality of cameras, scanners, or other imaging devices mounted above the transport 210 to form a single line of sensors spaced apart at intervals (e.g., at 6 inch intervals).”, where cameras are vision sensors) and the one or more flat faces is a pair of flat faces. ([0051]: “In some embodiments, projector 146 or one or more other projectors, lasers, or the like may be operatively coupled with cutting member 150 and operable to project an image of a cut line along a plane of cutting member 150. In embodiments with multiple cutting members 150, the projector/laser may be configured to project an image of a cut line along the plane of each cutting member 150 or selected ones of the cutting members 150. For example, in some embodiments the projector/laser may be configured to project an image of a cut line along the plane of the cutting members 150 that will be used to cut the next workpiece.”, see figure 4B 102 where three flat faces are depicted on a workpiece).
Regarding claim 3, Middleton teaches the method of claim 1.
Middleton further teaches wherein the defect is a knot or a split. ([0061]: “For example, system 300 may include a manual control, such as a joystick and/or button, that allows a human operator to adjust the position of a projected image 348 (e.g., to avoid a defect such as a knot, wane, or discoloration in the intended cut product).”; [0063] “to manually adjust the locations of the cut lines in order to maximize the value based on visual defects, clear wood, a split, desired product attributes/dimensions, or the like.”).
Regarding claim 11, Middleton discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium programmed with instructions that are operable, ([0055] “FIGS. 3A-E illustrates plan views of embodiments of a workpiece processing system 300. In various embodiments, system 300 may be obtained by adding a sensor (e.g., sensor 120/220) and/or a computer system (e.g., computer system 130) to the existing workpiece processing system.”) upon execution by a processor of a computer, to cause the computer to: ([0111]: “System memory 712, NVM/storage 716, and/or system control logic 708 may include, in particular, temporal and persistent copies of positioning logic 724. The positioning logic 724 may include instructions operable, upon execution by at least one of the processor(s) 704, to cause computer system 700 to practice one or more aspects of operations described herein (e.g., creation of a dimensional model of a workpiece based on sensor data, calculation of one or more cut solutions, calculation of one or more cut patterns, determination of an actual workpiece position, determination of a desired workpiece position, determination of a predicted cutting member position, etc.)”) receive, from one or more vision sensors, one or more images of a surface of a first cant, ([0035]: “Transport 110 may be configured to transport a workpiece 102 such as a log, a cant, a flitch, or a board.”; [0061] Once the workpiece is in the desired position, the infeed may be operated to convey the workpiece to the cutting member(s) 350.”; [0071] “For example, as shown in FIGS. 4-6, plan view 154 may show a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis of the transport, the 2D model of the workpiece oriented relative to the axes, and longitudinal orientation lines 158 that extend generally parallel to the a longitudinal axis of the 2D model.”; [0036] “In other embodiments, sensor 120 may include a vision camera (e.g., a video camera) configured to capture visual images of the workpiece.”, where a camera is a vision sensor and when a log is first cut longitudinally the result is a flitch and a cant with at least one flat face) wherein the first cant is formed by cutting a log longitudinally according to a cut solution to form one or more flat faces, and wherein said surface is a surface of at least one of the one or more flat faces; ([0035]: “Transport 110 may be configured to transport a workpiece 102 such as a log, a cant, a flitch, or a board.”; [0061] Once the workpiece is in the desired position, the infeed may be operated to convey the workpiece to the cutting member(s) 350.”; [0071] “For example, as shown in FIGS. 4-6, plan view 154 may show a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis of the transport, the 2D model of the workpiece oriented relative to the axes, and longitudinal orientation lines 158 that extend generally parallel to the a longitudinal axis of the 2D model.”, when a log is first cut longitudinally the result is a flitch and a cant with at least one flat face) detect a defect in the first cant based at least on the one or more images; ([0041]: “Optionally, computer system 130 may be configured to determine one or more workpiece characteristics such as workpiece dimensions, wane, defects (e.g., knot, split, shake, check, warp, discoloration), and/or grade, based on data from sensor 120.”,) determine or modify the cut solution based at least in part on the detected defect; ([0041]: “Computer system 130 may be configured to determine the cut solution for a workpiece based at least in part on the identified defects and/or grade.”) and cause one or more cutting devices ([0056] Referring first to FIG. 3A, a workpiece processing system 300 may include one or more of an infeed 310, conveyor(s) 386, and cutting member(s) 350. Cutting member(s) 350 may be one or more saws of a cutting assembly.”; [0057]: “Optionally, computer system 330 may also be operatively coupled with, and operative to control, cutting member(s) 350.” ) to cut the first cant into a center cant and/or one or more secondary workpieces according to the determined or modified cut solution. ([0046]: “Alternatively, positioner 160 may be a human operator, and output device 140 may be configured to provide visual and/or auditory directions to the human operator in response to instructions from computer system 130 (FIGS. 1-3). The directions may be configured to guide the human operator in repositioning the workpiece toward the desired position on the transport, such that the workpiece can be cut by cutting member 150 according to the cut solution.”).
Regarding claim 12, Middleton teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11.
Middleton further teaches wherein the one or more vision sensors is a plurality of vision sensors, ([0053]: “In some embodiments, sensor 220 may include a plurality of sensors arranged above the transport 210. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 2A, sensor 220 may include a plurality of cameras, scanners, or other imaging devices mounted above the transport 210 to form a single line of sensors spaced apart at intervals (e.g., at 6 inch intervals).”, where cameras are vision sensors) and the one or more flat faces is a pair of flat faces. ([0053]: “In some embodiments, sensor 220 may include a plurality of sensors arranged above the transport 210. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 2A, sensor 220 may include a plurality of cameras, scanners, or other imaging devices mounted above the transport 210 to form a single line of sensors spaced apart at intervals (e.g., at 6 inch intervals).”, where cameras are vision sensors).
Regarding claim 13, Middleton teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11.
Middleton further teaches wherein the defect is a knot or a split. ([0061]: “For example, system 300 may include a manual control, such as a joystick and/or button, that allows a human operator to adjust the position of a projected image 348 (e.g., to avoid a defect such as a knot, wane, or discoloration in the intended cut product).”; [0063] “to manually adjust the locations of the cut lines in order to maximize the value based on visual defects, clear wood, a split, desired product attributes/dimensions, or the like.”).
Regarding claim 17, Middleton teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11.
Middleton further teaches wherein the first portion of the determined or modified cut solution defines the center cant, a second portion of the cut solution defines a flitch or a sideboard, ([0033]: “As used herein, lumber is a broad term, referring to any piece of wood, including, for example, uncut, undebarked logs, partially processed logs, log segments, cants, sideboards, flitches, edging strips, boards, finished lumber, etc.”; [0046] “A solution determined by the primary breakdown optimizer may consist of a cant width, sideboard thickness, and the offset of the log segment 103 from the machinery centerline 201, which will produce the longest and most valuable lumber.”; [0047]: “By way of example without limitation, FIG. 6 illustrates a sawing solution. As shown in FIG. 6, the primary breakdown optimizer has decided to make a center cant 320 which is 6-inch wide, a first sideboard 322 which is expected to be 2.times.6, and a second sideboard 324 which will be 2.times.8.”) and the instructions are operable, upon execution by the processor, to cause the computer to ([0055] “FIGS. 3A-E illustrates plan views of embodiments of a workpiece processing system 300. In various embodiments, system 300 may be obtained by adding a sensor (e.g., sensor 120/220) and/or a computer system (e.g., computer system 130) to the existing workpiece processing system.”) modify the cut solution by moving or resizing the center cant. ([0033]: “As used herein, lumber is a broad term, referring to any piece of wood, including, for example, uncut, undebarked logs, partially processed logs, log segments, cants, sideboards, flitches, edging strips, boards, finished lumber, etc.”; [0046] “A solution determined by the primary breakdown optimizer may consist of a cant width, sideboard thickness, and the offset of the log segment 103 from the machinery centerline 201, which will produce the longest and most valuable lumber. The primary breakdown optimizer may use brute force methods to simulate every possible way to position and cut the log segment 103, select the best solution, and send the solution to the systems which actually position the log segment 103, the chip heads 202 and 204, and the saws 206 and 208.”, where every possible way to position or cut necessarily includes moving, resizing or eliminating).
Regarding claim 21, Middleton discloses a system for cutting a log, the system comprising: a first cutting device positioned along a feed axis and operable to cut the log longitudinally, according to a cut solution, ([0070]: “The computer system may also calculate a cut solution/pattern, determine a desired position for the workpiece, determine a predicted position of a downstream cutting member (e.g., cutting member 150, FIGS. 1-2), and/or perform other operations as described elsewhere herein.”; [0071] “Similarly, end view 156 may include a horizontal line that represents the generally horizontal plane of the transport (i.e., the plane of the upper surface), a vertical line that represents a generally vertical plane that extends longitudinally through the transport, the 3D model of the workpiece oriented relative to the planes, and projected cut lines 158.”;) to thereby form a first cant with at least one flat face; ; ([0035]: “Transport 110 may be configured to transport a workpiece 102 such as a log, a cant, a flitch, or a board.”; [0061] Once the workpiece is in the desired position, the infeed may be operated to convey the workpiece to the cutting member(s) 350.”; [0071] “For example, as shown in FIGS. 4-6, plan view 154 may show a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis of the transport, the 2D model of the workpiece oriented relative to the axes, and longitudinal orientation lines 158 that extend generally parallel to the a longitudinal axis of the 2D model.”, when a log is first cut longitudinally the result is a flitch and a cant with at least one flat face) a vision sensor positioned to capture one or more images of the flat face in a scan zone downstream of the first cutting device; ([0036]: “Sensor 120 may be configured to detect the workpiece within a field of view 122 and to generate corresponding sensor data. Sensor 120 can include, but is not limited to, one or more cameras, scanners, lasers, and/or other such devices, alone or in any suitable combination. In some embodiments, sensor 120 may include a laser triangulation system. In other embodiments, sensor 120 may include a vision camera (e.g., a video camera) configured to capture visual images of the workpiece.”; [0035] Transport 110 may be configured to transport a workpiece 102 such as a log, a cant, a flitch, or a board.”, where a cant, a flitch or a board have a flat face within a field of view) a second cutting device positioned downstream of the scan zone; ([0056] Referring first to FIG. 3A, a workpiece processing system 300 may include one or more of an infeed 310, conveyor(s) 386, and cutting member(s) 350. Cutting member(s) 350 may be one or more saws of a cutting assembly. ) and a computer system programmed with instructions operable, ([0055] “FIGS. 3A-E illustrates plan views of embodiments of a workpiece processing system 300. In various embodiments, system 300 may be obtained by adding a sensor (e.g., sensor 120/220) and/or a computer system (e.g., computer system 130) to the existing workpiece processing system.”) upon execution by one or more processors of the computer system, to cause the computer system to: ([0111]: “System memory 712, NVM/storage 716, and/or system control logic 708 may include, in particular, temporal and persistent copies of positioning logic 724. The positioning logic 724 may include instructions operable, upon execution by at least one of the processor(s) 704, to cause computer system 700 to practice one or more aspects of operations described herein (e.g., creation of a dimensional model of a workpiece based on sensor data, calculation of one or more cut solutions, calculation of one or more cut patterns, determination of an actual workpiece position, determination of a desired workpiece position, determination of a predicted cutting member position, etc.)”) detect a defect based at least in part on the one or more images; ([0041]: “Optionally, computer system 130 may be configured to determine one or more workpiece characteristics such as workpiece dimensions, wane, defects (e.g., knot, split, shake, check, warp, discoloration), and/or grade, based on data from sensor 120.”,) determine or modify at least a first portion of the cut solution based at least in part on the detected defect; ([0041]: “Computer system 130 may be configured to determine the cut solution for a workpiece based at least in part on the identified defects and/or grade.”) and cause the second cutting device ([0056] Referring first to FIG. 3A, a workpiece processing system 300 may include one or more of an infeed 310, conveyor(s) 386, and cutting member(s) 350. Cutting member(s) 350 may be one or more saws of a cutting assembly.”; [0057]: “Optionally, computer system 330 may also be operatively coupled with, and operative to control, cutting member(s) 350.”) to cut the first cant into a center cant and/or one or more secondary workpieces according to the determined or modified cut solution. ([0046]: “Alternatively, positioner 160 may be a human operator, and output device 140 may be configured to provide visual and/or auditory directions to the human operator in response to instructions from computer system 130 (FIGS. 1-3). The directions may be configured to guide the human operator in repositioning the workpiece toward the desired position on the transport, such that the workpiece can be cut by cutting member 150 according to the cut solution.”).
Regarding claim 22, Middleton teaches the system of claim 21.
Middleton further teaches further including a profiler and an edger, wherein the second cutting device is a saw and the edger is positioned downstream of the saw, ([0034]: “In some embodiments, system 100 may further include one or more of a transport 110, an output device 140, a cutting member 150, and/or a positioner 160.”; [0044] Cutting member 150 can be, but is not limited to, a cutting member of an edger, a trimmer, a chipper, a profiler, a saw, or a planer. In various embodiments, cutting member 150 may be positioned upstream, downstream, or along transport 110. Other embodiments may lack cutting member 150.”, where one or more of a cutting member includes a profiler, an edger and a saw and the edger is positioned downstream of the saw) the cut solution defines one or more cuts to be made by the edger, ([0042]: “In other words, the desired position may be a position in which the workpiece could, if moved in the direction of flow to the cutting member without further repositioning, be cut according to the cut solution.”; [0044] “Cutting member 150 can be, but is not limited to, a cutting member of an edger, a trimmer, a chipper, a profiler, a saw, or a planer.”) and the determined or modified cut solution defines one or more cuts to be made by the profiler. ([0042]: “In other words, the desired position may be a position in which the workpiece could, if moved in the direction of flow to the cutting member without further repositioning, be cut according to the cut solution.”; [0044] “Cutting member 150 can be, but is not limited to, a cutting member of an edger, a trimmer, a chipper, a profiler, a saw, or a planer.”).
Regarding claim 23, Middleton teaches the system of claim 21.
Middleton further teaches further including a profiler and an edger, wherein the second cutting device is a saw and the edger is positioned downstream of the saw, ([0034]: “In some embodiments, system 100 may further include one or more of a transport 110, an output device 140, a cutting member 150, and/or a positioner 160.”; [0044] Cutting member 150 can be, but is not limited to, a cutting member of an edger, a trimmer, a chipper, a profiler, a saw, or a planer. In various embodiments, cutting member 150 may be positioned upstream, downstream, or along transport 110. Other embodiments may lack cutting member 150.”, where one or more of a cutting member includes a profiler, an edger and a saw and the edger is positioned downstream of the saw) the cut solution defines one or more cuts to be made by the profiler, ([0042]: “In other words, the desired position may be a position in which the workpiece could, if moved in the direction of flow to the cutting member without further repositioning, be cut according to the cut solution.”; [0044] “Cutting member 150 can be, but is not limited to, a cutting member of an edger, a trimmer, a chipper, a profiler, a saw, or a planer.”) and the determined or modified cut solution defines one or more cuts to be made by the edger. ([0042]: “In other words, the desired position may be a position in which the workpiece could, if moved in the direction of flow to the cutting member without further repositioning, be cut according to the cut solution.”; [0044] “Cutting member 150 can be, but is not limited to, a cutting member of an edger, a trimmer, a chipper, a profiler, a saw, or a planer.”).
Regarding claim 24, Middleton teaches the system of claim 21.
Middleton further teaches wherein the defect is a knot or a split. ([0061]: “For example, system 300 may include a manual control, such as a joystick and/or button, that allows a human operator to adjust the position of a projected image 348 (e.g., to avoid a defect such as a knot, wane, or discoloration in the intended cut product).”; [0063] “to manually adjust the locations of the cut lines in order to maximize the value based on visual defects, clear wood, a split, desired product attributes/dimensions, or the like.”).
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 4-10, 14-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middleton et. al. (US 20160031110 A1), further in view of Barker et. al. (US 20140251499 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Middleton teaches the method of claim 1.
Middleton does not explicitly teach “wherein the first portion of the determined or modified cut solution defines a flitch or a sideboard, a second portion of the cut solution defines the center cant, and modifying the cut solution includes moving, resizing, or eliminating the flitch or the sideboard.”
Barker further teaches wherein the first portion of the determined or modified cut solution defines a flitch or a sideboard, a second portion of the cut solution defines the center cant, ([0033]: “As used herein, lumber is a broad term, referring to any piece of wood, including, for example, uncut, undebarked logs, partially processed logs, log segments, cants, sideboards, flitches, edging strips, boards, finished lumber, etc.”; [0046] “A solution determined by the primary breakdown optimizer may consist of a cant width, sideboard thickness, and the offset of the log segment 103 from the machinery centerline 201, which will produce the longest and most valuable lumber.”; [0047]: “By way of example without limitation, FIG. 6 illustrates a sawing solution. As shown in FIG. 6, the primary breakdown optimizer has decided to make a center cant 320 which is 6-inch wide, a first sideboard 322 which is expected to be 2.times.6, and a second sideboard 324 which will be 2.times.8.” ) and modifying the cut solution includes moving, resizing, or eliminating the flitch or the sideboard. ([0033]: “As used herein, lumber is a broad term, referring to any piece of wood, including, for example, uncut, undebarked logs, partially processed logs, log segments, cants, sideboards, flitches, edging strips, boards, finished lumber, etc.”; [0046] “A solution determined by the primary breakdown optimizer may consist of a cant width, sideboard thickness, and the offset of the log segment 103 from the machinery centerline 201, which will produce the longest and most valuable lumber. The primary breakdown optimizer may use brute force methods to simulate every possible way to position and cut the log segment 103, select the best solution, and send the solution to the systems which actually position the log segment 103, the chip heads 202 and 204, and the saws 206 and 208.”, where every possible way to position or cut necessarily includes moving, resizing or eliminating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Middleton to incorporate the teachings of Barker so as to include a modified cut solution that defines a flitch or sideboard that also defines a center cant where modifying the cut solution includes moving, resizing, or eliminating the flitch of the sideboard. Doing so would allow for the improvement of the process of cutting a log ([0012]: “The present disclosure is directed to provide an improved method and system for cutting a log and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for causing the cutting of a log.”).
Regarding claim 5, Middleton in view of Barker the method of claim 4.
Barker further teaches wherein modifying the cut solution further includes moving or resizing the center cant. ([0046] “A solution determined by the primary breakdown optimizer may consist of a cant width, sideboard thickness, and the offset of the log segment 103 from the machinery centerline 201, which will produce the longest and most valuable lumber. The primary breakdown optimizer may use brute force methods to simulate every possible way to position and cut the log segment 103, select the best solution, and send the solution to the systems which actually position the log segment 103, the chip heads 202 and 204, and the saws 206 and 208.”, where every possible way to position or cut necessarily includes moving or resizing the center cant).
The reasons to combine Middleton into Barker are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 6, Middleton in view of Barker teaches the method of claim 4.
Middleton further teaches wherein the defect is a knot or a split. ([0061]: “For example, system 300 may include a manual control, such as a joystick and/or button, that allows a human operator to adjust the position of a projected image 348 (e.g., to avoid a defect such as a knot, wane, or discoloration in the intended cut product).”; [0063] “to manually adjust the locations of the cut lines in order to maximize the value based on visual defects, clear wood, a split, desired product attributes/dimensions, or the like.”).
Regarding claim 7, Middleton teaches the method of claim 1.
Middleton does not explicitly teach “wherein the first portion of the determined or modified cut solution defines the center cant, a second portion of the cut solution defines a flitch or a sideboard, and modifying the cut solution includes moving or resizing the center cant.”
Barker further teaches wherein the first portion of the determined or modified cut solution defines the center cant, a second portion of the cut solution defines a flitch or a sideboard, ([0033]: “As used herein, lumber is a broad term, referring to any piece of wood, including, for example, uncut, undebarked logs, partially processed logs, log segments, cants, sideboards, flitches, edging strips, boards, finished lumber, etc.”; [0046] “A solution determined by the primary breakdown optimizer may consist of a cant width, sideboard thickness, and the offset of the log segment 103 from the machinery centerline 201, which will produce the longest and most valuable lumber.”; [0047]: “By way of example without limitation, FIG. 6 illustrates a sawing solution. As shown in FIG. 6, the primary breakdown optimizer has decided to make a center cant 320 which is 6-inch wide, a first sideboard 322 which is expected to be 2.times.6, and a second sideboard 324 which will be 2.times.8.”) and modifying the cut solution includes moving or resizing the center cant. ([0033]: “As used herein, lumber is a broad term, referring to any piece of wood, including, for example, uncut, undebarked logs, partially processed logs, log segments, cants, sideboards, flitches, edging strips, boards, finished lumber, etc.”; [0046] “A solution determined by the primary breakdown optimizer may consist of a cant width, sideboard thickness, and the offset of the log segment 103 from the machinery centerline 201, which will produce the longest and most valuable lumber. The primary breakdown optimizer may use brute force methods to simulate every possible way to position and cut the log segment 103, select the best solution, and send the solution to the systems which actually position the log segment 103, the chip heads 202 and 204, and the saws 206 and 208.”, where every possible way to position or cut necessarily includes moving, resizing or eliminating).
The reasons to combine Middleton into Barker are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 8, Middleton teaches the method of claim 1.
Middleton further teaches and generating a model of the first cant based at least in part on the geometric profile, ([0042]: “Optionally, computer system 130 may be configured to generate a dimensional model of the workpiece based on the sensor data, and to perform any of the calculations/determinations described herein based on the dimensional model.”, where a geometric profile is sensor data) wherein detecting the defect includes mapping at least one of the one or more images to the model of the first cant. ([0035] “Transport 110 may be configured to transport a workpiece 102 such as a log, a cant, a flitch, or a board.”; [0111] “The positioning logic 724 may include instructions operable, upon execution by at least one of the processor(s) 704, to cause computer system 700 to practice one or more aspects of operations described herein (e.g., creation of a dimensional model of a workpiece based on sensor data, calculation of one or more cut solutions, calculation of one or more cut patterns, determination of an actual workpiece position, determination of a desired workpiece position, determination of a predicted cutting member position, etc.)."; [0127] “For example, the computer system may receive the dimensional model(s) from another computer/database. Alternatively, the computer system may use a 2D image of the workpiece in lieu of a dimensional model.”, See process 900 in Figure.9).
Middleton does not explicitly teach “further including: obtaining a geometric profile of the at least one flat face from one or more geometric sensors;”.
Barker further teaches further including: obtaining a geometric profile of the at least one flat face from one or more geometric sensors; ([0102]: “Different arrangements of laser scanners may also be used to determine geometric characteristics of the boards. The laser scanners may also be positioned at still other locations downstream from the linebar resaw. Different imaging systems other than laser scanners may alternatively or additionally be used.”).
The reasons to combine Middleton into Barker are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 9, Middleton in view of Barker teaches the method of claim 7.
Middleton further teaches wherein the model of the first cant is further based on the cut solution for the log and/or a model of the log. ([0035] “Transport 110 may be configured to transport a workpiece 102 such as a log, a cant, a flitch, or a board.”;[0111] “System memory 712, NVM/storage 716, and/or system control logic 708 may include, in particular, temporal and persistent copies of positioning logic 724. The positioning logic 724 may include instructions operable, upon execution by at least one of the processor(s) 704, to cause computer system 700 to practice one or more aspects of operations described herein (e.g., creation of a dimensional model of a workpiece based on sensor data, calculation of one or more cut solutions, calculation of one or more cut patterns, determination of an actual workpiece position, determination of a desired workpiece position, determination of a predicted cutting member position, etc.).”).
Regarding claim 10, Middleton in view of Barker teaches the method of claim 9.
Middleton further reaches wherein the model of the first cant is a 3D model, the method further including displaying the 3D model in a 2D unfurled configuration. ([0070]: “The computer system may send instructions to the display 140 based on these operations. In response, display 140 may display an image 152. In some embodiments, as shown for example in FIGS. 4-6, the computer system may generate a two-dimensional (2D) model and/or a three-dimensional (3D) model of the workpiece based on data from the sensor, and image 152 may include a representation of the 2D model and/or the 3D model.”, See Figures 4A, 4B and 4C).
Regarding claim 14, Middleton teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11.
Middleton further teaches and the instructions are operable, upon execution by the processor, to cause the computer to modify ([0055] “FIGS. 3A-E illustrates plan views of embodiments of a workpiece processing system 300. In various embodiments, system 300 may be obtained by adding a sensor (e.g., sensor 120/220) and/or a computer system (e.g., computer system 130) to the existing workpiece processing system.”).
Middleton does not explicitly teach “wherein the first portion of the determined or modified cut solution defines a flitch or a sideboard, a second portion of the cut solution defines the center cant, and the instructions are operable, upon execution by the processor, to cause the computer to modify the cut solution by moving, resizing, or eliminating the flitch or the sideboard.”
Barker further teaches wherein the first portion of the determined or modified cut solution defines a flitch or a sideboard, a second portion of the cut solution defines the center cant, ([0033]: “As used herein, lumber is a broad term, referring to any piece of wood, including, for example, uncut, undebarked logs, partially processed logs, log segments, cants, sideboards, flitches, edging strips, boards, finished lumber, etc.”; [0046] “A solution determined by the primary breakdown optimizer may consist of a cant width, sideboard thickness, and the offset of the log segment 103 from the machinery centerline 201, which will produce the longest and most valuable lumber.”; [0047]: “By way of example without limitation, FIG. 6 illustrates a sawing solution. As shown in FIG. 6, the primary breakdown optimizer has decided to make a center cant 320 which is 6-inch wide, a first sideboard 322 which is expected to be 2.times.6, and a second sideboard 324 which will be 2.times.8.” ); the cut solution by moving, resizing, or eliminating the flitch or the sideboard. ([0033]: “As used herein, lumber is a broad term, referring to any piece of wood, including, for example, uncut, undebarked logs, partially processed logs, log segments, cants, sideboards, flitches, edging strips, boards, finished lumber, etc.”; [0046] “A solution determined by the primary breakdown optimizer may consist of a cant width, sideboard thickness, and the offset of the log segment 103 from the machinery centerline 201, which will produce the longest and most valuable lumber. The primary breakdown optimizer may use brute force methods to simulate every possible way to position and cut the log segment 103, select the best solution, and send the solution to the systems which actually position the log segment 103, the chip heads 202 and 204, and the saws 206 and 208.”, where every possible way to position or cut necessarily includes moving, resizing or eliminating).
The reasons to combine Middleton into Barker are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 15, Middleton in view of Barker teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14.
Barker further teaches wherein the instructions are operable, upon execution by the processor, to cause the computer to further ([0012]: “The present disclosure is directed to provide an improved method and system for cutting a log and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for causing the cutting of a log.”) modify the cut solution by moving or resizing the center cant. ([0046] “A solution determined by the primary breakdown optimizer may consist of a cant width, sideboard thickness, and the offset of the log segment 103 from the machinery centerline 201, which will produce the longest and most valuable lumber. The primary breakdown optimizer may use brute force methods to simulate every possible way to position and cut the log segment 103, select the best solution, and send the solution to the systems which actually position the log segment 103, the chip heads 202 and 204, and the saws 206 and 208.”, where every possible way to position or cut necessarily includes moving or resizing the center cant).
The reasons to combine Middleton into Barker are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 16, Middleton in view of Barker teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14.
Middleton further teaches wherein the defect is a knot or a split. ([0061]: “For example, system 300 may include a manual control, such as a joystick and/or button, that allows a human operator to adjust the position of a projected image 348 (e.g., to avoid a defect such as a knot, wane, or discoloration in the intended cut product).”; [0063] “to manually adjust the locations of the cut lines in order to maximize the value based on visual defects, clear wood, a split, desired product attributes/dimensions, or the like.”).
Regarding claim 18, Middleton teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11.
Middleton further teaches wherein the instructions are operable, upon execution by the processor, to cause the computer to: ([0055] “FIGS. 3A-E illustrates plan views of embodiments of a workpiece processing system 300. In various embodiments, system 300 may be obtained by adding a sensor (e.g., sensor 120/220) and/or a computer system (e.g., computer system 130) to the existing workpiece processing system.”); generate a model of the first cant based at least in part on the geometric profile; , ([0042]: “Optionally, computer system 130 may be configured to generate a dimensional model of the workpiece based on the sensor data, and to perform any of the calculations/determinations described herein based on the dimensional model.”, where a geometric profile is sensor data) and map at least one of the one or more images to the model of the first cant. ([0035] “Transport 110 may be configured to transport a workpiece 102 such as a log, a cant, a flitch, or a board.”; [0111] “The positioning logic 724 may include instructions operable, upon execution by at least one of the processor(s) 704, to cause computer system 700 to practice one or more aspects of operations described herein (e.g., creation of a dimensional model of a workpiece based on sensor data, calculation of one or more cut solutions, calculation of one or more cut patterns, determination of an actual workpiece position, determination of a desired workpiece position, determination of a predicted cutting member position, etc.)."; [0127] “For example, the computer system may receive the dimensional model(s) from another computer/database. Alternatively, the computer system may use a 2D image of the workpiece in lieu of a dimensional model.”, See process 900 in Figure.9).
Middleton does not explicitly teach “receive a geometric profile of the at least one flat face from one or more geometric sensors;”.
Barker further teaches receive a geometric profile of the at least one flat face from one or more geometric sensors; ([0102]: “Different arrangements of laser scanners may also be used to determine geometric characteristics of the boards. The laser scanners may also be positioned at still other locations downstream from the linebar resaw. Different imaging systems other than laser scanners may alternatively or additionally be used.”).
The reasons to combine Middleton into Barker are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 19, Middleton in view of Barker teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18.
Middleton further teaches wherein the model of the first cant is further based on the cut solution for the log and/or a model of the log. ([0035] “Transport 110 may be configured to transport a workpiece 102 such as a log, a cant, a flitch, or a board.”;[0111] “System memory 712, NVM/storage 716, and/or system control logic 708 may include, in particular, temporal and persistent copies of positioning logic 724. The positioning logic 724 may include instructions operable, upon execution by at least one of the processor(s) 704, to cause computer system 700 to practice one or more aspects of operations described herein (e.g., creation of a dimensional model of a workpiece based on sensor data, calculation of one or more cut solutions, calculation of one or more cut patterns, determination of an actual workpiece position, determination of a desired workpiece position, determination of a predicted cutting member position, etc.).”).
Regarding claim 20, Middleton in view of Barker teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18.
Middleton further teaches wherein the model of the first cant is a 3D model, and the instructions are operable, upon execution by the processor, to cause the computer to display the 3D model in a 2D unfurled configuration. ([0055] “FIGS. 3A-E illustrates plan views of embodiments of a workpiece processing system 300. In various embodiments, system 300 may be obtained by adding a sensor (e.g., sensor 120/220) and/or a computer system (e.g., computer system 130) to the existing workpiece processing system.”; [0070] “The display 140 may display an image 152. In some embodiments, as shown for example in FIGS. 4-6, the computer system may generate a two-dimensional (2D) model and/or a three-dimensional (3D) model of the workpiece based on data from the sensor, and image 152 may include a representation of the 2D model and/or the 3D model.”, See Figures 4A, 4B and 4C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130199672 A1: Systems And Methods For Auditing Optimizers Tracking Lumber In A Sawmill
US 5960104 A: Defect Detection System For Lumber
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKOLAOS PHILLIP ZERVOS whose telephone number is (571)270-7767. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30am-5:00pm).
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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at 540-566-5633. 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.
/N.P.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights