DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Austria on 04/19/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the ATA50289/2023 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are in compliance with the provisions of 37
CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “3” has been used to designate both “log”(paragraph 0036) and “conveyor”(paragraphs 0049-0051). 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. 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
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
“Log” and “conveyor” point to the same part number “3”.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
Claims 5-8, and 11-12 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 5, it is unclear what is meant by the splitting tool being at a right angle to the longitudinal axis of the splitting channel at the end of the splitting channel within the limitation “wherein the splitting tool is at a right angle to at least one of a longitudinal axis of the second receiver and the splitting channel at the end of the splitting channel further away from the saw.” For examination purposes, the bolded and italicized section above is not considered when interpreting claim 5.
Regarding claims 6,7, and 12, refer to the rejection of claim 5 above. Claims 6,7, and 12 are rejected due to being dependent on claim 5, wherein claim 5 is rejected for being indefinite.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what is meant by facing within the limitation “comprising a conveyor for removing split pieces of wood at a removal end of the second receiver facing away from the saw” as any direction could be interpreted to be facing away from the saw. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “facing” in claim 8 is used by the claim to mean “moving,” while the accepted meaning is “turned toward the stated direction.” (Cambridge Dictionary, lines 18-20) The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what is meant by the starting position of the ram being adjacent a middle of the ram within the limitation “wherein an imaginary extension of the cutting tool intersects an end surface of the ram when the ram is in a starting position adjacent a middle of the ram.” For examination purposes, the bolded section above is not considered when interpreting claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "Posch Spaltfix S-360 firewood processor from Jas P Wilson," 4 pages, uploaded on July 13, 2013 by user "Jas P Wilson". Retrieved from Internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-8PBCW1REI&t=50s> (hereinafter “Wilson”), in view of Aikins et al. (hereinafter “Aikins”) (US 4483379 A).
Regarding claim 1, Wilson discloses: A machine for cutting and splitting logs (Figure 1), comprising: a saw (1) for cutting off a piece of wood from a log, comprising a first receiver (3) for the log; a splitter (2) for splitting a piece of wood into pieces, comprising a splitting channel (5) with a second receiver (4) for the piece of wood, wherein the splitting channel with the second receiver is downstream of the first receiver;
Wilson does not disclose: wherein the splitting channel is tilted at an angle greater than 0° to horizontal when the machine is ready for use.
PNG
media_image1.png
311
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Aikins teaches a similar machine for cutting and splitting logs wherein the splitting channel (200)(Figure 5 above) is tilted at an angle greater than 0° to horizontal when the machine is ready for use (201)(Figure 5 above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the variable tilt (201)(Figure 5 above) of the machine as taught by Aikins to the machine of Wilson to correspond to the variable inclination of incoming logs. (column 1, lines 41-44 of Aikins)
After modification, Wilson in view of Aikins teaches: wherein the splitting channel is tilted at an angle greater than 0° to horizontal when the machine is ready for use.
Regarding claim 2, modified Wilson teaches that the machine may be tilted to correspond to the inclination of the incoming log (column 1, lines 41-44 of Aikins). Modified Wilson does not teach wherein the splitting channel is tilted at an angle of greater than 0° and less than or equal to 45° to horizontal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tilt the machine, therefore tilting the splitting channel, to an angle greater than 0° and less than or equal to 45° to horizontal to correspond to the inclination of the incoming log, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
After modification, Wilson teaches the machine according to claim 1, wherein the splitting channel is tilted at an angle of greater than 0° and less than or equal to 45° to horizontal.
Regarding claim 3, modified Wilson teaches that the machine may be tilted to correspond to the inclination of the incoming log (column 1, lines 41-44 of Aikins). Modified Wilson does not teach wherein the splitting channel is tilted at an angle of 5° to 15° to horizontal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tilt the machine, therefore tilting the splitting channel, to an angle of 5° to 15° to horizontal to correspond to the inclination of the incoming log, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
After modification, Wilson teaches the machine according to claim 1, wherein the splitting channel is tilted at an angle of 5° to 15° to horizontal.
Regarding claim 4, modified Wilson teaches that the machine may be tilted to correspond to the inclination of the incoming log (column 1, lines 41-44 of Aikins). Modified Wilson does not teach wherein the splitting channel is tilted at an angle of 10° to horizontal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tilt the machine, therefore tilting the splitting channel, to an angle of 10° to horizontal to correspond to the inclination of the incoming log, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
After modification, Wilson teaches the machine according to claim 1, wherein the splitting channel is tilted at an angle of 10° to horizontal.
Regarding claim 5, modified Wilson teaches the machine according to claim 1, wherein the splitter further comprises a splitting tool (6)(Figure 2 of Wilson), wherein the splitting tool is at a right angle to at least one of a longitudinal axis (7)(Figure 2 of Wilson shows the splitting tool at a right angle to the longitudinal axis of the second receiver) of the second receiver (4)(Figure 1 of Wilson) and the splitting channel at the end of the splitting channel further away from the saw.
Regarding claim 6, modified Wilson teaches the machine according to claim 5, wherein the splitter comprises a ram (9)(Figure 2 of Wilson) configured to be pressed against the splitting tool (9)(Figure 3 of Wilson), wherein the ram is further configured to be moved back and forth in the splitter (Figures 2 and 3 of Wilson display the positions of the ram moving back and forth in the splitter from the starting position to the ending position parallel to the longitudinal axis of the second receiver), parallel to at least one of the longitudinal axis (7)(Figures 2 and 3 of Wilson) of the second receiver and the splitting channel.
Regarding claim 7, modified Wilson teaches the machine according to claim 5, wherein the second receiver (4)(Figure 4 of Wilson) in the splitter further comprises a support surface (10)(Figure 4 of Wilson) configured for the piece of wood to be placed on the support surface, and wherein the support surface comprises a V-shaped cross section (Figure 4 of Wilson).
Regarding claim 8, modified Wilson teaches the machine according to claim 1, further comprising a conveyor (11)(Figure 1 of Wilson) for removing split pieces of wood at a removal end of the second receiver facing away from the saw. (The direction of movement of log processing in Figure 1 of Wilson shows the logs being moved on the conveyor away from the saw.)
Regarding claim 9, modified Wilson teaches the machine according to claim 1, wherein the splitting channel is configured such that a first end (14)(Figure 4 of Wilson) of the splitting channel further away from the saw is further from a surface on which the machine rests than a second end (13)(Figure 4 of Wilson) of the splitting channel closer to the saw when the machine is ready for use. Since the machine of modified Wilson has a tilt of 10° from horizontal, as the logs travel in the direction of movement of log processing (Figure 1 of Wilson) the elevation of the machine in reference to the surface on which the machine rests increases. The first end of the splitting channel is downstream of the second end of the splitting channel in relation to the direction of the movement of log processing, therefore the elevation of the first end of the splitting channel is further from the surface on which the machine rests than the second end of the splitting channel.
Regarding claim 10, modified Wilson teaches the machine according to claim 1, wherein the saw comprises a cutting tool (12)(Figure 4 of Wilson).
Regarding claim 11, modified Wilson teaches the machine according to claim 10, wherein the splitter further comprises a ram configured to be pressed against the splitting tool (Figure 3 of Wilson), wherein an imaginary extension (15)(Figure 4 of Wilson) of the cutting tool intersects an end surface (16)(Figure 4 of Wilson) of the ram when the ram is in a starting position (Figure 4 of Wilson shows the splitter in the starting position) adjacent a middle of the ram, and wherein the starting position of the ram is where the ram is furthest away from the splitting tool in the splitter (Figure 2 of Wilson shows an interior view of the splitter in the starting position wherein the ram is furthest away from the splitting tool in the splitter).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wilson teaches the machine according to claim 5, wherein the splitting tool comprises a splitting wedge (8)(Figure 2 of Wilson).
Regarding claim 13, modified Wilson teaches the machine according to claim 8, wherein the conveyor is a conveyor belt (17)(Figure 1 of Wilson shows a conveyor wherein the conveyor is a conveyor belt that loops around underneath the conveyor assembly).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
EP 4091782 B1 teaches a log cutting and splitting machine with a conveyor belt.
US 20160229080 A1 teaches a log cutting and splitting machine with a wedge splitter.
US 4609018 A teaches a saw splitter machine.
US 4303112 A teaches a log cutting and splitting machine with a tilt.
DE 202016104676 teaches a log cutting and splitting machine with a conveyor.
EP 2789437 A1 teaches a log cutting and splitting machine.
DE 20010048 U1 teaches a log cutting and splitting machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUEVARA SAOOD ISSA whose telephone number is (571)482-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5pm and every other Friday 9:00am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.S.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights