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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE3807094A, Kuhn, in view of DE900943, Stihl and USPN 4316328, Duggan.
Regarding Claim 10, Kuhn discloses a ring saw (abstract), comprising:
a ring saw blade (4);
a tool holder (combination of parts 8 and 5), wherein the tool holder guides the ring saw blade in a cutting plane (abstract);
a motor (abstract);
a driving wheel (driving roller 6), wherein the ring saw blade is drivable in the cutting plane by the driving wheel and wherein the driving wheel is coupled to the motor (second par. of detailed description);
a guide roller (guide roller 5 on the left side of fig. 2) which is disposed on a first side of the cutting plane (fig. 2), wherein the ring saw blade is guidable by the guide roller from the first side, wherein the guide roller is mounted such that the guide roller is freely rotatable about a first axis of rotation (par 0006 of detailed description), wherein the guide roller has a cylindrical lateral surface that engages in a first guide groove of the ring saw blade (see annotated fig 2 shown below)
a guide roll (guide roller 5, on right side of fig. 2), which is disposed on a second side of the cutting plane (See: fig. 2), wherein the ring saw blade is guidable by the guide roll from the second side (par 0005 and 0006 of detailed description), and wherein no annular guide groove is formed in the saw blade on the second side (fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
540
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kuhn lacks: the assembly such that (I) a conical guide flank of the first guide groove is in parallel contact with the cylindrical lateral surface of the guide roller, and such that the guide roller is taken along by the ring saw blade during rotation of the ring saw blade and (II) wherein the first axis of rotation slopes by 50 degrees to 80 degrees relative to the cutting plane.
Regarding feature (I): Stihl discloses a ring saw (abstract), in the same field of endeavor as the ring saw tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a ring blade (i) having a guide groove 28 wherein a profile of the guide groove is formed of a conical guide flank (annotated fig 4 below) and a groove base (annotated fig 4 below) such that the guide groove is configured to engage a cylindrical lateral surface (annotated fig 4 below) of a guide roller 31, in parallel contact with the conical guide flank (annotated fig 4 below), such that the guide roller is taken along by the ring saw blade during rotation of the ring saw blade, in order to support the blade in such a manner by guide rollers 30/31 in a manner in which the supports are prevented from displacement from the blade in any direction (see third to last par. of the attached translation document).
PNG
media_image2.png
526
377
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuhn by having the conical guide flank of the first guide groove is in parallel contact with the cylindrical lateral surface of the guide roller, and such that the guide roller is taken along by the ring saw blade during rotation of the ring saw blade in order to support the blade in such a manner by guide rollers in a manner in which the supports are prevented from displacement from the blade in any direction, as taught by Stihl.
Regarding feature (II): Kuhn as modified by Stihl lacks the first axis of rotation sloping by 50 degrees to 80 degrees relative to the cutting plane.
With regard to the angle of the guide roller, Kuhn modified by Stihl, as above, already discloses that the rollers thereof support the blade thereof at an angle (See fig 4). Stihl simply lacks specificity as to what the angle is.
Duggan discloses that the angle of a support roll in a ring knife, such as the ring knife of Stihl, is a function of ensuring that larger or smaller portions of the diameter of the roller experience the same angular rotation with portions of the blade 20 when the blade is contacted by said roller (col. 5, lines 25-35). Thus, because Stihl teaches providing a support roller at an angle (figs 2-3 and 5-6)), and because Stihl teaches that the particular magnitude of the angle at which a roller touches a blade depends on the desired contact with a knife and on the size of the roller, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select an angle in the range of 50 to 80 degrees, because discovering an optimum angle support roll range would have been a mere design consideration based on ensuring that the larger or smaller portions of the diameter of the roller experience the same angular rotation with portions of the blade when the blade is contacted by said support roller. Indeed, the cited passage in Stihl is evidence that an acute angle is known in the art as a suitable having an angled roller contact a knife and that this angle may vary based on the size of the roller or of the knife; such that selecting an angle within this range leads to a reasonable expectation of success. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s), since the modification merely requires the selection of a particular angle, and since Stihl is evidence that varying the recited angle is known in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an angle of said support roll in the range of 50 to 80 degrees in order to ensure that the roller contacts the knife even if different sized knives or rollers are presented.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuhn by having the guide roller having a cylindrical lateral surface that engages in a first guide groove of the ring saw blade such that a conical guide flank of the first guide groove is in parallel contact with the cylindrical lateral surface of the guide roller in order to allow for a centering of the relatively rotatable bodies relative to one another with great accuracy as taught in Duggan.
Regarding Claim 11, in Kuhn, the guide roller has a first rolling element (head portion which contacts the saw) with a rotationally symmetrical lateral surface (outer surface of roller part 4 which contacts blade; see fig 2).
Regarding claims 12-18, the Kuhn device as modified by Stihl and by the teachings of Duggan discloses all the limitations of Claims 10 and 11 as discussed above.
Modified Stihl lacks the guide roller (19) having a second rolling element (Claim 12), the second rolling element (30) has a smaller radius than the first rolling element (Claim 13), the second rolling element is disposed closer to the cutting plane along a second axis of rotation relative to the first rolling element (Claim 14), the second rolling element is mounted on the first rolling element (Claim 15), wherein an axis of rotation of the guide roll and the first axis of rotation [each] lie in a plane perpendicular to the cutting plane, (Claim 16), where in the axis of rotation of the guide roll slopes relative to the cutting plane (Claim 17), in Stihl the section of a lateral surface of the guide roll which faces the cutting plane extends parallel to the cutting plane (Claim 18).
Duggan discloses a ring saw in the same field of endeavor as the ring saw of the present invention, and discloses that such a saw includes a guide roller (24 and 30), which roller is analogous to the free rolling guide roller 19 of the present invention (even though the guide roller of Stihl is on an opposite side of the blade as the guide roller of Stihl, the rollers perform the same function of guiding a blade, in a similar fashion, by contacting the blade directly) and discloses that such a roller includes a first rolling element (24) with a rotationally symmetrical lateral surface (outer surface of roller 24 contacts blade 20), and the guide roller (24, 30) has a second rolling element (30) (Claim 12), the second rolling element (30) has a smaller radius than the first rolling element (24) (Claim 13), the second rolling element (30) is disposed closer to the cutting plane along a second axis of rotation relative to the first rolling element (24) (since the axes are parallel but that the actual rollers are offset, and the center of the second roller is closer to the cutting plane than the center of the first roller is; in the present invention only a portion of the second roller 47 [e.g. the center thereof] is closer to the cutting plane than the first roller 46 is [see fig 5of the present drawings], thus this limitation is met by Stihl, as explained above, as the claim is best understood under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, in view of the disclosure) (Claim 14), in Stihl the second rolling element (30) is mounted on the first rolling element (24) (Claim 15), wherein an axis of rotation of the guide roll (86) and the first axis of rotation (axis of part 24) [each] lie in a plane perpendicular to the cutting plane (E), (since the axis of rotation of the guide roll itself is perpendicular to the cutting plane (see fig 1); and as to the axis of rotation of the part 24, while this axis of rotation lies angularly with regard to the cutting plane E, a plane can be drawn in which this axis of rotation of the part 24 lies and that plane is perpendicular to the axis of rotation E, see annotated fig 2 below) (Claim 16),
PNG
media_image3.png
664
804
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where the axis of rotation (e.g. line drawn through long axis of shaft 26) of the guide roll (24-30) slopes relative to the cutting plane (see fig 2) (Claim 17), wherein the section of a lateral surface (49) of the guide roll (43) which faces the cutting plane (E) extends parallel to the cutting plane (E) (see annotated fig 3 below), in order to alleviate the heat, wear and vibration problems heretofore experienced with conventional annular power tools, col 2, lines 39-42.
PNG
media_image4.png
419
665
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stihl by modifying the structure of the guide roller including a second rolling element (Claim 12), the second rolling element (30) has a smaller radius than the first rolling element (Claim 13), the second rolling element is disposed closer to the cutting plane along a second axis of rotation relative to the first rolling element (Claim 14), the second rolling element is mounted on the first rolling element (Claim 15), wherein an axis of rotation of the guide roll (86) and the first axis of rotation [each] lie in a plane perpendicular to the cutting plane, (Claim 16), where in the axis of rotation of the guide roll slopes relative to the cutting plane (Claim 17), in Duggan the section of a lateral surface of the guide roll which faces the cutting plane extends parallel to the cutting plane (Claim 18) in order to alleviate the heat, wear and vibration problems heretofore experienced with conventional annular power tools, as taught by Duggan.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE3807094A, Kuhn, in view of DE900493, Stihl.
Regarding Claim 19, Kuhn discloses a ring saw blade 4, comprising:
a flat support shaped as a toroidal disc ("toroidal” is defined as of or resembling a torus, and a torus is further defined as “a surface or solid formed by rotating a closed curve, especially a circle, around a line that lies in the same plane but does not intersect it e.g., like a ring-shaped doughnut)”, in Kuhn the disc is roughly doughnut shaped and thus is Toroidal), said flat support comprising a front first side (left side fig 2) and a second side (right side fig 2), each side having a substantially flat main surface (fig. 2);
and at least one annular guide groove formed in the first side (see annotated fig 2 below), said guide groove being concentric with an inner circumference of the flat support, wherein no annular guide groove is formed in the second side ((see annotated fig 2 below))
wherein a profile of the guide groove is formed of a guide flank and a groove base such that the guide groove is configured to engage a cylindrical lateral surface of a guide roller (annotated fig 2).
Kuhn lacks: wherein the profile of the guide groove is formed of a conical guide flank and a groove base such that the guide groove is configured to engage a cylindrical lateral surface of a guide roller in parallel contact with the conical guide flank, and wherein the annular guide groove has an asymmetrical profile.
Regarding feature (I): Stihl discloses a ring saw (abstract), in the same field of endeavor as the ring saw tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a ring blade (i) having a guide groove 28 wherein a profile of the guide groove is formed of a conical guide flank (annotated fig 4 below) and a groove base (annotated fig 4 below) such that the guide groove is configured to engage a cylindrical lateral surface (annotated fig 4 below) of a guide roller 31, in parallel contact with the conical guide flank (annotated fig 4 below), such that the guide roller is taken along by the ring saw blade during rotation of the ring saw blade, and wherein the guide groove has an asymmetrical profile (fig 4), in order to support the blade in such a manner by guide rollers 30/31 in a manner in which the supports are prevented from displacement from the blade in any direction (see third to last par. of the attached translation document).
PNG
media_image2.png
526
377
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuhn by having the conical guide flank of the first guide groove is in parallel contact with the cylindrical lateral surface of the guide roller, and such that the guide roller is taken along by the ring saw blade during rotation of the ring saw blade wherein the guide groove has an asymmetrical profile, in order to support the blade in such a manner by guide rollers in a manner in which the supports are prevented from displacement from the blade in any direction, as taught by Stihl.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn in view of Stihl.
Regarding Claims 20 and 21 Kuhn lacks the guide flank contributes less than 20% to a width of the guide groove (Claim 20) and the width of the guide groove is at least three times as great as a depth of the guide groove (Claim 21).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the guide flank contributes less than 20% to a width of the guide groove (Claim 20) and the width of the guide groove is at least three times as great as a depth of the guide groove (Claim 21), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 8/15/25, with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims (as the claims have now been amended) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Stihl lacks the ring saw blade comprising no annular guide groove on a second side thereof. Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kuhn.
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 FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached on 571-270-3818. 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights