Patent Application 18309195 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS RELATED TO BOARD NOTCHING - Rejection
Appearance
Patent Application 18309195 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS RELATED TO BOARD NOTCHING
Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS RELATED TO BOARD NOTCHING
Application Information
- Invention Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS RELATED TO BOARD NOTCHING
- Application Number: 18309195
- Submission Date: 2025-05-20T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2023-04-28T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2023-04-28T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 144
- National Sub-Class: 133100
- Examiner Employee Number: 86833
- Art Unit: 3725
- Tech Center: 3700
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 1
- 103 Rejections: 2
Cited Patents
No patents were cited in this rejection.
Office Action Text
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 . 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,823,239 to Smith (Smith). Concerning claim 1, Smith discloses a system for cutting notches in wooden boards, the system comprising: a motor (91) affixed to a mounting plate (90); a cutting head (22) spaced from the motor (91); and a cutting table (10) positioned between the motor (91) and cutting head (22), wherein the cutting head (22) is directly driven by the motor (91). Concerning claim 2, Smith discloses in figure 6 the motor (91) comprises a protruding shaft and the cutting head (22) comprises a bit coupled to the shaft. Concerning claim 3, Smith discloses the bit (22) comprises at least one knife. Concerning claim 6, Smith discloses the cutting table (10) comprises an aperture (24, 32). 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. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,044,694 to Lowder et al (Lowder). Concerning claim 4, Smith does not disclose that each knife further comprises at least one carbide insert. Lowder discloses a rotary cutter comprising a cutting head (22) which is directly driven by a motor (14); the motor (14) comprises a protruding shaft (20) and the cutting head (22) comprises a bit (24) coupled to the shaft; the bit (24) comprises at least one knife (28) each knife further comprises at least one carbide insert (28). Because both these references are concerned with a similar problem, rotary cutters, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the cutting head of Smith with that of Lowder. In KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)) the courts held that combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Accordingly a simple substitution of the cutting head of Smith with that of Lowder will obtain predictable results and is therefore obvious and proper combination of the references is made. The predictable results being the ability to replace the blade without replacing the entire cutting head and using carbide with is a wear resistant material. Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith. Concerning claim 5, Smith does not disclose wherein at least one knife is approximately 1” thick and at least one knife is approximately ½” thick. However, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the apparatus of Smith such that the at least one knife is approximately 1” thick and at least one knife is approximately ½” thick as such determination would result during routine engineering practices and experimentation. Accordingly, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Concerning claim 17, Smith discloses a method for notching boards comprising the steps of: providing a board frame (178) affixed to a cutting table (12), the board frame (18b) comprising a gap (182); directly driving a cutting head (22) using a motor (91); placing a board (184) within the board frame (178); and linearly moving the driven cutting head (22) through the board frame gap to cut a notch (190) in the board (see figures 12 and 13). Smith does not disclose wherein the cutting head cuts the board parallel to the grain of the board. However, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to apply the method of Smith to cutting a board parallel to the grain of the board as such determination would result during routine engineering practices and experimentation. Accordingly, it is well known in the art to cut boards with respect to the grain direction based on the desired usage. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-16 and 18-20 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While Smith does disclose rails (140, 141) for moving the cutting head it does not disclose moving the cutting head using a first pneumatic cylinder connected to the mounting plate. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,079,389 and 7,971,611 both disclose routers with exhausts. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Katcoff whose telephone number is (571)270-1415. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4, Fri: Flex. 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 on (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. /Matthew Katcoff/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725 05/16/2025