Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed 5/05/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has cancelled claims 18-19 drawn to Group II.
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 1-3, 6, 8-10, 12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zukley (US 20030079586).
Regarding claim 1, Zukley discloses a brick cleaning system comprising:
a frame (carrier 60 and sorting table 32 [0029] Fig 2 shown below);
a first saw comprising a first motor and a first saw blade driven by the first motor, the first saw being connected to the frame (first saw defined as the leftmost saw of second cutting apparatus 72, as shown in Fig 5 below, which has a corresponding first motor 216 and a saw blade, the blade being driven by the motor, 72 being connected to the frame 60 via rail 206 [0053]);
a second saw comprising a second motor and a second saw blade driven by the second motor, the second saw being connected to the frame (second saw defined as the rightmost saw of second cutting apparatus 72, as shown in Fig 5 below, which has a corresponding second motor 216 and a saw blade, the blade being driven by the motor, 72 being connected to the frame 60 via rail 206 [0053]); and
a brick cart connected to the frame, the brick cart being configured to hold a brick, the brick cart selectively translating from a first position to a second position relative to the frame for feeding the brick in a space between the first and second saw blades such that the first and second saw blades remove mortar from opposite sides of the brick, and the brick cart selectively translating from the second position to the first position for removing the brick from the space between the first and second saw blades (brick cart defined as clamping device 58 and orientation assembly 204, which as seen in Fig 5 are connected to frame 60, first position defined as the position of fig 5 at station 62 and second position defined as the position when shaft 186 is translated downward via piston 225 and opposing blades 72 are removing mortar from the brick, station 62 uses two opposing saw blades to remove mortar from opposite sides of the brick, after the blades remove mortar in the second position the blades are translated back upwards to the position of fig 5: the initial position and finally the brick is removed from the cart in the position of Fig 7 shown below, [0030], [0048], [0050], [0052], [0055]).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
512
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
660
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Zukley discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the first saw blade is selectively movable relative to the frame to change a distance between the first saw blade and the second saw blade ([0053] explains that arms 214 that hold the saw blades extend through a channel in rail 206 and are attached to endless gears for independently moving along the longitudinal axis of the rail 206, and so the first saw blade is selectively movable relative to the frame to change a distance between the first and second blades).
Regarding claim 3, Zukley discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the second saw blade is selectively movable relative to the frame to change the distance between the first saw blade and the second saw blade ([0053] explains that arms 214 that hold the saw blades extend through a channel in rail 206 and are attached to endless gears for independently moving along the longitudinal axis of the rail 206, and so the second saw blade is selectively movable relative to the frame to change a distance between the first and second blades).
Regarding claim 6, Zukley discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the first saw is a first circular saw (as seen in Fig 5 above, the saws are circular saws);
the first saw blade is a first circular saw blade (as seen in Fig 5 above, the saw blades are circular saw blades);
the second saw is a second circular saw (as seen in Fig 5 above, the saws are circular saws);
the second saw blade is a second circular saw blade (as seen in Fig 5 above, the saw blades are circular saw blades); and
the first and second circular saw blades rotate about a common rotation axis (as seen in Fig 5 above, the saw blades rotate about a common rotation axis that is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the rail 206).
Regarding claim 8, Zukley discloses the limitations of claim 6, as described above, and further discloses the brick cart is vertically lower than the common rotation axis of the first and second circular saw blades to feed the brick below the common rotation axis (the brick cart as defined above includes clamping device 58 which is vertically lower than the common rotation axis of the first and second circular saw blades, see Fig 5 above).
Regarding claim 9, Zukley discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the first and second saw blades are disposed between the first and second motors (as shown by Fig 5 above, the saw blades are disposed between the first and second motors 216).
Regarding claim 10, Zukley discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses an actuator connected to the frame, the actuator being operatively connected to the brick cart for selectively translating the cart relative to the frame (actuator defined as piston 225 which vertically translates the brick cart relative to the frame via moving the third shaft 186 vertically [0055] Fig 5).
Regarding claim 12, Zukley discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the brick cart includes a vise for holding the brick (the brick cart as defined above includes clamping device 58 which as shown in Fig 5 above is a vise clamp).
Regarding claim 14, Zukley discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a hopper connected to the frame below the first saw, the second saw, and the brick cart for receiving mortar removed from the brick (hopper defined as pallet 12 which is connected to the frame 60 via the floor and is below the first and second saws and the brick cart and is capable of receiving mortar removed from the brick [0030] Fig 7).
Regarding claim 15, Zukley discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the frame comprises a sloped brick storage area for storing bricks (sorting table 32 which is defined as a portion of the frame has a downward slope and is capable of storing bricks [0034] Fig 2).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zukley (US 20030079586) in view of Jun (CN 111872774).
Regarding claim 4, Zukley discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above. Zukley further discloses in [0053] that arms 214, defined as motor mounts, which are connected to each respective motor 216 as seen above in Fig 5, that support saws 72, extend through a longitudinal channel in the bottom surface of rail 206 and are attached to endless gears for independently moving along the longitudinal axis. However, Zukley fails to disclose a leadscrew rotationally connected to the frame, the leadscrew having a first portion having a first thread handedness and a second portion having a second thread handedness, the first thread handedness being opposite the second thread handedness;
the first motor mount engaging the first portion of the leadscrew; and
the second motor mount engaging the second portion of the leadscrew;
wherein:
turning the leadscrew in a first direction moves the first motor mount and the second motor mount toward each other thereby moving the first saw and the second saw toward each other and reducing the distance between the first saw blade and the second saw blade; and
turning the leadscrew in a second direction opposite the first direction moves the first motor mount and the second motor mount away from each other thereby moving the first saw and the second saw away from each other and increasing the distance between the first saw blade and the second saw blade.
Jun is also concerned with machining and teaches a leadscrew, the leadscrew having a first portion having a first thread handedness and a second portion having a second thread handedness, the first thread handedness being opposite the second thread handedness (leadscrew defined as screw 3 which has opposite thread directions at the left and right ends of the screw which are each connected to a moving block 4 by threaded fitting and such the positions of the blocks 4 are symmetrical and by rotating 3 the blocks are driven to move synchronously, pg 4 final paragraph, Fig 2 shown below, and so turning the leadscrew in a first direction would move the blocks towards each other and turning the leadscrew in a second direction opposite the first direction would move the blocks away from each other).
PNG
media_image4.png
317
475
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the leadscrew positioning assembly disclosed by Jun for the endless gear positioning assembly used in Zukley. Different positioning and alignment assemblies are known to be beneficial in different scenarios, leading to the predictable result of a functioning saw positioning assembly.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zukley (US 20030079586) in view of Chen (CN 111730768).
Regarding claim 5, Zukley discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above. However, Zukley fails to disclose a laser assembly movably connected to the frame and being movable together with the first saw blade, the laser assembly being configured to project a line aligned with the first saw blade for aligning the brick in the brick cart (examiner notes that while Zukley fails to disclose a laser alignment assembly, it does disclose use of an imaging device 61 for alignment purposes [0029]-[0030]).
Chen is also concerned with brick cleaning and teaches a laser assembly movably connected to the saw and being movable together with the saw blade, the laser assembly being configured to project a line aligned with the saw blade for aligning the brick (laser assembly defined as laser line meter that is installed on top of the cutting machine body which emits a laser line aligned with the cutting blade and projected onto the brick body for guidance, pg 2 [8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the laser guidance assembly of Chen to the brick cleaning system of Zukley in order to provide the system with a redundant means of aligning the saw blade with the portion of the brick to be removed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zukley (US 20030079586) in view of Wu (US 2004/0049927).
Regarding claim 7, Zukley discloses the limitations of claim 6, as described above. However, Zukley fails to disclose a blade guard partially covering the first and second circular saw blades, the blade guard pivoting as the brick cart translates to allow the brick to be received in the space between the first and second circular saw blades.
Wu is also concerned with circular saws and teaches a blade guard partially covering the saw blade, the blade guard pivotable (blade guard defined as movable guard 10 which shields the cutting teeth of the saw blade [0023] Fig 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
306
321
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the pivoting blade guard of Wu to each blade of the brick cleaning system of Zukley in order to provide the system with an additional safety feature in the event that an operator needs to be in proximity with the saw blades. In this configuration the blade guards would be positioned such that when the brick cart, assembly 204, translates to cut the brick, the guards catch on the brick and pivot as the saw blades translate downwards allowing the brick to be received in the space between the saw blades.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zukley (US 20030079586) in view of Reisenweber (DE 102012107735)
Regarding claim 11, Zukley discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above. However, Zukley fails to disclose the actuator is a rack and pinion assembly.
Reisenweber is also concerned with brick cutting systems and teaches the actuator is a rack and pinion assembly (travel movement V2 of the sawing device can be performed by a motor and a rack drive, more commonly known as a rack and pinion drive [0079] Fig 2).
PNG
media_image6.png
760
482
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the rack and pinion actuator disclosed by Reisenweber for the piston used in Zukley for the known and predictable result of a functioning brick cart translating actuator.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zukley (US 20030079586) in view of Price (US 2901868)
Regarding claim 13, Zukley discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Zukley fails to disclose a grinder connected to the frame.
Price is also concerned with brick cleaning systems and teaches a grinder connected to the frame (grinders 20 clean off any material such as mortar which may be deposited on the used bricks to be cleaned, col 1 lines 14-20 and col 2 lines 15-20 Figs 1-2).
PNG
media_image7.png
479
424
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the grinder of Price to the brick cleaning system of Zukley in order to provide the system with a redundant means of cleaning mortar from a used brick face (Price: col 1 lines 14-20).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zukley (US 20030079586) in view of Crocetti (US 4779603).
Regarding claim 16, Zukley discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Zukley fails to disclose a saw housing connected to the frame, the saw housing housing the first saw and the second saw therein, the saw housing defining a cart aperture in a side thereof, the brick cart selectively translating in and out of the housing via the cart aperture.
Crocetti is also concerned with brick saws and teaches a saw housing, the saw housing housing the saw, the saw housing defining an aperture in a side thereof (saw housing defined as container 20, including vertical shields 64 and 66 which houses saw 24 and defines an aperture defined as the open face in which the saw blades can be seen in Fig 1 shown below, col 2 lines 54-69 and col 3 lines 32-42).
PNG
media_image8.png
662
483
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a saw housing like that of Crocetti to the brick cleaning system of Zukley in order to provide the system with a means of preventing escape of dust or any type material being cut for safety and worksite atmosphere clarity purposes (Crocetti: col 3 lines 32-42).
Regarding claim 17, Zukley, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 16, as described above. However, Zukley, as modified, fails to disclose a dust collection system fluidly communicating with an interior of the saw housing via a dust collection aperture defined in the housing.
Crocetti is also concerned with dust collection systems and teaches a dust collection system fluidly communicating with an interior of the saw housing via a dust collection aperture defined in the housing (dust collection system defined as the components that supply and pump the water and the water conduit 48 and spray nozzles 54 which spray water in order to collect dust in the immediate cutting atmosphere to by weighing it down with water, the dust collection system fluidly communicates with an interior of the saw housing, as defined above, via a dust collection aperture in the housing defined as hole 57, col 3 lines 1-21 Fig 2 shown below).
PNG
media_image9.png
604
463
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the dust collection system of Crocetti to the brick cleaning system of Zukley in order to provide the system with a redundant means of preventing dust from escaping into the work site atmosphere (Crocetti: col 1-2 lines 53-17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/J.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights