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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2, 3, 8, and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8-24-26.
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 structure allowing for the carrier member to be movable along a movement direction which is arranged angularly with respect to the cutting axis so as to vary a distance between the worktable and the cutting axis along the movement direction, of claim 1
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Cutting Apparatus.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Use of the term “designed” is not normally utilized in U.S. practice.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regards to claim 1 and the specification, the disclosure that “the carrier member is movable along a movement direction which is arranged angularly with respect to the cutting axis so as to vary a distance between the worktable and the cutting axis along the movement direction” is unclear. The specification fails to provide any insight on the structure allowing for the carrier to be movable along the movement direction in combination with the carrier member being translatable along the cutting axis. It is clear how the worktable performs this function but without some structure description, it is unclear what structure allows for the carrier to perform this function especially in light of the structures allowing for all of the other movement functions of the carrier.
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, 4-7, 10, and 11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “a cutting apparatus for performing linear cuts” is unclear. The “cutting tool” disclosure is not positively claimed as the carrier member only needs to be configured to carry the cutting tool. Without the “cutting tool” being positively claimed, it is unclear how the apparatus is able to perform linear cuts and be considered a cutting apparatus. In order for the apparatus to be a cutting apparatus, a structure allowing for the cutting function to take place needs to be positively claimed.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “the carrier member defining a cutting axis for the cutting tool” is unclear. The cutting tool is not positively claimed and it is unclear how the carrier member defines a cutting axis for an item that is not present? The cutting axis is defined by a part of the cutting tool extending between arms 14A and 14B.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “at least part of the cutting tool extends along the cutting axis” is unclear. It is this “part” that defines the cutting axis and it is unclear how this part can extend along an axis it defines?
With regards to claim 1, it is unclear what structure allows for the carrier to be movable along the movement direction in combination with the tilting and translatable movements?
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “is movable along a cutting direction perpendicular to both the cutting axis and the movement direction, in order to cut said block along a cutting plane on which the cutting axis lies” is unclear. It is unclear how a cutting direction can exist without structure performing the cutting function. If no blade is disclosed, a cutting direction cannot be defined. The “cutting plane” is indefinite as any plane intersecting the cutting axis can be a cutting plane. Further definition is needed.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “along a movement direction which is arranged angularly with respect to the cutting axis” is unclear. It is unclear what structures define the movement direction as all directions would be angularly with respect to the cutting axis. Further definition is needed.
With regards to claim 5, the parameters “b”, “f”, and “Hw” are unclear as they are not limited to what is shown in the Figures as the workpiece is not positively claimed. These parameters could represent alternate dimensions since they are not defined using the cutting apparatus.
With regards to claims 5 and 11, the limitations disclosed are further defining the unclaimed indefinite workpiece or the intended use of the apparatus. It is unclear what Applicant’s intentions are as these limitations are not further limiting the cutting apparatus.
With regards to claim 6 and 7, the block is an unclaimed indefinite intended use of the cutting apparatus and any limitation dependent upon the indefinite block is also indefinite. Since the workpiece is not positively claimed, the workpiece is not limited to the one shown in the Figures. Any workpiece or any shape and size that does not correspond with the limitations of claim 6 and 7 may be utilized. Further definition is needed.
Claim 10 is very confusing as it appears to be an apparatus claim with positively claimed method steps. An apparatus cannot comprise method steps as the apparatus may never be utilized in the manner disclosed. The method steps are also dependent upon the unclaimed indefinite intended use work piece and are also indefinite.
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 1, 4-7, and 11 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (3,736,820) in view of Johnson (4,111,085).
With regards to claim 1, Jung discloses the invention including a cutting apparatus capable of performing linear cuts on a block of polymeric material work piece (Figs. 1 and 2) having a worktable adapted to support the workpiece to be cut (3), a carrier member (1) configured to carry a cutting tool to cut the work piece (10), the carrier member defining a cutting axis for the cutting tool (10, Fig. 1), at least part of the cutting tool extends along the cutting axis (10, Fig. 1), the carrier member is translatable along the cutting axis so as the vary an axial position of the carrier along the cutting axis (Fig. 1), the carrier member is movable along a movement direction which is arranged angularly with respect to the cutting axis so as to vary a distance between the worktable and the cutting axis along the movement direction (26, 37, 38, 39), and the work table is movable along a cutting direction perpendicular to both the cutting axis and the movement direction capable of cutting the workpiece along a cutting plane on which the cutting axis lies (45).
However, with regards to claims 1 and 4, Jung fails to disclose the carrier member is configured to be tilted with respect to the worktable so as to vary an angle of inclination of the cutting axis with respect to the worktable and an adjustment device configured to receive cutting parameters related to the workpiece and adjust the angle of inclination based on the parameters.
Johnson teaches it is known in the art of bandsaws with a movable carrier member (13) to incorporate the carrier member being configured to be tilted with respect to the worktable so as to vary an angle of inclination of the cutting axis with respect to the worktable (Fig. 2C) and an adjustment device configured to receive cutting parameters related to the workpiece and adjust the angle of inclination based on the parameters (column 7 lines 28-29, computer controlled electronic circuits). It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have made the carrier member of Jung with additional movements and an adjustment device to allow for more complex cuts and for the machine to be completely automated to complete the complex cuts. With regards to claims 5-7, Jung in view of Johnson are capable of utilizing a workpiece that corresponds with the intended uses claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Jung with the tilting structures and the adjustment device, as taught by Johnson, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claims
It is to be noted that claim 10 has not been rejected over prior art. It may or may not be readable over the prior art but allowability cannot be determined at this time in view of the issues under 35 USC § 112. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 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, Boyer D Ashley can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
28 September 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
