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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-11 and 18-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected apparatus/ method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/05/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
“slab cut layout” of claim 12 and “first and second mirror imaged slab cut layouts” of claims 13-15;
“slab cut layout” and “vacuum pods” of claim 12 and the “a concrete table base positioned within a slab processing area… at least one stone table slab secured onto the planar top surface of each concrete table base.” of claim 17,
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “vacuum pods positioned on the second work table”, and should be “vacuum pods positioned on a second work table” to avoid an antecedent error.
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 12-17 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 12 recites: “the slab being aligned by a slab cut layout projected from a laser projector” and “while cutting, routing and finishing the first slab on the first work table, projecting from the laser projector a slab cut layout, aligning a second slab upside down”. As claimed it is unclear whether the second recited “a slab cut layout” is referring to the layout pertaining to the first or second slab. For examination purposes, the limitation of “projecting from the laser projector a slab cut layout, aligning a second slab upside down” has been construed as “projecting from the laser projector a second slab cut layout, aligning a second slab upside down”.
Claim 13 recites: “wherein the first and second slabs are oriented finished face down based upon first and second mirror imaged slab cut layouts that are projected from the laser projector.”. Claim 12 recites: “positioning a first slab upside down with the finished face down on vacuum pods positioned on a first work table, the slab being aligned by a slab cut layout projected from a laser projector” and “projecting from the laser projector a slab cut layout, aligning a second slab upside down with the finished face down on vacuum pods positioned on the second work table”. Claim 12 has the slabs positioned finished face down according to the layout projection and again in claim 13 they are positioned finished face down based on the first and second mirror imaged slab cut layouts. As claimed, it is unclear if the slabs are repositioned or it’s referring to the same step of claim 12. Further, it is unclear what is the difference between the ”slab cut layout” of claim 12 and “first and second mirror imaged slab cut layouts” of claim 13, since the drawings only refer to the mirror layout. For these reasons, the “first and second mirror imaged slab cut layouts” have been construed as the same layouts introduced in claim 12.
Claim 14 recites: “that are based upon a slab cut layout” and is unclear which slab cut layout is specifically being referred to, or if it’s an entirely different layout. For examination purposes, the limitation of “that are based upon a slab cut layout” has been construed as “that are based upon the first and second slab cut layout”.
Claim 14 recites: “wherein the first and second slabs are oriented with respective first and second mirror imaged slab cut layouts that are based upon a slab cut layout on the finished face of the respective first and second slabs”. Claim 12 recites: “aligned by a slab cut layout projected from a laser projector”. As claimed, both “mirror imaged slab cut layouts” and “slab cut layout” are being projected from the singular “laser projector”. Further, the submitted drawings only refer to the “mirror imaged slab cut layout”. It is unclear how the projector projects overlapping cut layouts or bases one layout off another. For examination purposes, the “first and second mirror imaged slab cut layouts” have been construed as the same layouts introduced in claim 12.
Similarly, the “mirror imaged slab cut layout” of claim 15 have also been construed as the same layouts introduced in claim 12.
Claim 17, which depends on claim 12, recites: “at least one stone table slab secured onto the planar top surface of each concrete table base.”. Claim 12 recites: “a first slab upside down with the finished face down on vacuum pods” and “aligning a second slab upside down with the finished face down on vacuum pods”. As claimed, it is unclear how the slabs which have been secured to the vacuum pods in claim 12 then are secured to the concrete table base in claim 17. Further, the process of securing the slab to the concrete table base disclosed in paragraph 00154, and shown in Fig. 31, does not require the projection layout nor the vacuum pods which are required in the parent claim 12. Therefore, for examination purposes, claim 17 has been construed as an independent claim and not depending on claim 12.
Claim 17 recites: “coplanar with the planar top surface of the other concrete table base”. As claimed, it is unclear what “other concrete table base” is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation of “other concrete table base” has been construed as “second concrete table base”.
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 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann (US 20060016957 A1) and Mantenuto (US 20230019907 A1).
Referring to claim 12: Hofmann teaches a method of processing stone or a stone-like slabs (“a work piece, such as a countertop to be cut from a stone slab” [0036]) on a dual work table (Table 20 Fig. 2 shown processing dual outlines “A” and “B” of slab “S”; “countertop outlines A and B are depicted as being traced (i.e., projected) by laser projector 31 onto stone slab S.” [0059]), slab processing machine (10 Fig. 2), each slab having a top face and bottom surface (top and bottom face of “A” and “B” Fig. 2) , comprising:
positioning a first slab (“S” Fig. 2) on the work table (20 Fig. 2), the slab being aligned by a slab cut layout (layout of “A” and ”A’ “ shown in Fig. 2) projected from a laser projector (31 Fig. 2);
cutting the first slab (“S” Fig. 2); and
without removing the cut first slab (“S” Fig. 2),
routing any sink holes and radius curves (“For a device such as a CNC router, on the other hand, the router bit may typically be moved in both the X and Y directions during cutting, thereby providing both straight line and curvilinear machining of a work piece.” [0035]) on the first slab (“S” Fig. 2), and
finishing the first slab by forming an edge profile on the inside of any sink holes and edging and polishing the sides (“router bit” [0034]; router bits are known for creating edge profiles and polishing) of the first slab (“S” Fig. 2); and
while cutting, routing and finishing the first slab on the work table, projecting from the laser projector a slab cut layout (layout of “B” and ”B’ “ shown in Fig. 2).
But is silent on:
a finished face;
positioning a first slab upside down with specifically the finished face down on vacuum pods positioned on a first work table;
cutting the first slab while positioned upside down with the finished face down;
without removing the cut first slab from the vacuum pods and maintaining the finished face down;
aligning a second slab specifically upside down with the finished face down on vacuum pods positioned on the second work table
aligning a second slab upside down with the finished face down on vacuum pods positioned on the second work table for subsequent cutting, routing and finishing of the second slab.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hofmann with a second work table for the purpose of increasing the size of the work area and/ or increasing the efficiency of the operation by having a second table loaded with a second slab for increasing the output of the operation, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)
Mantenuto in an analogous method teaches a finished face (“By orientating the slab finished face down, the CNC machine has a consistent and flat base of reference, and knows exactly where to align the router in order to ensure the planing is even and does not damage the finished face.” [0022]); positioning the similar configuration slab (120 Figs. 6 and 7) upside down with specifically the finished face down on vacuum pods (140 Figs. 6 and 7; “The clamps (140) are placed onto the selected cut stone shapes (120) finished side (see FIGS. 6 and 7), and activated to form a vacuum between each clamp (140) and the corresponding selected shape (120)” [0100]) positioned on the similar configuration work table (30 Figs. 6 and 7) and cutting (“The router (110) is then aligned to the cut stone shapes (120) at a level measured from the stone finished side on the second platform (30)” [0109]) the similar configuration slab (120 Figs. 6 and 7) while positioned upside down with the finished face down (shown in Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hofmann with the finished face secured to the vacuum pods as taught by Mantenuto for the purpose of preventing damage to the delicate surface of the slab.
Mantenuto also teaches a second slab (“The present invention can be worked in relation to preparing a single stone slab (10) or multiple stone slabs (10) processed sequentially with one subsequent to another” [0059]) which is also capable of being secured to the vacuum pods and subsequently cut, routed and finished.
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hofmann with the additional slabs as taught by Mantenuto for the purpose of increasing the output of the output of the operation, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)
Referring to claim 13: Hofmann as modified teaches the method of Claim 12 wherein the first and second slabs are oriented finished face down (finished face down slabs 120 Figs. 6 and 7 of Mantenuto) based upon first and second mirror imaged slab cut layouts (112(b)) (layout of “A”, ”A’ “, “B”, “B’ ” shown in Fig. 2 of Hofmann) that are projected from the laser projector (31 Fig. 2 of Hofmann).
Referring to claim 14: Hofmann as modified teaches the method of Claim 13 wherein the first and second slabs (finished face down slabs 120 Figs. 6 and 7 of Mantenuto) are oriented with respective first and second mirror imaged slab cut layouts (112(b)) (layout of “A”, ”A’ “, “B”, “B’ ” shown in Fig. 2 of Hofmann) that are based upon a slab cut layout on the finished face of the respective first and second slabs.
Referring to claim 15: Hofmann as modified teaches the method of Claim 13 comprising cutting the side edges (“router bit” [0034]; router bits are known for creating edge profiles and polishing of Hofmann) of each of first and second slabs upside down (finished face down slabs 120 Figs. 6 and 7 of Mantenuto) by following the mirror imaged slab cut layout (112(b)) (layout of “A”, ”A’ “, “B”, “B’ ” shown in Fig. 2 of Hofmann) to form a slab corresponding substantially to the shape of a countertop (“a work piece, such as a countertop to be cut from a stone slab” [0036] of Hofmann).
Referring to claim 16: Hofmann as modified teaches the method of Claim 15 comprising cutting the first and second slabs (finished face down slabs 120 Figs. 6 and 7 of Mantenuto) with a circular saw blade (“By way of example, tool 11 may comprise a saw blade or a router bit.” [0034] of Hofmann) mounted on a spindle (16 Fig. 2 of Hofmann) of the machining head, followed by routing using a finger bit (“a router bit.” [0034] of Hofmann) that had been switched onto the spindle after removal (“Since a gantry saw typically only provides a linear cut, saw blade 11 can be moved in the Y direction only when the blade is disengaged (e.g., raised above) the work piece. For a device such as a CNC router, on the other hand, the router bit may typically be moved in both the X and Y directions during cutting, thereby providing both straight line and curvilinear machining of a work piece.” [0035] of Hofmann) of the circular saw blade (“saw blade” [0034] of Hofmann).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRANO (JP 2010194676 A) and Hofmann (US 20060016957 A1).
Referring to claim 17: The method of Claim 12 (112(b)) HIRANO teaches a method wherein the work table comprises: a concrete table base (2 Fig. 3; “concrete base 2” [0017]) positioned within a slab processing area (area of 1 Fig. 3) of the slab processing machine (7 Fig. 3),
the concrete table base having a planar top surface (planar surface of 2) along the X and Y axis (shown in Fig. 3), respectively; and at least one table slab (3 Fig. 3) secured onto (shown in Fig. 3) the planar top surface of each concrete table base (2 Fig. 3; “concrete base 2” [0017]).
But is silent on the concrete table base that is substantially coplanar with the planar top surface of a second concrete table base; and slab is specifically made of stone.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of HIRANO with a coplanar second concrete table for the purpose of increasing the size of the work area and/ or increasing the efficiency of the operation by having a second table loaded with a second slab for increasing the output of the operation, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)
Hofmann an analogous method teaches slab is specifically made of stone (“a work piece, such as a countertop to be cut from a stone slab” [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of HIRANO with stone slab as taught by Hofmann for the purpose of increasing the capability of the method and working area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723