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
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “3 (fig. 1)”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following typographical error:
In line 1, the letter “I” should be deleted.
Additionally, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Therefore, the phrase, “comprises” in line 2 of the abstract should be changed to – includes --.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 12, line 2 is objected to because it is improper to refer a claim in the specification. The specification is a stand alone document and is not read in light of the claims.
In paragraph 34, line 3, number “26” should be changed to -- 28 -- (see log turner 28 in para. 35).
In paragraph 36, line 2, “sheet 26” should be changed to – sheet 36 -- (see fig. 3) because the reference number 26 is referred to a rotating chain (see para. 35). Additionally, the words, “and to the laminated sheet 36” should be deleted for clarity.
In paragraph 36, line 5, both of the numbers “26” should be changed to -- 28 -- (see log turner 28 in para. 35).
In paragraph 37, line 1, “sheet 26” should be changed to – sheet 36 -- (see fig. 3).
In paragraph 37, line 2, “sheet 20” is unclear because the laminated sheet 20 does not belong to the unit that has the motor 30. Same issue with numeral “20” in the last line.
In paragraph 37, line 13 “sheets 26” should be changed to – sheets 36 -- (see fig. 3).
In paragraph 40, line 2, “sheet 26” should be changed to – sheet 36 -- (see fig. 3).
In paragraph 41, last line, “26” should be changed to – 28 -- (see fig. 3) (see log turner 28 in para. 35).
In paragraph 44, line 2, “26” should be changed to – 28 -- (see fig. 3) (see log turner 28 in para. 35).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 9-10, 14-15, and 16-18 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 9, lines 2-3, there is no antecedent basis each of for the limitations, “the hydraulic assembly”, “the top end”, and “the bottom end” in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation, “the at least one bolt further comprising a spacer attached to the at least one bolt” is unclear because it is not clear how can the spacer, which is part of the bolt, and the spacer attached to itself (i.e. the bolt).
Regarding claim 15, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation, “the component fasteners” in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear whether the component fastener is referring to the at least one bolt (line 1), which could make the claim indefinite if it is.
Regarding claim 16, the metes and bounds of claim 16 are unclear because it is not clear what Applicant is relying on in the sawmill of claim 1 for patentability. Claim 16 should be rewritten in an independent form with all of the intended limitations.
Regarding claim 16, line 5, the limitation, “one or more component” lacks clear antecedent basis because it is unclear whether this component is referring to “one or more component” as claimed in claim 1, line 11.
Regarding claim 18, the metes and bounds of claim 18 are unclear because it is not clear what Applicant is relying on in the sawmill of claim 1 for patentability. Claim 18 should be rewritten in an independent form with all of the intended limitations.
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 1-4 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Belzile (US 2013/0283991 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Belzilei discloses a sawmill comprising:
a bed (16) having a first rail (18) and a second rail (20) positioned parallel to each other (fig. 1),
a carriage (12) having horizontal movement along the bed (para. 27),
a sawhead (14) attached to the carriage (12) (fig. 1),
a cross-bunk (24) having a first end and a second end (fig. 1), the first end attached to the first rail (18) and the second end attached to the second rail (20), the cross bunk comprising an assembly of laminated sheets comprising:
two or more rigid plates [(24ab and 24ba) or (2424bb and 24ca) or (24cb and 24da) in figs. 7-8)] horizontally extending from the first end to the second end (figs. 7-8) and
at least one bolt (554) (para. 81 and fig. 9),
one or more components (a toe board 860) for the sawmill secured between the two or more horizontally extending rigid plates (24aa and 24ba) by the at least one bolt (554) (fig. 9), wherein the at least one bolt (554) also fasten the two or more horizontally extending rigid plates (24ab and 24ba) to each other (fig. 9, also see the last four lines of para. 84).
Regarding claim 2, the sawmill of claim 1, wherein the at least one bolt supports and stabilizes the horizontally extending rigid plates (24ab and 24ba); and the one or more components (860) are movable (see “adjustable toe board 860” para. 84, last line) within the horizontally extending rigid plates (figs. 9 and 11a).
Regarding claim 3, the sawmill of claim 1, wherein the one or more components comprises one or more of: a toe board assembly (see “adjustable toe board 860” para. 84, last line; and fig. 9); a log rest assembly; and a log turner assembly.
Regarding claim 4, the sawmill of claim 2, wherein the one or more components comprises one or more of: a toe board assembly (see “adjustable toe board 860” para. 84, last line; and fig. 9); a log rest assembly; and a log turner assembly.
Regarding claim 12, the sawmill of claim 1, wherein the horizontally extending rigid plates are fastened to the rails with rigid brackets (see a square bracket at and end of the plate 24ba in fig. 9 that has a bolt 554 attached thereto).
Regarding claim 13, the sawmill of claim 1, wherein the two or more horizontally extending rigid plates (24ab or 530) are made of steel (see “steel sheet” in para. 74).
Regarding claim 14, the sawmill of claim 1, the at least one bolt (554) further comprising a spacer (see “spacer.. on the fasteners 554” in para. 81, last line) attached to the at least one bolt (554), the spacer tightly fitting a space between the laminated sheets and providing structural integrity to the assembly of laminated sheets (see para. 81).
Regarding claim 15, the sawmill of claim 1, the at least one bolt (554) further comprising spacers (see “spacer .. on the fasteners 554” in para. 81, last line) attached to the component fasteners, the spacers sized to prevent horizontal movement of the one or more components.
Regarding claim 16, Belzile discloses a method for securing the one or more components to a sawmill of claim 1, comprising:
fastening the two or more horizontally extending rigid plates (24ab and 24ba) to the bed of the sawmill with the at least one bolt (554) (para. 81) (fig. 9);
securing one or more components (860) for the sawmill in between the two or more horizontally extending rigid plates with the at least one bolt (554) (fig. 9), wherein:
the at least one bolt (554) of the one or more components for the sawmill support and stabilize the two or more horizontally extending rigid plates; and the one or more components (860) for the sawmill are freely movable (see “adjustable toe board 860” para. 84, last line) within the two or more horizontally extending rigid plates (24an and 24ba) (fig. 9).
Regarding claim 17, the method of claim 16 wherein the securing also secures and supports the rigid plates [see a bolt (554) secures and supports the plates (24ab and 24ba) in fig. 9].
Regarding claim 18, A kit of parts for constructing a sawmill of claim 1 comprising the bed (16), the carriage (12), the sawhead (14), the cross-bunk (24), the one or more components (860) and the at least one bolt (554) (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
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 9-10, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belzile.
Regarding claim 9, the sawmill of claim 1, Belzile discloses wherein the one or more components comprises a log rest assembly (826), the log rest assembly (826) comprising a log rest (852), a bottom end of the log rest secured to each of the two or more rigid plates (fig. 13 and para. 102).
As to the log rest assembly is operated by a hydraulic assembly, Belzile discloses that the log rest is manually adjustable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention move the log rest automatically with a mechanical or hydraulic device, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involved only routine e skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 199.
Regarding claim 10, the sawmill of claim 9 wherein the two or more rigid plates are positioned to prevent horizontal movement of the log rest (see fig. 13 and para, 104 discloses that the log rest 826 is vertically adjusted; therefore, there is no horizontal movement of the log rest).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 5, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered lone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “the hydraulic assembly comprising a top end and a bottom end, the top end secured to a top fastener, the top fastener secured to each of the two or more rigid plates, and a bottom fastener, the bottom fastener secured to the toe board”, in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6-8 would be allowable in virtue of their dependents upon claim 5.
Regarding claim 11, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered lone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “a log turner assembly comprising a log turning chain, a chain bar and a motor, the motor secured to the two or more rigid plates, the motor providing structural integrity to the assembly of laminated sheets”, in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4,559,858 discloses a sawmill including a sawhead (5) and cross bunks (7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-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 L 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights