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
Claims 33 and 38 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/29/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-3, 5-13, 15, 18-20, 24 and 30 in the reply filed on 01/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 10, 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “when in an installed position the roller assembly including at least one roller” should be changed to “when in the installed position the roller assembly including at least one roller”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the cutter carriage and roller carriage” should be changed to “the cutter carriage and the roller carriage”.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “along a workpiece travel path (X-X)” should be changed to “along a workpiece travel path”.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “an opening between the roller and cutter carriages and the surface of the table” should be changed to “an opening among the roller, the cutter carriages and the surface of the table”.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “wherein there are two roller assemblies mounted” should be changed to “wherein the ay least one roller assembly including two roller assemblies, the two roller assemblies are mounted”.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “path axis (X-X)” should be changed to “path axis”.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “an opening therein which can receive the cutter support section” should be changed to “an opening therein which receives the cutter support section”.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “the path axis (X-X)” should be changed to “the path axis”.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “a pivot axis (P-P) the pivot axis (P-P)” should be changed to “a pivot axis, the pivot axis”.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “the path axis (X-X)” should be changed to “the path axis”.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “on opposite sides of the pivot axis (P-P)” should be changed to “on opposite sides of the pivot axis”.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “pivot axis (P-P)” should be changed to “pivot axis”.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “resilient fashion” should be changed to “resilient manner”.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “and at least one roller of the roller carriage are being maintained” should be changed to “and the at least one roller of the roller carriage are being maintained”.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “the roller carriage and the cutter carriage to move in a synchronized fashion” should be changed to “the roller carriage and the cutter carriage to move in a synchronized manner”.
Regarding claim 24, the phrase “and at least one roller of the roller carriage are being maintained” should be changed to “and the at least one roller of the roller carriage are being maintained”.
Regarding claim 24, the phrase “the cutter carriage and roller carriage” should be changed to “the cutter carriage and the roller carriage”.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 18-20, 24 and 30 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 term “substantially” in claims 1 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 1, in lines 9-10 the phrase “the cutter carriage and roller carriage are substantially isolated or separated from one another” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “isolated”.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “the cutter carriage and roller carriage are substantially isolated or separated from one another” as “the cutter carriage and roller carriage are separated from one another”.
Claims 2-3, 5-13, 18-20, 24 and 30 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, in line 3 the phrase “it moves along a workpiece travel path” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear which element “moves along a workpiece travel path”.
Regrading claim 2, in lines 4-5 the phrase “wherein the cutter assembly and said at least one roller is/are arranged” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear why use “is/are”.
Regarding claim 2, in line 5 the phrase “it moves along the workpiece travel path” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear which element “moves along the workpiece travel path”.
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 15, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the workpiece" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the workpiece travel path" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, in lines 1-2 the phrase “wherein there are two roller assemblies mounted” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “two roller assemblies” is the same as or different from “at least one roller assembly” that recited in claim 1 which claim 5 depends from.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the travel path axis" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, in lines 3-4 the phrase "the travel path axis" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by "the travel path axis"
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “the rails being operatively mounted to the support structure and the or each roller assembly” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the or”;
Further, it is unclear if “each roller assembly” is the same as or different from “at least one roller assembly” that recited in claim 1 which claim 10 depends from.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “wherein the carriage comprises two spaced apart and separated end sections” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the carriage”; and it is unclear what is meant by “two spaced apart”
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “a roller assembly” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a roller assembly” is the same as or different from “at least one roller assembly” that recited in claim 1 which claim 11 depends from.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “wherein one or both of the roller assemblies” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “one or both of the roller assemblies” is the same as or different from “at least one roller assembly” that recited in claim 1 which claim 12 depends from.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “two rollers” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “two rollers” is the same as or different from “at least one roller” that recited in claim 1 which claim 12 depends from.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “at least one roller operatively mounted to the or each roller carriage” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the or”; Further, it is unclear if “each roller carriage” is the same as or different from “a roller carriage” that recited in claim 1 which claim 13 depends from; and it is unclear if “at least one roller” is the same as or different from “at least one roller” that recited in claim 1 which claim 13 depends from.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the forward and trailing rollers" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, in lines 5-6 the phrase “the forward and trailing rollers” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the forward and trailing rollers”; Further, it is unclear if “the forward and trailing rollers” is the same as or different from “at least one roller” that recited in line 2 of the same claim 13.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the roller axes" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the pivot axis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “the pivot axis” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the pivot axis”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the direction" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase “wherein the or each roller assembly” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the or”;
Further, it is unclear if “each roller assembly” is the same as or different from “at least one roller assembly” that recited in claim 1 which claim 18 depends from.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the relative position" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 24, in line 9 the phrase “the same columns” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the same columns” is the same as or different from “a plurality of columns” that recited in line 3 of the same claim 24.
Regarding claim 24, in line 10 the phrase “a first group of columns” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a first group of columns” is the same as or different from “a plurality of columns” that recited in line 3 of the same claim 24.
Regarding claim 24, in lines 11-12 the phrase “a second/separate group of columns” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a second/separate group of columns” is the same as or different from “a plurality of columns” that recited in line 3 of the same claim 24.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the adjustment mechanism" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 24, in line 13 the phrase “the adjustment mechanism” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the adjustment mechanism”.
Regarding claim 24, in line 14 the phrase “the carriage and roller mounts” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the carriage” is the same as or different from “the cutter carriage”; and it is unclear if “the carriage” is the same as or different from “the roller carriage”; and it is unclear if “roller mounts” is the same as or different from “carriage mounts” that recited in line 5 of the same claim 24.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 18-20, 24 and 30 are unclear and infinite; therefore, the Examiner is provided a prior art rejection as best as understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3, 6, 18-20, 24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsukasa (JPH03133601A attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Tsukasa discloses a thickness planer (pages 6-8) comprising a main body which includes a base structure (fig.1: (10a)) and a support structure (fig.1: (10g)),
a cutter carriage (fig.1: (12)) configured to have a cutter assembly (fig.1: (1a)) operatively mounted thereto, when in an installed position, and
a roller carriage (fig.1: (11)) configured to have at least one roller assembly operatively mounted thereto, when in an installed position the roller assembly including at least one roller (fig.1: (3a)),
the cutter carriage (fig.1: (12)) and the roller carriage (fig.1: (11)) each being mounted to the support structure (fig.1: (10g)) above and in spaced relation from the base structure and arranged so that when the thickness planer is in an in use configuration, the cutter carriage and roller carriage are substantially isolated or separated from one another (fig.1).
Regarding claim 2, Tsukasa discloses wherein the base structure includes a table (fig.1: (10c)) having a surface for supporting a workpiece (fig.1: (W)) as it moves along a workpiece travel path (X-X) from an infeed end towards an outfeed end, and wherein the cutter assembly and said at least one roller is/are arranged to contact the workpiece as it moves along the workpiece travel path through an opening between the roller and cutter carriages and the surface of the table (fig.1).
Regarding claim 3, Tsukasa discloses wherein said at least one roller (fig.1: (3a)) is configured to be urged in a direction towards the base structure, and, wherein said at least one roller is optionally a driven roller for moving the workpiece along the workpiece travel path.
Regarding claim 6, Tsukasa discloses wherein the cutter carriage and the roller carriage are operatively mounted to the support structure independently of one another (fig.1).
Regarding claim 18, Tsukasa discloses wherein the or each roller assembly comprises a single roller operatively mounted to the roller carriage (fig.1).
Regarding claim 19, Tsukasa discloses including an adjustment mechanism for adjusting the relative position of the base structure and the carriages towards or away from one another (pages 8-9).
Regarding claim 20, Tsukasa discloses including any one combination of:
the cutter assembly on the cutter carriage and at least one roller of the roller carriage are being maintained in a position relative to one another when the position of the carriages is adjusted relative to the base structure (pages 8-9);
the adjustment mechanism being configured to cause the roller carriage and the cutter carriage to move in a synchronized fashion towards or away from the base structure;
the adjustment mechanism being configured to hold the roller carriage and the cutter carriage in a position above and spaced from the base structure; and
the adjustment mechanism being operable to move the carriages towards or away from the base structure.
Regarding claim 24, Tsukasa discloses including any one or combination of:
the support structure comprising a plurality of columns (fig.2: (16a)) operatively mounted to the base structure, the cutter carriage and roller carriage each comprising carriage mounts (fig.2: the mount of the elements (16a) for mounting the elements (16a to each of the elements (11) and (12)) , the mounts being operatively connected to the columns so as to be movable there along towards or away from the base structure;
the carriage mounts for each of the roller carriage being operatively connected to the same columns and in spaced relation with respect to one another;
the cutter carriage mounts being operatively connected to a first group of columns and the roller carriage mounts are operatively mounted to a second/separate group of columns;
the adjustment mechanism comprising cooperating threaded sections one being on the columns and the other associated with the carriage and roller mounts, the threaded sections being configured so that relative rotation therebetween causes the carriages to move along the columns;
the columns being mounted for rotation on the base structure so that rotation thereof causes movement of the carriages along the columns; and
the thickness planer further including a transmission arrangement for facilitating simultaneous rotation of the columns.
Regarding claim 30, Tsukasa discloses further including any one or combination of:
a power train for powering the cutter head and the roller assemblies, the power train comprising a motor and a first transmission system operatively connecting the motor to the cutter head and a second transmission system operatively connecting the motor to the roller assemblies (page 6 last 2 lines-page 7);
an air stream flow control apparatus for controlling a flow of air through regions of the planer, the air stream flow control apparatus including a first downdraught system which can direct an airflow from above towards the base structure, and a second updraft system, which is operable to draw air away on the base structure in an upwards direction; and
an airstream guide including a feed section with an internal chamber therein and inlet for delivering an airstream to the internal chamber, the guide further including a discharge section which includes a plurality of ducts in fluid communication with the internal chamber for directing the airstream towards the base structure.
Claims 1, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song (JPH063602U attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Song discloses a thickness planer (paragraphs 0013-0019) comprising a main body which includes a base structure (fig.1: (21)) and a support structure (fig.1: (26)),
a cutter carriage (fig.1: (33)) configured to have a cutter assembly (fig.1: (34)) operatively mounted thereto, when in an installed position, and
a roller carriage (fig.1: (32)) configured to have at least one roller assembly operatively mounted thereto, when in an installed position the roller assembly including at least one roller (fig.1: (31)),
the cutter carriage (fig.1: (33)) and the roller carriage (fig.1: (32)) each being mounted to the support structure (fig.1: (26)) above and in spaced relation from the base structure and arranged so that when the thickness planer is in an in use configuration, the cutter carriage and roller carriage are substantially isolated or separated from one another (fig.1).
Regarding claim 8, Song discloses wherein the cutter carriage (fig.1: (33)) is positioned adjacent the base structure (fig.1: (21)) and the roller carriage (fig.1: (32)) is positioned above the cutter carriage when in the installed position.
Regarding claim 11, Song discloses wherein the carriage comprises two spaced apart and separated end sections each being operatively mounted to the support structure and each having a roller assembly operatively mounted thereto one being upstream of the cutter and the other being downstream of the cutter when in the installed position (fig.1).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukasa (JPH03133601A attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 10, Tsukasa does not disclose wherein the roller carriage comprises two separate support rails laterally spaced apart with respect to the travel path axis (X-X), the rails being operatively mounted to the support structure and the or each roller assembly being operatively mounted to the support rails when in the installed position;
However, Tsukasa discloses wherein the roller carriage comprises support parts (fig.1: (10h)) laterally spaced apart with respect to the travel path axis, the support parts being operatively mounted to the support structure and the or each roller assembly being operatively mounted to the support parts when in the installed position (fig.1);
It appears both of the configuration of the Applicant disclosure and the prior art of Tsukasa is resulted to support the roller carriage;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the supporting means of by any equivalent fixing means, in order to provide a support to the roller carriage. MPEP 2144.06.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (JPH063602U attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, Song does not disclose wherein the roller carriage is positioned adjacent the base structure and the cutter carriage is positioned above the roller carriage, the carriages being in spaced apart relation with respect to one another;
However, Song discloses wherein the carriage comprises two spaced apart and separated end sections each being operatively mounted to the support structure and each having a roller assembly operatively mounted thereto one being upstream of the cutter and the other being downstream of the cutter when in the installed position (fig.1);
Further, the applicant discloses that the position of the roller carriage with respect to the base structure and the cutter carriage is not critical and it can be at any arrangement (the Applicant’s specification paragraphs 0015-0017);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the position of the roller carriage with respect to the base structure and the cutter carriage as desired, including wherein the roller carriage is positioned adjacent the base structure and the cutter carriage is positioned above the roller carriage, the carriages being in spaced apart relation with respect to one another, as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7 and 12, the closet prior arts is Tsukasa (JPH03133601A), however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the claims as recited.
Claims 7 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13 and 15 are depended from claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725