DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 20 January 2026, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 1-21 are currently presented for examination, of which claims 10-21 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 20 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “driver means” recited in claim 1, “marking means” recited in claim 1, and “second driver means” recited in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 1-9 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 1 recites “a front end and a tail end, a receiving station with a receiving track for receiving a framing member which is to be processed and having a front end and at tail end” at lines 2-4 and “for selectively pulling the framing member from the tail end to the front end” at lines 6-7. It is unclear to which previously recited front end and tail end lines 6-7 refers.
Claim 1 recites “for receiving a framing member” at line 3 and “for receiving the framing members” at line 11. It is unclear how many framing members the device is capable of processing.
The term “close proximity” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A review of the Specification as filed does not appear to define the term “close” with respect to proximity, such that it is unclear what differences or dimensions could be in non-close proximity.
Claims 2-9 each depend from claim 1, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the pronoun “it” at line 2. It is difficult to determine to which previously recited claim element the pronoun refers. Applicant could overcome this rejection by reciting the claimed element each time they are to be referred.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the lower station receiving track" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “substantially” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially horizontally parallel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the claims recite “substantially” it does not appear that the term “substantially” is recited anywhere in the Written Description of the Specification itself. There is no definition of the term provided or an explanation of the potential deviations from parallel which would be understood to be “substantially horizontally parallel” when not actually parallel.
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)(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, 3-4, and 9
Claims 1, 3-4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(a) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2007/0240547 to Dick et al. (hereinafter “Dick”).
Regarding claim 1, Dick discloses a building framing member processing machine (130; see paragraph [0070]) composing: a front end (rightmost end with respect to Fig. 4) and a tail end (leftmost end with respect to Fig. 4); a receiving station (portion of device adjacent table 169; see paragraph [0073]) with a receiving track (146) for receiving a framing member (134, 142) which is to be processed (intended use) and having a front end (rightmost end of table 169) and a tail end (leftmost end of table 169), driver means (132) for engaging the framing member (134, 142) for pushing the framing member along the receiving track (see paragraph [0070; pushed along linear path 136, and see also paragraph [0055], product drive mechanism may carry products from outfeed area) from the front end to the tail end (from right to left), and for selectively pulling the framing member (134, 142) from the tail end to the front end (see paragraph [0055]; “drive mechanism may include a conveyor, for example, to carry the products farther, generally along the linear path of processing, to move the products laterally, and/or to carry the products in a direction generally opposite to the linear path”), marking means (166 or 212) mounted in close proximity to the tail end (see Fig. 4) of the receiving station for printing building positioning indicia (labels) on the framing member (see paragraph [0073] and paragraph [0077]), a first station (station at 144; see Fig. 4) having a front end (rightmost end) and a tail end (leftmost end), the first station having a first station receiving track (146 portions at station 144) for receiving the framing members (134, 142) requiring metal machine processing (see paragraph [0061]; exemplary workpieces may be metal), second driver means (multiple driving means contemplated; see paragraph [0054], workpiece drive mechanism for pushing workpiece along linear path) for engaging the framing member (134, 142) on the first station receiving track (146) for pushing the framing member from the front end (rightmost end) to the tail end (leftmost end) of the first station receiving track (146), and a metal processing machine (138, 140) mounted at the tail end (see Fig. 4) of the first station receiving track for metal processing of the framing member (see paragraph [0074]; workpieces may be metal, see paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 3, Dick discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Dick discloses that the marking means comprises an ink jet printer (see paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 4, Dick discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Dick discloses that the metal processing machine (138, 140) comprises a cutter (saw 138) for cutting the framing member to a predetermined length (see paragraph [0071]; cutting workpieces may be automated, understood to result in predetermined lengths of workpieces).
Regarding claim 9, Dick discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Dick discloses where the framing member (134) is either a stud or a track (see Fig. 4) and the receiving track (146) is adapted for receiving either of the framing members. The examiner notes that the framing member is not understood to be positively required as part of the building framing member processing machine.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dick as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Dick discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Dick discloses that the building framing member processing machine further comprises a second station (see paragraph [0110]; additional stations including cutting station, drill station, marking station, or any other processing station), however Dick does not explicitly disclose that the second station includes a receiving rack for receiving the framing members and a third driver means for engaging the framing member on the second station. Dick shows that stations may be oriented from right to left in Figure 1, but does not show the details of additional stations.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that additional stations would have substantially the same orientation as the stations shown in Figure 4 of Dick. Dick further teaches that additional stations “may have any suitable disposition relative to each other and relative to a workpiece drive mechanism” (see paragraph [0110]), such that one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that additional stations would be extending along the same direction from front ends to the tail ends in the same manner as shown in Figure 4. The MPEP teaches that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Additional stations having the same configuration as shown in Figure 4 of Dick would allow for additional metal processing of workpieces, and one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that additional processing tools are contemplated by Dick (see paragraph [0110] for use with the processing machine shown in Figure 4, without modification of the principles of operation of Dick.
Thus, Dick teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “wherein the driver means comprises a clamp for determining the thickness of the framing member when it is placed on the lower station receiving track,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Dick teaches a clamping assembly (148) and also a measuring assembly (156) but does not fairly suggest that the clamp is for determining the thickness of the framing member.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “wherein the second metal processing machine comprises a metal embosser,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Dick teaches that additional stations could provide “any other processing” (see paragraph [0110]), but does not explicitly recite embossing as such processing, but the other prior art made of record does not fairly teach moving metal workpieces to a metal embosser after moving the workpiece to a marking station and to a metal processing machine.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “that the second station is mounted above the first station which is mounted behind the receiving station and all are substantially horizontally parallel to each other,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0246999 to Jin et al. (hereinafter “Jin”) teaches a framing member processing device (see Fig. 4).
United States Patent Application Publication 2007/0028730 to Sawyer teaches an apparatus for framing member processing.
United States Patent 6,539,830 to Koskovich teaches an apparatus for processing a building framing member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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 Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights