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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The rejections have been updated to reflect the amendments submitted on 11/14/2025; arguments directed towards the amended subject matter are moot as the newly submitted claim scopes required updated consideration.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “the circumferential base of the cowling in Skillings cannot be considered the same as the radial flow guiding member, because the cowling 65 rotates with the saw blade and is not continuously disposed in the fluid cavity”, Examiner has considered but respectfully points out that Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “there is simply no motivation to split the cowlings 65 into multiple parts or allow one part to move away from the blade as required”, Examiner has considered but has not found persuasive. Please refer to the grounds of rejection provided below. Furthermore, a hinged cover allows a user to access the grinding wheel without fully disassembling the device, and would motivate one to modify the cowling of Skillings.
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 Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 29, please amend “housing portion have” to read “housing portion has”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 10, 11, 17, and 20-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the flow guiding surface is inclined or curved” and “the flow guiding surface comprises a flow guiding curved surface”. The latter recitation narrowing the flow guiding surface to reflect a flow guiding curved surface renders the claimed invention indefinite, as the latter limitation negates the former limitation’s option of “inclined”.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites “a flow guiding curved surface”, and claim 1 recites “a flow guiding curved surface”. It is unclear if claim 11 intended to add an additional flow guiding curved surface, and thus must be amended to differentiate from the flow guiding curved surface of claim 1, or if the recitation of claim 11 should be amended to reflect the recited flow guiding curved surface is the same as that recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites “the radial flow guiding member 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”. Claim 1, from which claim 17 depends, recites “the radial flow guiding member comprises at least a flow guiding surface disposed around a periphery of the cutting member” and “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”. Claim 17 recites redundant antecedent bases and should be amended to reflect consistency for clarification.
Regarding claim 22, it is unclear what is imparted by the recitation of “the first straight line is provided with an elastic member”, as the line is an axis about which the main housing pivots. Please amend the claim to reflect a structure which includes an elastic member.
Regarding claim 23, it is unclear what structure is being imparted into the claimed invention in the limitations narrowing in on the first and second water entry regions. For example, in the limitation “a part of the main housing portion of the flow guiding cover located upstream in a rotation direction D of the cutting member is the first water entry region”, it is unclear what the ‘part’ is upstream of, as the blade rotates in a circle. Claim 23 also recites “a base”, which has previously established antecedent basis in claim 20. It is unclear if the base of claim 23 is in addition to the already established base of claim 20, or if the recitation of claim 23 should be amended to reflect the base is the same as that recited in claim 20.
Regarding claim 28, it is unclear what is being imparted into the invention within the context of the claims due to the recitation of “wherein an upper edge of the main housing portion does not exceed a rotation center of the cutting member”. Please amend the claim to reflect the intended structure. The claim is being interpreted as to require that the rotation of the main housing is limited.
Any claim listed as rejected above but not specifically addressed above has inherited the rejection of a claim specifically addressed above due to dependency therefrom.
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, 5-7, 10, 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 (see Abstract), 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 and a cutting member (see rotating blade 20 and motor 26 for rotation of the blade 20; see also [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; see at least Figures 4-6, as well as [0045-0046]),
the radial flow guiding member comprises at least a flow guiding surface disposed around a periphery of the cutting member (see at least [0043-0048], disclosing the surface of curved wall portion 66 around blade 20, as well as 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, 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 substantially disposed on a circumference of the blade 20, with axis of element 22 as a centerline; see Figures 5 and 6, as well as [0045-0046]), and
the cutting device further comprises a flow stirring unit disposed on the flow guiding curved surface, the flow stirring unit is recessed on the flow guiding curved surface toward a radially outer side of the flow guiding curved surface (wherein one of apertures 69 are disposed on the lower region of the curved wall portion 66, and recessed within the curved surface 66 toward the radially outer side of the surface; wherein at least one of the apertures I configured to enable water to enter internally into the cowling 65 and thus serves to mix/stir the flow of water).
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 7, Skillings discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Skillings further discloses 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 and spaced apart from the cutting member (wherein the cowling 65 comprises opposing side surfaces on either side of the blade 20, and spaced apart from the blade 20 along the axis of the blade 20 and in the radial direction).
Regarding claim 10, Skillings discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Skillings further discloses a baffle plate disposed at an axial end of the cutting member and the baffle plate is inserted into or pivotally connected to the base (see the structure comprising the vent opening 88 disposed in a side of the support body 14; see Figure 8) and each of the flow guiding plane surfaces is formed on any one or more of a boss in the fluid cavity (wherein the sidewalls of the cowling 65 are formed as an extension on sidewalls 56, i.e. a boss in the support body 14), a sidewall of the fluid cavity, and the baffle plate.
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 (see circumferential base of cowling 65 in Figures 4 and 5, as well as [0045-0046]), the radial flow guiding member comprises at least a flow guiding curved surface disposed around the periphery of the cutting member (see at least [0043-0048], disclosing the surface of curved wall portion 66 around blade 20, as well as Figure 4), 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 substantially disposed on a circumference of the blade 20, with axis of element 22 as a centerline; see Figures 5 and 6, as well as [0045-0046]), 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 19, Skillings discloses a cutting device (see Abstract), 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 and a cutting member (see rotating blade 20 and motor 26 for rotation of the blade 20; see also [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 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, and the inner wall of the main housing is inclined or curved with respect to a bottom wall of the fluid cavity (see curved wall 66; see also [0045-0046]),
the main housing comprises a part located below the cutting member (wherein the main housing comprising elements 65, 68 is a part separate from and below the cutting member 20),
the flow guiding cover further comprises an opening used for flow dirt discharge, the flow dirt discharge being a cutting chip or debris formed during a cutting process and discharged from the opening to the fluid cavity (wherein Examiner recognizes the functional language recited within the claimed invention; wherein Skillings discloses that there are apertures 69, and the top of the cover 68 is open towards the table top 12; wherein debris is generated during operation of the device, and the cutting device is capable of expelling debris through the top opening of the cover 68, and to table top 12, which then drains from the channel 112, to funnel 114, to the tray 600; see Figure 2, as well as [0055]).
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) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skillings (US 2008/0289467).
Regarding claim 3, Skillings discloses the claimed invention as applied above. As can be seen in Figures 4-6, there is a space between the blade (20) and the surface of the inner curved wall portion (66), and the blade (20) has a diameter/radius, i.e. Skillings further discloses a radial gap between the flow guiding curved surface and the cutting member is Δd, a radius of the cutting member is r.
However, Skillings is silent regarding the distance between the blade (20) and the surface of the inner curved wall (66), and does not explicitly teach 1/20 ≤ Δd/r ≤ 1/9.
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 Skillings to have a radial gap distance of between 1/20 ≤Δd/r≤ 1/9. Skillings discloses that the cowling (65), and curved surface (66), ensures that fluid is properly guided during operation and provides the advantage of preventing splashing or creation of mist caused by the rotating blade, and thereby reduces the spillage of water (see [0046]). This achievement similarly correlates with the description of the radial gap in [0042] of the instant specification. The modification of the invention of Skillings would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention 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 Skillings would not operate differently with the claimed radial gap and radius relationship since the blade (20) is intended to reside within the cowling (65) and spaced from the curved wall (66), allowing for water intake via apertures (69) and flow of water therefrom, and the device would function appropriately having the claimed gap/radius range. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the radial gap is presented as ‘examples’ in paragraphs [0041-0042] and [0063-0064].
Regarding claim 4, Skillings discloses the claimed invention as applied above. As can be seen in Figures 4-6, there is a space between the blade (20) and the surface of the inner curved wall portion (66), and the blade (20) has a rim.
However, Skillings is silent regarding the distance between the rim of the blade (20) and the surface of the inner curved wall (66), and 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.
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 Skillings to have a radial gap distance of less than or equal to 8 mm. Skillings discloses that the cowling (65), and curved surface (66), ensures that fluid is properly guided during operation and provides the advantage of preventing splashing or creation of mist caused by the rotating blade, and thereby reduces the spillage of water (see [0046]). This achievement similarly correlates with the description of the radial gap in [0042] of the instant specification. The modification of the invention of Skillings would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention 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 Skillings would not operate differently with the claimed radial gap since the blade (20) is intended to reside within the cowling (65) and spaced from the curved wall (66), allowing for water intake via apertures (69) and flow of water therefrom, and the device would function appropriately having the claimed gap/radius range. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the radial gap ‘may’ be set to 8 mm in [0041], and is presented as ‘examples’ in paragraphs [0041-0042] and [0063-0064].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skillings (US 20080289467) in view of Chen (CN 105081451A).
Regarding claim 11, Skillings discloses the claimed invention as applied above, however Skillings does not explicitly teach wherein the cutting device further comprises a flow blocking unit disposed on the radial flow guiding member, a radial gap between the flow blocking unit and the cutting member is smaller than a radial gap between a flow guiding curved surface and the cutting member.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Chen (CN 105081451A) teaches wherein the cutting device further comprises a flow blocking unit disposed on the radial flow guiding member, a radial gap between the flow blocking unit and the cutting member is smaller than a radial gap between a flow guiding curved surface and the cutting member (wherein Chen teaches of a cutting device 100 comprising a cutting member 110 having a cover 140 on the lower half of the cutting member, see page 2 of the English translation, wherein the cover 140 includes outer shield 142 which includes a first baffle 142b and second baffle 142c, wherein the first or second baffle 142b, 142c are disposed at a distance closer to the interior and the cutting member, i.e. wherein the radial gap between either of the baffles and the cutting member is smaller than the radial gap between the cutting member and walls of the shield 142; see also Figures 1-3 and 5).
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 Skillings to include a baffle within the cowling (65), as taught by Chen. One would be motivated to do so in order to reduce the splashing of liquid and debris (see page 4 of the English translation), and thus reducing waste of coolant and spread of contaminants generated during cutting operations.
Claim(s) 20-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skillings (US 2008/0289467) in view of Yoshimi (US 2004/0029510) and Ballinger (US 2,462,710).
Regarding claim 20, Skillings discloses a cutting device (see Abstract), 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 and a cutting member (see rotating blade 20 and motor 26 for rotation of the blade 20; see also [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 main housing portion surrounds at least a part of one side of the cutting member (wherein the main housing comprising elements 65, 68 surrounds the lower part of the blade 20),
the fluid is capable of flowing along an inner wall of the main housing portion (see curved wall 66 as well as [0045-0046]), and
the flow guiding cover and the cutting member form a water entry region (apertures 69, see [0046]), the water entry region comprises a second water entry region located on a front side of the flow guiding cover (wherein there are plural apertures 96, i.e. more than one water entry region).
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, and the flow guiding cover comprises radial partitions disposed along radial directions of 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, and allowing for increased user access, see [0036]. Having the ability to pivot the cover such that the wheel tool is exposed provides the advantage of granting access to the blade without requiring further disassembly, and enables a user to replace the wheel tool when necessary. This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. a pivotal opening in the context of a working wheel, to improve a similar device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
From the same or similar field of endeavor of disk devices configured for operating on a workpiece while incorporating a fluid, Ballinger teaches of a flow guiding cover which comprises radial partitions disposed along radial directions of the cutting member (wherein the guard shown has radial shaped grooves k formed on the inner faces of the wheel guard, see Col. 1 line 17-Col. 2, line 2, as well as Figures 1, 2, and 4).
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 the groove elements as taught by Ballinger into the invention of modified Skillings. One would be motivated to do so because the grooves of Balinger serve to direct the flow of water outwards toward the periphery of the wheel, as assisted by the centrifugal force generated by rotation of the wheel, and also create a pressurized cooling of the wheel, thus resulting in an efficient and evenly distributed cooling configuration; see Col. 1 line 17-Col. 2, line 2 of Ballinger. This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. radial grooves within the context of a wet disc tool, to improve a similar device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 21, Skillings in view of Yoshimi and Ballinger teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Skillings further teaches wherein the flow guiding cover rotates about a first straight line, and the main housing portion is pivotally connected to the base through the first straight line (Skilings: see axis F2, Figure 4, about which the cowling 65 and cover 68 pivot, i.e. are pivotally connected to the housing 14; see also [0025], and Figures 2, 3, 5, and 6).
Regarding claim 22, Skillings in view of Yoshimi and Ballinger teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Skillings further teaches wherein the first straight line is provided with an elastic member which can limit a movement range of the flow guiding cover within a certain range (Skillings: see at least spring 83, Figure 6, as well as [0033-0041]).
Regarding claim 23, Skillings in view of Yoshimi and Ballinger teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Skillings further teaches wherein the water entry region also comprises a first water entry region, a part of the main housing portion of the flow guiding cover located upstream in a rotation direction D of the cutting member is the first water entry region, and a space enclosed by a front side of the first water entry region and a base is the second water entry region (Skillings: wherein as can be seen within Figure 4, there are at least three apertures 69 shown; wherein there are is at least a first water entry region comprising a first aperture and a second water entry region comprising a second aperture; please also refer to the 112b rejection provided above).
Regarding claim 24, Skillings in view of Yoshimi and Ballinger teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Skillings further teaches wherein a water flow channel at a front end of the main housing portion, above the base, and below the cutting member is the second water entry region (Skillings: wherein as can be seen within Figure 4, there are at least three apertures 69 shown; wherein each aperture is above the support body 14 and tray 600, and below the blade 20).
Regarding claim 25, Skillings in view of Yoshimi and Ballinger teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Skillings further teaches wherein the flow guiding cover also comprises a transverse partition disposed at a lower portion of the first water entry region along a circumferential direction of the cutting member, and the radial partitions are disposed on two sides of the transverse partition (wherein the combination of Skillings as modified teaches the claimed invention; see at least Reference Drawing 1, which is an annotated figure 4 of Ballinger, wherein the radial partitions K of Ballinger are on either side of the transverse partition TP labelled therein).
PNG
media_image1.png
216
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference Drawing 1
Regarding claim 26, Skillings in view of Yoshimi and Ballinger teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Skillings further teaches wherein a part of the flow guiding cover located downstream in a rotation direction D of the cutting member is a water discharge region, and the radial partitions are disposed in the water discharge region (wherein Skillings does not specifically note the direction of rotation, however, wherein the top of the cowling 65/cover 68 is open towards the table top 12; wherein debris is generated during operation of the device, and the cutting device is capable of expelling debris through the top opening of the cover 68, and to table top 12, which then drains from the channel 112, to funnel 114, to the tray 600; see Figure 2, as well as [0055]; wherein depending upon rotation of the blade 20 being clockwise or counterclockwise, either region A or B of Reference Drawing 2, which is annotated Figure 5 of Skillings, would be considered the water discharge region; wherein Ballinger teaches radial groove partitions K in both areas, as can be seen in Figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
306
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reference Drawing 2
Regarding claim 27, Skillings in view of Yoshimi and Ballinger teaches the claimed invention as applied above. While modified Skillings illustrates that the cowling 65/cover 68 is located at a distance from the bottom of the tray element (600), Skillings does not explicitly teach wherein a distance between a lower end of the flow guiding cover and a bottom of the base less than 20 mm.
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 device of Skillings to have a distance between a lower end of the flow guiding cover and a bottom of the base less than 20 mm 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 Skillings would not operate differently with the claimed distance and since bottom of the cowling (65) is intended to reside within the tray and immerse the cutting blade within water, the device would function appropriately having the claimed distance. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed range (specification pp. [0112]).
Regarding claim 28, Skillings in view of Yoshimi and Ballinger teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, as shown within the figured of Skillings, the upper edge of the cowling (65) overlaps with the rotational axis of the blade (20). Skillings does not explicitly teach wherein an upper edge of the main housing portion does not exceed a rotation center of the cutting member.
However, previously mentioned Ballinger teaches of a blade cover element which is open in an arcuate shape about the wheel support flanges (j), i.e. wherein an upper edge of the main housing portion does not exceed a rotation center of the cutting member (see at least Figure 1 as well as Col. 1, line 17-Col. 2, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the are before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the edge features of Ballinger into the invention of modified Skillings. One would be motivated to do so as the configuration as taught by Ballinger includes additional channels disposed about the wheel support flanges (j), as can be seen in Figure 1, therefore further contributing to the beneficial cooling configuration described in Col. 1, line 17-Col. 2, line 2 of Ballinger. Skillings notes that the cutter blade is required to be immersed, at its lower portion, in a bath of water (see [0043], [0048-0049]). Modified Skillings would still accomplish the immersion with the added benefit of liquid dispersion as taught by Ballinger; this modification would be recognized as using a known structure, i.e. a slightly modified wheel cover, to improve a similar device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 29, Skillings in view of Yoshimi and Ballinger teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Skillings further teaches herein the upper edge of the main housing portion have an arc shape consistent with a shape of the cutting member (Ballinger: see at least the arc shape as shown in Figure 1, wherein the arc shape is consistent with the shape of the support flanges j of the abrasive wheel).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hart (US 20180297238), see Figure 2 regarding the flow control assembly 62 not exceeding the rotation center of the blade.
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
Prosecution Insights