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 .
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 10/09/2025. The amendments to the drawings and claims have been entered. Claims 1-11, 13-14, and 16-17 are pending in the application with claims 14 and 16-17 withdrawn. Claims 1-11 and 13 are examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “the gentry” should be amended to recite “the gantry”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR Patent No. 10-1534675 (“Lee”) in view of JP Publication No. H10-90493 (“Hotta”), “Integral Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) Facility” (“Parsons”), and “Experience in Dismantling and Packaging of Pressure Vessel and Core Internals” (“Pillokat”).
Citations to Lee and Hotta refer to the translation documents previously provided with the PTO-892 dated 06/29/2023. Citations to Parsons refer to the page numbers in the bottom left corner of the document previously provided with the PTO-892 dated 07/11/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Lee (previously cited) discloses a remote dismantling system (p. 3: “a remote dismantling robotic system for decompressing nuclear reactor pressure vessel”), comprising:
a robot arm system (FIG. 3), comprising:
at least two vertical rails (152, 154) extending in a vertical direction,
a robot arm (150) which can accommodate an end-effector (164), such as a cutting end-effector for cutting an object or a gripping end-effector (p. 5: “the fixed robot end effector 164 can be replaced by various mechanisms such as a gripper, a hydraulic cutter, and a water jet”), and
wherein
the robot arm is mounted to the at least two vertical rails, and
the robot arm is configured to move along the at least two vertical rails (p. 5: “The fixed manipulator 150 is configured to ascend and descend ... by a fixed robot guide 152”);
a transfer system (FIG. 4) comprising:
a gantry crane configured to transfer the object (p. 4: “the movable manipulator 100 can ... transfer the parts,” “components constituting the reactor vessel 10 moved by the movable manipulator 100”; see also p. 5), and
a pair of traveling rails (102) (FIGS. 1-2, p. 5: “a movable bridge 105 which is movable in the longitudinal direction of the fixed rail 102”);
a band saw and turntable system (FIG. 2), comprising:
a support (24) having an upper side in a plane extending in a first direction perpendicular to the vertical direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and the vertical direction, the upper side of the support being longer in the first direction than in the second direction;
a turntable (14) configured to have the object placed thereon (p. 5: “The upper inner structure assembly 22 ... move to the rotary disc 14”), the turntable being on the upper side of the support and movable along the upper side of the support in the first direction toward (e.g., towards a right side of the upper side of the support in FIG. 2) and away from (e.g., towards a left side of the upper side of the support in FIG. 2) the at least two vertical rails (Lee’s vertical rails are disposed at one end (right-most end in FIG. 2) of the support – therefore, when the turntable moves towards a right side of the support in FIG. 2, the turntable moves “toward” the vertical rails, whereas when the turntable moves towards a left side of the support in FIG. 2, the turntable moves “away from” the vertical rails; see FIG. 2, excerpt annotated below; see also Examiner’s Diagram1 below); and
a band saw (26) configured to cut the object (p. 4: “a band saw 26 for cutting in the vertical direction”),
wherein
the robot arm extends from the at least two vertical rails over the turntable and is capable of extending in a direction parallel to the first direction in which the upper side of the support is longer than in the second direction (FIG. 3, p. 3: “The mobile robot arm includes two or more mobile robot joints sequentially connected from the movable arm base, and a mobile robot end effector installed at an end of the joint of the last mobile robot [joint] among the two or more mobile robot joints”; p. 5: “The fixed robot arm includes a fixed robot arm base 158 fixed to the fixed robot slider 156, two or more fixed robot joints 160 and 162 sequentially connected from the fixed robot arm base 158, And a fixed robot end effector 164 installed at an end of the final fixed robot joint 162 among the fixed robot joints 160 and 162. Accordingly, the fixed robot end effector has many degrees of freedom and can perform various operations”), and
an amount the robot arm extends over the turntable increases with a decrease in distance between the turntable and the first vertical rail in the first direction (FIG. 2) (see FIG. 2, excerpt annotated below; see also Examiner’s Diagram1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
555
401
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
592
531
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee, FIG. 2 (excerpt) (annotations added) Examiner’s Diagram1
PNG
media_image3.png
555
392
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
600
528
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lee, FIG. 2 (excerpt) (annotations added) Examiner’s Diagram1
While Lee discloses the robot arm may carry out a cutting and/or a gripping task (p. 5: “the fixed robot end effector 164 can be replaced by various mechanisms such as a gripper, a hydraulic cutter, and a water jet”), Lee does not appear to disclose the robot arm system includes multiple robot arms.
Hotta (previously cited) (see FIGS. 2-3) is also directed towards a remote dismantling system for a nuclear reactor (p. 2: “a remote dismantling apparatus for a nuclear reactor”) comprising a robot arm system (FIG. 2). Hotta teaches the robot arm system comprises:
at least two vertical rails (12) extending in a vertical direction,
a cutting robot arm (14, 17) for cutting an object; and
a transfer robot arm (15, 22) for transferring cut pieces which have been cut from the object (p. 3: “the moving device for cutting and the moving device for gripping”),
wherein
the cutting robot arm is mounted to a first vertical rail (e.g., the left vertical rail 12 in FIG. 3) of the at least two vertical rails,
the transfer robot arm is mounted to a second vertical rail (e.g., the right vertical rail 12 in FIG. 3) of the at least two vertical rails, and
the cutting robot arm and the transfer robot arm are configured to move independently of each other along the first vertical rail and the second vertical rail (p. 3: “the moving device for cutting and the moving device for gripping can be moved up and down separately”; p. 4: “the cutting support arm 17 and the gripping support arm 22 are moved up and down in the vertical direction,” “two dismantling devices ... each provided with a cutting movement device 14 and a gripping movement device 15 are provided”).
Hotta further teaches having separate cutting robot arms and transfer robot arms as well as this arrangement of multiple robot arms provides the advantage of allowing the cutting and gripping operations to be performed in parallel, thereby improving the efficiency of the dismantling work (p. 3: “since the moving device for cutting and the moving device for gripping can be moved up and down separately ... dismantling and gripping of the dismantled object are performed in parallel.... Dismantling work can be performed efficiently in a short time”; p. 4: “by employing a structure in which a plurality of moving devices for cutting 14 and a plurality of moving devices for gripping 15 are provided, cutting and dismantling and holding and transporting of dismantled materials can be performed in parallel by a plurality of devices, and the efficiency of dismantling work is improved”). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to include cutting robot arms and transfer robot arms movable along different vertical rails, as taught by Hotta, in Lee’s robot arm system for the predictable advantage of increasing operation efficiency by enabling independent and simultaneous operation and control of the robot arms, as suggested by Hotta.
Lee does not appear to disclose the transfer system comprises a jib crane.
Parsons (previously cited) (see FIG. 2-5 (p. 66), excerpt annotated below) is also directed towards a handling system for nuclear reactor structures comprising a transfer mechanism comprising an overhead crane (“overhead traveling crane”, “overhead crane”) (p. 12: “Th MRS Facility design ... is based on those requirements and includes all infrastructure, facilities, and equipment required to routinely receive, unload, prepare for storage, and store spent fuel (SF), high-level waste (HLW), and transuranic waste (TRU), and to decontaminate and return shipping casks”; p. 33: “An overhead traveling crane and a shielded crane maintenance and decontamination room are provided for each shielded process cell, decon cell”; p. 69: “The overhead crane ... picks up one drum and moves it directly over the decon station”). Parsons teaches the transfer mechanism further comprises a jib crane (“jib crane”) configured to receive and transfer pieces (p. 67: “A motor-driven, rotary jib crane with a motor-driven drum grapple attachment on the boom end. The jib crane, with grapple attachments, services the drum guidance system and transfer carts. A clean drum is grappled, raised, and rotated to a transfer car”),
wherein
the overhead crane and the jib crane are positioned adjacent to each other in a first direction perpendicular to a vertical direction without overlapping each other in the vertical direction,
the overhead crane and the jib crane are arranged to intersect with each other without interference during movement,
the jib crane has a height lower than a height of a vertical support of the overhead crane, and
the jib crane is configured to rotate within a predetermined angle range directly underneath the overhead crane.
PNG
media_image5.png
484
738
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Parsons, FIG. 2-5 (p. 66) (excerpt) (annotations added)
Pillokat (previously cited), is also directed towards a dismantling system for a nuclear reactor structure (Title), and teaches that utilizing a jib crane with a gantry crane allows for parallel working activities, thereby optimizing performance (Abstract: “separate working areas including areas for post segmentation and packaging to perform optimized parallel activities”; p. 6: “implemented parallel working activities to guarantee the best possible on-site performance.... For most independent working, three additional mobile working bridges with jib cranes were installed above the segmentation areas). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to modify Lee’s transfer system to include a jib crane, as taught by Parsons, for the predictable advantage of allowing for simultaneous lifting operations, thereby further improving efficiency, as suggested by Pillokat. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a POSA to position the gantry crane and the jib crane adjacent to each other in a first direction perpendicular to the vertical direction without overlapping each other in the vertical direction, as recited in claim 1 and as taught by Parsons, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Such an arrangement would not have modified the operation of either the gantry crane or the jib crane, would have yielded predictable results, and would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Lee discloses the gantry crane is mounted on the pair of traveling rails (FIGS. 1-2, p. 5: “a movable bridge 105 which is movable in the longitudinal direction of the fixed rail 102”). As discussed above, Parsons teaches the jib crane is arranged directly beneath the overhead crane (FIG. 2-5 (p. 66)). Thus, in the modified Lee’s system, the jib crane (Parsons’s “jib crane”) would be arranged, at least in part, between the pair of traveling rails (Lee’s element 102).
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Hotta, Parsons, and Pillokat teaches the remote dismantling system of claim 1. Lee discloses lifting blocks (156) mounted to the at least two vertical rails, the lifting blocks being movable up and down along the at least two vertical rails, and the robot arm mounted to the at least two vertical rails by way of the lifting blocks (FIG. 3, p. 5: “The fixed manipulator 150 is configured to ascend and descend ... by a fixed robot guide 152 ... and a fixed [robot slider 156] mounted on the fixed guide 152 ... and a stationary robot arm fixed to the fixed robot slider 156”). As discussed above, Hotta teaches the cutting robot arm and the transfer robot arm are each mounted to a different vertical rail and are movable along the respective vertical rail. Thus, in the modified Lee’s system, each of the cutting robot arm and the transfer robot arm would be mounted to the respective vertical rail by way of a respective lifting block (Lee’s elements 156).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Hotta, Parsons, and Pillokat teaches the system of claim 1. Lee discloses the pair of traveling rails is arranged over the robot arm system and the band saw and turntable system with the pair of traveling rails being spaced apart from each other, and the gantry crane is movably mounted to the pair of traveling rails (FIGS. 1-2, p. 5: “a movable bridge 105 which is movable in the longitudinal direction of the fixed rail 102”).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Hotta, Parsons, and Pillokat teaches the remote dismantling system of claim 1. Hotta teaches separate cutting robot arms and transfer robot arms as discussed above (FIGS. 2-3) and teaches the transfer robot arm comprises a gripper (23a) as an end-effector (FIG. 2, p. 3: “A gripping mechanism 23 ... at the tip of the gripping support arm 22”). Lee also discloses the robot arm may comprise a gripper as an end-effector (164) (FIG. 3, p. 5: “the fixed robot end effector 164 can be replaced by various mechanisms such as a gripper”). Therefore, Lee’s system, modified to include multiple robot arms for performing different tasks as taught by Hotta and to include a jib crane as taught by Parsons and Pillokat, would have resulted in the features of claim 6. Such modifications would have been obvious to a POSA as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Hotta, Parsons, and Pillokat teaches remote dismantling system of claim 2. Lee discloses the upper side of the support is a rectangular shape (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Hotta, Parsons, and Pillokat teaches the remote dismantling system of claim 4. Lee discloses the pair of traveling rails extend in the first direction (FIGS. 1-2), and
the gantry crane (FIG. 4) comprises:
a frame (105) mounted to the pair of traveling rails, the frame being movable along the pair of traveling rails (p. 5: “a movable bridge 105 which is movable in the longitudinal direction of the fixed rail 102”);
a longitudinal movement unit (104, 106) mounted on an upper portion of the frame, the longitudinal movement unit being movable in the second direction (p. 5: “A wire lifting device 106 capable of moving in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the fixed rail 102 on the moving rail 104 of the moving bridge 105”)
a winder (106) on the longitudinal movement unit, the winder being configured to wind and unwind a wire (108, 110) (p. 5: “the wires 108 and 110 in the wire lifting device 106,” “The wire lifting device 106 can move the moving actuator 112 up and down by means of wires 108 and 110”); and
a gripper (112, 121, 122) connected to an end of the wire (p. 6: “The mobile robot end effector 130 can be replaced with various mechanisms such as a gripper”), wherein the gripper is caused to be moved down toward the turntable away from the winder and moved up toward the winder based on a movement of the end of the wire caused by winding and unwinding of the wire (p. 5: “The wire lifting device 106 can move the moving actuator 112 up and down by means of wires 108 and 110”).
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Hotta, Parsons, and Pillokat teaches the remote dismantling system of claim 4. Lee discloses transferring the cut pieces to a temporary storage basket (29) (FIG. 2, p. 4: “a storage container 28 for storing disassembled parts”). While Lee does not appear to disclose the temporary storage basket is within a rotation radius of the transfer robot arm, this feature is suggested by Hotta. Hotta also teaches a temporary storage basket (29) and further teaches the temporary storage basket is within a rotation radius of the transfer robot arm (FIG. 3, p. 4: “The disassembled object is moved to the above-mentioned disassembled product carrying stand 28 by the driving of the gripping drive unit 25, the gripping support arm 22”). It would have been obvious to a POSA to have the arrangement of the temporary storage basket as taught by Hotta since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The skilled artisan would recognize that providing the modified Lee’s temporary storage basket within a rotation radius of the transfer robot arm, as suggested by Hotta, would yield the predictable result of enabling the transfer robot arm to transfer the cut pieces to the temporary storage basket. This would allow for minimizing the number of dismantling processes by having the transfer robot arm to both hold and transfer the cut pieces, which Lee discloses is desirable (p. 3: “There is a problem that the dismantling period is prolonged and the disassembling cost is also increased due to a large number of dismantling operations.... Therefore, it is necessary to develop a reactor vessel dismantling method that minimizes the number of dismantling processes”).
Claims 3, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hotta, Parsons, and Pillokat further in view of “Seamless remote dismantling system for heavy and highly radioactive components of Korean nuclear power plants” (“Hyun”).
Regarding claims 3, 7, and 9, Lee in view of Hotta, Parsons, and Pillokat teaches the system of claims 2 and 8. Lee discloses the band saw and turntable system comprises a supporting part (FIG. 2) and clearly shows the band saw is mounted on a plate that is mounted on the supporting part, the plate having a slot formed therethrough, wherein the slot extends from a side of the plate towards a center of the plate (FIG. 2). While Lee discloses the band saw is for cutting in the vertical direction (p. 4: “a band saw 26 for cutting in the vertical direction”), Lee appears to be silent as to the specific movements of the band saw. Hyun (previously cited) (see FIGS. 4, 6-7) is also directed towards a remote dismantling system for a nuclear reactor structure (Title) comprising a band saw and turntable system (p. 41: “The unique characteristic of the turn table is its translational mechanism, which connects the slicing operation using the circular saw with the segmenting operation using the band saw”). Hyun teaches the band saw and turntable system comprises a band saw (“band saw”) for cutting an object placed on a turntable (“turn table”) (p. 41: “the segmenting operation using the band saw”), a supporting part (“translational mechanism”), the band saw being mounted to the supporting part by means of a band saw mount on the supporting part, the band saw mount being movable along the supporting part (see locations of the band saw and up/down movement part in FIG. 7). Hyun similarly shows the vertical movement of the band saw allows for cutting the object in the vertical direction (see arrow “Cut” in FIG. 6) and further teaches configuring the band saw to have a shape and movement in order to cut the object a desired length (p. 43: “The band saw should have a specific shape ... that are determined by the dimensions of the waste container”). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to have the plate of the modified Lee’s band saw and turntable system movable along the supporting part because Hyun teaches this is a suitable mechanism for cutting in the vertical direction (FIGS. 6-7). Additionally, Hyun teaches this movement provides the predictable advantage of allowing the object to be cut to a desired/proper length (p. 43: “The band saw should have a specific shape ... that are determined by the dimensions of the waste container”).
While Lee does not disclose the band saw is rotatable, Lee clearly shows the band saw includes a band stretched around four rollers which are each mounted on a corner of a surface of the plate (FIGS. 1-2). A band saw operates by rotation of a continuous band mounted on two or more rollers2. Thus, as Lee’s mechanism (26) is disclosed and shown to be a band saw, Lee’s band saw would be rotatable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hotta, Parsons, and Pillokat further in view of US Publication No. 2010/0329408 (“Fiodorov”).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Hotta, Parsons, and Pillokat teaches the remote dismantling system of claim 1. Lee discloses the cutting robot arm may comprise various replaceable end-effectors (164), such as a cutting mechanism as an end-effector (p. 5: “the fixed robot end effector 164 can be replaced by various mechanisms such as ... a hydraulic cutter, and a water jet”). However, Lee does not appear to disclose a laser cutting head, a circular saw, or a drill for the end-effector. Fiodorov (previously cited) (see FIG. 1) is also directed towards a remote dismantling system for a nuclear reactor structure ([0002], [0017], [0019]) comprising a robot arm system (10) including a cutting robot arm and a transfer robot arm (14) ([0045]). Fiodorov teaches the cutting robot arm comprises an end-effector (56) such as a circular saw ([0045]). Fiodorov further teaches the cutting mechanism of the cutting robot arm may be selected based on the particular cutting application ([0045]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to have a circular saw for the end-effector of the modified Lee’s cutting robot arm because Fiodorov teaches this may be a suitable cutting mechanism dependent on the object to be cut. It would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate cutting mechanism, such as a circular saw as taught by Fiodorov, as an end-effector in view of Lee’s teaching that the end-effector may be replaced by various mechanisms.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hotta, Parsons, and Pillokat, further in view of US Publication No. 2006/0283825 (“Waisanen”).
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Hotta, Parsons, and Pillokat teaches the system of claim 4. Parsons teaches the jib crane and shows a vertical column and an arm on an upper end portion of the vertical column (FIG. 2-5 (p. 66)), but otherwise appears to be silent as to the specific mechanisms/structures of the jib crane. However, it was well-known in the art for jib cranes to have the structure recited in claim 11 (i.e., a vertical column, a rotating arm disposed on the vertical column, and a gripper/wire mechanism)3 (see also US Patent No. 2,825,471: “Jib cranes have, of course, been constructed in many different ways, but one of the most common arrangements included a column ... with the jib rotatably supported on the upper end of the column”). For example, Waisanen (previously cited) (see FIG. 1) is also directed towards a transfer system for a nuclear reactor structure provided with a jib crane (10) ([0002]-[0003]). Waisanen teaches the jib crane comprises:
a vertical column (126) disposed between a pair of traveling rails (14) ([0020], [0025]);
a rotation arm (38) on an upper end portion of the vertical column and configured to be rotatable centering on the vertical column ([0014], [0021]);
a movable winding portion (42) mounted to be movable along with the rotation arm and having a wire wound thereon ([0014], [0024]); and
a gripper (174) connected to and end of the wire of the movable winding portion, wherein the gripper is caused to be moved down away from the movable winding portion and moved up toward the movable winding portion based on a movement of the end of the wire caused by unwinding and winding of the wire ([0024], [0027]-[0028]).
Waisanen further teaches the jib crane allows for raising and lowering of loads to and from a gantry crane while also being easily moved to the desired lifting/lowering positions ([0003], [0027]-[0028]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to use Waisanen’s jib crane in the modified Lee’s system because Waisanen teaches this as a suitable construction of a jib crane. Additionally, a POSA would have been motivated to make such a modification for the predictable advantage of providing a supplemental moving mechanism for expanding the transferring reach of Lee’s transfer system, as suggested by Waisanen. As discussed above, Lee discloses the gantry crane is mounted on the pair of traveling rails (FIGS. 1-2, p. 5: “a movable bridge 105 which is movable in the longitudinal direction of the fixed rail 102”). Parsons shows the vertical column is arranged directly beneath the overhead crane (FIG. 2-5 (p. 66)). Thus, in the modified Lee’s system, the vertical column would be arranged between the pair of traveling rails.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments to the drawings overcome the prior drawing objections.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the prior claim objections, but have created new issues as discussed above.
Applicant argues: “The Office asserted that Parsons discloses a jib crane arranged directly beneath the overhead crane. Thus, in the modified Lee’s system, the jib crane of Parsons would overlap the overhead crane in a vertical direction” (emphasis in original) (Remarks, p. 15). Merely because the jib crane is arranged directly beneath the overhead crane does not mean that the two structures would “overlap” with each other in a vertical direction. Rather, this would appear to suggest the opposite, i.e., that the two structures do not “overlap”. An object may be considered to “overlap” with another object when the objects occupy or extend into a same space4,5. Parsons clearly shows there is a vertical space between the jib crane and the overhead crane which is not occupied by either the jib crane or the overhead crane (FIG. 2-5 (p. 66)). Parsons’s jib crane and overhead crane do not occupy or extend into a same space in the vertical direction (FIG. 2-5 (p. 66)). Said differently, the vertical space occupied by Parsons’s jib crane does not intersect with the vertical space occupied by Parsons’s overhead crane (FIG. 2-5 (p. 66)). Therefore, the jib crane and the overhead crane do not “overlap” with each other in the vertical direction, as recited in claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. See MPEP 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
RCE Eligibility
Since prosecution is closed, this application is now eligible for a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Filing an RCE helps to ensure entry of an amendment to the claims, specification, and/or drawings.
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 272-3191, on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM-5:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 Examiner notes, the “Examiner’s Diagram” below are not reproduction of a figure in the prior art, but are merely representations, created by Examiner, of the prior art for clarity purposes.
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandsaw
3 https://www.metreel.co.uk/blog/what-is-a-jib-crane/
4 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/overlap
5 https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/overlap