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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the closed-loop extension and upper branch of a loop-wound conveyor belt must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, lines 2-3 reads; “wherein that every pusher is jointly connected to both the chains of the pair of chains by two hinges” should read “wherein every one of the plurality of pushers is jointly connected to both chains of the pair of chains by two hinges”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 9 and 10 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 9, the claim states “wherein the conveyor plane consists of the upper branch of a loop-wound conveyor belt” in lines 2-3 of the claim. The “upper branch” of the loop-wound conveyor belt appears to lack proper antecedent basis in the claims.
The claim further states the “loop-wound conveyor belt… provided with its own motorization independent of the motorization of the pushers” in lines 3-4 of the claim. The limitation “the motorization of the pushers” appears to lack proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 10, the claim states “wherein the speed of the conveyor belt is set so as to make a complete turn corresponding to the time between the exit from the feed channel of two subsequent pushers” in lines 4-6 of the claim. The limitations “the speed”, “the time”, and “the exit” appear to lack proper antecedent basis in the claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chike et al. (US 2019/0105793 A1) in view of Petskeyes (US 2,131,256 A).
Regarding claim 1, Chike teaches a cutting machine (Chike; Figs. 1-10) with improved log feed channels: comprising:
A plurality of feed channels (Chike; Fig. 4; 64) of logs (Chike; Fig. 1; 22);
a blade assembly (Chike; Fig. 1; 24) for cutting logs (Chike; P. 0013); and
a discharge assembly (Chike; Fig. 1; 30) of final rolls (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Chike) below); and
head and end trims (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Chike) below),
wherein every feed channel comprises a clamp (Chike; Figs. 9-10; 80) and a plurality of pushers (Chike; Figs. 3-5; 40’ and 40’’) chain-moved for feeding the logs in the clamp (Chike; P. 0015), wherein every feed channel comprises a pair of chains (Chike; Fig. 5; 48’ and 48’’; P. 0015) and every pusher is jointly connected to both the chains of the pair of chains (Chike; Figs. 3-5; 40’, 40’’, 48’ and 48’’; P. 0016), and
wherein every chain of the pair of chains has a closed-loop extension (Chike; Fig. 1; 48) defined by two pinions (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Chike) below), describing an upper feed branch (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Chike) below), a descent branch (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Chike) below), a lower return branch (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Chike) below) and an ascent branch (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Chike) below) of the pusher.
Chike does not teach wherein every chain of the pair of chains has a closed-loop extension defined by four pinions.
Petskeyes teaches a pair of chains (Petskeyes; Figs. 1 and 3; 52) having a closed-loop extension (Petskeyes; Fig. 1; 52) defined by four pinions (Petskeyes; Fig. 1; 53, 54, 55 and 56). Such an arrangement allows for several improvements. First, this allows for improved tension for the spans of the chains between each pinon. Second, allows more force to be exerted onto the chains. Third, allows for better force distribution along the chains. And finally, allows the chains to be driven by multiple pinons or allows other chains to be connected to the pinons to drive other components (Petskeyes; Fig. 1; 118; Pg. 4; Col. 1; lines 67-72).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the closed-loop extension defined by two pinions taught by Chike to instead be defined by four pinions like the closed-loop extension taught by Petskeyes as providing additional pinions for a closed-loop extension provides multiple benefits including improved chain tension, improved force, improved force distribution, and to allow additional drives or components to be connected to the extension.
PNG
media_image1.png
506
819
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chike (US 2019/0105793 A1) in view of Petskeyes (US 2,131,256 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frantl et al. (US 4,067,437 A).
Regarding claim 2, Chike in view of Petskeyes teaches the cutting machine with improved log feed channels according to claim 1, wherein the chains of the pair of chains (Chike; Fig. 5; 48’ and 48’’) are aligned.
Chike in view of Petskeyes does not teach wherein the chains of the pair of chains are longitudinally misaligned of a predetermined extent along the feed direction.
Frantl teaches a pair of chains (Frantl; Figs. 1-6; 4) that are longitudinally misaligned of a predetermined extent (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Frantl) below) along the feed direction (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Frantl) below). This allows for a base for an element attached and moved by the chains to remain in a horizontal position around the path of the chains (Frantl; Col. 1; lines 5-15). It should be noted that while Frantl is different than the instant invention in that the chains drive a support that carries a base for a car the device of Frantl is similar in how the chains function and how the base attaches and is driven by the chains.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the pair of chains taught by Chike in view of Petskeyes such that they were misaligned like the pair of chains taught by Frantl as doing so allows for a base for an element attached and moved by the chains to remain in a horizontal position around the path of the chains.
PNG
media_image2.png
443
565
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Chike in view of Petskeyes and Frantl teaches the cutting machine with improved log feed channels according to claim 2, wherein that every pusher (Chike; Figs. 3-5; 40’ and 40’’) is jointly connected to both the chains of the pair of chains (Chike; Fig. 5; 48’ and 48’’) by two hinges (Chike; Fig. 3; 50, 52 and 54), respectively, wherein every of the two hinges of every pusher is connected to only one of the chains of the pair of chains (Chike; Fig. 5; 48’, 48’’, 50, 52 and 54).
Regarding claim 4, Chike in view of Petskeyes and Frantl teaches the cutting machine with improved log feed channels according to claim 3, wherein the two hinges (Chike; Fig. 3; 50, 52 and 54) are arranged on a base (Chike; Fig. 3; 54) of the pusher (Chike; Figs. 3-5; 40’ and 40’’) side by side.
Chike in view of Petskeyes and Frantl as modified does not teach wherein the two hinges are arranged on the base of the pusher in a diagonally-opposed position and with axes placed at a distance equal to the predetermined extent of misalignment of the chains of the pair of chains.
Frantl further teaches a base (Frantl; Figs. 1-6; 1) with two hinges (Frantl; Figs. 5-6; 6) which are arranged on the base in a diagonally-opposed position (Frantl; Fig. 6; 6 and S) and with axes (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6 (Frantl) below) placed at a distance equal to the predetermined extent of misalignment of the chains of the pair of chains (Frantl; Figs. 1-6; 4). This allows for a base for an element attached and moved by the chains to remain in a horizontal position around the path of the chains (Frantl; Col. 1; lines 5-15).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the hinges of the base taught by Chike in view of Petskeyes such that the two hinges are arranged on the base of the pusher in a diagonally-opposed position and with axes placed at a distance equal to the predetermined extent of misalignment of the chains of the pair of chains like that taught by Frantl as doing so allows for a base for an element attached and moved by the chains to remain in a horizontal position around the path of the chains.
PNG
media_image3.png
463
410
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Chike in view of Petskeyes and Frantl teaches the cutting machine with improved log feed channels according to claim 3.
Chike in view of Petskeyes and Frantl as modified does not teach wherein every hinge comprises a pivot, idly housed in a seat of the pusher.
Frantl further teaches wherein every hinge (Frantl; Figs. 5-6; 6) comprises a pivot (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6 (Frantl) above), idly housed in a seat (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6 (Frantl) above) of the pusher (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6 (Frantl) above). This allows for a base for an element attached and moved by the chains to remain in a horizontal position around the path of the chains (Frantl; Col. 1; lines 5-15).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the hinges taught by Chike in view of Petskeyes such that every hinge comprises a pivot, idly housed in a seat of the pusher like that taught by Frantl as doing so allows for a base for an element attached and moved by the chains to remain in a horizontal position around the path of the chains.
Regarding claim 6, Chike in view of Petskeyes and Frantl teaches the cutting machine with improved log feed channels according to claim 2, wherein multiple pairs of chains (Chike; Figs. 1-2; 26) are placed side by side and arranged specularly to each other (Chike; Figs. 1-2; 26).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chike (US 2019/0105793 A1) in view of Petskeyes (US 2,131,256 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gambini I (US 8,689,966 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Chike in view of Petskeyes teaches the cutting machine with improved log feed channels according to claim 1, wherein the clamp (Chike; Figs. 9-10; 80) comprises, an outlet end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Chike) below), a transverse slot for cutting (Chike; Figs. 9-10; 34; P. 0013), and a longitudinal slot (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Chike) below) for allowing the pusher to move along the length of the clamp
Chike in view of Peskeyes does not teach the claimp comprising a transverse slot in the proximity of the outlet end, adapted to accommodate the pusher during the descent trajectory along the descent branch.
Gambini I teaches an assembly comprising a transverse slot (Gambini I; Figs. 4a-4c; 23) in the proximity of the outlet end (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4a (Gambini I) below). This allows the pusher (Gambini I; Fig. 4a-4c; 17) to pass through and descent along a descent branch (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4a (Gambini I) below). While Chike in view of Peskeyes and Gambini I do not specifically teach a transverse slot in the proximity of the outlet end, adapted to accommodate the pusher during the descent trajectory along the descent branch the teaching of Chike in view of Peskeyes and Gambini I the prior art does teach that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know to make slots in various structures to allow structures like a blade or a pusher to pass and as such it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the clamp taught by Chike in view of Peskeyes in view to teaching of Gambini I to include a transverse slot in the clamp as it is well known in the art to include slots in a clamp to accommodate a pusher.
PNG
media_image4.png
460
448
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
408
673
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Chike in view of Petskeyes teaches the cutting machine with improved log feed channels according to claim 1, wherein the discharge assembly [[(50)]] comprises at least a conveyor plane (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Chike) above) of the final rolls (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Chike) above).
Chike in view of Petskeyes does not teach wherein the discharge assembly comprises at least a conveyor plane of the final rolls provided with at least one opening of a size adapted to allow head and end trims to fall by gravity, wherein the opening is movable and synchronized with the movement of the pushers.
Gambini I teaches a discharge assembly (Gambini I; Figs. 4a-4c; 14) comprising at least a conveyor plane (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4a (Gambini I) above) of the final rolls (Gambini I; Figs. 4a-4c; 10) provided with at least one opening (Gambini I; Figs. 4a-4c; 23) of a size adapted to allow head and end trims (Gambini I; Fig. 4a-4b; 24) to fall by gravity (Gambini I; Figs. 4a-4b; 24; Col. 1; lines 31-39), wherein the opening is movable (Gambini I; Col. 3; lines 6-11) and synchronized with the movement of the pushers (Gambini I; Col. 1; lines 31-39). Such a discharge assembly allows for more simple synchronization with a cutting machine (Gambini I; Col. 1; lines 43-49).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the discharge assembly taught by Chike in view of Petskeyes such that the discharge assembly comprised at least a conveyor plane of the final rolls provided with at least one opening of a size adapted to allow head and end trims to fall by gravity, wherein the opening is movable and synchronized with the movement of the pushers like the discharge assembly taught by Gambini I as such a discharge assembly allows for more simple synchronization with a cutting machine.
Regarding claim 9, Chike in view of Petskeyes and Gambini I teaches the cutting machine with improved log feed channels according to claim 8, wherein the conveyor plane (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4a (Gambini I) above) consists of the upper branch (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4a (Gambini I) above) of a loop-wound conveyor belt (Gambini I; Figs. 4a-4c; 20 and 21) and provided with its own motorization (Gambini I; Col. 3; lines 54-57) independent of the motorization of the pushers (Gambini I; Figs. 4a-4c; 17; Col. 3; lines 45-53).
Regarding claim 10, Chike in view of Petskeyes and Gambini I teaches the cutting machine with improved log feed channels according to claim 9, wherein every channel (Chike; Fig. 4; 64) is associated with its own conveyor belt (Gambini I; Fig. 3; 20 and 21; Col. 3; lines 6-11), wherein every conveyor belt (Gambini I; Fig. 3; 20 and 21) has only one opening (Gambini I; Figs. 4a-4c; 23), wherein the speed of the conveyor belt is set so as to make a complete turn corresponding to the time between the exit from the feed channel of two subsequent pushers (Gambini I; Figs. 4a-4c; 17; Col. 3; lines 26-57).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chike (US 2019/0105793 A1) in view of Petskeyes (US 2,131,256 A) and Gambini I (US 8,689,966 B2) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Gambini II (US 2001/0022285 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Chike in view of Petskeyes and Gambini I teaches the cutting machine with improved log feed channels according to claim 9, wherein the discharge assembly (Gambini I; Figs. 4a-4c; 14) comprises at least one upper belt (Gambini I; Figs. 4a-4c; 25) placed above the conveyor belt (Gambini I; Fig. 3; 20 and 21) at a distance, wherein the upper belt has the same movement of the conveyor belt (Gambini I; Figs. 4a-4c, 20, 21 and 25).
Chike in view of Petskeyes and Gambini I does not teach wherein the at least one upper belt placed above the conveyor belt at an adjustable distance.
Gambini II teaches at least one upper belt (Gambini II; Figs. 1-2; 16) placed above a conveyor belt (Gambini II; Figs. 1-2; 22 and 30) at an adjustable distance (Gambini II; P. 0020). This allows for various diameters of logs or cut rolls to be transported between the conveyors (Gambini II; P. 0040).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the discharge assembly taught by Chike in view of Petskeyes and Gambini I such that the at least one upper belt placed above the conveyor belt at an adjustable distance like the adjustable upper belt taught by Gambini II as this allows for various diameters of logs or cut rolls to be transported between the conveyors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571)270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 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, 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights