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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The grounds of rejection have been updated to reflect Applicant’s amendments and are made final herein, as necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) 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, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a driving member… driving member drives the cutting member to rotate” in claims 1, 19, and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(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, 2, 5, 6, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Skillings (US 2008/0289467).
Regarding claim 1, Skillings discloses a cutting device, comprising:
a base comprising a fluid cavity for containing a fluid (see support body 14 and tray 600, [0042-0045]);
an operation bench disposed on the base (see table top 12 disposed on the housing 14 in Figure 1); and
a cutting mechanism comprising a driving member (motor 26) and a cutting member (see rotating blade 20; see [0015]);
wherein the driving member drives the cutting member to rotate, the cutting member at least partially protrudes from and passes through the operation bench (see at least the protrusion of blade 20 in Figure 1, as well as [0017]),
the cutting device further comprises a radial flow guiding member disposed in the fluid cavity (see circumferential base of cowling 65 in Figures 4 and 5, as well as [0045-0046]), the radial flow guiding member is a boss disposed in the fluid cavity and disposed at a lower side of the cutting member (wherein the circumferential base of cowling 65 is a protruding element disposed within the tray 600 and at a lower side of the blade 20),
the radial flow guiding member comprises at least a flow guiding surface disposed around a periphery of the cutting member (see surface of curved wall portion 66 around blade 20, Figure 4),
the fluid is capable of flowing along the flow guiding surface, and the flow guiding surface is inclined or curved with respect to a bottom wall of the fluid cavity (see at least [0043-0048], disclosing the curved wall portion 66, i.e. the surface of curved wall portion 66).
Regarding claim 2, Skillings discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Skillings further discloses wherein the flow guiding surface comprises a flow guiding curved surface which is substantially disposed on a circumference with an axis of the cutting member as a center line (wherein element 66 is disclosed as a curved surface, see also Figure 4; wherein curved surface 66 is disposed on a circumference of the blade 20, with axis of element 22 as a centerline).
Regarding claim 5, Skillings discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Skillings further discloses wherein the fluid cavity comprises the bottom wall and the flow guiding surface extends from the bottom wall along a rotation direction of the cutting member (wherein the cowling 65 and curved surface 66 extend in a direction from the bottom wall around the periphery of the blade 20, along a rotation direction of the blade 20).
Regarding claim 6, Skillings discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Skillings further discloses wherein the flow guiding surface extends from a position directly below the cutting member along the rotation direction of the cutting member, forming an angle α with a rotational center of the cutting member, wherein α≥70°(wherein the curved surface 66 is directly below the blade 20, and extends along the rotation direction of the blade 20; [0045]: wherein the lower half of the blade 20 is housed within the cowling defined by a curved wall portion 66, i.e. wherein the angle formed with a rotational center of the cutting blade 20 would be 180 degrees, within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 17, Skillings discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Skillings further discloses wherein the radial flow guiding member is disposed in the fluid cavity (wherein the base of cowling 65 is disposed in the tray 600), the radial flow guiding member comprises at least a flow guiding curved surface disposed around the periphery of the cutting member (wherein element 66 is disclosed as a curved surface, see also Figure 4; wherein curved surface 66 is disposed around the periphery of the blade 20), the flow guiding curved surface is substantially disposed on a circumference with an axis of the cutting member as a center line (wherein curved surface 66 is disposed on a circumference of the blade 20, with axis of element 22 as a centerline), and a barrier mechanism is disposed on an axially outer side of the radial flow guiding member (see at least cover 68 shown in Figure 5, which is on an axially outer side of the base curved wall surface portion 66).
Regarding claim 18, Skillings discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Skillings further discloses further comprising a flow guiding cover (see cover 68),
the flow guiding cover is connected to the fluid cavity and disposed in the fluid cavity (wherein cover 68 is connected to tray 600 via apertures 69, and disposed in the tray 600), the flow guiding cover comprises
a main housing of a circumferential housing disposed around the periphery of the cutting member (see at least mounting brackets 58, 59, cowling 65, cover 68 in Figures 4-6, as well as blade 20, [0026-0027], [0045-0048]), the main housing of the circumferential housing comprises a circumferential flow guiding unit which is substantially disposed on a circumference with an axis of the cutting member as a center line (wherein the internal surface of cover 68 is disposed on a circumference of the blade 20, with axis of element 22 as a centerline, see Figure 4), and
a barrier mechanism is disposed on an axially outer side of the radial flow guiding member (wherein within the context of claim 18, there are several elements which may comprise the barrier mechanism as claimed under broadest reasonable interpretation; see at least the side wall 56 shown in Figures 4 and 8, disclosed in [0026-0027]).
Regarding claim 19, Skillings discloses a cutting device, comprising:
a base comprising a fluid cavity for containing a fluid (see support body 14 and tray 600, [0042-0045]);
an operation bench disposed on the base (see table top 12 disposed on the housing 14 in Figure 1); and
a cutting mechanism comprising a driving member (motor 26) and a cutting member (see rotating blade 20; see [0015]);
wherein the driving member drives the cutting member to rotate, the cutting member at least partially protrudes from and passes through the operation bench (see at least the protrusion of blade 20 in Figure 1, as well as [0017]),
the cutting device further comprises a flow guiding cover detachably disposed in the fluid cavity (wherein the cover 68 is attached to the support 14 and tray 600 via cradle 160, wherein the cradle 160 and tray are removable mounted to one another, see [0048-0050], see also [0027]),
the flow guiding cover comprises a main housing portion disposed around a periphery of the cutting member (see cowling 65, cover 68, cutting member 20), the fluid is capable of flowing along an inner wall of the main housing portion (see curved wall 66; see also [0045-0046]), and the inner wall of the main housing portion is inclined or curved with respect to a bottom wall of the fluid cavity (see at least [0043-0048]; see also Figures 4-6),
the flow guiding cover comprises a guiding-in end, and the guiding-in end is lower than a limit liquid level so that the fluid can flow from the guiding-in end into the flow guiding cover contacting the cutting member (wherein the apertures 69 of the cover element are at a limit liquid level to allow liquid to be guided internally therein; see [0046]).
Claim(s) 1, 5, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bernhardt (US 2014/0216224).
Regarding claim 1, Bernhardt (US 2014/0216224) discloses a cutting device, comprising:
a base comprising a fluid cavity for containing a fluid (see Figure 7 and liquid 12, see also base 11 and tank 13);
an operation bench disposed on the base (see worktable 22); and
a cutting mechanism comprising a driving member and a cutting member (see saw blade 24 and motor described in [0024]);
wherein the driving member drives the cutting member to rotate, the cutting member at least partially protrudes from and passes through the operation bench (see Figure 3 as well as [0024-0025]),
the cutting device further comprises a radial flow guiding member disposed in the fluid cavity (see baffle 231 in Figure 7),
the radial flow guiding member comprises at least a flow guiding surface disposed around a periphery of the cutting member (wherein the baffle 231 is disposed around a periphery of blade 24, as shown in Figure 7),
the fluid is capable of flowing along the flow guiding surface (please see the arrows regarding the fluid flow along the surface of baffle 231), and the flow guiding surface is inclined or curved with respect to a bottom wall of the fluid cavity (wherein the baffle 231 is shown as curved in Figure 7; see also [0038]).
Regarding claim 5, Bernhardt discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Bernhardt further discloses wherein the fluid cavity comprises the bottom wall (see Figure 7) and the flow guiding surface extends from the bottom wall along a rotation direction of the cutting member (please see at least the arrows shown in Figure 7, as well as the extension of baffle 231 from the bottom wall of the tank 13).
Regarding claim 11, Bernhardt discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Bernhardt further discloses wherein the cutting device further comprises a flow blocking unit (232) disposed on the radial flow guiding member (see at least one of the baffle 232 disposed on 231),
a radial gap between the flow blocking unit (232) and the cutting member (24; see the close proximity between the baffle 232 and the blade 24 in Figure 7 is smaller than a radial gap between a flow guiding curved surface and the cutting member (see the radial gap between the curved surface of baffle 2552 and blade 24 in Figures 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 12, Bernhardt discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Bernhardt further discloses wherein the cutting device further comprises a flow blocking unit (2552, see Reference Drawing 1) disposed on an axial flow guiding unit (see unite depicted in Figure 6, i.e. reference drawing 1), an axial gap (G1) between the flow blocking unit (2552) and the cutting member (24) is smaller than an axial gap (G2) between a flow guiding plane surface and the cutting member (see the flow guiding plane surface of wall 2544, as well as gap G2; wherein gap G1 is smaller than gap G2).
PNG
media_image1.png
693
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference Drawing 1
Regarding claim 13, Bernhardt discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Bernhardt further discloses wherein the cutting device further comprises a flow jamming member and the flow jamming member is a soft baffle pad (see at least flexible body 232 as well as Figure 7, [0038-0040]).
Regarding claim 14, Bernhardt discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Bernhardt further discloses wherein the cutting member has an entry region and an exit region on a rotation path of the cutting member (see Figure 7 regarding the locations of entry and exit of the blade 24 within the fluid 23), the entry region refers to part of the rotation path where the cutting member enters the fluid and rotates to a lower limit position, the exit region refers to part of the rotation path where the cutting member rotates from the lower limit position until the cutting member exits from the fluid (best shown in Figure 7),
the cutting device further comprises a barrier mechanism (254) mounted at an axial end of the cutting member in the fluid cavity along a direction approximately perpendicular to a first axis (wherein the guard 254 is mounted at opposing axial ends of the cutting member 24 that is located in the fluid cavity), the barrier mechanism covers at least the exit region of the cutting member (wherein guard 254 overlaps and covers the exit region of the blade 24), and
an axial projection of the barrier mechanism extends beyond a vertical center line of the cutting member toward the entry region (wherein baffle 2552, shown in Figures 5, 6, and 8, extends above, i.e. beyond, the vertical center line of the blade 24, at a location on the rotation path of the blade more toward the entry region) and extends upward beyond a horizontal center line of the cutting member (wherein the baffle 2552 extends in an upward direction beyond a horizontal center of the blade 24).
Regarding claim 15, Bernhardt discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Bernhardt further discloses a flow limiting surface disposed on an inner surface of the barrier mechanism (wherein baffle 2552 is disposed on the inner surface of guard 254) and an axial gap between the flow limiting surface and the cutting member (G1) is smaller than an axial gap (G2) between the inner surface of the barrier mechanism and the cutting member (wherein G1 is smaller than G2, see Reference Drawing 1).
Regarding claim 16, Bernhardt discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Bernhardt further discloses a flow blocking member disposed on an inner surface of the barrier mechanism (see either baffle 2552 or 2551), wherein the flow blocking member is disposed at one angle or more than one angle with respect to a rotation direction of the cutting member (wherein the rotation direction of the blade 24 is to the left in Figure 7, and wherein either baffle 2551 or 2552 is disposed an at angle relative to the left direction),and the rotation direction of the cutting member is a direction approximately tangent to an outer rim of the cutting member (wherein the counterclockwise rotation of the blade 24 imparts rotation to the left, i.e. taken along a line tangent to the outer rim of blade 24).
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.
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(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skillings (US 2008/0289467) in view of Yoshimi (US 2004/0029510).
Regarding claim 20, Skillings discloses a cutting device, comprising:
a base comprising a fluid cavity for containing a fluid (see support body 14 and tray 600, [0042-0045]);
an operation bench disposed on the base (see table top 12 disposed on the housing 14 in Figure 1); and
a cutting mechanism comprising a driving member (motor 26) and a cutting member (see rotating blade 20; see [0015]);
wherein the driving member drives the cutting member to rotate, the cutting member at least partially protrudes from and passes through the operation bench (see at least the protrusion of blade 20 in Figure 1, as well as [0017]),
the cutting device further comprises a flow guiding cover detachably disposed in the fluid cavity (see circumferential base of cowling 65 in Figures 4 and 5; wherein the cowling 65 may rotate out of the tray 600 and is attached via shaft 71 mounted in the housing part 40; see also Figure 3, and wherein the tray 600 is removably mounted; see [0044-0050]), the flow guiding cover comprises a main housing portion disposed around a periphery of the cutting member (see at least cover 68), the main housing portion surrounds at least a part of one side of the cutting member (see cover 68 and [0045-0046]), the fluid is capable of flowing along an inner wall of the main housing portion (see curved wall 66 as well as [0045-0046]).
However, Skillings does not explicitly teach the flow guiding cover moves with respect to the cutting member, the flow guiding cover is configured to be movable along a first movement direction so that at least a portion of the flow guiding cover moves away from the cutting member.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Yoshimi teaches of a cover which moves with respect to the cutting member, the cover is configured to be movable along a first movement direction so that at least a portion of the cover moves away from the cutting member (wherein cover 23 is pivoted on hinges 22 such that cover 23 pivots on the hinges 22, away from the wheel G; see at least [0036] and Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a movable cover structure, as taught by Yoshimi, into the invention of Skillings. One would be motivated to do so in order to expose the blade, such as during removal of the blade, allowing for increased user access, see [0036].
Claim(s) 2, 7-10, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhardt (US 2014/0216224) in view of Skillings (US 2008/0289467).
Regarding claim 2, Bernhardt discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, based on Figure 7 and [0038], the shape of the surface of baffle (231) is not explicitly taught; Bernhardt does not explicitly teach wherein the flow guiding surface comprises a flow guiding curved surface which is substantially disposed on a circumference with an axis of the cutting member as a center line.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Skillings (US 2008/0289467) teaches wherein the flow guiding surface comprises a flow guiding curved surface which is substantially disposed on a circumference with an axis of the cutting member as a center line (wherein element 66 is disclosed as a curved surface, see also Figure 4; wherein curved surface 66 is disposed on a circumference of the blade 20, with axis of element 22 as a centerline).
Both Skillings and Bernhardt are directed towards cutting devices employing trays filled with fluid under a blade, and wherein the water is limited in travel as a result of a guide structure around the blade; see at least Figures 4-6 of Skillings, and Figure 7 of Bernhardt. In at least [0055], Bernhardt specifically contemplates modifications for the shape of members. Furthermore, the guard element (254) is specifically noted as being arc-shaped, see [0034]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the baffle (231) of Bernhardt to emulate the curved surface of element (66) of Skillings. One would be motivated to do so in order to improve the ability to guide water along the path of Bernhardt, as the configuration of the curved surface (66) of the cowling (65) of Skillings serves to prevent splashing or creation of mist caused by the rotating blade, thus reducing spillage of water; see [0045-0046] of Skillings.
Regarding claim 7, Bernhardt in view of Skillings teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Bernhardt further teaches wherein the cutting device further comprises an axial flow guiding unit comprising flow guiding plane surfaces disposed on two axial sides of the cutting member (see one of the baffles 2551, 2552, each having surfaces on axial sides of the blade 24 in Figures 5 and 6, see [0037]) and spaced apart from the cutting member (see spacing shown in Figure 6).
Regarding claim 8, Bernhardt in view of Skillings teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Bernhardt further teaches wherein a height of each of the flow guiding plane surfaces is h (see H of Reference Drawing 1), a radius of the cutting member is r (wherein the blade 20 has a radius).
However, modified Bernhardt is silent regarding the specific dimensions of the blade and the baffle height (H), i.e. Bernhardt does not explicitly teach the claimed range of ¼≤h/r≤1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Bernhardt to have a baffle height within the range of ¼≤h/r≤1 since it has been held that “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), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of modified Bernhardt would not operate differently with the claimed relationship, as the baffle would still perform the desired flow pathway alterations, and the device would function properly having the claimed relationship. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the claimed range is provided as an example, see paragraph [48] of the specification.
Regarding claim 9, Bernhardt in view of Skillings teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Bernhardt further teaches wherein an axial gap between each of the flow guiding plane surfaces and a surface of the cutting member is g (see G1 in Reference Drawing 1), a radius of the cutting member is r (wherein the blade 20 has a radius).
However, Bernhardt is silent regarding the relationship of the gap G1 and the radius of the blade; modified Bernhardt does not explicitly teach 1/20≤g/r≤⅛.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Bernhardt to have a gap G1 satisfying 1/20≤g/r≤⅛ since it has been held that “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), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of modified Bernhardt would not operate differently with the claimed relationship, as the baffle would still perform the desired flow pathway alterations, and the device would function properly having the claimed relationship. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the claimed range is provided as an example, see paragraph [48] of the specification.
Regarding claim 10, Bernhardt in view of Skillings teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Bernhardt further teaches further comprising a baffle plate (254) disposed at an axial end of the cutting member (24) and the baffle plate is inserted into or pivotally connected to the base (see Figure 5 and [0029]) and each of the flow guiding plane surfaces is formed on any one or more of a boss in the fluid cavity, a sidewall of the fluid cavity, and the baffle plate (see Figures 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 17, Bernhardt discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Bernhardt further discloses wherein the radial flow guiding member (231) is disposed in the fluid cavity (wherein baffle 231 is located in the fluid filled basin portion, see Figure 7), and a barrier mechanism (232) is disposed on an axially outer side of the radial flow guiding member (wherein the radial flow guiding member is configured as the surface directly across from the outer periphery of the blade, and wherein [0038] discloses that the upper end of baffle 231 is laterally provided with flexible body 232, and that there is a slot cut within body 232 through which the blade passes).
However, based on Figure 7 and [0038], the shape of the surface of baffle (231) is not explicitly taught; Bernhardt does not explicitly teach the radial flow guiding member (231) comprises at least a flow guiding curved surface disposed around the periphery of the cutting member, the flow guiding curved surface is substantially disposed on a circumference with an axis of the cutting member as a center line.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Skillings (US 2008/0289467) teaches of a radial flow guiding member which comprises at least a flow guiding curved surface (66) disposed around the periphery of the cutting member, the flow guiding curved surface is substantially disposed on a circumference with an axis of the cutting member as a center line (wherein element 66 is disclosed as a curved surface, see also Figure 4; wherein curved surface 66 is disposed on a circumference of the blade 20, with axis of element 22 as a centerline).
Both Skillings and Bernhardt are directed towards cutting devices employing trays filled with fluid under a blade, and wherein the water is limited in travel as a result of a guide structure around the blade; see at least Figures 4-6 of Skillings, and Figure 7 of Bernhardt. In at least [0055], Bernhardt specifically contemplates modifications for the shape of members. Furthermore, the guard element (254) is specifically noted as being arc-shaped, see [0034]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the baffle (231) of Bernhardt to emulate the curved surface of element (66) of Skillings. One would be motivated to do so in order to improve the ability to guide water along the path of Bernhardt, as the configuration of the curved surface (66) of the cowling (65) of Skillings serves to prevent splashing or creation of mist caused by the rotating blade, thus reducing spillage of water; see [0045-0046] of Skillings.
Regarding claim 19, Bernhardt discloses a cutting device, comprising:
a base comprising a fluid cavity for containing a fluid (see Figure 7 and liquid 12, see also base 11 and tank 13);
an operation bench disposed on the base (see worktable 22); and
a cutting mechanism comprising a driving member and a cutting member (see saw blade 24 and motor described in [0024]);
wherein the driving member drives the cutting member to rotate, the cutting member at least partially protrudes from and passes through the operation bench (see Figure 3 as well as [0024-0025]),
the cutting device further comprises a flow guiding cover (231) detachably disposed in the fluid cavity (see [0038] and Figure 7), the flow guiding cover comprises a main housing portion disposed around a periphery of the cutting member, the fluid is capable of flowing along an inner wall of the main housing portion (please see the peripheral nature of the baffle 231 in Figure 7, as well as the arrows showing the fluid flow along the wall of the baffle 231),
the flow guiding cover comprises a guiding-in end, and the guiding-in end is lower than a limit liquid level so that the fluid can flow from the guiding-in end into the flow guiding cover contacting the cutting member (wherein there is a first entry end into the baffle 231 located lower than the water level, as shown in Figure 7, and wherein the fluid flows into the baffle 231 as a result).
However, based on Figure 7 and [0038], the shape of the surface of baffle (231) is not explicitly taught; Bernhardt does not explicitly teach the inner wall of the main housing portion is inclined or curved with respect to a bottom wall of the fluid cavity.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Skillings (US 2008/0289467) teaches the inner wall of the main housing portion is inclined or curved with respect to a bottom wall of the fluid cavity (wherein element 66 is disclosed as a curved surface, see also Figure 4; wherein curved surface 66 is disposed on a circumference of the blade 20, with axis of element 22 as a centerline).
Both Skillings and Bernhardt are directed towards cutting devices employing trays filled with fluid under a blade, and wherein the water is limited in travel as a result of a guide structure around the blade; see at least Figures 4-6 of Skillings, and Figure 7 of Bernhardt. In at least [0055], Bernhardt specifically contemplates modifications for the shape of members. Furthermore, the guard element (254) is specifically noted as being arc-shaped, see [0034]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the baffle (231) of Bernhardt to emulate the curved surface of element (66) of Skillings. One would be motivated to do so in order to improve the ability to guide water along the path of Bernhardt, as the configuration of the curved surface (66) of the cowling (65) of Skillings serves to prevent splashing or creation of mist caused by the rotating blade, thus reducing spillage of water; see [0045-0046] of Skillings.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhardt (US 2014/0216224) in view of Skillings (US 2008/0289467), and in further view of Hutton (US 3,256,647).
Regarding claim 3, Bernhardt in view of Skillings teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Bernhardt is silent regarding the distance between the blade and the curved surface of the modified baffle (231). Specifically, modified Bernhardt does not explicitly teach wherein a radial gap between the flow guiding curved surface and the cutting member is Δd, a radius of the cutting member is r, and 1/20 ≤Δd/r≤ 1/9.
From the same or similar field of endeavor of disk devices employing liquids during operation, Hutton teaches of a wheel (a) and a coolant source (Col. 2, lines 6-17), wherein there is a radial gap between the flow guiding curved surface and the cutting member is Δd (d2 in Figures 2 and 3), a radius of the cutting member is r (wherein there are a variety of contemplated wheel diameters, and thus radii, see at least Col. 3, lines 50-75 and Col. 4, lines 25-58). Hutton also teaches the distance between the plate and wheel is adjustable, i.e. d2 may be changed based on necessity and selected wheel diameter, and suggests a distance of approximately 1/16th of an inch (Col. 4, lines 25-58), i.e. 1.59mm.
Regarding the range of 1/20 ≤Δd/r≤ 1/9 (noting herein that the range provided for Δd within the specification is 0 ≤Δd≤ 10 in paragraph [41]), Hutton notes that the distance (i.e. Δd) between the surface of the deflector and the working wheel is 1) adjustable via the set screw (o) and push rods (p), and 2) provided to create intimate contact between the working wheel and coolant, thereby increasing the cooling abilities while also loosening accumulated debris on the wheel (Col. 4, lines 25-67). As described in the latter citations, the radial gap distance is described as a result effective variable, in that changing the radial gap distance alters the fluid dynamics of the coolant provided within the radial gap, affecting the cooling and debris removal capabilities. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device of Bernhardt to have a radial gap within the claimed range, as it involves adjusting the location of the curved baffle (231) relative to the wheel or selecting an appropriately sized wheel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Bernhardt to have a radial gap distance of between 1/20 ≤Δd/r≤ 1/9, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). One would also be motivated to do so in order to ensure the coolant liquid sufficiently cools a working wheel, while also cleaning the surface of the working wheel sufficiently (see above citations of Hutton), which ultimately reduces wear on the working tool and increases the lifespan of the tool (Col. 1, lines 16-35).
Regarding claim 4, Bernhardt in view of Skillings teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Bernhardt is silent regarding the distance between the blade and the curved surface of the modified baffle (231). Specifically, modified Bernhardt does not explicitly teach wherein a radial gap between the flow guiding curved surface and a rim of the cutting member is less than or equal to 8 mm.
From the same or similar field of endeavor of disk devices employing liquids during operation, Hutton teaches of a wheel (a) and a coolant source (Col. 2, lines 6-17), wherein there is a radial gap between the flow guiding curved surface and a rim of the cutting member is less than or equal to 8 mm (wherein d2 is contemplated as being 1/16th of an inch, which is 1.58mm, see Col. 4, lines 25-41).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Bernhardt to have a radial gap distance of less than or equal to 8 mm, i.e. 16th of an inch as taught by Hutton. One would be motivated to do so to create intimate contact between the working wheel and coolant, thereby increasing the cooling abilities while also loosening accumulated debris on the wheel (Col. 4, lines 25-67), which ultimately reduces wear on the working tool and increases the lifespan of the tool (Col. 1, lines 16-35).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhardt (US 2014/0216224)
Regarding claim 6, Bernhardt discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Bernhardt further discloses wherein the flow guiding surface extends from a position directly below the cutting member along the rotation direction of the cutting member (wherein the location of below is subjective, however, Examiner points out that the far right of baffle element 231 extends from an attachment base at a position below the blade 24), forming an angle α with a rotational center of the cutting member (wherein the extension of baffle 231 forms an angle with the rotational center, i.e. as a sector about the circumference of the blade 24).
However, Bernhardt is silent regarding the sector angle of the baffle, and does not explicitly teach wherein α ≥ 70°.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baffle of Bernhardt to have sector angle of extension of equal to or greater than 70°, i.e. α ≥ 70°, since it has been held that “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), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Bernhardt would not operate differently with the claimed angular range. As can be seen in at least Figure 7, it appears that baffle 231 extends about a quarter around the blade, and thus the claimed range would not interfere with the device’s operation; the device would function appropriately having the claimed angular range. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angle “may be 70°, 90°, 120°, or the like” (see [0044] of specification).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723