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 statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “settled portion of the working plane” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 17, claim 17 recites the limitation "said settled portion of the working plane " in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is unclear whether “said settled portion of the working plane” refers to a settled portion of the work surface or a separate element. For examination purposes, “said settled portion of the working plane” is interpreted to mean “a portion of the plane in which the work surface extends”.
It is unclear what method step is being performed in the limitation “wherein a settled portion of the working plane scanned by said sensor device extends along said second direction and has a width along said first direction equal to a distance between said first position and said second position and substantially equal to, or longer than, a maximum dimension of said piece along said first direction.”
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 15-18, 20-21, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathias et al. (US 20150306653 A1) (hereinafter “Mathias”) in view of Prunotto et al. (WO 9110180 A1) (hereinafter “Prounotto”)
Regarding claim 15, Mathias discloses: A method for gripping and moving worked pieces (36)(fig. 2) obtained by at least one between cutting and punching [Abstract] at least one sheet metal (12) and arranged on a work surface (16) by means of a gripping and moving system (26)(fig. 1) provided with a detection apparatus, (44)(fig. 2)[monitoring device, Abstract] comprising:
- positioning a gripping assembly (27) of said gripping and moving system on at least one piece to be picked up from said work surface [Abstract] and at the same time
- detecting interlocking by a sensor device [paras. 0007, 0042] of said detection apparatus.
- grasping and lifting said at least one piece at a defined height with respect to said work surface by means of said gripping assembly; [para. 0003]
- activating said sensor device so as to scan a settled portion of said work surface below said lifted piece in order to detect a gap or a residual connection between said lifted piece and said sheet metal. [para. 0041]
Mathias fails to disclose:
- positioning a sensor device of said detection apparatus by moving it along a first direction in a first position in which said sensor device is substantially aligned with a projection of a peripheral edge of said piece along a second direction, which is substantially orthogonal to said first direction (step 2);
- activating said sensor device and moving it to a second position so as to scan a settled portion of said work surface below said lifted piece in order to detect a gap or a residual connection between said lifted piece and said sheet metal (step 4).
Prunotto teaches: A similar method [pg. 20 line 20 – pg. 22 line 10] for gripping and moving a sheet metal piece (23)(fig. 1) arranged on a work surface (22) by means of a gripping and moving system (12, 14, 126)(fig. 2) provided with a detection apparatus, (66, 67, 68) comprising:
- positioning a sensor device (66)[pg. 8, lines 10-20] of said detection apparatus by moving it along a first direction (Y-axis, fig. 1) in a first position [pg. 21, lines 30-33] in which said sensor device is substantially aligned with a projection of a peripheral edge of said piece (fig. 8a) along a second direction, (X-axis, fig. 1) which is substantially orthogonal to said first direction (step 2); (fig. 1)(The second direction is substantially orthogonal to the first direction)
- activating said sensor device and moving it to a second position (fig. 8g)[pg. 17 lines 13-20] so as to perform the next step.
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 movable sensor device and the (step 2) as taught by Prunotto to the sensor device of Mathias in order to align sensors and effect precise positioning. [pg. 8, lines 10-20 of Prunotto]
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 step of moving the sensor device to a second position to (step 4) of Mathias in order to reposition the sensor assembly and obtain a more precise reading from more precise positioning. [pg. 8, lines 10-20 of Prunotto]
After modification, Mathias in view of Prunotto teaches:
- positioning a sensor device of said detection apparatus by moving it along a first direction in a first position in which said sensor device is substantially aligned with a projection of a peripheral edge of said piece along a second direction, which is substantially orthogonal to said first direction (step 2);
- activating said sensor device and moving it to a second position so as to scan a settled portion of said work surface below said lifted piece in order to detect a gap or a residual connection between said lifted piece and said sheet metal (step 4).
Regarding claim 16, Mathias in view of Prunotto teaches: The method according to claim 15, further comprising:
- stopping said lifting said piece if said sensor device detects a residual connection between said lifted piece and said sheet (step 5); [para. 0022] or
- further lifting and moving said piece outside said work surface if said sensor device does not detect a residual connection between said lifted piece and said sheet. (step 6) [para. 0041]
Regarding claim 17, Mathias in view of Prunotto teaches: The method according to claim 15, wherein a settled portion of the working plane scanned by said sensor device [para. 0042](The sensor scans the work surface which is a settled portion of the working plane.) extends along said second direction and has a width along said first direction equal to a distance between said first position and said second position and substantially equal to, or longer than, a maximum dimension of said piece along said first direction. (One of ordinary skill in the art could appreciate that planes are arbitrary, and that settled portions of planes are also arbitrary. Therefore, the examiner chooses the settled portion of the working plane scanned by the sensor device to extend along said second direction and to have a width along said first direction equal to a distance between said first position and said second position and substantially equal to, or longer than, a maximum dimension of said piece along said first direction.)
Regarding claim 18, Mathias in view of Prunotto teaches: The method according to claim 15, comprising repeating the steps 1 to 5 or the steps 1-4 and 6 for each piece to be picked up from said work surface. (Multiple workpieces are present in fig. 1. Although not explicitly stated, repeating the sequence of steps as set forth is logical to remove multiple workpieces as shown in fig. 1.)
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the sequence of steps to remove all work pieces.
Regarding claim 20, Mathias discloses: A gripping and moving system (fig. 1) associable with a work surface (16) suitable to support at least one between a sheet metal to be worked (12) and worked pieces, (36) comprising:
- a gripping assembly (27) for gripping and picking said worked pieces from said work surface;
- a detection apparatus (44)(fig. 2) comprising:
- a sensor device [para. 0042](A sensor is a component of the detection apparatus.) configured to detect a residual connection between said pieces and said sheet; [para. 0041]
Mathias fails to disclose:
- a detection apparatus (44)(fig. 2) comprising:
- a supporting element elongated along a first direction and provided with a linear guide assembly;
- a sensor device slidably supported by said guide assembly along said first direction;
- a driving system associated with said supporting element and configured to position and move said sensor device in a controlled manner along said first direction;
- a control unit configured to control said gripping assembly and said detection apparatus so as to execute the steps of the method according to claim 15.
Prunotto teaches: A similar gripping and moving system (fig. 1) associable with a work surface (22) suitable to support at least one between a sheet metal (23) to be worked and worked pieces, (figs. 8a-8p)comprising:
- a gripping assembly (12, 14, 126)(fig. 2)
- a detection apparatus (66, 67, 68)(fig. 2) comprising:
- a supporting element elongated along a first direction (Y-axis) and provided with a linear guide assembly; [pg. 8, lines 10-20](The sensors of the detection apparatus are mounted on supports, because they are slidable along the y-axis, they must be elongated along a first direction. Since they are slidable linearly, the supporting element is provided with a linear guide assembly.)
- a sensor device (66) slidably supported by said guide assembly along said first direction; [pg. 8, lines 10-20]
- a driving system associated with said supporting element and configured to position and move said sensor device in a controlled manner along said first direction; [pg. 19, line 29 – pg. 20 line 20, and pg. 21, lines 30-33] (Since there is a command to position the sensors 66 along a first direction from an electronic unit, there must exist a driving system associated with said supporting element and configured to position and move said sensor device in a controlled manner along said first direction to carry out the command.)
- a control unit (electronic unit 7, keyboard 11)[pg. 19, line 29 – pg. 20 line 20] configured to control said gripping assembly and said detection apparatus. [pg. 20, line 20 – pg. 22, line 10]
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 supporting element elongated along a first direction (Y-axis) and provided with a linear guide assembly which is able to slidably support a sensor device on the detection apparatus as taught by Prunotto to the detection apparatus of Mathias in order to align sensors and effect precise positioning. [pg. 8, lines 10-20 of Prunotto]
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 driving system of Prunotto to the invention of Mathias in order to reposition the sensor assembly in an automated manner and obtain a more precise reading from more precise positioning. [pg. 8, lines 10-20 of Prunotto]
Moreover, 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 control unit of Prunotto to the invention of Mathias in order to define an automated complete sequence of operating phases. [pg. 19, lines 29-34 of Prunotto]
After modification, Mathias in view of Prunotto teaches: - a detection apparatus (44)(fig. 2) comprising:
- a supporting element elongated along a first direction and provided with a linear guide assembly;
- a sensor device slidably supported by said guide assembly along said first direction;
- a driving system associated with said supporting element and configured to position and move said sensor device in a controlled manner along said first direction;
- a control unit configured to control said gripping assembly and said detection apparatus so as to execute the steps of the method according to claim 15. (See claim 15 rejection above)
Regarding claim 21, Mathias in view of Prunotto teaches: The gripping and moving system according to claim 20,
Mathias in view of Prunotto does not explicitly teach: wherein said control unit is configured to control said driving system of said detection apparatus so as to position and move said sensor device along a first direction in order to scan a settled portion of the work surface in which there is at least one worked piece. (See claims 15 and 20 rejections above) [para. 0041 of Mathias] [pg. 21, lines 30-34 of Prunotto]
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method steps of modified Mathias in view of Prunotto as in claim 15 rejection, with the control unit of Mathias in view of Prunotto as in claim 20 rejection, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Regarding claim 29, Mathias in view of Prunotto teaches: The gripping and moving system according to claim 20, wherein said control unit is configured to control said driving system of said detection apparatus so as to position and move said sensor device along a first direction in order to scan a settled portion of the work surface in which there is at least one worked piece picked up and partially lifted by said gripping assembly. (see claim 20 rejection above) (Since the control unit added is configured to control a sensor to move along a first direction in order to scan a settled portion of the work surface in which there is at least one worked piece picked up and partially lifted by said gripping assembly, there must be a driving system to position the sensor in which the control unit controls.)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathias in view of Prunotto as applied to claims 15 and 20 above, and further in view of Held et al. (DE 102019105495 B4) (Hereinafter “Held”)
Regarding claim 22, Mathias in view of Prunotto teaches: The gripping and moving system according to claim 20, with said guide assembly and said sensor device.
Modified Mathias in view of Prunotto fails to teach: wherein said detection apparatus comprises a carriage coupled with, and movable along, said guide assembly and supporting said sensor device, said carriage being driven along said guide assembly by said driving system.
Held teaches: A similar gripping and moving system [Abstract] wherein a linear guide assembly (fig. 2) comprises a carriage (37) coupled with, and movable along, said guide assembly and supporting a device, (40) [para. 0049] [Abstract] said carriage being driven along said guide assembly by a driving system. [para. 0055]
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 carriage coupled with, and movable along, said guide assembly and supporting said sensor device, said carriage being driven along said guide assembly by said driving system as taught by Held to the detection apparatus of Mathias in view of Prunotto in order to provide a carriage between the assembly and the sensor [para. 0055 of Held] so as to protect the sensor.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathias in view of Prunotto as applied to claims 15 and 20 above, and further in view of Ivan et al. (GB 2555396 A) (Hereinafter “Ivan”)
Regarding claim 23, Mathias in view of Prunotto teaches: The gripping and moving system according to claim 20, wherein said driving system is controllable in at least one between position (see claim 20 rejection), and capable to move linearly, said sensor device along said guide assembly. (see claim 20 rejection) (A command positions a sensor to move linearly along said guide assembly. A driving system must perform that command, and the driving system positions a sensor to move linearly along said guide assembly.)
Modified Mathias in view of Prunotto fails to teach: The gripping and moving system according to claim 20, wherein said driving system comprises a rotary electric motor controllable in at least one between position and speed, and a transmission arrangement driven by said rotary electric motor and connected to, and capable to move linearly, said sensor device along said guide assembly.
Ivan teaches: A similar linear guide assembly (fig. 4) wherein a driving system comprises a rotary electric motor (50) controllable in at least one between position and speed, [pg. 4, lines 10-11](Since a controller comprises a motor, and the motor is driven, then the motor is controllable in speed.) and a transmission arrangement (fig. 4, elements 55,56, 50, 51, 52) driven by said rotary electric motor and connected to, and capable to move linearly, a carriage (21). (fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the rotary electric motor and transmission arrangement as taught by Ivan to the driving system of Mathias in view of Prunotto in order to have a motor with a belt driven pulley [pg. 11, lines 23-31 of Ivan] so as to bridge distances in a simpler way. [tec-science, pg. 1 lines 6-7]
After modification, Mathias in view of Prunotto and Ivan teaches: The gripping and moving system according to claim 20, wherein said driving system comprises a rotary electric motor controllable in at least one between position and speed, and a transmission arrangement driven by said rotary electric motor and connected to, and capable to move linearly, said sensor device along said guide assembly.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathias in view of Prunotto and Held as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Ivan.
Regarding claim 24, Mathias in view of Prunotto and Held teaches: The gripping and moving system according to claim 22, wherein said driving system is controllable in at least one between position (see claim 20 rejection), and capable to move linearly, said sensor device along said guide assembly. (see claim 20 rejection) (A command positions a sensor to move linearly along said guide assembly. A driving system must perform that command, and the driving system positions a sensor to move linearly along said guide assembly.)
Modified Mathias in view of Prunotto and Held fails to teach: The gripping and moving system according to claim 22, wherein said driving system comprises a rotary electric motor controllable in at least one between position and speed, and a transmission arrangement driven by said rotary electric motor and connected to, and capable to move linearly, said sensor device along said guide assembly,
wherein said transmission arrangement comprises at least one moving belt which is wound around a pulley arrangement that is rotatably fixed to said supporting element, said carriage being connected to said moving belt.
Ivan teaches: A similar linear guide assembly (fig. 4) wherein a driving system comprises a rotary electric motor (50) controllable in at least one between position and speed, [pg. 4, lines 10-11](Since a controller comprises a motor, and the motor is driven, then the motor is controllable in speed.) and a transmission arrangement (fig. 4, elements 55,56, 50, 51, 52) driven by said rotary electric motor and connected to, and capable to move linearly, a carriage (21), (fig. 4) wherein said transmission arrangement comprises at least one moving belt (55) which is wound around a pulley arrangement (51, 52) that is rotatably fixed to a supporting element, (see fig. 3) said carriage being connected to said moving belt. (fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the rotary electric motor and transmission arrangement as taught by Ivan to the driving system of Mathias in view of Prunotto in order to have a motor with a belt driven pulley [pg. 11, lines 23-31 of Ivan] so as to bridge distances in a simpler way. [tec-science, pg. 1 lines 6-7]
After modification, Mathias in view of Prunotto, Held, and Ivan teaches: The gripping and moving system according to claim 20, wherein said driving system comprises a rotary electric motor controllable in at least one between position and speed, and a transmission arrangement driven by said rotary electric motor and connected to, and capable to move linearly, said sensor device along said guide assembly, wherein said transmission arrangement comprises at least one moving belt which is wound around a pulley arrangement that is rotatably fixed to said supporting element, said carriage being connected to said moving belt.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathias in view of Prunotto, Held, and Ivan as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Massman et al. (US 5938400 A) (Hereinafter “Massman”)
Regarding claim 25, Mathias in view of Prunotto, Held, and Ivan teaches: The gripping and moving system according to claim 24, wherein said pulley arrangement comprises a return pulley (see claim 24 rejection above, fig. 4 - element 52 added from Ivan) and a drive pulley (see claim 24 rejection above, fig. 4 - element 51 added from Ivan) rotated by said rotary electric motor.
Mathias in view of Prunotto, Held, and Ivan fails to teach: wherein said pulley arrangement comprises a plurality of return pulleys.
Massman teaches: A similar linear guide assembly (figs. 1 and 5) with a carriage (4) being driven by a transmission (fig. 3) comprising a plurality of return pulleys. (fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added an additional return pulley as taught by Massman to the invention of Mathias in view of Prunotto, Held, and Ivan in order to handle larger loads. [teach-engineering, pg. 1, lines 13-18]
Claims 19, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathias in view of Prunotto as applied to claims 15 and 20 above, and further in view of Gerber et al. (US 5092829 A) (Hereinafter “Gerber”)
Regarding claim 19, Mathias in view of Prunotto teaches: The method according to claim 15, comprising positioning said gripping assembly at worked pieces to be picked up (step 1) and grasping and lifting said worked pieces, said settled portion of said work surface being below said worked pieces lifted by said gripping assembly. (Multiple workpieces are present in fig 1. Although not explicitly stated, grasping and lifting a plurality of workpieces as set forth is logical to remove multiple workpieces.)
Mathias in view of Prunotto fails to explicitly teach: comprising positioning said gripping assembly at a plurality of worked pieces to be picked up (step 1) and grasping and lifting said plurality of worked pieces, said settled portion of said work surface being below said plurality of worked pieces lifted by said gripping assembly.
Gerber teaches: A similar gripping and moving system (140, fig. 1) comprising positioning said gripping assembly at a plurality of worked pieces (P2) to be picked up and grasping and lifting said plurality of worked pieces, said settled portion of a work surface (14) being below said plurality of worked pieces lifted by said gripping assembly. [col. 5, lines 22-26]
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 ability to grip a plurality of worked pieces as taught by Gerber to the invention of Mathias in view of Prunotto in order to be able to pick up multiple pieces, [col. 5, lines 22-23 of Gerber] thus increasing efficiency.
Moreover it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply step 1 to multiple worked pieces in order to improve efficiency.
Regarding claim 26, Mathias in view of Prunotto teaches: The gripping and moving system according to claim 20,
Mathias in view of Prunotto fails to teach: wherein said supporting element comprises a covering casing suitable to enclose at least said guide assembly and said driving system and provided with a longitudinal opening which extends along and at said guide assembly to allow said sensor device to scan externally.
Gerber teaches: A similar gripping and moving system (fig. 1) comprising a covering casing (32) suitable to enclose at least a guide assembly (26, 28) and a driving system (30, 38) and provided with a longitudinal opening (see fig. 1) which extends along and at said guide assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the covering casing as taught by Gerber to the invention of Mathias in view of Prunotto in order to perform properly in an industrial setting and to avoid electronic failure due to dusty conditions. [pg. 2, lines 14-21 of Its-enclosures]
After modification, Mathias in view of Prunotto and Gerber teaches: wherein said supporting element comprises a covering casing suitable to enclose at least said guide assembly and said driving system and provided with a longitudinal opening which extends along and at said guide assembly to allow said sensor device to scan externally.
Regarding claim 27, Mathias in view of Prunotto teaches: The gripping and moving system according to claim 20,
Mathias in view of Prunotto fails to teach: comprising connection brackets for fixing opposite ends of said supporting element to said work surface.
Gerber teaches: A similar gripping and moving system (fig. 1) comprising connection brackets (36) for fixing opposite ends of a supporting element (32) to a work surface. (12)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the brackets as taught by Gerber to the invention of Mathias in view of Prunotto in order to secure the support element to the work surface. [col. 3, line 67- col 4 line 1 of Gerber]
Claims 28, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathias in view of Prunotto as applied to claims 15 and 20 above, and further in view of Noda et al. (JP 4326650 B2) (Hereinafter “Noda”)
Regarding claims 28, 30, and 31, Mathias in view of Prunotto teaches: The gripping and moving system according to claim 20, with a sensor. (See claim 20 rejection above)
wherein said sensor device comprises a sensor,
Mathias in view of Prunotto does not explicitly teach:
wherein said sensor device comprises a laser scanner sensor,
wherein said laser scanner sensor is an amplified photosensor,
and wherein said amplified photosensor is a polarized retro-reflective amplified photosensor with reflector.
Noda teaches: a sensor device [para. 0001] wherein said sensor device comprises a laser scanner sensor, [para. 0016]
wherein said laser scanner sensor is an amplified photosensor, [para. 0047]
and wherein said amplified photosensor is a polarized retro-reflective amplified photosensor with reflector. [paras. 0001, 0028]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the sensor as taught by Noda with the sensor of the invention of Mathias in view of Prunotto in order to prevent false detection. [para. 0016 of Noda]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
US 20150146218 A1 teaches a method of detecting dimensions of a workpiece.
US 20120100974 A1 teaches a sheet metal processing method.
US 20190376231 A1 teaches a sheet material processing system with sensors on a beam.
US 4005782 A teaches a picker with linear movement and a carriage.
US 5950484 A teaches a sheet metal processing apparatus with a linear guide.
DE 202016100091 U1 teaches a sliding rail with a covering and a longitudinal opening.
CN 108687251 A teaches a linear rail guide for a puncher.
WO 2017089049 A1 teaches a method and device for discharging sheet workpiece cutouts.
DE 102011088673 A1 teaches a metal processing apparatus with a linear guide drive.
WO 9109696 A1 teaches a method of positioning sheet metal workpieces.
GB 2297682 A teaches a method of removing cutouts from a sheet material.
WO 9847378 A1 teaches a line guide apparatus and removing pieces from a surface.
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