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 .
Response to Amendment
Upon consideration of the replacement drawings, the previous objection thereto is hereby withdrawn.
Upon consideration of the amended claims, all previous rejections thereto under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as well as the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of the specified Claim 1 limitations, are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks that the amendments to the claims have rendered the rejection of Claim 1 under 3 U.S.C. 10(a)(1) for being anticipated by Longfellow (US 8,113,098) to be moot. While this is true for the interpretation of Longfellow presented in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/10/2026, Examiner notes that an alternative interpretation, discussed in further detail below, can still be used to anticipate the amended Claim 1. In the presented argument, the Applicant is relying upon the limitations “a main saw…configured to cut the shingle from the wood block along a backside face of the shingle” and “a first camera oriented to take an image of the front face of the shingle exposed on the wood block before the shingle is sawed off from the wood block by the main saw” to distinguish the claimed invention from the disclosure of Longfellow. Applicant states that in Longfellow, the front face 11 and opposing backside face of blank 10A have already been cut from a wood block prior to being processed by butt saw 200, and thus the butt saw 200 is not used to “cut the shingle from the wood block along a backside face of the shingle” as required by the amended Claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the claim does not define the terms “wood block”, “front face”, or “backside face” in such a way as to specify the form of the wood block (e.g. as an elongated log) or to clarify which of the six faces of the shingle is the front/backside face; as such, the blank 10A and/or billet 10B of Longfellow can be interpreted as the wood block from which shingle 10C is sawed, and any of planar faces 11, sides 16, and butt 12/top 14 of the shingle can be interpreted as the front/backside faces. Further, “cut…along a backside face of the shingle” can be interpreted broadly to include any cut that intersects with the backside face of the shingle, including trimming the butt end or the sides.
Claim 1 therefore remains rejected; however, the amendments to the claims have necessitated a new interpretation of Longfellow, resulting in Claim 2 no longer being anticipated thereby. After further search and consideration, Claim 2 is considered to contain allowable subject matter.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “said saw” should be amended to “said main saw” to maintain consistency with the amended claim language of Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Longfellow (US 8,113,098, provided by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 1, Longfellow discloses (Figures 3A-C, 8, and 12) system for sawing a shingle from a wood block (automated shingle milling system 1000), said system comprising: a shingle sawing machine (gang rip saw station 600) having a carriage (conveyor belt 330) configured to hold the wood block (billet 10B) exposing a front face (front planar face 11) of the shingle (clearly seen in Figure 3A), and a main saw (gang rip saw 610) mounted along said carriage (col. 8 lns 7-9) and configured to cut the shingle (shingle 10C) from the wood block along a backside face (backside planar face 11) of the shingle opposite the front face of the shingle (col. 8 lns 17-30: gang rip saw 610 trims the sides of billet 10B, i.e. the wood block, to yield single 10C; as both cuts 20 and 21 cut through the entire thickness of billet 10B along the entire length of planar faces 11, it is considered to cut the shingle from the wood block along the backside face of the shingle); a machine vision system (visual imaging system 500) including: a computer (CPU 520); and a first camera (third camera 560) oriented to take an image of the front face of the shingle exposed on the wood block before the shingle is sawed off from the wood block by the main saw (col. 8 lns 9-16); and a shingle picker mounted at a proximity of said main saw, on a common structure with said main saw, said shingle picker being controlled by said machine vision system for guiding said picker to grab the shingle against said main saw in movement before said shingle is sawed off said wood block by said main saw (col. 8 lns 24-30, 35-38: billet 10B is grabbed by the dip chain against the gang rip saw blades 612A-D in movement as shingle 10C is sawed therefrom; col. 5 lns 38-41: all machine control devices are connected to CPU 520, i.e. the dip chain is controlled by CPU 520 of the machine vision system).
Regarding Claim 16, Longfellow discloses (Figures 2 and 3A-C) an edging saw (butt-saw 200) configured to cut the wood block (billet 10B) along an edging line (butt 12) of the shingle (shingle 10C) before sawing off the shingle from the wood block with the main saw (gang rip saw 610; col. 4 lns 14-16, 22-24).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art fails to teach, alone or in combination, a system for sawing a shingle from a wood block comprising a main saw configured to cur the shingle from the wood block along a backside face opposite a front face of the shingle, a first camera oriented to take an image of the front face of the shingle before the shingle is sawed off from the wood block, a shingle picker being controlled to grab the shingle against said main saw in movement before said shingle is sawed off said wood block by said main saw, and a second camera mounted at a proximity of said saw, said shingle picker being configured to rotate said shingle to an orientation where the backside face of said shingle is visible by said second camera. In US 8,113,098 to Longfellow, which is considered to be the most relevant prior art, the dip chain carrying the billet 10B through gang rip saw 610, i.e. the shingle picker, is not configured to rotate the shingle 10C such that the backside planar face 11 thereof is visible by a camera. One would not be motivated to modify it to do this, as this function has already been performed by belts 340 prior to the billet 10B being placed on conveyor belt 330, i.e. the carriage, to be conveyed to the gang rip saw station 600, in order to determine the alignment of the blades relative to the billet, so it does not need to be performed again. Claim 2 is therefore considered to be allowable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA A GUTHRIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5042. The examiner can normally be reached M/Tu/Th, 10-6 ET.
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.
/TERESA A GUTHRIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights