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 This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 3/17/2026 in which claims 11-20 are pending, claim 12 is withdrawn and claims 11 and 17 are currently amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites, “the said tray” and should be either --the tray-- or --said tray--.
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 11-20 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.
Claim 11 recites, “said axis of rotation (c) cutting off another plane at a point (Q).” It is unclear how an axis “cuts off” a plane, as a plane is a two-dimensional surface extending indefinitely and an axis is a line. In this instance, it appears the axis may intersect or pass through the plane. However, it is unclear how a line “cuts off” an infinite plane. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the limitation “cutting off” are unclear. For example, it is unclear whether Applicant intended the axis to intersect the plane, cross the plane, divide the plane or form a boundary relative to the plane.
PNG
media_image1.png
290
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 recites, “the movable arm is mounted on top of said tray.” It is unclear what structural relationship is required by “on top of”. For example, it is unclear whether “on top of” requires direct mounting to an upper surface of the tray, indirect mounting through an intermediate structure, or merely positioning above the tray. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear.
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.
Claims 11, 13-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Orte Glaria (WO2019097100), herein referred to as Orte in view of Burch et al. (U.S. Patent 5,367,929), herein referred to as Burch.
In regards to claim 11, Orte discloses a device for moving a treatment head (cutting head 7) and a tray (tray 4)
said device comprising: a first driver and a first actuator to move said tray (4) wherein said treatment head and said tray move in relation to a plane P in a movement zone,
wherein the movement zone is formed within a maximum area that said tray travels in two axes and said plane is parallel to the movement zone;
wherein said tray (4) holds a shape inscribed within a rectangle of width A and length B (length and width of the tray 4), and the first driver suitable for cooperating with a first actuator so as to move the tray in translation within a plane that is parallel to said plane P in a movement zone (along rails 116/118) formed from at least two perpendicular edges associated with a reference frame, in a direction that is normally parallel to one of said axes, the ratio of the area of the movement zone to area of the circumscribed rectangle of the tray being at least equal to 2;
a movable arm (5), pivotably mounted on one of its ends about an axis c (axis of fixed end 5.1) that is perpendicular to said plane P, set in motion by a second actuator (movement of 14 will allow the arms 5,6 to rotate) and comprising said treatment head (7) at the other end, said axis c (axis of 5.1) cutting off said another plane at a point (fig. 1), said point being located in the movement zone of the tray, wherein said movable arm is mounted on top of said tray (above the tray) and wherein said treatment head and tray move concurrently during an operation of said movement device.
Orte sets forth that the tray is stationary and therefore does not disclose that the tray moves relative to the treatment head nor the limitations that provides for the movement as highlighted above. Burch sets forth a fluid cutting system with a water jet cutter and a moveable tray the translates relative to the water jet. Bursh sets forth “the workpiece gantry supports a moving target positioning portion that can be selectively elevated and lowered, or moved laterally with respect to the fluid jet knife support. In this manner, both the fluid jet knife and workpiece simultaneously move during the cutting operation”… “Translating the workpiece 50 and not the nozzle assembly 36 allows much smaller components (motors, structural members, linkages) to be used in the processing of the workpiece 50” (col. 2, lines 27-34 and col. 5, lines 18-29). The moving tray 47 of Bursh traveling along a length of the rack 65 over twice the width of the tray.
It would have been obvious to modify the stationary tray of Orte with the movable tray arrangement taught by Burch in order to selectively posiotn the workpiece closer to different portions of the cutting path of treatment head 7, reduce the amount of movement required of the arm assembly, improve flexibitly and permit the workoiece to be translated relative to the treatment head during processing.
Furthermore, the extent of movement of the tray constitutes a results effective variable. Increasing the travel range of the tray predicable increases the accessible treatment area beneath the treatment head and reduces the need for repositioning the workpiece. Accordingly, selection of a travel range providing a movement zone having an area at least twice the area of the circumscribed rectangle of the tray would have been a matter of routine optimization to achieve a desired processing area.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified the tray of Orte to be movable as demonstrated by Bursh to allow for simultaneously movement of the tray and cutting head and allowing for smaller components of the cutting head. The modified device of Orte would disclose a first driver (motor drive 70 Bursh) suitable for cooperating with a first actuator (rack 65 Bursh) so as to move the tray in translation within a plane that is parallel to said plane P in a movement zone (along rails 60,61 Bursh) formed from at least two perpendicular edges associated with a reference frame (edges of the tray), in a direction that is normally parallel to one of said axes (parallel to the plane of the tray) , the ratio of the area of the movement zone to area of the circumscribed rectangle of the tray being at least equal to 2 (as modified by Bursh).
In regards to claim 13, the modified device of Orte discloses wherein the second actuator (14) setting in motion the movable arm about the axis of rotation cooperates with a second driver (threaded shaft 13 / translation carriage 10)
In regards to claim 14, the modified device of Orte discloses wherein the treatment head (7) is movable in a direction that is normally parallel to the axis c by a third actuator (lifting means; “The machine additionally comprises lifting means for jointly actuating the extendable arms thus regulating the distance between the cutting head and the tray”).
In regards to claim 17, the modified device of Orte discloses wherein the first actuator (65 Burch) and the first driver (70 Burch) are respectively an actuator of a geared motor provided with a pinion driving a rack fixed to the said tray (e.g. 47 Burch).
In regards to claim 18, the modified device of Orte discloses wherein the tray includes a frame (47 Burch) articulated around a guide element (slides 62 Burch) and a central plate (84 Burch) so that said frame is retractable (moveable along the rails), wherein the first driver of the tray (70 Burch) is positioned on said frame so that the plate (84) can be removed from said frame and wherein 6 represents the space requirement of the first driver (70 Burch) and of the guide element along the axis y or x, respectively for a movement of the tray in the direction of the axis x or y.
In regards to claim 19, the modified device of Orte discloses wherein the treatment head is a head allowing water jet cutting (cutting head 7).
In regards to claim 20, the modified device of Orte discloses wherein the movable arm (5,6) is hollow (fig. 3) to accommodate the passage in particular of very high-pressure water and compressed air.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Orte Glaria (WO2019097100), herein referred to as Orte in view of Burch et al. (U.S. Patent 5,367,929), herein referred to as Burch and in further view of Gerber (U.S. Patent 4,436,013)
In regards to claim 15, Orte discloses wherein the second actuator (14 and the second driver (belt 15) are respectively an actuator of the geared motor type provided but does not disclose that the belt is toothed with a toothed sector driving a curved rack fixed to the arm. It is known in the art that various mechanical devices can be substituted for one other while maintaining the same desired output. Gerber demonstrates a moving cutting apparatus that translates with a toothed pulley 126 (aka. a curved rack) and a toothed belt 128 that interconnects the motor to the drive chain. As both smooth and toothed pulleys and belts are known in the art, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the belt and pulley system of Orte with a toothed belt and pulley system as demonstrated by Gerber as toothed drive systems are known to provide positive non slip transmission of rotational motion for accurately positioning cutting members.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Orte Glaria (WO2019097100), herein referred to as Orte in view of Burch et al. (U.S. Patent 5,367,929), herein referred to as Burch and in further view of Shigematsu (U.S. Patent 7,001,247)
Orte is silent as to the mechanism of the third actuator and therefore does not disclose that it is a screw nut system. Shigematsu discloses a vertically movable support member driven by a ball screw and nut arrangement actuated by a motor ((col. 3, lines 57-68- col. 4, lines 1-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ the screw nut positioning mechanism of Shigematsu in the device of Orte in order to provide a known, precise, and controllable mechanism for vertically positioning the treatment head. The substitution of one known actuator for another known actuator performing the same vertical positioning function would have yielded the predictable results of controlled vertical movement of the treatment head.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights