Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Species A, claims 1-2, 4-16 in the reply filed on 1/06/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 3 and 17-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/06/2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phrase “are also provided” 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 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.
Claims 2,4, 5, 8-17 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.
The preamble of the claim 1 is directed to “a sawmill carriage”, however, claims 2, 4, 5, 8-9 are replete with limitations that define the carriage in terms of the rails. It is unclear whether the Applicant is claiming the combination of the carriage and the rails or just the carriage. If the claimed protection is just to the carriage, then the structure of the rails is immaterial to the structure of the carriage. If the Applicant desired patent protection to the combination, then the preamble should be amended to reflect the combination.
For example; Claim 1 recites, “the first translation structure being configured to be mounted on a first rail of a log support structure, the second translation structure being configured to be mounted on a second rail of the log support structure, the log support structure being configured to support a log.” The claims have now gone beyond the intended function of the carriage and are now describing the structure of the carriage in terms of the unclaimed structure. It is unclear how the structure of the carriage must function in order to be mounted on a first and second rail of a structure that also supports a log.
Claim 2, recites, “wherein each of the first rail and the second rail have at least a planar surface which the first pair of track wheels and second pair of track wheels are mountable.” The claim limitations are trying to define the structure of the track wheels though their ability to engage a flat rail rather than claim the features of track wheels that would permit their use on a flat track. The rails are not being positively claimed and it is unclear whether the Applicant is trying to claim the combination.
Claim 5 recites, “wherein a retainer structure…to abut a stop connected to the first rail and/or the second rail to inhibit accidental dismounting of the sawmill carriage from the log support structure when the sawmill carriage is mounted on the log support structure”. It is unclear what features the retainer structure most possess to be capable of performing these features on an unclaimed log support structure.
Claim 8 recites, “wherein a spacing between the pair of transportation wheels is greater than a width between the first rail and the second rail.” Again, the claims are defining the structure of the wheels in terms of the rails, rather than in terms of their own structure.
Claim 9 recites, “towards the first lateral side thereof”. It is not clear what structure “thereof” is referring.
The preamble to claim 10, is directed to “A sawmill carriage kit for a sawmill carriage.” The claims then go into substantially detail of the sawmill carriage and the log support structure, and define the kit in terms of both. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the structure of the “kit” versus the combination of the kit, sawmill carriage and log support structure.
For example; Claim 10 recites, “the first translation structure being configured to be mounted on a first rail of a log support structure, the second translation structure being configured to be mounted on a second rail of the log support structure, the log support structure being configured to support a log.” The claims have now gone beyond the intended function of the carriage kit and are now describing the structure of the kit in terms of the unclaimed structure of the carriage and the log support structure. It is unclear how the structure of the kit must function in order to be mounted on a first and second rail of a structure that also supports a log and how the structure of the kit is separate from that of the carriage.
Claim 10, recites, “a sawmill head of the sawmill carriage secured or securable to the frame, the sawmill head having a saw blade, a portion of the saw blade being positionable to cut the log positioned on the support structure when the first translation structure and the second translation structure are mounted on the first rail and the second rail, respectively and the sawmill carriage travels in the longitudal direction.” There is nothing in this entire paragraph directed to the structure of “the kit”. The sawmill head is claimed as being part of the sawmill carriage. It is therefore unclear if the “sawmill head” is also part of the kit that is for the sawmill carriage, or part of the sawmill carriage?
Claim 12, recites, “wherein each of the first rail and the second rail have at least a planar surface which the first pair of track wheels and second pair of track wheels are mountable.” The claim limitations are trying to define the structure of the track wheels though their ability to engage a flat rail rather than claim the features of track wheels that would permit their use on a flat track. The rails are not being positively claimed and it is unclear whether the Applicant is trying to claim the combination.
Claim 13 recites, “wherein a retainer structure…to abut a stop connected to the first rail and/or the second rail to inhibit accidental dismounting of the sawmill carriage from the log support structure when the sawmill carriage is mounted on the log support structure”. It is unclear what features the retainer structure most possess to be capable of performing these features on an unclaimed log support structure.
Claim 16 recites, “towards the first lateral side thereof”. It is not clear what structure “thereof” is referring.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-14 and16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beagle (U.S. Patent 2,703,115).
In regards to claim 1 and 10, Beagle discloses a sawmill carriage, comprising: a frame (30) having a handle (L-shaped handle 37); a first translation structure (a first grooved roller 36) connected to the frame (30) towards a first lateral side thereof, and a second translation structure (grooved second grooved roller 36 on the opposite side) connected to the frame towards a second lateral side thereof opposite the first lateral side, the first translation structure (the first roller 36) being configured to be mounted on a first rail (e.g. rail 19; not positively claimed) of a log support structure (e.g. the legs 10 and table top 15 could be considered a log support structure, which is also not positively claimed), the second translation structure (the second roller 36) being configured to be mounted on a second rail (e.g. rail 20) of the log support structure (also not positively claimed), the log support structure being configured to support a log (e.g. on table top 15), the first rail and the second rail extending in a longitudinal direction and enabling travel of the sawmill carriage in the longitudinal direction when the first translation structure and the second translation structure are mounted on the first rail and the second rail (the carriage moves on and along the rails 19/20), respectively; a sawmill head (11) secured to the frame, the sawmill head having a saw blade (11), a portion of the saw blade being positionable to cut the log positioned on the log support structure (e.g. cuts through table 15) when the first translation structure and the second translation structure are mounted on the first rail and the second rail, respectively, and the sawmill carriage (30/11) travels in the longitudinal direction (left-right per Figure 3); and a pair of transportation wheels (bearings 38/38; alternatively a second of the wheels 36 on each side) rotatably connected to the frame (30) towards a first longitudinal end thereof, wherein the handle (37) is positioned to enable tilting (e.g. Fig. 6) and/or transportation of the sawmill carriage (along the rails 19/20) when the sawmill carriage is resting on the pair of transportation wheels (bearings 38/38; alternatively a second of each of the pair of wheels36 on each side of the frame).
In regards to claim 2 and 11, Beagle discloses wherein the first translation structure includes a first pair of track wheels (two wheels on 36/36 one side of the frame) rotatably connected to the frame (30), and the second translation structure includes a second pair of track wheels (two wheels 36/36 on the opposite side of the frame per Fig. 2) rotatably connected to the frame, and wherein each of the first rail and the second rail have at least a planar surface (not positively claimed) upon which the first pair of track wheels and the second pair of track wheels are mountable, respectively.
In regards to claim 4 and 12, Beagle discloses wherein at least one of each of the first pair of track wheels (36/36) and at least one of the second pair of track wheels (opposite side 36/36) is positioned towards a second longitudinal end of the frame opposite the first longitudinal end.
In regards to claim 5 and 13, Beagle discloses wherein a retainer structure (longitudinal plate(s) 32) is positioned or positionable along the frame along a span of a longitudinal axis along which the first translation structure (36) and the second translation structure contact the first rail and the second rail, respectively, to abut a stop (end bar 21) connected to the first rail and/or the second rail to inhibit accidental dismounting of the sawmill carriage from the log support structure when the sawmill carriage is mounted on the log support structure.
In regards to claim 6 and 14, Beagle discloses wherein the retainer structure includes a first L-shaped bracket (32/32) positioned towards the first lateral side of the frame and a second L- shaped bracket positioned towards the second lateral side of the frame (see Fig. 5).
In regards to claim 8 and 15, Beagle discloses wherein a spacing between the pair of transportation wheels is greater than a width between the first rail and the second rail (the width of the inner distance between the rails 19/20; i.e. the width of the space between rails; is smaller than the distance between the wheels 36 (fig. 2).
In regards to claim 9 and 16, Beagle discloses wherein the frame includes a pair of plate members towards the first lateral side thereof between which the first pair of track wheels is rotatably mounted.
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.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beagle. (U.S. Patent 2,703,115).
In regards to claim 7 and 15, Beagle discloses wherein the first L-shaped bracket (32) and the second L-shaped bracket (32) are coupled to the frame (30), but does not positively disclose that they are removaly coupled. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the bracket and frame separable, if not already, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724