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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes a phrase which can be implied, in particular “is disclosed” at lines 1-2. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 5 recites, “thereon”. This recitation should read – on the planar surface – to avoid any possibility of “thereon” being interpreted as referring to ‘on the platform’.
Claim 5 at line 1 recites, “the foot”. This recitation should read – a foot – since no foot is previously introduced.
Claim 8 at line 5 recites, “thereon”. This recitation should read – on the planar surface – to avoid any possibility of “thereon” being interpreted as referring to ‘on the platform’.
Claim 12 at line 1 recites, “the foot”. This recitation should read – a foot – since no foot is previously introduced.
Claim 15 at line 5 recites, “thereon”. This recitation should read – on the planar surface – to avoid any possibility of “thereon” being interpreted as referring to ‘on the platform’.
Claim 19 at line 1 recites, “the foot”. This recitation should read – a foot – since no foot is previously introduced.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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 1 at lines 6-7 recites, “wherein said cutting tool having a guillotine blade including an upper blade and a lower blade coplanar with said platform for placing the laminate therebetween”. The run-on nature of this recitation renders the recitation indefinite. For example, does the guillotine blade include only the upper blade, or does the guillotine blade include both the upper and lower blades? As another example, what structure is being described as “coplanar with said platform”? Is only the lower blade required to be coplanar with the platform? Are the upper and lower blades required to be coplanar with the platform? Or, does “coplanar with said platform” modify one of “said cutting tool” or “a guillotine blade”? Finally, what structures must the laminate be placeable between? While the formatting of the claim suggests that the laminate must be placeable between the lower blade and the platform, this interpretation does not appear consistent with the present application, suggesting that some other interpretation must be intended. As such, must the laminate be placeable between the guillotine blade and the platform? The upper blade and the lower blade? The examiner suggests amending to the recitation to avoid the run-on nature of the recitation, such as by reciting: (a) wherein said cutting tool having a guillotine blade, said guillotine blade including an upper blade and a lower blade, said lower blade coplanar with said platform, said laminate placeable between said upper blade and said platform; (b) wherein said cutting tool having a guillotine blade, said guillotine blade including an upper blade, said cutting tool further having a lower blade, said cutting tool coplanar with said platform for placing the laminate between the cutting tool and the platform; or (c) another recitation similarly phrased to avoid a run-on recitation. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the run-on recitation of lines 6-7 as being satisfied by any of the options set forth in this paragraph.
Claim 1 at lines 8-9 recites, “wherein said cutting tool having said lever attached to one end of a moving member of said platform”. This recitation is indefinite it is unclear whether the recitation intends to require that the cutting tool ‘has’ the lever, or whether the slicing tool ‘has’ the lever. That is the claim expressly introduces the cutting tool, the lever, and the platform as three distinct components (see lines 2-4). Yet lines 8-9 appear to require that the cutting tool includes the lever. Potentially the claim includes a typographical error, where the Applicant intends the slicing tool (rather than the cutting tool) to ‘have’ the lever. As support for this interpretation, the present specification refers to the entire tool, rather than a subset of the tool, as the ‘cutting tool’ (see, e.g., paragraph 10), so there is evidence of the Applicant using the terms ‘cutting tool’ and ‘slicing tool’ interchangeably even though the claims treat the cutting tool as a subset of the slicing tool. Alternatively, it is unclear what is required for the cutting tool to “have” the lever. Is the lever required to be a subset of the cutting tool? Or can the lever merely be attached to or usable to actuate the cutting tool? For examination purposes, since claim requires the lever to be a distinct feature relative to the cutting tool, the examiner interprets lines 8-9 as requiring that the slicing tool includes the lever being attached to one of a moving member of the platform.
Claim 1 at lines 10-11 recites, “a second member aligned to said platform”. This recitation is indefinite in view of the present application. Comparing Figs. 1 and 3 of the present application, it is evident that the second member is pivotable relative to the platform. The second member appears to have one position in which the second member is parallel to an upper surface of the platform (see Fig. 1), but the second member has another position in which the second member is angled relative to the platform (see Fig. 3). The scope of ‘aligned to said platform’ is indefinite because it is unclear whether the Applicant considers the second member as disclosed as always being aligned to the platform, or whether the second member must have at least one position that is aligned to the platform. In other words, it is unclear whether the Applicant considers the second member in Fig. 3 to be aligned with the platform, or whether the Applicant only considers the second member in the position of Fig. 1 to be aligned with the platform. Potentially, the Applicant users the term ‘aligned’ to permit some angular deviation between the second member and the platform, so long as the angular deviation is relatively small. Alternatively, viewed from above, the second member is aligned with the platform in either of the configurations of Figs. 1 and 3, so in another interpretation the Applicant uses ‘aligned’ to be satisfied from only one perspective even if there is not alignment from another perspective. Moreover, the present specification does not provide any guidance regarding which position(s) of the second member cause the second member to be aligned with the platform, so the specification provides little guidance on the scope of “aligned”. In fact, the present specification does not even use the term “align”. As such, it is unclear whether claim 1 requires the second member to always be aligned with the platform, or whether claim 1 encompasses the second member to be aligned with the platform when viewed from at least one position. For examination purposes, the examiner considers the limitation as being met so long as the second member is aligned with the platform in at least one position of the second member or so long as the second member is aligned with the platform when viewed from at least one position.
Claim 4 recites, “said second member extends perpendicular to said first member and pivots relative to said first member along said hinged bottom end”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the second member must always be perpendicular to the first member, or whether the second member must have at least one position that is perpendicular to the first member. The claim expressly requires that the second member pivots relative to the first member, although no axis of pivoted is described in the claim or the present application. Depending on the axis of pivoting, the second member is only orthogonal to the first member at some particular relative position(s) of the second member relative to the first member. However, in Fig. 2 of the present application, if the second member 114 can pivot about an axis extending vertically through the first member 112, then the second member 114 is always perpendicular to the first member 112 and is also pivotable relative to the first member 112. Alternatively, though, if the second member 114 pivots about a pivot axis extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of member 113, then the second member 114 is only perpendicular to the first member in a single position due to the relative pivoting. The Applicant has not disclosed any axis about which pivoting occurs, and in the absence of such disclosure the relationship between the pivoting and the orthogonal extension in claim 4 is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. The examiner cannot determine whether there must be one position of the second member that is perpendicular to the first member, or whether the second member must always be perpendicular to the first member, since the present application fails to disclose the particular pivoting action of the second member. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 4 as requiring that there is at least one position of the second member that is orthogonal to the first member.
Claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the laminate is being claimed, and if not the claim is indefinite because it is unclear how the characteristics of the workpiece can be determined when no workpiece is actually required by the claim. Claim 1 appears to introduce the laminate only as an unclaimed workpiece, where the claim is satisfied by the slicing tool in and of itself. That is, claim 1 does not require a laminate. The same is true for claim 5. Yet claim 6 only further describes features of the laminate, suggesting an intent for the laminate to be part of the claimed structure. If no laminate is claimed, it is unclear how the material of the unclaimed laminate can be determined. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 6 as not requiring the laminate, where the characteristics of the laminate are recited merely as an intended use of the claim slicing tool.
Claim 8 at lines 7-8 recites, “wherein said cutting tool having a guillotine blade including an upper blade and a lower blade coplanar with said platform for placing the laminate therebetween”. The run-on nature of this recitation renders the recitation indefinite. For example, does the guillotine blade include only the upper blade, or does the guillotine blade include both the upper and lower blades? As another example, what structure is being described as “coplanar with said platform”? Is only the lower blade required to be coplanar with the platform? Are the upper and lower blades required to be coplanar with the platform? Or, does “coplanar with said platform” modify one of “said cutting tool” or “a guillotine blade”? Finally, what structures must the laminate be placeable between? While the formatting of the claim suggests that the laminate must be placeable between the lower blade and the platform, this interpretation does not appear consistent with the present application, suggesting that some other interpretation must be intended. As such, must the laminate be placeable between the guillotine blade and the platform? The upper blade and the lower blade? The examiner suggests amending to the recitation to avoid the run-on nature of the recitation, such as by reciting: (a) wherein said cutting tool having a guillotine blade, said guillotine blade including an upper blade and a lower blade, said lower blade coplanar with said platform, said laminate placeable between said upper blade and said platform; (b) wherein said cutting tool having a guillotine blade, said guillotine blade including an upper blade, said cutting tool further having a lower blade, said cutting tool coplanar with said platform for placing the laminate between the cutting tool and the platform; or (c) another recitation similarly phrased to avoid a run-on recitation. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the run-on recitation of lines 7-8 as being satisfied by any of the options set forth in this paragraph.
Claim 8 at lines 9-10 recites, “wherein said cutting tool having said lever attached to one end of a moving member of said platform”. This recitation is indefinite it is unclear whether the recitation intends to require that the cutting tool ‘has’ the lever, or whether the slicing tool ‘has’ the lever. That is the claim expressly introduces the cutting tool, the lever, and the platform as three distinct components (see lines 2-4). Yet lines 9-10 appear to require that the cutting tool includes the lever. Potentially the claim includes a typographical error, where the Applicant intends the slicing tool (rather than the cutting tool) to ‘have’ the lever. As support for this interpretation, the present specification refers to the entire tool, rather than a subset of the tool, as the ‘cutting tool’ (see, e.g., paragraph 10), so there is evidence of the Applicant using the terms ‘cutting tool’ and ‘slicing tool’ interchangeably even though the claims treat the cutting tool as a subset of the slicing tool. Alternatively, it is unclear what is required for the cutting tool to “have” the lever. Is the lever required to be a subset of the cutting tool? Or can the lever merely be attached to or usable to actuate the cutting tool? For examination purposes, since claim requires the lever to be a distinct feature relative to the cutting tool, the examiner interprets lines 9-10 as requiring that the slicing tool includes the lever being attached to one of a moving member of the platform.
Claim 8 at lines 11-12 recites, “a second member aligned to said platform”. This recitation is indefinite in view of the present application. Comparing Figs. 1 and 3 of the present application, it is evident that the second member is pivotable relative to the platform. The second member appears to have one position in which the second member is parallel to an upper surface of the platform (see Fig. 1), but the second member has another position in which the second member is angled relative to the platform (see Fig. 3). The scope of ‘aligned to said platform’ is indefinite because it is unclear whether the Applicant considers the second member as disclosed as always being aligned to the platform, or whether the second member must have at least one position that is aligned to the platform. In other words, it is unclear whether the Applicant considers the second member in Fig. 3 to be aligned with the platform, or whether the Applicant only considers the second member in the position of Fig. 1 to be aligned with the platform. Potentially, the Applicant users the term ‘aligned’ to permit some angular deviation between the second member and the platform, so long as the angular deviation is relatively small. Alternatively, viewed from above, the second member is aligned with the platform in either of the configurations of Figs. 1 and 3, so in another interpretation the Applicant uses ‘aligned’ to be satisfied from only one perspective even if there is not alignment from another perspective. Moreover, the present specification does not provide any guidance regarding which position(s) of the second member cause the second member to be aligned with the platform, so the specification provides little guidance on the scope of “aligned”. In fact, the present specification does not even use the term “align”. As such, it is unclear whether claim 8 requires the second member to always be aligned with the platform, or whether claim 8 encompasses the second member to be aligned with the platform when viewed from at least one position. For examination purposes, the examiner considers the limitation as being met so long as the second member is aligned with the platform in at least one position of the second member or so long as the second member is aligned with the platform when viewed from at least one position.
Claim 11 recites, “said second member extends perpendicular to said first member and pivots relative to said first member along said hinged bottom end”. This recitation is indefinite for the same reasons as explained above with respect to claim 4. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 11 as requiring that there is at least one position of the second member that is orthogonal to the first member.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the laminate is being claimed, and if not the claim is indefinite because it is unclear how the characteristics of the workpiece can be determined when no workpiece is actually required by the claim. Claim 8 appears to introduce the laminate only as an unclaimed workpiece, where the claim is satisfied by the slicing tool in and of itself. That is, claim 8 does not require a laminate. Yet claim 13 only further describes features of the laminate, suggesting an intent for the laminate to be part of the claimed structure. If no laminate is claimed, it is unclear how the material of the unclaimed laminate can be determined. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 13 as not requiring the laminate, where the characteristics of the laminate are recited merely as an intended use of the claim slicing tool.
Claim 15 at lines 7-8 recites, “wherein said cutting tool having a guillotine blade including an upper blade and a lower blade coplanar with said platform for placing the laminate therebetween”. The run-on nature of this recitation renders the recitation indefinite. For example, does the guillotine blade include only the upper blade, or does the guillotine blade include both the upper and lower blades? As another example, what structure is being described as “coplanar with said platform”? Is only the lower blade required to be coplanar with the platform? Are the upper and lower blades required to be coplanar with the platform? Or, does “coplanar with said platform” modify one of “said cutting tool” or “a guillotine blade”? Finally, what structures must the laminate be placeable between? While the formatting of the claim suggests that the laminate must be placeable between the lower blade and the platform, this interpretation does not appear consistent with the present application, suggesting that some other interpretation must be intended. As such, must the laminate be placeable between the guillotine blade and the platform? The upper blade and the lower blade? The examiner suggests amending to the recitation to avoid the run-on nature of the recitation, such as by reciting: (a) wherein said cutting tool having a guillotine blade, said guillotine blade including an upper blade and a lower blade, said lower blade coplanar with said platform, said laminate placeable between said upper blade and said platform; (b) wherein said cutting tool having a guillotine blade, said guillotine blade including an upper blade, said cutting tool further having a lower blade, said cutting tool coplanar with said platform for placing the laminate between the cutting tool and the platform; or (c) another recitation similarly phrased to avoid a run-on recitation. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the run-on recitation of lines 7-8 as being satisfied by any of the options set forth in this paragraph.
Claim 15 at lines 9-10 recites, “wherein said cutting tool having said lever attached to one end of a moving member of said platform”. This recitation is indefinite it is unclear whether the recitation intends to require that the cutting tool ‘has’ the lever, or whether the slicing tool ‘has’ the lever. That is the claim expressly introduces the cutting tool, the lever, and the platform as three distinct components (see lines 2-4). Yet lines 9-10 appear to require that the cutting tool includes the lever. Potentially the claim includes a typographical error, where the Applicant intends the slicing tool (rather than the cutting tool) to ‘have’ the lever. As support for this interpretation, the present specification refers to the entire tool, rather than a subset of the tool, as the ‘cutting tool’ (see, e.g., paragraph 10), so there is evidence of the Applicant using the terms ‘cutting tool’ and ‘slicing tool’ interchangeably even though the claims treat the cutting tool as a subset of the slicing tool. Alternatively, it is unclear what is required for the cutting tool to “have” the lever. Is the lever required to be a subset of the cutting tool? Or can the lever merely be attached to or usable to actuate the cutting tool? For examination purposes, since claim requires the lever to be a distinct feature relative to the cutting tool, the examiner interprets lines 9-10 as requiring that the slicing tool includes the lever being attached to one of a moving member of the platform.
Claim 15 at lines 11-12 recites, “a second member aligned to said platform”. This recitation is indefinite in view of the present application. Comparing Figs. 1 and 3 of the present application, it is evident that the second member is pivotable relative to the platform. The second member appears to have one position in which the second member is parallel to an upper surface of the platform (see Fig. 1), but the second member has another position in which the second member is angled relative to the platform (see Fig. 3). The scope of ‘aligned to said platform’ is indefinite because it is unclear whether the Applicant considers the second member as disclosed as always being aligned to the platform, or whether the second member must have at least one position that is aligned to the platform. In other words, it is unclear whether the Applicant considers the second member in Fig. 3 to be aligned with the platform, or whether the Applicant only considers the second member in the position of Fig. 1 to be aligned with the platform. Potentially, the Applicant users the term ‘aligned’ to permit some angular deviation between the second member and the platform, so long as the angular deviation is relatively small. Alternatively, viewed from above, the second member is aligned with the platform in either of the configurations of Figs. 1 and 3, so in another interpretation the Applicant uses ‘aligned’ to be satisfied from only one perspective even if there is not alignment from another perspective. Moreover, the present specification does not provide any guidance regarding which position(s) of the second member cause the second member to be aligned with the platform, so the specification provides little guidance on the scope of “aligned”. In fact, the present specification does not even use the term “align”. As such, it is unclear whether claim 15 requires the second member to always be aligned with the platform, or whether claim 15 encompasses the second member to be aligned with the platform when viewed from at least one position. For examination purposes, the examiner considers the limitation as being met so long as the second member is aligned with the platform in at least one position of the second member or so long as the second member is aligned with the platform when viewed from at least one position.
Claim 18 recites, “said second member extends perpendicular to said first member and pivots relative to said first member along said hinged bottom end”. This recitation is indefinite for the same reasons as explained above with respect to claim 4. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 18 as requiring that there is at least one position of the second member that is orthogonal to the first member.
Claim 20 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the laminate is being claimed, and if not the claim is indefinite because it is unclear how the characteristics of the workpiece can be determined when no workpiece is actually required by the claim. Claim 15 appears to introduce the laminate only as an unclaimed workpiece, where the claim is satisfied by the slicing tool in and of itself. That is, claim 15 does not require a laminate. The same is true for claim 19. Yet claim 20 only further describes features of the laminate, suggesting an intent for the laminate to be part of the claimed structure. If no laminate is claimed, it is unclear how the material of the unclaimed laminate can be determined. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 20 as not requiring the laminate, where the characteristics of the laminate are recited merely as an intended use of the claim slicing tool.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 20 2010 007 124 U1 to Brevetti Montolit S.p.A. (hereinafter ‘Brevetti’) in view of US Pat. No. 290,433 to Jordan, as evidenced by US Pat. No. 1,349,180 to Yeakel.
Regarding claim 1, Brevetti discloses a laminate slicing tool (see Fig. 1; the particular type of workpiece sliced by the tool is merely an intended use of the recited tool – here, the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, such that “the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction” per MPEP 2111.02) comprising:
a platform (including elements 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10a; hereinafter ‘platform 4’ for brevity),
a cutting tool (including blades L and R), and
a lever 12 & 13;
wherein said platform 4 having a planar surface for placing a laminate thereon (see Figs. 1 and 10A, where Fig. 10A shows a workpiece on the planar surface, and where a user is able to provide a laminate workpiece);
wherein said cutting tool having a guillotine blade (see Figs. 1 and 3 and paragraph 41; the guillotine blade includes at least upper blade L, and potentially also lower blade R, noting that it is unclear whether the claim is requiring that guillotine blade to include the lower blade, or whether the cutting tool includes the lower blade) including an upper blade L and a lower blade R coplanar with said platform (see paragraph 37) for placing the laminate therebetween (see Figs. 1 and 10A);
wherein said cutting tool having said lever 12 & 13 attached to one end of a moving member 10a of said platform 4 (see Figs. 1 and 8 and paragraphs 43 and 44);
wherein said lever 12 & and 13 having a first member transversal to said platform 4 (see the annotated Fig. 1 below; the ‘transversal’ feature is met because either of the first member having an extension in a vertical direction and the first member having an extension that is orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the platform 4) and a second member aligned to said platform 4 (see the annotated Fig. 1 below; note that the second member is aligned to said platform 4 in at least one rotational position of the lever 12 & 13 as evidenced by Figs. 4A-7A showing that the lever 12 & 13 pivots across a range that includes a position where the lever 12 & 13 extends horizontally, which is in alignment with the platform 4; this interpretation is consistent with the present application, where the first member is not aligned to said platform in every pivotal position of the lever);
wherein said second member having a hand grip 13 for actuating said lever 12 & 13 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 44); and
further wherein actuation of said hand grip 13 pushes said upper blade L towards said lower blade R for cutting the laminate therebetween (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 35 and 44).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
819
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Brevetti teaches that said laminate is selected from the group consisting of a plank, a tile, a wooden floor sheet, and a laminate sheet (as best understood, the workpiece is not claimed; the slicing tool of Brevetti is usable with a plank or a tile; see paragraph 2).
Brevetti teaches a hand-grip actuated lever where the second member of the lever has a hand grip rather than a foot pedal. As such, Brevetti fails to disclose: that the second member has a foot pedal and that the foot pedal is actuated to push the upper blade as required by claim 1; wherein said second member of said lever having a first end connected to a hinged bottom end of said first member as required by claim 2; wherein said second member of said lever having a second end connected to said foot pedal as required by claim 3; wherein said second member extends perpendicular to said first member and pivots relative to said first member along said hinged bottom end as required by claim 4; and wherein said foot pedal actuated by the foot of a user to push said second member downwards as required by claim 5.
Jorden, though, teaches a lever o and p that includes a first member p transversal to a platform f and a second member o aligned to said platform f (see Fig. 2; the ‘aligned to said platform’ is satisfied at least when the second member o is pivoted counter-clockwise relative to Fig. 2 upon depression of the foot pedal'; alternatively, the ‘aligned to said platform’ feature is satisfied in the front view of Fig. 1 because both structures are oriented in alignment in a vertical direction), wherein said second member o has a foot pedal for actuating the lever o and p (see Fig. 2 and page 3, lines 15-20), wherein actuation of the foot pedal pushes an upper blade b toward the platform f to operate on a material on the platform f (see Fig. 2 and page 3, lines 15-20). [Claim 1] Jorden further teaches: that said second member o of said lever o and p having a first end connected to a hinged bottom end of said first member p (see Fig. 2, where the first end of the second member o is a right end) [claim 2]; that said second member o of said lever o and p having a second end connected to said foot pedal (see Fig. 2, where the second end of the second member o is a left end) [claim 3]; that said second member o extends approximately perpendicular to said first member p and pivots relative to said first member p along said hinged bottom end (see Fig. 2; note that the second member o is approximately perpendicular to the first member p when the second member o is urged counterclockwise via application of force to the foot pedal; indeed, the claim does not require that the second member is always perpendicular to the first member because the claim requires that the second member pivots relative to the first member) [claim 4]; and that said foot pedal actuated by the foot of a user to push said second member o downwards (see Fig. 2 and page 3, lines 15-20; at least the left end of the second member o relative to Fig. 2 is pushed downward) [claim 5]. Moreover, it is known in the art that a lever of a cutting tool can be provided as either of a hand operated lever and a foot operated lever, whichever is preferred (see Yeakel at page 1, lines 30-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Brevetti by replacing the hand-operated lever of Brevetti with a foot operated lever including the first and second members and the foot pedal as taught by Jorden. This modification is advantageous because it more easily facilitates a user applying a large force to the lever, since a user’s leg is typically stronger than the user’s arm such that the user is able to apply more force to the foot-operated lever compared to the hand-operated lever. Moreover, Yeakel is further evidence of the obviousness of this modification, since Yeakel teaches that either of a hand operated lever and a foot operated lever can be provided depending on the particular user’s preferences. Since Yeakel provides evidence that some users prefer foot operated levers to hand operated levers, this modification is advantageous at least for foot-lever preferring users.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the second member of the lever of Brevetti, as modified, with sufficient pivotable range such that the second member extends perpendicular to the first member in at least one rotational position of the second member as required by claim 4. As can be seen in Fig. 2 of Jordan, the greater the pivotable range of the second member o, the greater the force multiple achievable for the second member o. As such, one of ordinary skill in art is motivated to provide a large pivotable range for the second member because, all things such as blade movement distance and blade movement force being held equal, a large pivotable range for the second member requires a less force input at any given moment. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to provide the second member with a sufficient pivotable range so that the second member is able to be perpendicular to the first member at at least one position of the second member in order to aid in the force multiplier effect of the second member.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brevetti as modified by Jordan as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2005/0274249 A1 to Trudeau.
Brevetti, as modified, fails to disclose that said guillotine blade having a material selected from the group consisting of a hardened steel and a carbide as required by claim 7.
Trudeau, though, teaches a guillotine blade 28 having a material selected from the group consisting of a hardened steel and a carbide (see paragraph 31). Trudeau teaches that making a cutting edge of a guillotine blade from a material that can be hardened steel or carbide is advantageous so that the cutting edge is sufficiently hard to reduce wear (see paragraph 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the guillotine blade of Brevetti, as modified, with a hardened steel or carbide material in view of the teachings of Trudeau in order to reduce wear of the cutting edge of the blade.
Claim(s) 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 20 2010 007 124 U1 to Brevetti Montolit S.p.A. (hereinafter ‘Brevetti’) in view of GB 2 198 070 A to Hawkins and US Pat. No. 290,433 to Jordan, as evidenced by US Pat. No. 1,349,180 to Yeakel.
Regarding claim 8, Brevetti discloses a laminate slicing tool (see Fig. 1; the particular type of workpiece sliced by the tool is merely an intended use of the recited tool – here, the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, such that “the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction” per MPEP 2111.02) comprising:
a platform (including elements 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10a; hereinafter ‘platform 4’ for brevity),
a cutting tool (including blades L and R), and
a lever 12 & 13;
wherein said platform 4 having a planar surface for placing a laminate thereon (see Figs. 1 and 10A, where Fig. 10A shows a workpiece on the planar surface, and where a user is able to provide a laminate workpiece);
wherein said cutting tool having a guillotine blade (see Figs. 1 and 3 and paragraph 41; the guillotine blade includes at least upper blade L, and potentially also lower blade R, noting that it is unclear whether the claim is requiring that guillotine blade to include the lower blade, or whether the cutting tool includes the lower blade) including an upper blade L and a lower blade R coplanar with said platform (see paragraph 37) for placing the laminate therebetween (see Figs. 1 and 10A);
wherein said cutting tool having said lever 12 & 13 attached to one end of a moving member 10a of said platform 4 (see Figs. 1 and 8 and paragraphs 43 and 44);
wherein said lever 12 & and 13 having a first member transversal to said platform 4 (see the annotated Fig. 1 below; the ‘transversal’ feature is met because either of the first member having an extension in a vertical direction and the first member having an extension that is orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the platform 4) and a second member aligned to said platform 4 (see the annotated Fig. 1 below; note that the second member is aligned to said platform 4 in at least one rotational position of the lever 12 & 13 as evidenced by Figs. 4A-7A showing that the lever 12 & 13 pivots across a range that includes a position where the lever 12 & 13 extends horizontally, which is in alignment with the platform 4; this interpretation is consistent with the present application, where the first member is not aligned to said platform in every pivotal position of the lever);
wherein said second member having a hand grip 13 for actuating said lever 12 & 13 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 44); and
further wherein actuation of said hand grip 13 pushes said upper blade L towards said lower blade R for cutting the laminate therebetween (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 35 and 44).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
819
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Brevetti teaches that said laminate is selected from the group consisting of a plank, a tile, a wooden floor sheet, and a laminate sheet (as best understood, the workpiece is not claimed; the slicing tool of Brevetti is usable with a plank or a tile; see paragraph 2).
Brevetti teaches a hand-grip actuated lever where the second member of the lever has a hand grip rather than a foot pedal. Brevetti fails to disclose: that the platform has a plurality of telescoping legs for adjusting a height of said platform, wherein said first member having an adjustable height for operation of said cutting tool by individuals of different heights, that the second member has a foot pedal and that the foot pedal is actuated to push the upper blade as required by claim 8; wherein said second member of said lever having a first end connected to a hinged bottom end of said first member as required by claim 9; wherein said second member of said lever having a second end connected to said foot pedal as required by claim 10; wherein said second member extends perpendicular to said first member and pivots relative to said first member along said hinged bottom end as required by claim 11; and wherein said foot pedal actuated by the foot of a user to push said second member downwards as required by claim 12.
First, Hawkins teaches a slicing tool (see Fig. 1) that the platform 11 has a plurality of telescoping legs 18 and 19 for adjusting a height of said platform 11 (see also page 9, lines 4-7), wherein said a lever 51 having an adjustable height for operation of said cutting tool by individuals of different heights (see Fig. 1 and page 9, lines 4-7; although Hawkins does not expressly contemplate users of different heights, this features of the lever being an adjustable height for operation of said cutting tool by individuals of different heights is satisfied by the four legs being telescoping, to adjust the height of the platform to which the lever is attached – indeed, telescoping legs are the same feature disclosed in the present application to adjust the height of the lever for users of different heights). [Claim 8] Hawkins teaches that providing the platform with a plurality of telescoping legs is advantageous in order to allow the slicing tool to be used in a level position even on uneven surfaces (see page 3, line 31 to page 4, line 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the platform of Brevetti with a plurality of telescoping legs in view of the teachings of Hawkins. This modification is advantageous because it allows the slicing tool to be more easily used on uneven surfaces by adjusting the heights of the legs so that the platform is level or nearly level. Furthermore, this modification can include providing at least two of the legs with wheels to retain the maneuverability of the slicing tool, or alternatively this modification can include providing the slicing tool with no wheels since the wheels are not essential to the operation of the slicing tool.
Next, Jorden teaches a lever o and p that includes a first member p transversal to a platform f and a second member o aligned to said platform f (see Fig. 2; the ‘aligned to said platform’ is satisfied at least when the second member o is pivoted counter-clockwise relative to Fig. 2 upon depression of the foot pedal'; alternatively, the ‘aligned to said platform’ feature is satisfied in the front view of Fig. 1 because both structures are oriented in alignment in a vertical direction), wherein said second member o has a foot pedal for actuating the lever o and p (see Fig. 2 and page 3, lines 15-20), wherein actuation of the foot pedal pushes an upper blade b toward the platform f to operate on a material on the platform f (see Fig. 2 and page 3, lines 15-20). [Claim 8] Jorden further teaches: that said second member o of said lever o and p having a first end connected to a hinged bottom end of said first member p (see Fig. 2, where the first end of the second member o is a right end) [claim 9]; that said second member o of said lever o and p having a second end connected to said foot pedal (see Fig. 2, where the second end of the second member o is a left end) [claim 10]; that said second member o extends approximately perpendicular to said first member p and pivots relative to said first member p along said hinged bottom end (see Fig. 2; note that the second member o is approximately perpendicular to the first member p when the second member o is urged counterclockwise via application of force to the foot pedal; indeed, the claim does not require that the second member is always perpendicular to the first member because the claim requires that the second member pivots relative to the first member) [claim 11]; and that said foot pedal actuated by the foot of a user to push said second member o downwards (see Fig. 2 and page 3, lines 15-20; at least the left end of the second member o relative to Fig. 2 is pushed downward) [claim 12]. Moreover, it is known in the art that a lever of a cutting tool can be provided as either of a hand operated lever and a foot operated lever, whichever is preferred (see Yeakel at page 1, lines 30-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Brevetti by replacing the hand-operated lever of Brevetti with a foot operated lever including the first and second members and the foot pedal as taught by Jorden. This modification is advantageous because it more easily facilitates a user applying a large force to the lever, since a user’s leg is typically stronger than the user’s arm such that the user is able to apply more force to the foot-operated lever compared to the hand-operated lever. Moreover, Yeakel is further evidence of the obviousness of this modification, since Yeakel teaches that either of a hand operated lever and a foot operated lever can be provided depending on the particular user’s preferences. Since Yeakel provides evidence that some users prefer foot operated levers to hand operated levers, this modification is advantageous at least for foot-lever preferring users.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the second member of the lever of Brevetti, as modified, with sufficient pivotable range such that the second member extends perpendicular to the first member in at least one rotational position of the second member as required by claim 11. As can be seen in Fig. 2 of Jordan, the greater the pivotable range of the second member o, the greater the force multiple achievable for the second member o. As such, one of ordinary skill in art is motivated to provide a large pivotable range for the second member because, all things such as blade movement distance and blade movement force being held equal, a large pivotable range for the second member requires a less force input at any given moment. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to provide the second member with a sufficient pivotable range so that the second member is able to be perpendicular to the first member at at least one position of the second member in order to aid in the force multiplier effect of the second member.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brevetti as modified by Hawkins and Jordan as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2005/0274249 A1 to Trudeau.
Brevetti, as modified, fails to disclose that said guillotine blade having a material selected from the group consisting of a hardened steel and a carbide as required by claim 14.
Trudeau, though, teaches a guillotine blade 28 having a material selected from the group consisting of a hardened steel and a carbide (see paragraph 31). Trudeau teaches that making a cutting edge of a guillotine blade from a material that can be hardened steel or carbide is advantageous so that the cutting edge is sufficiently hard to reduce wear (see paragraph 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the guillotine blade of Brevetti, as modified, with a hardened steel or carbide material in view of the teachings of Trudeau in order to reduce wear of the cutting edge of the blade.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 20 2010 007 124 U1 to Brevetti Montolit S.p.A. (hereinafter ‘Brevetti’) in view of GB 2 198 070 A to Hawkins and US Pat. No. 290,433 to Jordan, as evidenced by US Pat. No. 1,349,180 to Yeakel.
Regarding claim 15, Brevetti discloses a laminate slicing tool (see Fig. 1; the particular type of workpiece sliced by the tool is merely an intended use of the recited tool – here, the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, such that “the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction” per MPEP 2111.02) comprising:
a platform (including elements 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10a; hereinafter ‘platform 4’ for brevity),
a cutting tool (including blades L and R), and
a lever 12 & 13;
wherein said platform 4 having a planar surface for placing a laminate thereon (see Figs. 1 and 10A, where Fig. 10A shows a workpiece on the planar surface, and where a user is able to provide a laminate workpiece);
wherein said cutting tool having a guillotine blade (see Figs. 1 and 3 and paragraph 41; the guillotine blade includes at least upper blade L, and potentially also lower blade R, noting that it is unclear whether the claim is requiring that guillotine blade to include the lower blade, or whether the cutting tool includes the lower blade) including an upper blade L and a lower blade R coplanar with said platform (see paragraph 37) for placing the laminate therebetween (see Figs. 1 and 10A);
wherein said cutting tool having said lever 12 & 13 attached to one end of a moving member 10a of said platform 4 (see Figs. 1 and 8 and paragraphs 43 and 44);
wherein said lever 12 & and 13 having a first member transversal to said platform 4 (see the annotated Fig. 1 below; the ‘transversal’ feature is met because either of the first member having an extension in a vertical direction and the first member havi