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 Objections Claim s 1 , 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 2 “moving on a ground or on a sea” is not proper. Claim line 3 should be amended from “and configured to cut a structure body to be cut;” to -- and configured to cut a structure body; Claim 1, line 4 “moving on a ground or on a sea” is not proper. Claim 1, line 5 “and configured to send out the structure body” should be amended to -- and configured to convey the structure body-- or something similar. Claim 1, line 9 “the feeder system sends out the structure body” should be amended to – the feeder system conveys the structure body—or something similar. Claim 1, lines 10 recites “comes close to”. Does the Applicant mean –comes closer to-- or –moves closer to--? Claim 1, line 13 “sent out from” should be --conveyed from-- or something similar. Claim 10, line 3 and 4 “moving on a ground or on a sea” is not proper. Claim 11, line 2 “moving on a ground or on a sea” is not proper. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 5 , 6 , and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites a “structure body cutting system” and further introduces a “trailer”, “a loading platform” and an “object to be conveyed”. However, it is unclear from the claim language which is these elements are positively recited as part of the claimed cutting system and which constitute environment or intended use. In particular, the claim recites “ a loading platform on which an object to be conveyed is mounted”, but does not clearly indicate whether the “object to be conveyed” forms part of the claimed system of merely represents a workpiece acted upon by the system. The claim further recites relationships involving the loading platform and tightening device without clearly defining the structural boundaries of the claimed invention. Accordingly, the claim lacks clarify as to the scope of the invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised for the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. Claim 6 recites, “a third support mechanism … and a third width aligning mechanism .. third moveable members ”. However, a first and second support and width aligning mechanism haven’t been set forth. It isn’t clear if the Applicant intended to have claim 6 depend from claim 2 rather than claim 1, or if “third” is just nomenclature to define the mechanisms. Claim 8 recites a “structure body cutting system” and further introduces a “trailer”, “a loading platform” and an “object to be conveyed”. However, it is unclear from the claim language which is these elements are positively recited as part of the claimed cutting system and which constitute environment or intended use. In particular, the claim recites “a loading platform on which an object to be conveyed is mounted”, but does not clearly indicate whether the “object to be conveyed” forms part of the claimed system of merely represents a workpiece acted upon by the system. Accordingly, the scope of the claimed system is unclear. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Claim 8 also recites, “and the loading platform is provided with a second tightening device”. However, the claims do not previously introduce or otherwise set forth a “ first tightening device ” . Accordingly, the term “second tightening device” lacks proper antecedent basis and renders the scope of the claim unclear, as it is uncertain what structure distinguishes the claimed “second” tightening device from any other tightening device. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. 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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Tokiwa (JPH1034434) In regards to claims 1, Tokiwa discloses a structure body cutting system comprising: a cutter system (1) mounted on a first moving body (3) moving on a ground or on a sea, and configured to cut a structure body (e.g. W) to be cut; and a feeder system (turntable 45/ drive motor 4) mounted on a second moving body (main body 37) moving on the ground or on the sea independently from the first moving body (3; the feeder system is not attached to the moving body 3) , and configured to send out the structure body (e.g. W) to the cutter system, wherein the structure body (e.g. W) is placed so as to straddle between the cutter system and the feeder system (the structure body is not part of the claimed invention) , the feeder system sends out the structure body to the cutter system as the second moving body comes close to the first moving body, and the cutter system cuts the structure body into a plurality of cut segments by cutting the structure body sent out from the feeder system (via the bandsaw 7) . In regards to claims 10, Tokiwa discloses structure body cutting method comprising: positioning a feeder system (33) mounted on a second moving body (37) moving on a ground or on a sea independently from a first moving body (5) moving on the ground or on the sea ( the feeder system is not attached to the first moving body 3) , and configured to send out a structure body (W) to a cutter system (1) mounted on the first moving body (5) , and configured to cut the structure body to be cut; placing the structure body so as to straddle between the cutter system and the feeder system (fig. 1) ; sending out, by the feeder system, the structure body to the cutter system as the second moving body moves toward the first moving body; and cutting, by the cutter system, the structure body into a plurality of cut segments by cutting the structure body sent out from the feeder system (via the bandsaw) . 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 s 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 03 as being unpatentable over Tokiwa (JPH1034434) in view of Hedgpeth (U.S. Patent 2,274,923). In regards to claims 2, the modified device of Tokiwa discloses wherein the cutter system includes: a first support mechanism ( table 23 ) configured to support the structure body sent out from the feeder system; a cutter ( bandsaw 7 ) configured to cut the structure body supported by the first support mechanism ( table 23 ) ; a second support mechanism provided to be movable up and down in an up-down direction at a position opposed to the first support mechanism with the cutter (bandsaw 7) interposed therebetween, and configured to support the cut segment (e.g. W) cut by the cutter (7) ; and an alignment member configured to align a position of the structure body with respect to the cutter as an end surface of the structure body along a feeding direction in which the structure body is sent out is brought into contact with the alignment member . Tokiwa discloses a cutter system with a including a first support mechanism (table 23) configured to support a structure body delivered from a feeder system and a cutter (bandsaw 7) configured to cut the structure body supported by the first support mechanism. However, Tokiwa but does not disclose the highlighted recitations concerning (1) a second support mechanism movable in an up-down direction at a position opposed to the first support mechanism with the cutter interposed in between; and (2) an alignment member as claimed. Hedgpeth discloses a band saw system including a first support mechanism (table 50) and a second support mechanism (tiltable table 32) configured to support a workpiece. The tiltable table is positioned relative to the blade such that it is disposed on a side of the cutter opposite the primary support surface, thereby corresponding to a second support mechanism “at a position opposed to the first support mechanism with the cutter interposed therebetween.” Further, the tiltable table is movable relative to the blade to adjust the support position of the workpiece, thereby reading on the claimed up-down movable support. Hedgpeth further discloses an alignment member (work fence 49) configured to guide and align the workpiece relative to the blade , which corresponds to aligning a position of the structure body with respect to the cutter as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Tokiwa to include the second support mechanism and alignment mechanism of Hedgpeth in order to improve cutting accuracy and enable angled or controlled positioning of the workpiece during cutting. In regards to claims 9, the modified device of Tokiwa discloses wherein the cutter is a band saw machine (7) in which a saw blade housing (19) including a band saw blade tightly stretched between a driving wheel (9) and a driven wheel (11) is configured to be rotatable in an up-down direction (vertically) around a hinge shaft provided parallel to a rotation axis of the driving wheel, or a hacksaw machine in which a saw blade housing including a linear hacksaw blade that reciprocates along a longitudinal direction is configured to be rotatable in the up-down direction around a hinge shaft provided parallel to a direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction of the hacksaw blade. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 03 as being unpatentable over Tokiwa (JPH1034434) in view of Hedgpeth (U.S. Patent 2,274,923) and in further view of Shoffner (U.S. Patent 10,343,228). In regards to claim 3, the modified device of Tokiwa discloses a structure body cutting system including a cutter system configured to cut a structure body. However, Tokiwa does not disclose the specific alignment member and width aligning mechanisms as claimed and therefore does not disclose the limitations of claim 3, that state “ wherein the cutter system further includes: a first width aligning mechanism configured to fix the structure body between the alignment member and a first movable member as the first movable member provided at a position opposed to the alignment member in a lateral direction intersecting with the feeding direction moves along the lateral direction; and a second width aligning mechanism configure to fix the structure body between a pair of second movable members provided at positions opposed to each other in the lateral direction as the pair of second movable members move along the lateral direction so as to be close to each other. ” Shoffner discloses a bandsaw attachment including a workpiece support structure having a backstop arrangement (e.g. vertical plates 7) configured to align a workpiece relative to a bandsaw blade, thereby corresponding to the claimed alignment member configured to align a position of the structure body with respect to the cutter. Shoffner further discloses movable guides (8,9) arranged on the workpiece support and configured to move laterally relive to the workpiece and toward the backstop arrangement. The workpiece is thereby positioned and secured between the backstop arrangement and the movable guide, corresponding to the claimed first width aligning mechanism configured to fix the structure body between the alignment member and a first movable member. Shoffner further discloses multiple movable guides arranged on the support structure and adjustable relative to each other such that the workpiece can be engaged from opposing sides, thereby corresponding to the claimed second width aligning mechanism provided at positions opposed to each other and movable toward each other to fix the structure body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the alignment and workpiece securing structures of Shoffner in order to improve positioning accuracy and stability of the structure body during cutting operations. Thereby the modified device of Tokiwa discloses wherein the cutter system further includes: a first width aligning mechanism ( e.g. channel 9 and knob 8 of Shoffner) configured to fix the structure body between the alignment member (e.g. one of the two plates 7 Shoffner) and a first movable member ( e.g. the other of the two plates 7 of Shoffner ) as the first movable member provided at a position opposed to the alignment member in a lateral direction intersecting with the feeding direction moves along the lateral direction; and a second width aligning mechanism ( handle 13 and locking hole 15) configure to fix the structure body between a pair of second movable members ( rotating table 2 and stationary base 1; Shoffner ) provided at positions opposed to each other in the lateral direction as the pair of second movable members move along the lateral direction so as to be close to each other. Claim 4 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 03 as being unpatentable over Tokiwa (JPH1034434) In regards to claims 4, Tokiwa discloses wherein the cutter system further includes a cutter base (frame 5) that is a base member on which elements constituting the cutter system (1) are mounted, and the cutter base (5) is configured to be mountable to and removable from the first moving body (3) . While Tokiwa does not expressly disclose that the cutter base is removable from the first moving body, Tokiwa nonetheless teaches a mounted relationship between the cutter base and the first moving body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to configure the cutter base of Tokiwa to be removably attached to the first moving body using known fastening techniques, (e.g. bolts, clamps, or other detachable connectors) since making components detachable rather than permanently fixed is a well-known design alternative that facilitates maintenance, replacement and transport of machine components. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art as recognized in Nerwin v. Erlichman , 168 USPQ 177, 179 where modifying an integral structure to a separable one was held to be within ordinary skill in the art. Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U .S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokiwa (JPH1034434) in view of Schie (U.S. Patent 11,548,182). In regards to claims 5 , Tokiwa discloses a first moving body (3) but does not set forth that the first moving body is a trailer in which a traction vehicle pulls a loading platform on which an object to be conveyed is mounted, and the loading platform is provided with a first tightening device for removably fixing the object to be conveyed, and the feeder base includes a second fixed portion to which the second tightening device is fixed. Schie discloses a portable sawmill including a trailer having wheels and a tow hitch, configured to be transported by a vehicle. The trailer includes elongated support rails and cross members that support logs during transport and cutting, thereby corresponding to a loading platform on which an object to be conveyed is mounted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Tokiwa to incorporate the trailer-mounted support structure of Schie in order to facilitate transport, positioning, and handling of the structure body prior to and during cutting operations. Such a combination represents the predicable use of known cutting systems and transport platforms. Furthermore, providing a tightening device for securing the object to the loading platform would have been an obvious design choice, as securing machinery or devices or workpieces during transport and cutting is well known in the art. Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U .S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokiwa (JPH1034434) in view of Schie (U.S. Patent 11,548,182). In regards to claims 6, Tokiwa discloses a third support mechanism (upper frame 49) : a third support mechanism (e.g. turntable 45) configured to support the structure body . Tokiwa does not disclose that the feeder system includes a vertical wall portion against which an end of the structure body abuts, nor a width aligning mechanism including a pair of movable members as claimed. Schie discloses a saw mill including a vertical log stop or cleat (932) configured to engage and position a log, thereby corresponding to the claimed vertical wall portion against which an end of the structure body abuts along a feeding direction . Schie further discloses a clamp trolley (950) and a clamp post (956) configured to engage the log and secure it relative to the support bed. The clamp trolly and clamp post define opposing members that move relative to one another to fix the log, thereby corresponding to the claimed width aligning mechanism including a pair of movable members that move toward each other in a lateral direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the stop and clamping features of Schie into the feeder system of Tokiwa in order to improve stability of the structure body during feeding and cutting operations. The incorporation of such structures would not interfere with the operation of the turntable (45) of Tokiwa as these structure may be integrated into the feeder system to provide additional stabilization and alignment of the structure body while still permitting rotational positioning of the structure body b the turntable for final cutting. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U. S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokiwa (JPH1034434) In regards to claims 7, Tokiwa discloses the feeder system further includes a feeder base (37) that is a base member on which elements constituting the feeder system are mounted, and the feeder base (37) is configured to be mountable to and removable from the second moving body (bottom of the main body 37, near pinions 79) . While Tokiwa does not expressly disclose that the feeder base is removable from the second moving body, Tokiwa nonetheless teaches a mounted relationship between the cutter base and the second moving body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to configure the cutter base of Tokiwa to be removably attached to the second moving body using known fastening techniques, (e.g. bolts, clamps, or other detachable connectors) since making components detachable rather than permanently fixed is a well-known design alternative that facilitates maintenance, replacement and transport of machine components. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art as recognized in Nerwin v. Erlichman , 168 USPQ 177, 179 where modifying an integral structure to a separable one was held to be within ordinary skill in the art. Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokiwa (JPH1034434) in view of Schie (U.S. Patent 11,548,182). In regards to claims 8, Tokiwa discloses a feeder system with a feeder base (33) on which elements of the feeder system are mounted, wherein the feeder base is mounted to a moving body. However, Tokiwa does not disclose that the moving body to which the feeder base is mounted is a trailer including a loading platform as claimed. Schie discloses a portable sawmill including a trailer having wheels and a tow hitch, configured to be transported by a traction vehicle. The trailer includes a loading platform comprises elongated rails and cross members configured to support a workpiece (e.g. logs), thereby corresponding to a loading platform on which an object to be conveyed is mounted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the moving body of Tokiwa, to which the feeder is mounted, as the trailer structure of Schie in order to facilitate transport, positioning, and handling of the workpiece during cutting operations. Furthermore, providing a tightening device for securing the object to the loading platform and a corresponding fixed portion of the feeder base would have been an obvious design choice, as securing workpieces during transport and processing is well known in the art. Thereby allowing the feeder system of Tokiwa to be integrated into a mobile trailer based cutting system as taught by Schie. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokiwa (JPH1034434) in view of Hedgpeth (U.S. Paten t 2,274,923). In regards to claims 11, Tokiwa discloses a cutter system comprising: a cutter base (frame 15) removably mounted on a first moving body (box shaped base 3) moving on a ground or a sea; and a cutter unit (7/9/11) mounted on the cutter base (15) and configured to cut a structure body into a plurality of cut segments by cutting the structure body to be cut, wherein the cutter unit (7/9/11) includes: a first support mechanism (table 23) configured to support the structure body sent out along a predetermined feeding direction; a cutter (band saw blade 7) configured to cut the structure body supported by the first support mechanism; a second support mechanism provided to be movable up and down in an up-down direction at a position opposed to the first support mechanism with the cutter (7) interposed therebetween, and configured to support the cut segment cut by the cutter; and an alignment member configured to align a position of the structure body with respect to the cutter as an end surface of the structure body along the feeding direction is brought into contact with the alignment member. Tokiwa discloses a cutter system with a including a first support mechanism (table 23) configured to support a structure body delivered from a feeder system and a cutter (bandsaw 7) configured to cut the structure body supported by the first support mechanism. However, Tokiwa but does not disclose the highlighted recitations concerning (1) a second support mechanism movable in an up-down direction at a position opposed to the first support mechanism with the cutter interposed in between; and (2) an alignment member as claimed and (3) that the cutter base is removable from the first moving body Hedgpeth discloses a band saw system including a first support mechanism (table 50) and a second support mechanism (tiltable table 32) configured to support a workpiece. The tiltable table is positioned relative to the blade such that it is disposed on a side of the cutter opposite the primary support surface, thereby corresponding to a second support mechanism “at a position opposed to the first support mechanism with the cutter interposed therebetween.” Further, the tiltable table is movable relative to the blade to adjust the support position of the workpiece, thereby reading on the claimed up-down movable support. Hedgpeth further discloses an alignment member (work fence 49) configured to guide and align the workpiece relative to the blade, which corresponds to aligning a position of the structure body with respect to the cutter as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Tokiwa to include the second support mechanism and alignment mechanism of Hedgpeth in order to improve cutting accuracy and enable angled or controlled positioning of the workpiece during cutting. While Tokiwa does not expressly disclose that the cutter base is removable from the first moving body, Tokiwa nonetheless teaches a mounted relationship between the cutter base and the first moving body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to configure the cutter base of Tokiwa to be removably attached to the first moving body using known fastening techniques, (e.g. bolts, clamps, or other detachable connectors) since making components detachable rather than permanently fixed is a well-known design alternative that facilitates maintenance, replacement and transport of machine components. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art as recognized in Nerwin v. Erlichman , 168 USPQ 177, 179 where modifying an integral structure to a separable one was held to be within ordinary skill in the art. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8339 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m. . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Adam Eiseman can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3818 . 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. /LAURA M LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724