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 .
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-7 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.
The term “portable” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “portable” 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the card reader is configured to allow a memory card to be inserted, so as to read a control instruction in the memory card and input same into the processing module." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation “same” in the claim as it is unclear which of the previously claimed limitations are being referred to.
The terms “higher rigidity” and “more flexible” in claim 6 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “higher rigidity” 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 because no rigidity had previously been recited and it is unclear what the rigidity is compared to. The same argument is applied to “more flexible.”
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “SETTING UP YOUR M2 AUTOMATED CUTTING MACHINE KIT” by Maker Made (NPL U), hereinafter “Maker” in view of “Musings on a new design” in the Maslow CNC Forums (NPL V) hereinafter “Bar”.
As to claim 1, Maker teaches a portable CNC machine (Maker teaches the assembly of the “M2” a “CNC automated cutting machine”), comprising: a body (the combination of sled and z-axis assembly comprises the body of the CNC machine. See page 5), put on a surface of a work frame (the step of “put” is an intended use. Maker’s M2 is capable of being put on a work frame, as shown in the image of Fig 7. The plywood behind the sled is the work frame), the body being provided with a machining tool (as shown for example on Page 12 box 1, the machining tool is a router), a processing module (the “Control Board” shown on page 5).
Maker does not teach four take-up and pay-off modules.
Rather, Maker teaches a device M2, having 2 motors, each motor useful for manipulating a chain (the broadest reasonable interpretation of “cable” includes the chain) as shown the image of Fig 7.
However, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it was known in the art to provide for four take-up and pay-off modules provided on the body. See Bar which teaches “What I am thinking to meet these goals is a design which uses four Kevlar (or some other low stretch material) cables instead if the chains and which has all of the electronics and motors mounted to the sled.” (page 1 paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Maker to include four take-up and pay-off modules and associated cables as taught by Bar. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the benefits as described by Bar, such as ease of calibration, accuracy, and cutting speed.
Maker in view of Bar further teaches: each take-up and pay-off module taking up and paying off a cable (bar teaches a “low stretch material” cable), and the processing module (the “control module” of Maker and “electronics” of Bar) being connected to and controlling the four take-up and pay-off modules (as the controller of Maker controls the two motors, so too would an artisan having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed understand that the “electronics” of Bar would be connected to and control each of the four motors); and four anchorage bases (as illustrated in Bar page 2, there are four “fixed attachment points”), disposed at four corners of the work frame respectively (the work frame of Maker has four corners which correspond to the “four fixed attachment points” of Bar); and the processing module controlling the four take-up and pay-off modules to take up and pay off the cables (Bar implies that each of the four motors controls the length of one of the cables) to control the body to freely move on the work frame (this is an intended use of the device. The device of Maker in view of Bar is capable of moving freely on the work frame. Bar teaches the device can move “accurately” even in the lower corners where previous devices having only two cables “loose [sic] accuracy”), and at same time, the processing module controlling the machining tool to carry out a machining operation (as taught by Maker, the controller controls both the position of the sled and the z-axis of the router. The step of carrying out a machining operation is an intended use of which Maker in view of Bar is capable).
Maker in view of Bar does not explicitly teach: a tail end of each cable being provided with an anchor, and stretching and hanging the four anchors thereon [to the four anchorage bases]. However, considering the description and illustration of Bar, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have understood that the cables would need some way to be attached to the fixed attachment points. Any reasonable device for attaching a cable to an attachment point would be considered an anchor. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for an anchor provided at the tail end of each cable. Such a person would have achieved this anchor by performing Bar’s direction to “attach” the cables to the “fixed points.” Moreover, the step of “stretching and hanging the four anchors thereon” is mere intended use of which the device of Maker in view of Bar is capable.
As to claim 2, Maker in view of Bar teaches the portable CNC machine according to claim 1, wherein the processing module uses an input device for wired/wireless connection to input a control instruction (as shown for example in Maker Page 15, the control board has a wired MicroUSB connection. The wired connection is capable of performing the intended use of inputting a control instruction.).
As to claim 5, Maker in view of Bar teaches the portable CNC machine according to claim 1, wherein the machining tool (router, see Maker page 12 box 1) is positioned on the body in a detachable manner, and different machining tools can be selected for use according to machining demands (as taught at Maker page 4, several sized routers may be used with the M2 device. The routers are “detachable” by virtue of being clamped. Different routers are capable of being used on the same sled using differently sized clamps.).
As to claim 6, Maker in view of Bar teaches the portable CNC machine according to claim 1, wherein the four or more take-up and pay-off modules and anchorage bases are arranged to provide higher rigidity or a more flexible degree of freedom (as described by Bar, the four-motor design was anticipated to “cut faster” and would “work in fully vertical or horizontal modes.”).
As to claim 7, Maker in view of Bar teaches a machining method using the portable CNC machine according to claim 1, comprising: making the four take-up and pay-off modules simultaneously take up the respectively corresponding cables, so that the anchor at the tail end of each cable is taken up until reaching a limit (Bar teaches: “This type of design would simplify calibration by making it possible to calibrate with a single button press. By pulling each of the pairs of cables taught one after the other we could measure the distance between each of the four attachment points. This would give us enough information to fully calibrate.” Here, “simultaneously” is satisfied because all the cables are pulled taught during the calibration process. Thus all the cables are taken up simultaneous with the calibration process); inputting a size of the work frame (Bar teaches the distance between each of the four attachment points is “measured”), and automatically calculating, by the processing module, a required extension length of each cable and a usable working range (the working range is shown calculated in the second Figure of Page 2 of Bar. The required extension length of each cable would have been understood by a person having ordinary skill to be readily calculated during Bar’s teaching of “fully calibrat[ing]”); mounting the four anchorage bases at the four corners of the work frame and stretching the four cables, so that the anchors at the tail ends of the four cables are hung on the corresponding anchorage bases respectively (the resulting device is illustrated by Bar in the first Figure of Page 2); controlling, by the processing module, the four take-up and pay-off modules to simultaneously take up the respectively corresponding cables until the cables are tightened (this step is a repeat of the step above), at this time, the body being pulled to a center of the work frame that is set as an origin of a machining coordinate (Maker teaches setting the center of the wasteboard as the “home” of the machine, see Maker page 34); and inputting a control instruction into the processing module, so that the body drives the machining tool to carry out machining (As described at Maker page 41, the M@ is given instructions for cutting after the device is set to a “home” location).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maker in view of Bar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yeh et al. (US 10,688,598).
As to claim 3, Maker in view of Bar teaches the portable CNC machine according to claim 1, but does not teach the body is provided with a card reader that is connected to the processing module.
Rather, Maker teaches that information is exchanged with the Control Board via a MicroUSB wired connection. However, in the field of “portable” cutting machines, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide several I/O options, including wired (USB) connections and card readers. See Yeh which teaches a portable laser cutting apparatus. Yeh teaches a connection port 124 which is taught at Col 8 lines 48-49 as USC connection port. Yeh further teaches a card slot 125 which is a card reader at Col 8 lines 49-59.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Maker in view of Bar to include a car reader that is connected of the processing module. Such a person would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to expanded the number of ways that information may be exchanged with the processing module.
Maker in view of Bar and Yeh further teaches: the card reader is configured to allow a memory card to be inserted (slot 125 allows a memory card to be inserted, see Col 8 line 53), so as to read a control instruction in the memory card and input same into the processing module (this is an intended use. Yeh is capable of performing this intended use as described at Col 8 line 53-55.).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maker in view of Bar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rivers et al. (US 10,067,495).
As to claim 4, Maker in view of Bar teaches the portable CNC machine according to claim 1, but does not teach the body is provided with a touch screen, and the touch screen is connected to the processing module to display work information or touched to input a control instruction.
Rather, Maker appears to intend for a user to interact with the Control Module via a separate computer. Bar is silent as to an input with a touch screen. However, touch screens were known in the art of computerized routers at the time the invention was effectively filed. See Rivers which teaches a router connected to a sled in a similar manner as Maker and has motors which move the router to follow a predefined path. Rivers teaches: “The device 570 includes a display screen 572 for the user to view the cutting path for that particular use.” (Col 8 lines 14-15, see also Fig 1). Rivers teaches the display is “touch sensitive” at Col 13 line 54.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided the device of Maker in view of Bar with the touchscreen of Rivers. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to more easily interact with the device, as described at Rivers Col 13 lines 37-54.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 9 January 2026