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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 2 shows three views connected by two projection lines. 37 CFR 1.84(h) says “… Views must not be connected by projection lines …”.
Fig. 2, 7-17, 19, 21-26, 28-33, 38-46, and 48 each show at least one sectional view. It is not clear what plane these views were taken from. 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3) says “… The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. …”
The z-axis, as labelled by reference character 314, is in different directions in Fig. 3 and Fig. 27
Fig. 27 and 48 each show a centerline. 37 CFR 1.84(h) says “Views must not be connected by projection lines and must not contain center lines”.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs 45, 46, 129, 131 include underlined and highlighted text. It is not clear why this text is underlined and/or highlighted.
The recitation of the claims in the specification in paragraphs [0266] through [0284] is not necessary.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 10 of pg. 1, “each among said plurality of plates” should be written as “each plate among said plurality of plates”.
Likewise, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 14 of pg. 4 and in claim 14, line 9 of pg. 11
In claim 1, line 10 of pg. 1, “each among said plurality of plates are configured to” should be written as “each among said plurality of plates is configured to”.
Likewise, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 14 of pg. 4 and in claim 14, line 9 of pg. 11
In claim 1, line 14 of pg. 1, “each among said plurality of plugs” should be written as “each plug among said plurality of plugs”.
Likewise, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 1 of pg. 5 and in claim 14, line 13 of pg. 11
In claim 1, line 1 of pg. 2, “said two or more plug-plate sets are referred to using a set integer” should be written as “each plug-plate set among said two or more plug-plate sets is referred to using a set integer”.
Likewise, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 13 of pg. 5 and in claim 14, line 1 of pg. 13
“A first plug-plate set comprises a first among said two or more plug-plate sets wherein said set integer equals one” of claim 1, lines 3-4 of pg. 2, should be written as “A first plug-plate set comprises a first among said two or more plug-plate sets wherein said set integer of the first plug-plate set equals one”.
Likewise, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 5 of pg. 5 and in claim 14, line 4 of pg. 13
“A last plug-plate set comprises a last among said two or more plug-plate sets wherein said set integer equals highest value” of claim 1, lines 3-4 of pg. 2, should be written as “A last plug-plate set comprises a first among said two or more plug-plate sets wherein said set integer of the first plug-plate set equals one”.
Likewise, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 7 of pg. 5 and in claim 14, line 5-7 of pg. 13
In claim 1, line 11 of pg. 2, “having sequential counts of said set integer” should be written as “having sequential set integers”.
Likewise, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 13 of pg. 5 and in claim 14, line 11 of pg. 11
In claim 1, line 12 of pg. 2, “said two or more plug-plate sets each comprise said plate and said plug” should be written as “each plug-plate set among said two or more plug-plate sets comprise said plate and said plug”.
Likewise, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 14 of pg. 5 and in claim 14, line 12 of pg. 11
In claim 1, line 14 of pg. 3, “displayed in an exterior surface” should be written as “displayed on an exterior surface”.
Likewise, this issue repeats in claim 4, lines 5 on pg. 7
In claim 10, line 17 on pg. 8, “guitar pickup int said workpiece” should be written “guitar pickup in said workpiece”.
Likewise, this issue repeats in claim 17, line 9 on pg. 15
For the purposes of readability, applicant is asked to amend to delete duplicate limitation within a single claim and broad limitations when the same claim also contains a narrower limitation. In claim 1, applicant repeats the limitation that a plug-plate set comprises a plate and a plug, repeats the limitation that the set integer for the last plug-plate set is three, and the limitation that set integer equals 3 is narrower than the limitation of two or more plug-plate sets. In claim 2, applicant repeats the limitation that a plug-plate set comprises a plate and a plug. In claim 9, applicant repeats the limitation that the set integer for the last plug-plate set is three.
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 1-18 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.
In claim 1, line 3 of pg. 1, applicant uses “wherein” as a transitional phrase. MPEP 2111.03 does not list “wherein” as a transitional phrase. Transitional phrases define “the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim” (MPEP2111.03. MPEP 2111.04 lists “wherein” as an example of claim language that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim. Without a traditional transition phrase, the scope of the claim is unclear; replace “wherein” with one of the transitional phrases listed in MPEP 211.03.
Likewise, this issue repeats in claims 2 and 14.
In claim 1, line 8 of pg. 1, it is unclear what structural limitation is meant by “said plurality of plugs are configured to align and guide router cuts”. MPEP 2111.04 states “Claim scope is not limited … by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure”. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as though it limited the plates to having router cavities.
Likewise, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 12 of pg. 4, and in claim 14, line 7 of pg. 11
In claim 1, line 4 and 5 of pg. 1, “cavity routing tool assembly, comprises two or more plug-plate sets, each comprising a plate and plug” doesn’t clearly define whether each cavity routing tool assembly or each individual plug-plate set of the two or more plug plate set comprises a plate and plug. For the purposes of examination, the limitation was interpreted as each plug-plate set comprises a plate and plug.
Likewise rejected, issue repeats in claim 2, lines 8-9 of pg. 4 and in claim 14, line 3-4 of pg. 11.
In claim 1, line 8 of pg. 1, it is unclear what it means to “align … router cuts”. It is unspecified what the router cuts are aligned with and in what manner they are aligned. It is also unclear what structure “align … router cuts” entails.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 2, lines 12 on pg. 4 and in claim 14, line 7 of pg. 11
In claim 1, line 10 and 11 of pg. 1, it is unclear what “portions of said plurality of plugs” means. This limitation could refer to multiple portions on one plate or one portion on many plates. It could refer to the same portion of each plate or different portions of each plate. It could refer to a cut out piece of a plate or a region of the plate or the entirety of the plate.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 2, lines 14-15 on pg. 4 and in claim 14, line 9-10 of pg. 11
The term “selectively align” in claim 1, line 10 of pg. 1, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “selectively” 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. It is not clear how a selective alignment differs from a non-selective alignment.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 14 on pg. 4 and in claim 14, line 9 of pg. 11
In claim 1, line 11 of pg. 1, it is unclear in what way the plurality of plates “ensure” the cavity is formed. It is unclear what structure is required.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 15 on pg. 4 and in claim 14, line 10 of pg. 11
In claim 1, lines 10-11 of pg. 1, it is unclear it is unclear if each plate in “each among said plurality of plates are configured to selectively align with portions of said plurality of plugs” must be aligned with every one of said plurality of plugs or at least one of said plurality of plugs.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 2, lines 14-15 on pg. 4 and in claim 14, line 9-10 of pg. 11
The term “correctly formed” in claim 1, line 11 of pg. 1, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “correctly” 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. It is not clear how correctly formed differs from incorrectly formed.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 15 on pg. 4 and in claim 14, line 10 of pg. 11
In claim 1, line 3 of pg. 2, it is unclear if the second “a first” of “a first plug plate set comprises a first among said two or more plug-plate sets” refers back to the first “a first”. To correct antecedent basis, the second “a first” should be changed to “the first”.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 5 on pg. 5 and in claim 14, line 3 of pg. 13
In claim 1, line 3 of pg. 2, it is unclear what structural limitation is implied by “a first among said two or more plug-plate sets”. What does it mean to be first?
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 2, lines 5 on pg. 5 and in claim 14, line 3 of pg. 13
In claim 1, line 5 of pg. 2, it is unclear what structural limitation is implied by “a last among said two or more plug-plate sets”. What does it mean to be last?
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 7 on pg. 5 and in claim 14, line 5 of pg. 13
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each among said two or more plug-plate sets" in line 8 of pg. 2. It is unclear what “each” is referring to. The plug-plate sets comprise multiple elements. The claims could refer to each plate, each plug, each cavity, each plug-plate set, etc.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 2, lines 10 on pg. 5 and in claim 14, line 8 of pg. 13
The term “designed in relationship” in claim 1, line 8 of pg. 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in relationship” 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. It is not clear how something designed in relationship would differs from something designed without.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 10 on pg. 5 and in claim 14, line 8 of pg. 11
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said set integer" in line 8 of pg. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The plug-plate sets comprise multiple set integers, one for each plug-plate set. The claims could refer to one of these set integers.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 13 on pg. 5 and in claim 14, line 11 of pg. 11
In claim 1, line 15 of pg. 2, what structural limitation is meant by “align a current cut among said multi-tiered pickup cavity” is unclear.
Likewise rejected, issue repeats in claim 2, lines 8-9 on pg. 4 and in claim 14, line 15 of pg. 13
The term “selectively attach” in claim 1, line 14 of pg. 1, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “selectively” 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. It is not clear how a selective attachment differs from a non-selective attachment.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 16 on pg. 5 and in claim 14, line 14 of pg. 13
The term “align” in claim 1, line 15 of pg. 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “align” 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. It is not clear in what way the current cut is to be aligned.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 17 on pg. 5 and in claim 14, line 15 of pg. 13
The term “align” in claim 1, line 1 of pg. 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “align” 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. It is not clear in what way the current cut is to be aligned.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 2, lines 2 on pg. 6 and in claim 14, line 1 of pg. 14
The term “fit” in claim 1, line 2 of pg. 3, is an unclear term which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if “fit” is being used to mean that the upper plug portion can be significantly smaller in cross-section than the current cut or can be only marginally smaller such that the upper plug portion is “fitted” within the current cut. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as though the upper plug portion must be smaller in cross-sectional area than the routing cavity of the corresponding plate.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 3 on pg. 6 and in claim 14, line 1 of pg. 14
The term “align” in claim 1, line 4 of pg. 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “align” 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. It is not clear in what way the current cut is to be aligned.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 5 on pg. 6 and in claim 14, line 4 of pg. 14
The term “fit” in claim 1, line 5 of pg. 3, is an unclear term which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if “fit” is being used to mean that the upper plug portion can be significantly smaller in cross-section than the current cut or can be only marginally smaller such that the upper plug portion is “fitted” within the current cut. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as though the upper plug portion must be smaller in cross-sectional area than the routing cavity of the corresponding plate.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 6 on pg. 6 and in claim 14, line 5 of pg. 14
In claim 1, line 12 of pg. 3, it is unclear in what way each said routing cavity is “align[ed]”. The routing cavities are not the same shape, do not have the have center, and are not together in a single structure.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 2, line 15 on pg. 6 and in claim 14, line 13 of pg. 14
In claim 1, line 14-15 on pg. 3, it is unclear what “exterior surface of said plurality of plates” means. There is no common exterior surface of the plurality of plates. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as though it said “exterior surface of a plate of said plurality of plates”.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 4, lines 5-6 on pg. 7
In claim 1, line 16 on pg. 3, it is unclear what “upper plug portion of said plurality of plugs” means. It is unclear if application means an upper portion of the collective plurality of plugs or the upper portion of each plug of the plurality of plugs.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 5, lines 8-9 on pg. 7
The term “smaller” in claim 1, line 16 of pg. 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smaller” 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. It is not clear in what way the plug is to be smaller: in mass, in volume, in perimeter, in surface area, etc.
In claims 6 and 15, it is unclear if “can match” requires the upper portion horizontal cross-section to match the router cavity horizontal cross-section. For examination purposes it does not.
The limitations of claim 7 consist of process steps in a product claim. It is unclear what structural limitations to the product is being claimed in the steps of claim 7. See MPEP 2114(II)
In claim 8, line 5 on pg. 8, it is unclear what is meant by “lower plug portion comprises a larger perimeter.” The lower plug portion is a three-dimensional object and only two dimensional surfaces have perimeters. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the surface at the extremity of the lower plug portion comprises a larger perimeter”.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 16, line 3 of pg. 15
In claims 10 and 17, applicant claims the process of making the multi-tiered pickup cavity. However, the multi-tiered pickup cavity is the material worked upon, and the process of making the multi-tiered pickup cavity is a product by process. It is unclear what structure of the cavity routing tool assembly is being claimed.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said mounting bracket" in line 2 of pg. 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Mounting bracket was introduced in claim 10 and claim 11 is not dependent on claim 10.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 18, line 11 of pg. 15.
The term “selectively interact” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “selectively” 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. It is not clear how a selective interaction differs from a normal interaction.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 14, line 17 of pg. 11
In claim 13, line 10 on pg. 9, it is not clear what structural limitation is evoked by the word “align”. What portion of the index system is to by aligned with what portion of the plug-plate sets and in what way they are aligned is not clear.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats in claim 14, line 17 of pg. 11
In claim 13, line 11 on pg. 9, it is not clear what “with one another” refers to. It could refer to the plurality of plates or the index system and the plug-plate sets.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats and in claim 14, line 18 of pg. 11.
The limitations of claim 13, line 14-17 on pg. 9 and Lines 1-2 on pg. 10 consist of steps when claim 13 is a product claim. It is unclear what structural limitations to the product is being claimed in the steps of claim 13.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats and in claim 14, line 3-9 of pg. 12
In claim 13, line 4 on pg. 10, it is unclear what structural limitations are meant by “align and secure”.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats and in claim 14, line 11 of pg. 12
Claim 13 recites the limitation "said plug portion of said second index key" in line 5 and 6 of pg. 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The second index key had not previously been defined as having a plug portion.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats and in claim 14, line 11-12 of pg. 12
In claim 13, line 7 on pg. 10, “having aligned” create indistinct language as it is unclear if the index key assembly is always configured to be removed from the workpiece or only after the top index plate is aligned with the plate of the first plug-plate set.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats and in claim 14, line 13 of pg. 12
Claim 13 recites the limitation "said routing cavity of said top index plate" in line 9 of pg. 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The top index plate had not previously been defined as having a routing cavity.
Likewise rejected, this issue repeats and in claim 14, line 15 of pg. 12
All claims dependent on rejected claims are rejected to due to their dependency.
Claims 1-18 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. It is unclear whether applicant is claiming the apparatus for routing, a method of using the apparatus for routing, or the product workpiece made by the apparatus for routing, The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ponce (US2008/0142119).
Re Claim 1, Ponce discloses a cavity routing tool assembly for aligning a plurality of plates with one another in a preconfigured manner using a plurality of plugs to cut a multi-tiered pickup cavity into a workpiece, wherein: said cavity routing tool assembly comprises two or more plug-plate sets (Ponce discloses three plug-plate sets [0020]), each comprising a plate (template 10, 11) and a plug (router guide 30, 32, 34, 36); said plate collectively across all said two or more plug-plate sets are referred to as said plurality of plates, and said plug are referred to as said plurality of plugs (language to how a structural element is referenced does not limit the claim due to lack of added structure); said plurality of plugs are configured to align and guide router cuts (“router guide 30 is removable from the template and can be changed to accommodate different size and shaped pockets that need to be routed” [0018]) to form said multi-tiered pickup cavity in said workpiece (MPEP2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”); each among said plurality of plates are configured to selectively align with portions of said plurality of plugs (“template has two elongated sides with a central cut-out area with a depression where a router guide 30 is installed” [0017]) and ensure said multi-tiered pickup cavity is correctly formed in said workpiece (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”); each among said plurality of plates comprises a plate body (“template is essentially a flat rectangular shape” [0017]), and a routing cavity (“template has two elongated sides with a central cut-out area” [0017]); each among said plurality of plugs comprises a lower plug portion (outer edge of router guide 30) and an upper plug portion (guide 33, 35, 37); said two or more plug-plate sets are referred to using a set integer comprising an identifier for each set, wherein a first plug-plate set comprises a first among said two or more plug-plate sets wherein said set integer equals one, and a last plug plate set comprises a last among said two or more plug-plate sets where said set integer is the highest value within said two or more plug-plate sets (language to how a structural element is referenced does not limit the claim due to lack of added structure); each among said two or more plug-plate sets are designed in relationship to one another (“template has two elongated sides with a central cut-out area with a depression where a router guide 30 is installed” [0017]); regarding said two or more plug-plate sets, a current set and a next set comprise plug plate sets having sequential counts of said set integer (language to how a structural element is referenced does not limit the claim due to lack of added structure); said two or more plug-plate sets each comprise said plate (template 10, 11) and said plug (router guide 30, 32, 34, 36); regarding said current set, said routing cavity of said plate is configured to selectively attach to a portion of said workpiece (removable nail 42) and align a current cut among said multi-tiered pickup cavity into said workpiece (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”), said plate is configured to be removed from said workpiece (“the nail(s) to be easily removed after the routing operation is complete” [0023]), and said upper plug portion of said plug of said current set is configured to align and fit into said current cut (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”); regarding the interaction of said current set with said next set, said lower plug portion of said plug in said current set is configured to align with and fit within said routing cavity of said plate of said next set (“the template can universally accept different router guides” [0021]); said two or more plug-plate sets are configured in the relationships described as said current set and said next set from said first plug-plate set to said last plug plate set (“a third template for hinges is not shown but the construction and the features are similar to the templates shown and described herein” [0020]); said current cut for said first plug-plate set comprise a cutting location in said workpiece (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”); said multi-tiered pickup cavity comprises the sum of each said current cut in said workpiece for each among said plurality of plates in said two or more plug-plate sets (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”); and said two or more plug-plate sets are configured to align each said routing cavity among said plurality of plates using said plurality of plugs (“template has two elongated sides with a central cut-out area with a depression where a router guide 30 is installed” [0017]); said upper plug portion of said plurality of plugs are smaller than said lower plug portion of said plurality of plugs (Fig. 2); one or more alignment markings are displayed in an exterior surface of said plurality of plates (marking locations 50); said set integer for said last plug plate set comprises three (“a third template” [0020]); said two or more plug-plate sets comprises said first plug-plate set, a second plug-plate set and a third plug-plate set (“a third template” [0020]); and said third plug-plate set comprises said last plug plate set (“a third template” [0020]).
Re Claim 2, Ponce discloses a cavity routing tool assembly for aligning a plurality of plates with one another in a preconfigured manner using a plurality of plugs to cut a multi-tiered pickup cavity into a workpiece, wherein: said cavity routing tool assembly comprises two or more plug-plate sets (Ponce discloses three plug-plate sets [0020]), each comprising a plate (template 10, 11) and a plug (router guide 30, 32, 34, 36); said plate collectively across all said two or more plug-plate sets are referred to as said plurality of plates, and said plug are referred to as said plurality of plugs (language to how a structural element is referenced does not limit the claim due to lack of added structure); said plurality of plugs are configured to align and guide router cuts (“router guide 30 is removable from the template and can be changed to accommodate different size and shaped pockets that need to be routed” [0018]) to form said multi-tiered pickup cavity in said workpiece (MPEP2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”); each among said plurality of plates are configured to selectively align with portions of said plurality of plugs (“template has two elongated sides with a central cut-out area with a depression where a router guide 30 is installed” [0017]) and ensure said multi-tiered pickup cavity is correctly formed in said workpiece (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”); each among said plurality of plates comprises a plate body (“template is essentially a flat rectangular shape” [0017]), and a routing cavity (“template has two elongated sides with a central cut-out area” [0017]); each among said plurality of plugs comprises a lower plug portion (outer edge of router guide 30) and an upper plug portion (guide 33, 35, 37); said two or more plug-plate sets are referred to using a set integer comprising an identifier for each set, wherein a first plug-plate set comprises a first among said two or more plug-plate sets wherein said set integer equals one, and a last plug plate set comprises a last among said two or more plug-plate sets where said set integer is the highest value within said two or more plug-plate sets (language to how a structural element is referenced does not limit the claim due to lack of added structure); each among said two or more plug-plate sets are designed in relationship to one another (“template has two elongated sides with a central cut-out area with a depression where a router guide 30 is installed” [0017]); regarding said two or more plug-plate sets, a current set and a next set comprise plug plate sets having sequential counts of said set integer (language to how a structural element is referenced does not limit the claim due to lack of added structure); said two or more plug-plate sets each comprise said plate (template 10, 11) and said plug (router guide 30, 32, 34, 36); regarding said current set, said routing cavity of said plate is configured to selectively attach to a portion of said workpiece (removable nail 42) and align a current cut among said multi-tiered pickup cavity into said workpiece (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”), said plate is configured to be removed from said workpiece (“the nail(s) to be easily removed after the routing operation is complete” [0023]), and said upper plug portion of said plug of said current set is configured to align and fit into said current cut (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”); regarding the interaction of said current set with said next set, said lower plug portion of said plug in said current set is configured to align with and fit within said routing cavity of said plate of said next set (“the template can universally accept different router guides” [0021]); said two or more plug-plate sets are configured in the relationships described as said current set and said next set from said first plug-plate set to said last plug plate set (“a third template for hinges is not shown but the construction and the features are similar to the templates shown and described herein” [0020]); said current cut for said first plug-plate set comprise a cutting location in said workpiece (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”); said multi-tiered pickup cavity comprises the sum of each said current cut in said workpiece for each among said plurality of plates in said two or more plug-plate sets (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”); and said two or more plug-plate sets are configured to align each said routing cavity among said plurality of plates using said plurality of plugs (“template has two elongated sides with a central cut-out area with a depression where a router guide 30 is installed” [0017]).
Re Claim 3, Ponce discloses the cavity routing tool assembly of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein: each among said plurality of plates comprises one or more alignment markings (marking locations 50); said one or more alignment markings comprises a first alignment marking (see Fig. 3 illustrated below) and a second alignment marking (see Fig. 3 illustrated below); and said first alignment marking and said second alignment marking are perpendicular (see Fig. 3 illustrated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
703
907
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Ponce, illustrated
Re Claim 4, Ponce discloses the cavity routing tool assembly of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), and further discloses that said one or more alignment markings are displayed in an exterior surface of said plurality of plates (see Fig. 3 illustrated above).
Re Claim 5, Ponce discloses the cavity routing tool assembly of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), and further discloses that said upper plug portion of said plurality of plugs are smaller than said lower plug portion of said plurality of plugs (see Fig. 2, illustrated below)
Re Claim 6, Ponce discloses the cavity routing tool assembly of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein: an upper portion horizontal cross-section of said upper plug portion of said plug (guide 31) can match a router cavity horizontal cross-section of said routing cavity of said plate (the horizontal cross-section of guide 31 matches the shape of the horizontal cross-section of the horizontal cross-section of the cavity of template 10)
Re Claim 7, Ponce discloses the cavity routing tool assembly of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein: said cavity routing tool assembly is configured to align with each said routing cavity of said plurality of plates using said plurality of plugs by: inserting a portion of said upper plug portion into a portion of said multi-tiered pickup cavity (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”), and inserting a portion of said lower plug portion into another among said plurality of plates (“template has two elongated sides with a central cut-out area with a depression where a router guide 30 is installed” [0017]).
Re Claim 8, Ponce discloses the cavity routing tool assembly of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein: for each among said two or more plug-plate sets, said lower plug portion comprises a larger perimeter than said upper plug portion of said plate (Fig. 2).
Re Claim 9, Ponce discloses the cavity routing tool assembly of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein: said set integer for said last plug plate set comprises three (“a third template” [0020]); said two or more plug-plate sets comprises said first plug-plate set, a second plug-plate set and a third plug-plate set (“a third template” [0020]); and said third plug-plate set comprises said last plug plate set (“a third template” [0020]).
Re Claim 10, Ponce discloses the cavity routing tool assembly of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above), wherein: said multi-tiered pickup cavity comprises a cumulative cavity by cuts made using said plate in said first plug-plate set, said second plug-plate set and said third plug-plate set (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”); and said plug of said third plug-plate set comprises a mounting bracket (threaded fasteners 32) for mounting a guitar pickup into said workpiece within said multi-tiered pickup cavity.
Re Claim 11, Ponce discloses the cavity routing tool assembly of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein: said plug of said last plug plate set comprises said mounting bracket (threaded fasteners 32) for said guitar pickup.
Re Claim 12, Ponce discloses the cavity routing tool assembly of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein: said workpiece comprises a guitar body of a guitar (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 13-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponce (US2008/0142119) in view of Hampton (WO9847676).
Re Claim 13, Ponce discloses the cavity routing tool assembly of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), but fails to disclose that said cavity routing tool assembly further comprises an index system; said index system comprises a top index plate, and an index key assembly having a first index key and a second index key; Said index system and said two or more plug-plate sets selectively interact to align said plurality of plates with one another; said plate of said first plug-plate set is also referred to as a bottom index plate of said index system; said index system is configured to align said top index plate with said bottom index plate through a pilot aperture in said workpiece by installing said first index key into said second index key through said pilot aperture, and aligning and securing said routing cavity of said top index plate with a plug portion of said first index key; regarding an interaction between said index system and said first plug-plate set, said plate of said first plug-plate set is configured to align and secure to said plug portion of said second index key by sliding said routing cavity of said plate around said plug portion of said second index key, having aligned said top index plate with said plate of said first plug-plate set, said index key assembly is configured to be removed from said workpiece, said routing cavity of said top index plate is configured to guide a top router cut in said workpiece, and said routing cavity of said plate of said first plug-plate set is configured to guide a bottom router cut in said workpiece; and remaining sets among said two or more plug-plate sets are configured to further cut said multi-tiered pickup cavity into said workpiece in relationship to one another.
Hampton discloses that said cavity routing tool assembly further comprises an index system (tooling fixture 21); said index system comprises a top index plate (combination of guide fingers 20 and spacers 22), and an index key assembly having a first index key (support bar 39) and a second index key (support bar 40); Said index system and said two or more plug-plate sets selectively interact to align said plurality of plates with one another (clamp plate 85 is aligned and connected to support bar 40); said plate of said first plug-plate set is also referred to as a bottom index plate (clamp plate 85) of said index system (language to how a structural element is referenced does not limit the claim due to lack of added structure); said index system is configured to align said top index plate with said bottom index plate (Fig. 7, top index plate is aligned with bottom index plate via threaded fasteners and support bars) through a pilot aperture in said workpiece (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”) by installing said first index key into said second index key (“pair of aluminum support bars 39 and 40 which are securely joined together by threaded fasteners” Pgs. 8, Line 34 – Pg. 9, Line 1) through said pilot aperture (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”), and aligning and securing said routing cavity (exterior edge of combination of guide fingers 20 and spacers 22) of said top index plate with a plug portion of said first index key (top plate is secured to index key via screw 64 and pins 71 and 72); regarding an interaction between said index system and said first plug-plate set, said plate of said first plug-plate set is configured to align and secure to said plug portion of said second index key (bottom index plate is aligned and secured via threaded fastener 88) by sliding said routing cavity of said plate (exterior edge of plate 85) around said plug portion of said second index key, having aligned said top index plate with said plate of said first plug-plate set, said index key assembly is configured to be removed from said workpiece (“Turning the handle 90 in a counterclock-wise direction loosens the fit” allowing assembly to be removed Pg. 11, Lines 8-9), said routing cavity of said top index plate is configured (“The router simply traces those guide fingers which extend over the workpieces.” Pg. 12, lines 20-21) to guide a top router cut in said workpiece, and said routing cavity of said plate of said first plug-plate set is configured (Bottom Plate 85 has an edge along which one could trace a router cut) to guide a bottom router cut in said workpiece (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”); and remaining sets among said two or more plug-plate sets are configured to further cut said multi-tiered pickup cavity into said workpiece in relationship to one another (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”).
Ponce contained a routing assembly which differed from the claimed routing assembly by exclusion of the index system. However, the index system as claimed was known in Hampton “for guiding a power tool” (Pg. 4, Line 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the index system of Hampton for a dovetail joint the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Re Claim 14, Ponce discloses a cavity routing tool assembly for aligning a plurality of plates with one another in a preconfigured manner using a plurality of plugs to cut a multi-tiered pickup cavity into a workpiece, wherein: said cavity routing tool assembly comprises two or more plug-plate sets (Ponce discloses three plug-plate sets [0020]), each comprising a plate (template 10, 11) and a plug (router guide 30, 32, 34, 36); said plate collectively across all said two or more plug-plate sets are referred to as said plurality of plates, and said plug are referred to as said plurality of plugs (language to how a structural element is referenced does not limit the claim due to lack of added structure); said plurality of plugs are configured to align and guide router cuts (“router guide 30 is removable from the template and can be changed to accommodate different size and shaped pockets that need to be routed” [0018]) to form said multi-tiered pickup cavity in said workpiece (MPEP2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”); each among said plurality of plates are configured to selectively align with portions of said plurality of plugs (“template has two elongated sides with a central cut-out area with a depression where a router guide 30 is installed” [0017]) and ensure said multi-tiered pickup cavity is correctly formed in said workpiece (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”); each among said plurality of plates comprises a plate body (“template is essentially a flat rectangular shape” [0017]), and a routing cavity (“template has two elongated sides with a central cut-out area” [0017]); each among said plurality of plugs comprises a lower plug portion (outer edge of router guide 30) and an upper plug portion (guide 33, 35, 37); said two or more plug-plate sets are referred to using a set integer comprising an identifier for each set, wherein a first plug-plate set comprises a first among said two or more plug-plate sets wherein said set integer equals one, and a last plug plate set comprises a last among said two or more plug-plate sets where said set integer is the highest value within said two or more plug-plate sets (language to how a structural element is referenced does not limit the claim due to lack of added structure); each among said two or more plug-plate sets are designed in relationship to one another (“template has two elongated sides with a central cut-out area with a depression where a router guide 30 is installed” [0017]); regarding said two or more plug-plate sets, a current set and a next set comprise plug plate sets having sequential counts of said set integer (language to how a structural element is referenced does not limit the claim due to lack of added structure); said two or more plug-plate sets each comprise said plate (template 10, 11) and said plug (router guide 30, 32, 34, 36); regarding said current set, said routing cavity of said plate is configured to selectively attach to a portion of said workpiece (removable nail 42) and align a current cut among said multi-tiered pickup cavity into said workpiece (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”), said plate is configured to be removed from said workpiece (“the nail(s) to be easily removed after the routing operation is complete” [0023]), and said upper plug portion of said plug of said current set is configured to align and fit into said current cut (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”); regarding the interaction of said current set with said next set, said lower plug portion of said plug in said current set is configured to align with and fit within said routing cavity of said plate of said next set (“the template can universally accept different router guides” [0021]); said two or more plug-plate sets are configured in the relationships described as said current set and said next set from said first plug-plate set to said last plug plate set (“a third template for hinges is not shown but the construction and the features are similar to the templates shown and described herein” [0020]); said current cut for said first plug-plate set comprise a cutting location in said workpiece (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”); said multi-tiered pickup cavity comprises the sum of each said current cut in said workpiece for each among said plurality of plates in said two or more plug-plate sets (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”); and said two or more plug-plate sets are configured to align each said routing cavity among said plurality of plates using said plurality of plugs (“template has two elongated sides with a central cut-out area with a depression where a router guide 30 is installed” [0017]).
Ponce fails to disclose said cavity routing tool assembly comprises an index system; said index system comprises a top index plate, and an index key assembly having a first index key and a second index key; Said index system and said two or more plug-plate sets selectively interact to align said plurality of plates with one another; said plate of a first plug-plate set is also referred to as a bottom index plate of said index system; said index system is configured to align said top index plate with said bottom index plate through a pilot aperture in said workpiece by installing said first index key into said second index key through said pilot aperture, and aligning and securing said routing cavity of said top index plate with a plug portion of said first index key; regarding an interaction between said index system and said first plug-plate set, said plate of said first plug-plate set is configured to align and secure to said plug portion of said second index key by sliding said routing cavity of said plate around said plug portion of said second index key, having aligned said top index plate with said plate of said first plug-plate set, said index key assembly is configured to be removed from said workpiece, said routing cavity of said top index plate is configured to guide a top router cut in said workpiece, and said routing cavity of said plate of said first plug-plate set is configured to guide a bottom router cut in said workpiece;
Hampton discloses that said cavity routing tool assembly further comprises an index system (tooling fixture 21); said index system comprises a top index plate (combination of guide fingers 20 and spacers 22), and an index key assembly having a first index key (support bar 39) and a second index key (support bar 40); Said index system and said two or more plug-plate sets selectively interact to align said plurality of plates with one another (clamp plate 85 is aligned and connected to support bar 40); said plate of said first plug-plate set is also referred to as a bottom index plate (clamp plate 85) of said index system (language to how a structural element is referenced does not limit the claim due to lack of added structure); said index system is configured to align said top index plate with said bottom index plate (Fig. 7, top index plate is aligned with bottom index plate via threaded fasteners and support bars) through a pilot aperture in said workpiece (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”) by installing said first index key into said second index key (“pair of aluminum support bars 39 and 40 which are securely joined together by threaded fasteners” Pgs. 8, Line 34 – Pg. 9, Line 1) through said pilot aperture (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”), and aligning and securing said routing cavity (exterior edge of combination of guide fingers 20 and spacers 22) of said top index plate with a plug portion of said first index key (top plate is secured to index key via screw 64 and pins 71 and 72); regarding an interaction between said index system and said first plug-plate set, said plate of said first plug-plate set is configured to align and secure to said plug portion of said second index key (bottom index plate is aligned and secured via threaded fastener 88) by sliding said routing cavity of said plate (exterior edge of plate 85) around said plug portion of said second index key, having aligned said top index plate with said plate of said first plug-plate set, said index key assembly is configured to be removed from said workpiece (“Turning the handle 90 in a counterclock-wise direction loosens the fit” allowing assembly to be removed Pg. 11, Lines 8-9), said routing cavity of said top index plate is configured (“The router simply traces those guide fingers which extend over the workpieces.” Pg. 12, lines 20-21) to guide a top router cut in said workpiece, and said routing cavity of said plate of said first plug-plate set is configured (Bottom Plate 85 has an edge along which one could trace a router cut) to guide a bottom router cut in said workpiece (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”).
Ponce contained a routing assembly which differed from the claimed routing assembly by exclusion of the index system. However, the index system as claimed was known in Hampton “for guiding a power tool” (Pg. 4, Line 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the index system of Hampton for dovetail joints and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Re Claim 15, Ponce, in view of Hampton, discloses the cavity routing tool assembly of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), and Ponce further discloses that an upper portion horizontal cross-section of said upper plug (guide 31) portion of said plug can match a router cavity horizontal cross-section of said routing cavity of said plate (the horizontal cross-section of guide 31 matches the shape of the horizontal cross-section of the horizontal cross-section of the cavity of template 10).
Re Claim 16, Ponce, in view of Hampton, discloses the cavity routing tool assembly of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), and Ponce further discloses that for each among said two or more plug-plate sets, said lower plug portion comprises a larger perimeter than said upper plug portion of said plate (Fig. 2).
Re Claim 17, Ponce, in view of Hampton, discloses the cavity routing tool assembly of claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above), wherein: said multi-tiered pickup cavity comprises a cumulative cavity by cuts made using said plate in said first plug-plate set, a second plug-plate set and a third plug-plate set (MPEP 2115, “Article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”); and said plug of said third plug-plate set comprises a mounting bracket (threaded fasteners 32) for mounting a guitar pickup int said workpiece within said multi-tiered pickup cavity
Re Claim 18, Ponce, in view of Hampton, discloses the cavity routing tool assembly of claim 14, and ponce further discloses that said plug of said last plug plate set comprises said mounting bracket (threaded fasteners 32) for said guitar pickup.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bauer (US 2,832,154) teaches a plug with upper and lower portions.
Boult (US 100,848) teaches a plate with a routing cavity being used to guide router cuts
Galajda (US 4,274,459) teaches alignment markings
Klein (US5,235,891) teaches a multi-tiered pickup cavity in a guitar
Krohmer et. al. (US 9,802,333), hereinafter referred to as “Krohmer”, teaches using multiple router templates to form an integral cut in a workpiece.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/WILLIAM DOUGLAS DICKSTEIN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725