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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes legal phraseology such as “said”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Spring 38 is described in the specification, but a “compressible collar” is recited in the claims
Log rest collar 42 is described in the specification, but a “stationary collar” is recited in the claims
Log dog rod 56 is described in the specification, but a “log dog” is recited in the claims
Sleeve/mount 52 is described in the specification, but a “log rest sleeve” is recited in the claims
Log rest 34 is described in the specification, but a “log rest post” is recited in the claims
Examiner notes that the terms listed above may not be a complete list of structural elements which are described using a different term in the specification than what is recited in the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: at line 2, a comma should be added after “mounting rod”
Claims 2-3, 5-10, and 12-13: a comma should be added after the preamble in each claim
Claim 3: “a horizontal cross bunk” is recited, but a horizontal cross bunk has already been recited in claim 2. It is not made explicitly clear whether the horizontal cross bunk of claim 3 is a different cross bunk. It is presumed to be intended that the horizontal cross bunk of claims 2 and 3 are the same structure, and has been treated as such for purposes of examination
Claim 7: it is not made explicitly clear what “the affixing” refers to. It is presumed to be intended that “the affixing” refers to the affixing of the stationary collar to the mounting rod, and has been treated as such for purposes of examination. For improved clarity, claim 7 should recite what structures are being affixed to one another
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 2-13, 15, and 17-18 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 “generally” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” 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. As a result, it is unclear what is intended by “generally perpendicular”. Does the vertical portion have to be exactly perpendicular? How far can the vertical portion deviate before it is no longer considered “generally perpendicular”?
The term “significant” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “significant” 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. As a result, it is unclear what is intended by “significant”. What is the measure for determining what constitutes “significant” force? Is this something a user operating the device is capable of performing? If so, it is still not made explicitly clear what “significant” entails, since what one person considers a “significant” force may differ from what another considers a “significant” force.
Claims 3-13, 15, and 17-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Noonan (US 545907).
Regarding claim 1, Noonan discloses a log rest assembly (see page 1, lines 9-19 and figs. 1-2) for use in a portable sawmill, comprising: a log rest post (radially extending arm E,E’; see figs. 1-2) mounted on a first end of a cylindrical mounting rod (radially extending arm E,E’ is mounted on shaft D,D’; see page 1, lines 78-85 and fig. 1) said log rest post fixed to a cylindrical log rest sleeve such that the log rest post remains perpendicular to said mounting rod (radially extending arm E,E’ is fixed to collar I,I’ such that it is perpendicular to shaft D,D’; see page 1, line 97-page 2, line 14 and figs. 1-2); a stationary collar (collar H,H’; see figs. 1-2) affixed to said mounting rod (collar H,H’ is affixed to shaft D,D’; see page 2, lines 17-21 and figs. 1-2); a compressible collar (extensible spring L,L’; see figs. 1-2) mounted onto said mounting rod between said cylindrical log rest sleeve and said stationary collar (extensible spring L,L’ is mounted on shaft D,D’, between collar H,H’ and collar I,I’; see page 2, lines 17-21 and figs. 1-2); wherein said compressible collar and said stationary collar provide pressure on said cylindrical log rest sleeve (extensible spring L,L’ and collar H,H’ provide a force on collar I,I’; see page 1, line 97-page 2, line 26 and figs. 1-2) to constrain rotation of said log rest in relation to said mounting rod (the force provided on collar I,I’ forces radially extending arm E,E’ forward and supported in place; see page 1, line 97-page 2, line 9 and figs. 1-2).
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.
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 2-4, 6-10, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noonan (US 545907) in view of Dale (US 20140209212).
Regarding claim 2, Noonan discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Noonan does not explicitly disclose a log dog mounted on an opposite end of said mounting rod, said log dog having a vertical portion generally perpendicular to a horizontal cross bunk, and a top end having a pick protruding therefrom.
Dale discloses a log dog mounted on an opposite end of said mounting rod (log dog 48 is mounted on the opposite end of support beam 52 from log rest 54; see paragraphs [0036-0037] and fig. 1), said log dog having a vertical portion generally perpendicular to a horizontal cross bunk (log dog 48 has a vertical portion 92 which is perpendicular to knee B as modified), and a top end having a pick protruding therefrom (pick 46 protrudes from the top of log dog 48; see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Noonan in view of Dale to include a log dog. Dale discloses that the log dog and further the pick are used to clamp the log against the log rest. This is beneficial because it provides more stability during a cutting operation (see paragraph [0049]). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find the modification obvious, since improved stability can result in more accurate cuts.
Regarding claim 3, Noonan as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Noonan as modified further discloses a horizontal cross bunk for affixing to a sawmill (knee B is commonly fixed on a movable sawmill-carriage; see page 1, lines 55-61 and figs. 1-2), said cross bunk capable of being affixed to said sawmill at each end of said cross bunk (two or more of head-block A, which knee B is mounted on, can be affixed to a sawmill-carriage transversely of one another; see page 1, lines 55-63); wherein the mounting rod is affixed parallel to said cross bunk (shaft D,D’ is parallel to knee B; see figs. 1-2), each end of said mounting rod affixed near each end of said cross bunk (shaft D,D’ at one end by collar I,I’ and at a second end near segmental gears N,N’; see figs. 1-2, page 1, lines 97-99, and page 2, lines 41-44).
Regarding claim 4, Noonan as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Dale further discloses wherein, in a loosened position the log dog is horizontally displaceable along the horizontal mounting rod (when log dog 48 is not fixed to support beam 52 by screw 88, it can move horizontally along support beam 52; see paragraph [0037] and fig. 2), and in a tightened position the log dog is horizontally fixed along the horizontal cross bunk (screw 88 fixes log dog 48 to support beam 52 so it remains in one location; see paragraph [0037] and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Noonan as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Noonan as modified further discloses wherein the horizontal cross bunk is affixed at both ends to the sawmill through a set of sawmill support pieces (head-block A; see figs. 1-3), said sawmill support pieces permanently or semi-permanently affixed to said sawmill and attached to said horizontal cross bunk (two or more of head-block A, which knee B is mounted on, are fixed on a movable sawmill-carriage; see page 1, lines 55-63 and figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, Noonan as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Noonan as modified further discloses wherein the affixing is by one or more of a bolt, nut, screw, rivet or other fastener (collar H,H’ is fixed by what appears to be a screw or bolt or other fastener; see figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, Noonan as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Noonan as modified further discloses wherein the stationary collar is secured by one or more of a bolt, nut, screw, rivet or other fastener (collar H,H’ is fixed by what appears to be a screw or bolt or other fastener; see figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, Noonan as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Noonan as modified further discloses wherein the compressible collar is one or more of a spring, friction washer, rubber, PVC or other polymer (extensible spring L,L’ is a spring; see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Noonan as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Noonan as modified further discloses wherein the compressible collar constrains rotation of said log rest (the force provided on collar I,I’ forces radially extending arm E,E’ forward and supported in place; see page 1, line 97-page 2, line 9 and figs. 1-2) to the extent that significant manual force is required to rotate said log rest (significant force would be required to rotate radially extending arm E,E’ since it is supported by collar I,I’ and collar H,H’; see page 1, line 97-page 2, line 26 and figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 14, Noonan discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Noonan further discloses the log rest post (radially extending arm E,E’; see figs. 1-2), the stationary collar (collar H,H’; see figs. 1-2), the compressible collar (extensible spring L,L’; see figs. 1-2).
Noonan does not explicitly disclose a kit for the log rest assembly of claim 1 and instructions for assembly.
Dale discloses a kit for the log rest assembly of claim 1 (the kit is capable of retrofitting a log support and clamp assembly to a portable sawmill; see paragraph [0027]) and instructions for assembly (the kit further comprises instructions that teach attachment of various parts; see claim 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Noonan to include a kit for the log support and clamp assembly. Dale discloses that the kit allows a user to retrofit the log rest assembly onto an existing sawmill (see paragraph [0034]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this would allow a user to integrate a new log rest assembly without having to purchase an entirely new sawmill, thus saving the user money and increasing convenience.
Regarding claim 15, Noonan as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Noonan as modified further discloses the log rest assembly (see page 1, lines 9-19 and figs. 1-2), the log rest post (radially extending arm E,E’; see figs. 1-2), the stationary collar (collar H,H’; see figs. 1-2), the compressible collar (extensible spring L,L’; see figs. 1-2).
Noonan as modified does not explicitly disclose a kit for the log support and clamp assembly of claim 2, the log dog, and instructions for assembly.
Dale further discloses a kit for the log support and clamp assembly of claim 2 (the kit is capable of retrofitting a log support and clamp assembly to a portable sawmill; see paragraph [0027]), the log dog (log dog 48; see fig. 2), and instructions for assembly (the kit further comprises instructions that teach attachment of various parts; see claim 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Noonan to include a kit for the log support and clamp assembly. Dale discloses that the kit allows a user to retrofit the log rest assembly onto an existing sawmill (see paragraph [0034]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this would allow a user to integrate a new log rest assembly without having to purchase an entirely new sawmill, thus saving the user money and increasing convenience.
Regarding claim 16, Noonan discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Noonan does not explicitly disclose a sawmill.
Dale further discloses a sawmill (the portable sawmill includes the log support and clamp assembly and a kit for retrofitting the log support and clamp assembly to the sawmill; see paragraph [0027]) comprising the horizontal cross bunk and log support and clamp assembly of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above).
Regarding claim 18, Noonan as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Noonan as modified does not explicitly disclose a sawmill.
Dale further discloses a sawmill (the portable sawmill includes the log support and clamp assembly and a kit for retrofitting the log support and clamp assembly to the sawmill; see paragraph [0027]) comprising the log support and clamp assembly of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above).
Claims 5, 11-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noonan (US 545907) in view of Dale (US 20140209212), and further in view of Cabrit (CA 3128969).
Regarding claim 5, Noonan as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Dale further discloses in a tightened position the log dog is fixed about the axis of the mounting rod (screw 88 fixes log dog 48 to support beam 52 so it remains in one location; see paragraph [0037] and fig. 2).
Noonan as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein, in a loosened position the log dog is rotatable about the axis of the mounting rod.
Cabrit discloses wherein, in a loosened position the log dog is rotatable about the axis of the mounting rod (pivot arm 70 is configured to rotate about an axis along support bar 66; see paragraphs [0064, 0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Noonan in view of Cabrit to make the log dog rotatable about the axis of the mounting rod. Cabrit discloses that pivot arm 70 supports log dog 10, which has a flat portion 38 designed to press against a log to keep the log in place (see paragraph [0047] and figs. 3, 12). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this is an alternate method of making the log dog adjustable so that it can contact a log during a cutting operation. Further, since Dale discloses that log dog 48 is adjustable when screw 88 is loosened (see paragraph [0037]), a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the rotating motion described by Cabrit could be done when the log dog is in the loosened state. As such, this would be a simple substitution of clamping elements, where the vertically adjustable log dog of Noonan as modified is replaced with the rotatable log dog of Cabrit.
Regarding claim 11, Noonan as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Noonan as modified further discloses a horizontal cross bunk and log support and clamp assembly comprising: the cross bunk capable of being affixed to said sawmill at a first end of said cross bunk and at an opposite end of said cross bunk (two or more of head-block A, which knee B is mounted on, are fixed on a movable sawmill-carriage; see page 1, lines 55-63 and figs. 1-3) and the log support and clamp assembly of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above).
Noonan as modified does not explicitly disclose a circular hole near the first end of said cross bunk to affix a first end of a mounting rod to said cross bunk; a cut out in said cross bunk near the opposite end of said cross bunk to affix an opposite end of said mounting rod parallel to said cross bunk; whereby said opposite end of the mounting rod can be raised or lowered and can be secured to said cross bunk by affixing the opposite end of said mounting rod in said cut out.
Cabrit discloses a circular hole near the first end of said cross bunk (first cutout 79 is located on first mounting bracket 62; see paragraphs [0066-0068]) to affix a first end of a mounting rod to said cross bunk (first cutout 79 holds stop bar 68; see paragraph [0072]); a cut out in said cross bunk near the opposite end of said cross bunk (in some embodiments, second cutout 85 may have a different shape than first cutout 79; see paragraph [0069]) to affix an opposite end of said mounting rod parallel to said cross bunk (stop bar 68 extends between first and second mounting brackets 62 and 64; see paragraph [0071]); whereby said opposite end of the mounting rod can be raised or lowered (stop bar 68 is adjustable so an operator can position log dog 10 accurately with minimal adjustments; see paragraph [0073]) and can be secured to said cross bunk by affixing the opposite end of said mounting rod in said cut out (stop bar 68 is slidably coupled to first and second mounting brackets 62 and 64; see paragraph [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Noonan to include a circular hole and cut out for affixing the mounting rod. Though Cabrit discloses a hole and cut out for affixing the stop bar, the teachings can nonetheless be applied to the mounting rod as taught by Noonan as modified. Cabrit discloses that the cut out allows for the stop bar to be adjustable, which allows an operator to position the log dog accurately with minimal adjustments (see paragraphs [0071-0073]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the same features could be applied to the mounting rod for the same reasons. Further, regarding the circular hole, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in order to make stop bar 68 adjustable on only one side, the second side must support the rod in such a way that it cannot move. This could be accomplished by using a circular hole, which would prevent stop bar 68 from moving up or down. Thus, the teachings of Cabrit suggest the recited limitations.
Regarding claim 12, Noonan as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Cabrit further discloses wherein the cutout is a slot (second cutout 85 is a curved ellipse that is substantially oval-shaped; see fig. 9).
Regarding claim 13, Noonan as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Cabrit further discloses wherein the cutout is oval (second cutout 85 is a curved ellipse that is substantially oval-shaped; see fig. 9).
Regarding claim 17, Noonan as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Noonan as modified does not explicitly disclose a sawmill.
Dale further discloses a sawmill (the portable sawmill includes the log support and clamp assembly and a kit for retrofitting the log support and clamp assembly to the sawmill; see paragraph [0027]) comprising the log support and clamp assembly of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20200298437 to Shellswell, drawn to an adjustable toe board; US 20230120639 to Schie, US 20130283991 to Belzile, and US 5784941 to Sanborn, all drawn to a portable sawmill; US 576820 to Patullo, drawn to a sawmill carriage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at (571) 270-3818. 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724