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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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:
Drive mechanism in claims 1 and 5
[0061] At least one drive mechanism, shown schematically at 100 in FIGS. 1 and 5, is connected to the bridge 36, carriage 38, machine yoke 42, and machining head 46 to operate and drive the 5-axis machine as explained relative to FIG. 7 below. The drive mechanism 100, depending on configuration, may be closed or open loop and may include different actuators, electric motors, stepper or servomotors, or other drive mechanisms for driving separate components such as the bridge 36, carriage 38, machine yoke 42, machining head 46 (FIG. 7), and a spindle drive 48 (FIG.9). Different position sensors if applicable may be incorporated depending on configuration. A controller 56 is connected to the at least one drive mechanism 100 and configured to control movement of the bridge 36, carriage 38, machine yoke 42, and machining head 46 to cut the side edges of the slab or internal sections of the slab while upside down and positioned on the vacuum pods 26 by following a mirror image slab cut layout to form a substantially finished slab, which in an example, may be the configuration of a countertop.
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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-22 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.
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 13, the phrase "stone or stone-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As claims 2-4 depend upon claim 1, they are similarly rejected.
As claims 5-12 depend upon claim 5, they are similarly rejected.
As claims 14-22 depend upon claim 13, they are similarly rejected.
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.
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(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over being unpatentable over Guazzoni (US PG Pub No. 20130055550) in view of Traini (US PG Pub No. 20170252945).
In regards to claim 1, Guazzoni discloses
a dual work table, slab processing machine, comprising:
first work table (table 101, fig. 1; [0065]), each positioned adjacent each other within a slab processing area (see fig. 1 -ann. 1) of the slab processing machine;
PNG
media_image1.png
355
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a 5-axis machining head (tool-holder unit 10, fig. 1-5; [0067-0075] and [0079]) and at least one drive mechanism (carriage 1, fig. 1-3, 5-6, 8; [0023], [068], [0071-0074]) connected thereto and configured to drive the machining head (tool-holder unit 10, fig. 1-5; [0067-0075] and [0079]) over the slab processing area,
said machining head (tool-holder unit 10, fig. 1-5; [0067-0075] and [0079]) configured to mount a saw blade (machining tool 11, fig. 1-2, 6-7; [0073]: disk-type cutter) for cutting of stone or stone-like slabs positioned on the first work table (table 101, fig. 1; [0065]) upside down with a finished face down on;
a controller (control unit 103, fig. 1; [0003], [0085-0086], [0095]) connected to the at least one drive mechanism (carriage 1, fig. 1-3, 5-6, 8; [0023], [068], [0071-0074]), said controller configured to
[0033] Preferably, the machine comprises a control and operation unit of the movements of the tool-holder unit and of the relative moving apparatus with respect to the external working surface, and of the movements of the gripping means with respect to the tool-holder unit or to the relative moving apparatus.
[0085] The machine 100 also comprises an operation and control unit 103 (FIG. 1) equipped with an operator interface.
[0086] The unit 103 is programmed to actuate the moving apparatus 1, the tool-holder unit 10 and the gripping means 20.
operate the 5-axis machining head (tool-holder unit 10, fig. 1-5; [0067-0075] and [0079]).
Guazzoni fails to disclose a “first and second” work table positioned adjacent each other. However, Traini shows within a plurality of work tables adjacent each other in the slab processing area:
PNG
media_image2.png
263
487
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Guazzoni and Traini are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, apparatus for machining stone slabs. Therefore, pursuant of MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate parts, where in the instant case, to have a first and second work table as disclosed by Guazzoni is only a slight variation therefrom, 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) St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Guazzoni fails to disclose the work table “vacuum pods” to place the workpieces upon
Traini discloses a numeric-control work centre can be used for carrying out cutting operations or grinding and/or milling operations on plates of stone, marble, or, in general, natural or synthetic stone material, or ceramic material. Traini teaches:
[0044] With reference to FIG. 4 (where the modular elements 101 are illustrated only schematically), the blocks V are of the known type including a bottom suction cup V1, a top suction cup V2, and connectors V3, V4 for connecting the suction cups to a source of vacuum provided within the stationary structure of the machine. For this purpose, once again according to the conventional technique, the connectors V3, V4 are connected to the ends of hoses F, which are in turn connected to connectors R provided on the stationary structure of the machine. The present description of the supporting and holding blocks V is provided herein purely by way of example. Alternatively, these blocks may be made in accordance with a known technique developed by the present applicant, according to which each block is provided with an autonomous vacuum source (see document No. EP 2 682 227 A1).
Guazzoni and Traini are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, apparatus for machining stone slabs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guazzoni with the suction cups of Traini, providing holding blocks to better maintain engagement with the workpiece, ensuring stability during the cutting and machining process.
Guazzoni fails to disclose a laser projector positioned overhead to the first and second work tables, with the controller configured to, project a first slab cut layout from the laser projector onto the first work table to aid in positioning a first slab upside down with the finished face down on vacuum pods positioned on the first work table, and project a second slab cut layout from the laser projector onto the second work table to aid in positioning a second slab upside down with the finished face down on vacuum pads positioned on the second work table
Hofmann discloses an apparatus for cutting a stone slab workpiece. Hoffman also teaches using a laser projector to display images and patterns, connected to a controller responsible for the apparatus:
[0051] Computer system 41 may also include image processing software which processes image data representative of image(s) to be displayed on a work piece (e.g., countertop outlines A and B on stone slab S in FIG. 2). The specific embodiment of the image processing software is dependent upon the embodiment of the laser projection system 30, and in particular, the various features provided in each such embodiment. The image processing software may even be embodied as hardware, such as an ASIC. The image processing software generates control signals which are then communicated to laser projector 31, and optionally one or more display devices (as described below). For example, the image processing software may process a CAD file containing data representative of a countertop outline, and transmit image coordinate data to laser projector 31. Computer system 41 may also include one or more display devices, such as a monitor 48. In this manner, the image(s) to be projected by laser projector 31 may also be displayed on monitor 48.
[0054] Computer system 41 may generate the control signals sent to laser projector 31 in any of a variety of manners. For example, computer system 41 may include an image data conversion program (e.g., software) which converts image data (such as a CAD file or other graphics file) into the appropriate control signals for instructing laser projector 31 to project the image onto a work piece. Computer system 41 may also include a simple drawing program which an operator may use to "draw" the outline of a countertop using a mouse, a keyboard or any of a variety of input devices. Such a drawing program generates a digital representation of an image, such as the outline of a countertop, which may be stored as a graphics file in any of a variety of formats. The digital representation of the image will typically comprise a graphics file having data representative of the image, such as the various dimensions of the countertop or other product. An image date conversion program may then convert that image data into appropriate control signals which instruct laser projector 31 to project the image on the work piece. These control signals (or instructions) are then transmitted to laser projector 31 (e.g., through a wired or wireless connection).
Guazzoni and Hofmann are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, apparatus for machining stone slabs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guazzoni and provided it with the projector of Hofmann as “[0053]… Such a process eliminates the need for creating a physical template for marking the outline on the stone slab. However, additional aspects of embodiments of the present invention eliminate the need for marking the countertop outline on the stone slab. In particular, the laser image(s) projected on the stone slab may be directly used as a template to guide the cutting operation.” This would improve efficiency and quality in the machining process.
Guzzoni as modified fails to explicitly disclose during operation, “cut the first slab while positioned upside down with the finished face down, and subsequent to the first slab being cut, move the machining head to the second work table and cut the second slab upside down with the finished face down, and while the second slab is being cut, project from the laser projector new locations where cut pieces from the first slab are to be positioned for further processing.”
However, the recited limitations are considered functional language, and therefore the intended implementation of the apparatus.
Pursuant of MPEP 2114.I, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g).) the examiner has concluded that certain claimed limitations are functional and therefore are an inherent characteristic of the prior art (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40, 100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In the immediate case, the prior art structure is considered to inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus, therein capable of being used cut the sides of a first and then second upside down stone slab and project from the laser new locations to cut pieces.
Further, pursuant of MPEP 2114.II., the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Pursuant of MPEP 2115, claim analysis is understood as highly fact-dependent, thus is only limited by positively recited elements. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459; see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69. As such, Guazzoni as modified does not need to explicitly disclose “a stone-like slab having a finished face down” as its disclosure does present the structure and configuration capable of processing a stone slab.
In regards to claim 2, Guazzoni as modified discloses
the machine of claim 1, capable of the further processing comprises routing and finishing of the cut pieces from the first slab.
Examiner’s Note: As established, the process steps within an apparatus claim are the intended use of the claimed apparatus. Guazzoni as modified discloses the structure, therein would be capable of routing and finishing cut pieces from a first slab.
In regards to claim 3, Guazzoni as modified discloses
the machine of claim 1, 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.
Examiner’s Note: As established, the process steps within an apparatus claim are the intended use of the claimed apparatus. Guazzoni as modified discloses the structure capable of projecting slab cut layouts upon first and second slabs that are orientated face down and orienting them appropriately.
Additionally, pursuant of MPEP 2115, claim analysis is understood as highly fact-dependent, thus is only limited by positively recited elements. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
In regards to claim 4, Guazzoni as modified discloses
the machine of claim 3, 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.
Examiner’s Note: As established, the process steps within an apparatus claim are the intended use of the claimed apparatus. Guazzoni as modified discloses the structure capable of projecting slab cut layouts upon first and second slabs that are orientated face down and orienting them appropriately.
Additionally, pursuant of MPEP 2115, claim analysis is understood as highly fact-dependent, thus is only limited by positively recited elements. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
Claim(s) 5-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over being unpatentable over Guazzoni (US PG Pub No. 20130055550) in view of Traini (US PG Pub No. 20170252945) and Voss (US PG Pub No. 20090229730).
In regards to claim 5, Guazzoni discloses
a dual work table, slab processing machine, comprising:
first work table (table 101, fig. 1; [0065]), each positioned adjacent each other within a slab processing area of the slab processing machine, each work table comprising
a 5-axis machining head (tool-holder unit 10, fig. 1-5; [0067-0075] and [0079]) and at least one drive mechanism (carriage 1, fig. 1-3, 5-6, 8; [0023], [068], [0071-0074]) connected thereto and configured to drive the machining head (tool-holder unit 10, fig. 1-5; [0067-0075] and [0079]) along the frame over the slab processing area,
said machining head (tool-holder unit 10, fig. 1-5; [0067-0075] and [0079]) configured to mount a circular saw blade (machining tool 11, fig. 1-2, 6-7; [0073]: disk-type cutter), a finger bit or at least one finishing tool for respective cutting, routing or finishing of stone or stone-like slabs positioned on the first work table (table 101, fig. 1; [0065]) upside down with their finished face down on vacuum pods;
a controller (control unit 103, fig. 1; [0003], [0085-0086], [0095]) connected to the at least one drive mechanism (carriage 1, fig. 1-3, 5-6, 8; [0023], [068], [0071-0074]) and
operate the 5-axis machining head (tool-holder unit 10, fig. 1-5; [0067-0075] and [0079]) to, cut the slab, and further move the machining head (tool-holder unit 10, fig. 1-5; [0067-0075] and [0079]).
Guazzoni fails to disclose a concrete table base having a planar top surface that is substantially coplanar with the planar top surface of the other concrete table base along the X and Y axis, respectively, and at least one stone table slab secured onto the planar top surface of each concrete table base.
Voss teaches a machine bed for processing work pieces, providing a body made at least in sections of concrete, in particular steel reinforced concrete:
[0029] In the present embodiment, the base body 12 comprises four steel profiles 20, 20' which are set in the concrete of the base body 12. To that end the steel profiles 20, 20' may be provided with suitable anchoring means such as head bolts, loops or the like. Here, as can be seen from FIG. 1, the steel profiles 20 are arranged so that they serve as support surface for the base body 12, while the steel profile 20' is arranged in the region of the free end of the shank 16 so that it can serve as guide for a translational movement of the travelling column 6. Moreover, the steel profiles 20, 20' impart additional stability and crack safety to the base body 12.
PNG
media_image3.png
328
519
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Guazzoni and Voss are in the same field of endeavor, work stations for processing work pieces. Therefore it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Voss and Guazzoni, and provide the concrete base of Voss for support of the work tables of Guazzoni, as the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. The concrete base provides improved stability as well as prevents damage to the work environment.
Guazzoni fails to disclose a “first and second” work table positioned adjacent each other. However, Traini shows within a plurality of work tables adjacent each other in the slab processing area:
PNG
media_image2.png
263
487
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Guazzoni and Traini are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, apparatus for machining stone slabs. Therefore, pursuant of MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate parts, where in the instant case, to have a first and second work table as disclosed by Guazzoni is only a slight variation therefrom, 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) St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Guazzoni fails to disclose a laser projector positioned overhead to the first and second work tables, with the controller configured to, project a first slab cut layout from the laser projector onto the first work table to aid in positioning a first slab upside down with the finished face down on vacuum pods positioned on the first work table, and project a second slab cut layout from the laser projector onto the second work table to aid in positioning a second slab upside down with the finished face down on vacuum pads positioned on the second work table
Hofmann discloses an apparatus for cutting a stone slab workpiece. Hoffman also teaches using a laser projector to display images and patterns, connected to a controller responsible for the apparatus:
[0051] Computer system 41 may also include image processing software which processes image data representative of image(s) to be displayed on a work piece (e.g., countertop outlines A and B on stone slab S in FIG. 2). The specific embodiment of the image processing software is dependent upon the embodiment of the laser projection system 30, and in particular, the various features provided in each such embodiment. The image processing software may even be embodied as hardware, such as an ASIC. The image processing software generates control signals which are then communicated to laser projector 31, and optionally one or more display devices (as described below). For example, the image processing software may process a CAD file containing data representative of a countertop outline, and transmit image coordinate data to laser projector 31. Computer system 41 may also include one or more display devices, such as a monitor 48. In this manner, the image(s) to be projected by laser projector 31 may also be displayed on monitor 48.
[0054] Computer system 41 may generate the control signals sent to laser projector 31 in any of a variety of manners. For example, computer system 41 may include an image data conversion program (e.g., software) which converts image data (such as a CAD file or other graphics file) into the appropriate control signals for instructing laser projector 31 to project the image onto a work piece. Computer system 41 may also include a simple drawing program which an operator may use to "draw" the outline of a countertop using a mouse, a keyboard or any of a variety of input devices. Such a drawing program generates a digital representation of an image, such as the outline of a countertop, which may be stored as a graphics file in any of a variety of formats. The digital representation of the image will typically comprise a graphics file having data representative of the image, such as the various dimensions of the countertop or other product. An image date conversion program may then convert that image data into appropriate control signals which instruct laser projector 31 to project the image on the work piece. These control signals (or instructions) are then transmitted to laser projector 31 (e.g., through a wired or wireless connection).
Guazzoni and Hofmann are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, apparatus for machining stone slabs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Guazzoni and provided it with the projector of Hofmann as “[0053]… Such a process eliminates the need for creating a physical template for marking the outline on the stone slab. However, additional aspects of embodiments of the present invention eliminate the need for marking the countertop outline on the stone slab. In particular, the laser image(s) projected on the stone slab may be directly used as a template to guide the cutting operation.” This would improve efficiency and quality in the machining process.
Guzzoni as modified fails to explicitly disclose during operation, “cut the first slab while positioned upside down with the finished face down, and subsequent to the first slab being cut, move the machining head to the second work table and cut the second slab upside down with the finished face down, and while the second slab is being cut, project from the laser projector new locations where cut pieces from the first slab are to be positioned for further processing.”
However, the recited limitations are considered functional language, and therefore the intended implementation of the apparatus.
Pursuant of MPEP 2114.I, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g).) the examiner has concluded that certain claimed limitations are functional and therefore are an inherent characteristic of the prior art (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40, 100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In the immediate case, the prior art structure is considered to inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus, therein capable of being used cut the sides of a first and then second upside down stone slab and project from the laser new locations to cut pieces.
Further, pursuant of MPEP 2114.II., the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Pursuant of MPEP 2115, claim analysis is understood as highly fact-dependent, thus is only limited by positively recited elements. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459; see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69. As such, Guazzoni as modified does not need to explicitly disclose “a stone-like slab having a finished face down” as its disclosure does present the structure and configuration capable of processing a stone slab.
In regards to claim 6, Guazzoni as modified discloses
the machine of Claim 5, capable of the further processing comprises routing and finishing of the cut pieces from the first slab.
Examiner’s Note: As established, the process steps within an apparatus claim are the intended use of the claimed apparatus. Guazzoni as modified discloses the structure, therein would be capable of routing and finishing cut pieces from a first slab.
In regards to claim 7, Guazzoni as modified discloses
the machine of Claim 5 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.
Examiner’s Note: As established, the process steps within an apparatus claim are the intended use of the claimed apparatus. Guazzoni as modified discloses the structure capable of projecting slab cut layouts upon first and second slabs that are orientated face down and orienting them appropriately.
Additionally, pursuant of MPEP 2115, claim analysis is understood as highly fact-dependent, thus is only limited by positively recited elements. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
In regards to claim 8, Guazzoni as modified discloses
the machine of Claim 7 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.
Examiner’s Note: As established, the process steps within an apparatus claim are the intended use of the claimed apparatus. Guazzoni as modified discloses the structure capable of projecting slab cut layouts upon first and second slabs that are orientated face down and orienting them appropriately.
Additionally, pursuant of MPEP 2115, claim analysis is understood as highly fact-dependent, thus is only limited by positively recited elements. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
In regards to claim 10, Guazzoni as modified discloses
the machine of Claim 9 wherein holes are formed of predefined depth into each outermost corner of the top surface of each stone table slab and the crystal positioned within each hole.
Examiner’s Note: As established, the process steps within an apparatus claim are the intended use of the claimed apparatus. Guazzoni as modified discloses the structure capable of projecting slab cut layouts upon first and second slabs that are orientated face down and orienting them appropriately.
Additionally, pursuant of MPEP 2115, claim analysis is understood as highly fact-dependent, thus is only limited by positively recited elements. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
In regards to claim 11, Guazzoni as modified
the machine of claim 5 comprising a metallic channel (channels 20 from Voss fig. 2) formed along the sides of each table base, the metallic channel having a top edge defining the top outer edge of each work table (see Voss fig. 2, the work tables would be placed on top of the concrete bass, atop of adjacent the work steel channels 20 of voss).
In regards to claim 12, Guazzoni as modified
the machine of claim 5 wherein at least two stone table slabs are secured (through the vacuum pods as taught by Traini) onto each planar top surface of each table base.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 9, Guazzoni as modified discloses the machine of claim 5, but fails to disclose a stone workpiece with crystals positioned at outermost corners of the top surface of each stone table slab opposite the adjacent work table, and fails to disclose the controller is configured to calibrate the height of the first and second work tables by laser projecting an optical beam onto the crystals from the laser projector to establish an origin reference for both work tables. The projector as taught by Hoffman is configured for the projection of images upon a cutting surface. The projector and its controller are not configured for height calibration through the projecting of an optical beam. The controller fails to provide the configuration necessary to receive this sort of information and apply it in creating a reference point. Additionally, this projection of shapes for cutting and a beam for calibration are accomplished by the same projector. Further, while the workpiece does not impart patentability, the prior art still fails to address the limitation of projecting the beam specifically upon the crystals of a stone workpiece.
Claims 13-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 13, Guazzoni and Traini, considered the closest art of record, fail to render obvious the entirety of the claim. Guazzoni and Traini, while disclosing a method of processing stone slabs, they fail to address that each slab have a finished face and bottom surface on a dual work table,
fail to disclose positioning a first slab upside down with the finished face down on vacuum pods positioned on a first work table in a slab processing area of the slab processing machine, fail to disclose positioning a second slab upside down with the finished face down on vacuum pods positioned on the second work table within the slab processing area, wherein first and second slabs being aligned on the respective first and second work tables by respective first and second slab cut layouts projected from a laser projector positioned overhead to the first and second work.
So while Guazzoni and Traini disclose a 5-axis machining head to capable of cutting slabs, it is silent to the entire process, which requires cutting slabs upside according to the projection from the laser projector, simultaneously projecting new locations on the other of the two work tables for already cut pieces to be positioned for further processing.
As claims 14-22 depend upon claim 13, would also be under conditions for allowance with the 112(b) rejection resolved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723