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
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must
show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, V-shaped or horseshoe-shaped recess as set forth in claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
2. The amendment filed on 02/24/2026 is objected to under 35
U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: New Figs. 2C-2D and its added description in the specification introduce new matter. The original disclosure does not disclose the exact location and size of the V-shaped and horseshoe shaped recesses shown in Figs. 2C-2D.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by
sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
In claim 1, “a conveying means” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a guide device” recited in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, “the guide device” in line 4 of the claim lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1, “a workpiece, which consists at least partly of wood or wood materials” is confusing as it is not clear what encompasses “wood materials.” For example, it is uncertain that “wood materials” is a reference to processed wood, mixtures of wood with resins, or other wood composites. Therefore, the precise scope of the claim is undefined. In addition, it is also not clear what is the difference between “wood” and “wood materials.” Is a wooden board not a wood material? The boundaries between “wood” and “wood materials” are not clear.
Regarding claim 1, “a guide device” is unclear as it is not clear whether it refers to the guide device set forth previously in the claim or it is a new guide devive.
Regarding claim 1, “a processing machine … and a guide device for guiding the workpiece into or out of the processing machine” is unclear as it suggests that the guide device is both part of the processing machine and a separate component the guides the workpiece into or out of the processing machine.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10-11, and 14-15, as best understood, are rejected under
35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Keusch (DE 102007021040 B3). Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Keusch teaches a processing machine (Fig. 1) for processing a workpiece, which is consists at least partly of wood or wood materials (see description), wherein the guide device has: a conveying means 22 for conveying the workpiece 1 in a feed direction 37 (Fig. 1), and a guide device (21, 33; defined by the fixed plate 33 and table surface 22 which includes suction inlets 6’; Fig. 1) for guiding the workpiece 1 into or out of the processing machine, wherein the guide device (21, 33) has: a support surface with air outlets (6, 6’), wherein the air outlets (6, 6’) are adapted to create an air cushion between the support surface and the workpiece 1 using exiting air, wherein the support surface is arranged at a machine infeed or a machine outfeed of the processing machine, and has an extension portion (defined by the portions 33 extending on both sides of the table surface 21; Fig. 1) which can be arranged adjacent to a conveying means end portion (defined by the end of the conveying means 22 that accommodated in the recess; Fig. 1) of the conveying means 22 along the feed direction, wherein a recess (defined by the recess or space between the plates 33; Fig. 1) is provided at a support surface end portion of the support surface, the recess being adapted to accommodate the conveying means end portion in order to form the extension portion. See Figs. 1-5 in Keusch.
Regarding claim 2, Keusch teaches everything noted above including that the extension portion can be arranged on both sides adjacent to the conveying means 22 end portion along the feed direction (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Keuchu teaches everything noted above including that a length of the recess from the support surface end portion to a recess base of the recess is at least 10 cm. It should be noted that the length of the recess is more than 10 cm since accommodates wood boards with a length more than 1,000 mm.
Regarding claim 5, Keusch teaches everything noted above including that the recess is substantially U-shaped (as shown in Fig. 2), V-shaped or horseshoe-shaped.
Regarding claim 7, Keusch teaches everything noted above including that the support surface can be arranged on the conveying means 22 such a way that the support surface directly adjoins the conveying means 22. See Fig. 1 in Keusch.
Regarding claim 10, Keusch teaches everything noted above including that the air outlets (6, 6’) are distributed over the entire area of the support surface. See Fig. 1 in Keusch.
Regarding claim 11, Keusch teaches everything noted above including that the guide device (21, 33) is an air cushion table attachable to the processing machine.
Regarding claim 14, Keusch teaches everything noted above including that the processing machine further comprises an air supply network (as an air blower), the air supply network being adapted to supply the guide device (21, 33) with air.
Regarding claim 15, Keusch teaches everything noted above including that the processing machine further comprises a fan, the fan being adapted to supply the guide device with air.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10-11, and 13-14, as best understood, are rejected under 35
U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bartusel et al. (DE 2715194), hereinafter Bartusel, provided with the IDS filled on 12/23/2023. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Bartusel teaches a processing machine (2, 3, 13, 16) for processing a workpiece, which is consists at least partly of wood or wood materials (as the processing machine of Bartusel is capable of processing workpieces that are partially wood, such as wooden extension connected to the workpiece), wherein the guide device has: a conveying means 13 for conveying the workpiece 15 in a feed direction (towards the conveyor 16 of the processing machine; Fig. 2), and a guide device 1 (as “dem Luftkissentisch” in page 10, line 10 which its English translation is “an air cushion table;” Fig. 2) for guiding the workpiece 15 into or out of the processing machine (2, 3, 13, 16), wherein the guide device 1 has: a support surface with air outlets 4 (Figs. 2 and 4), wherein the air outlets 4 are adapted to create an air cushion between the support surface and the workpiece 15 using exiting air (Fig. 4), wherein the support surface is arranged at a machine infeed 16 or a machine outfeed 16 of the processing machine (2, 3, 13, 16), and has an extension portion (defined by the portion extending on both sides of the recess that accommodates the conveyor 13; Fig. 2) which can be arranged adjacent to a conveying means end portion (defined by the end of the conveying means closest to the base of the recess that accommodate the conveying means 13; Fig. 2) of the conveying means 13 along the feed direction, wherein a recess (defined by the recess that accommodated the conveyor means 13; Fig. 2) is provided at a support surface end portion of the support surface, the recess being adapted to accommodate the conveying means end portion in order to form the extension portion. See Figs. 1-5 in Bartusel.
It should be noted that the material of the workpiece does not limit the processing machine as an apparatus. The processing machine of Bartusel is capable of processing different types of workpieces, including workpieces that are partly wood or include wood material (e.g., workpieces having a layer of wood material or connected to a wood component). Furthermore, the claim does not specify what constitutes the processing machine; in other words, it does not define a processing machine having a structure different from that of Bartusel. In fact, the entire disclosure of the current application does not disclose a processing machine that doe snore than handling and moving the workpiece. It should further be noted that Bartusel’s processing machine processes workpieces 15 by moving the workpiece in different orientations and delivering the workpiece for further processing. Claim 1 does not specify a type of processing machine that differs from that of Bartusel (e.g., a machine limited to cutting the workpiece). Accordingly, Bartusel teaches all elements of the claimed processing machine as set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, Bartusel teaches everything noted above including that the extension portion can be arranged on both sides adjacent to the conveying means end portion along the feed direction (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Bartusel teaches everything noted above including that a length of the recess from the support surface end portion to a recess base of the recess is inherently at least 10 cm. It should be noted that the length of the recess is more than 10 cm since accommodates the entire conveying means 13 including belt 35 and rollers 35; Figs. 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 5, Bartusel teaches everything noted above including that the recess is substantially U-shaped (as shown in Fig. 2), V-shaped or horseshoe-shaped.
Regarding claim 6, Bartusel teaches everything noted above including that the support surface is formed in one piece (as the support surface being the surface of the table 1 which is formed from a single piece).
Regarding claim 7, Bartusel teaches everything noted above including that the support surface can be arranged on the conveying means 13 such a way that the support surface directly adjoins the conveying means 13. See Fig. 2 in Bartusel.
Regarding claim 10, Bartusel teaches everything noted above including that the air outlets 14 are distributed over the entire area of the support surface. See Fig. 2 in Bartusel.
Regarding claim 11, Bartusel teaches everything noted above including that the guide device 1 is an air cushion table attachable to the processing machine. See Figs. 2 and 4 in Bartusel.
Regarding claim 13, Bartusel teaches everything noted above including that the conveying means 13 an endless circulating element such as a chain or a belt (as shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Bartusel teaches everything noted above including that the processing machine further comprises an air supply network (Fig. 4), the air supply network being adapted to supply the guide device 1 with air.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keusch in view of Markowitz (2005/0139054 A1). Regarding claims 8-9, Bartusel teaches everything noted above including that the outlets (6, 6’) are circular (Fig. 1) and the cross-section of the outlets is circular. Kesuch does not explicitly teach that the cross-section of the outlets are constant and the diameter of the outlets is 0.1 -2.0 mm. However, Markowitz teach outlets 14 (Fig. 1) for a guide device 12. Markowitz teaches that the outlets have a constant cross-section and a diameter of 0.026 inch (paragraph [0028]) which is about 0.66 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the diameter of the outlets in Keusch between 0.1 to 2.0 mm, as taught by Markowitz, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
12. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartusel in view of Markowitz. Regarding claims 8-9, Bartusel teaches everything noted above including that the outlets 14 are circular (Fig. 4) and the cross-section of the outlets is circular. Bartusel does not explicitly teach that the cross-section of the outlets are constant and the diameter of the outlets is 0.1 -2.0 mm. However, Markowitz teach outlets 14 (Fig. 1) for a guide device 12. Markowitz teaches that the outlets have a constant cross-section and a diameter of 0.026 inch (paragraph [0028]) which is about 0.66 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the diameter of the outlets in Bartusel between 0.1 to 2.0 mm, as taught by Markowitz, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
13. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartusel in view of Knutsson (4,544,824) or Petrovic (5,456,556). Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Bartusel teaches everything noted above including that the processing machine further comprises an air supply adapted to supply air to the guide device 1. See Figs. 1-4 in Bartusel. Bartusel is silent as to the specific type of air supplier device. In other words, Bartusel does not explicitly teach that the air supplier is a fan. However, Knutsson teaches an air supplier in the form of a fan or an electric fan 13 that supplies air to a guide device 4. See Figs. 1-4 of Knutsson. Petrovic also teaches an air supplier in the form of a fan or an electric fan 16 that supplies air to a guide device 2. See Figs. 1-7 in Petrovic. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bartusel’s apparatus to include a fan, as taught by Knutsson or Petrovic, in order to supply air to the guide device, since doing so would be predictable use of a known element which performs the same function as the air supplier in Hartmann.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant’s argument with Bartusel does not disclose a workpiece that is partially formed from wood or wood materials in not persuasive. It should also be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It has been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim, Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969), the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims, In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), and the material or article worked on by an apparatus does not distinguish the apparatus from prior art which works on a different material or article if the apparatus otherwise is met by the reference, In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967).
In this case, as stated above, the material of the workpiece does not limit the processing machine as an apparatus. The processing machine of Bartusel is capable of processing different types of workpieces, including workpieces that are partly wood or include wood material (e.g., workpieces having a layer of wood material or connected to a wood component).
Applicant’s argument that Bartusel’s machine does not process anything and it cannot be considered as a processing machine is not persuasive. As stated above, the claim does not specify what constitutes the processing machine; in other words, it does not define a processing machine having a structure different from that of Bartusel. In fact, the entire disclosure of the current application does not disclose a processing machine that doe snore than handling and moving the workpiece. It should further be noted that Bartusel’s processing machine processes workpieces 15 by moving the workpiece in different orientations and delivering the workpiece for further processing. Claim 1 does not specify a type of processing machine that differs from that of Bartusel (e.g., a machine limited to cutting the workpiece). Accordingly, Bartusel teaches all elements of the claimed processing machine as set forth above.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Kutschker (2008/0072648 A1) teaches a guide device.
16. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) . 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 March 19, 2026