Patent Application 18171199 - NESTING METHODS AND COMPUTER-CONTROLLED MACHINE - Rejection

Patent Application 18171199 - NESTING METHODS AND COMPUTER-CONTROLLED MACHINE

Title: NESTING METHODS AND COMPUTER-CONTROLLED MACHINE TOOLS FOR CUTTING OBJECTS FROM A WORKPIECE

Application Information

• Invention Title: NESTING METHODS AND COMPUTER-CONTROLLED MACHINE TOOLS FOR CUTTING OBJECTS FROM A WORKPIECE
• Application Number: 18171199
• Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2023-02-17T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2023-02-17T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 700
• National Sub-Class: 160000
• Examiner Employee Number: 79656
• Art Unit: 2115
• Tech Center: 2100

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 1
• 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0087816🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

Claim(s) 1-3, 9-12 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Larsen et al [Larsen] PGPUB 2017/0087816.
Referring to claim 1, Larsen teaches the method comprising:
receiving data relating to a plurality of objects to be cut out of a material by a machine tool, wherein each object has a stacking order, and wherein the machine tool comprises a cutting table defined by an X-axis and a Y-axis [Fig. 6A, 0062].
creating a nested arrangement of the plurality of objects by assigning each object a unique nested location on the material in accordance with the following constraints: 
the stacking order of each respective object is nondecreasing in the X-axis direction [Fig. 6A, 0062].
a perimeter of each object is fully defined on the material and non-overlapping with another object [Fig. 6A, 0062].
the stacking order of any pair of objects whose X-axis locations are within a predetermined distance from each other is increasing in the Y-axis direction [Fig. 6A, 0062].
an overall length of the nested arrangement in the X-axis direction is minimized [Fig. 6A, 0062].
In summary Larsen teaches arranging the objects to be cut according to their stacking order.  We see that in Larsen, that the stacking increases left to right (Y direction) and also increases (i.e. nondecreasing) top to bottom (X direction) [Fig. 6A].  Because the objects fill the space from left to right then proceed to a subsequent row, the overall length of the arrangement is minimized.

Referring to claim 2, Larsen teaches cutting out each object according to its perimeter and design [Figs. 7A, 9C-D].
Referring to claim 3, Larsen teaches cutting the pieces using a CNC cutting tool that naturally cuts according to a programmed tool path [0048].
Referring to claims 9-10, Larsen teaches placing each piece in their respective section [0061].   Looking at the layout we can see that it clearly includes a longitudinal portion of the table [Fig. 6A].
Referring to claim 11, Larsen teaches that the pieces are located in order to each other according to their stacking order (i.e. proximal to one another) [Fig. 6A].
Referring to claims 12, 18-20, these are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove.  Larsen teaches the method and therefore teaches the computer-controlled machine performing the method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.

Claim(s) 4-8 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsen as applied to claims 1-3, 9-12 and 18-20 above.
Referring to claims 4-8, while Larsen teaches cutting material using a CNC, it is not explicitly taught that the CNC uses an automatically conveying cutting table, an ultrasonic knife, a controllable gantry or that the material to be cut is a flexible pre-preg composite.  The examiner is taking official notice that these are all well known in the art with respect to CNC cutting and since Larsen does not preclude any specific types of tables, cutting methods, use of a gantry or limitations on materials that can be cut, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include each to be used in conjunction with the Larsen teaching because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp as well as having a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to claims 13-17, these are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Thomas Lee can be reached at 571-272-3667. 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.



/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115                                                                                                                                                                                                        5/11/25