Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/762,310

Wire saw for an endless wire

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 21, 2022
Examiner
DO, NHAT CHIEU Q
Art Unit
3724
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Hilti Aktiengesellschaft
OA Round
7 (Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
8-9
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
393 granted / 618 resolved
-6.4% vs TC avg
Strong +49% interview lift
Without
With
+49.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
72 currently pending
Career history
690
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
38.3%
-1.7% vs TC avg
§102
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
§112
33.3%
-6.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 618 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claims 11-17, 19-21, 23-24, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler (DE 202009014912 U1) in view of Brehm (DE 102005037542 A1, art of record). Regarding claim 11, Winkler shows a wire saw (Figure 3) for an endless saw wire (3), the wire saw comprising: a housing (an enclosure, Figure 1) having an inlet (the bottom rollers 9 and an outlet (the top roller 9, see the direction 20 in figure 1) for the saw wire; a wire drive (6, Figures1-2 and Para. 24 “The drive (6) for the circulating movement of the saw wire (3)”) for pulling the saw wire in a circulating direction directly from the inlet, a guidance of the wire between the wire inlet and the wire drive being invariable so that a pulling force of the wire drive is unimpeded from the part to the wire drive (as this is written, it is unclear what the “invariable” refers to, therefore, see Figure 3, the inlet 9, outlet 9, and driver 6 are fixed relative to each other or two tracks for rollers 15 unchanged or invariable and meets this limitation, moreover, as it is written, it appears that the machine is not operating for cutting, therefore, all rollers and other parts are invariable; with regards to the pulling force”, see Figures 1-2, the driver 6 is not interfered any parts of this system, therefore, the pulling force is unimpeded), the inlet being upstream of wire drive and the outlet being downstream of the wire drive (see the wire running direction 20 in Figures 1-2); a wire store (14, 13/15, Figures 1-2) having a first package of deflection rollers (14) and a second package of deflection rollers (13/15), wherein the second package is mounted so as to be displaceable with respect to the first package along a direction in order to increase a length of the saw wire stored on the wire store (see Figures 1 and 2); a feed device (16/21. Paras. 28, 28) exerting a feed force on the second package in the wire running direction (Figures 1-2), wherein the wire store is arranged between of the wire drive and the outlet in the circulating direction (the arrangement of the wire store depends on a viewing direction, for an example, see the rollers 14 and 15 from a left to a right of figures 1-2 in the circulating direction. Please note that this wire is run in a loop or a circulation) so as to impact tension on the saw wire existing the wire drive before the saw wire exist the outlet (Figure 2 below), the first package of deflection rollers having a first rotational axis (see deflection rollers 14) However, Winkler silently discusses the rotation axis of the storage rollers (14) inclined with respect to the rotation axis of the 2nd deflection rollers 15. Brehm shows the rotation axis of deflection rollers (5.1, Figure 1) inclined with respect to the rotation axis of 2nd deflection rollers (5.2) for storing a saw wire (3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the storage rollers of the 1st and 2nd packages of Winkler to have their rotation axis slightly inclined with respect to each other, as taught by Brehm, in order to allow the wire rotation during advancing or circulating wire for improving cutting, instead of cutting the workpiece by the same portion surface of the wire all the time. Regarding claim 12, the modified wire saw of Winkler shows that the feed device exerts the feed force on the second package by way of a mechanical spring (as it is written, it is unclear what type of the mechanical spring be, therefore, para. 8 recites “pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder…spring effect” that meets the claimed invention). Regarding claim 13, the modified wire saw of Winkler shows that the wire drive has one or more motors (7 of Winkler), and the one or more motors are coupled to one or more drive rollers for pulling the saw wire in the circulating direction. Regarding claim 14, the modified wire saw of Winkler shows that the deflection rollers of the wire store are free-running (see para. 27 and Figures 1-5 of Winkler). Regarding claim 15, the modified wire saw of Winkler shows that the wire drive has at least one drive roller (8 of Winkler) and wherein the wire store is arranged between the at least one drive roller and the wire out (see the discussion in claim 11 above and Figures 1-2 of Winkler). Regarding claims 16-17, the modified wire saw of Winkler shows that the endless saw wire is guided from the wire outlet through a workpiece to the wire drive (see Figures 1-2 of Winkler) and the endless saw wire is guided rectilinearly from the wire store to the wire outlet (see the sections 11 in Figures 1-2 of Winkler). Regarding claims 19-21, the modified wire saw of Winkler shows that the endless saw wire is guided from the wire inlet through a workpiece to the wire drive (Figures 1-2 of Winkler. Please note that this wire is run in a loop or a circulation), and wherein the endless saw wire is guided from the wire inlet rectilinearly to the wire drive (Figures 1-2 of Winkler show some portions of wire 3 are guided from the wire inlet rectilinearly to the wire drive), wherein the saw wire is a single saw wire (Figures 1-2 of Winkler). Regarding claims 23-24, the modified wire saw of Winkler shows that the first package of deflection rollers is for the saw wire (see the discussion in claim 11 above) and wherein the saw wire is wound up in the wire store (Figures 1-2 of Winkler). Regarding claim 27, the modified wire saw of Winkler shows that the first package of deflection rollers and the second package of deflection rollers are configured to guide the saw wire obliquely (Figures 1-2 of Winkler shows the rollers 14 being different elevations from the rollers 13, 15 that guides the wire obliquely, moreover, the modification above makes the axis of the rotation rollers 14 and 13/15 inclined with relative to each other causes the wire is guided obliquely). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 09/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reason below: With regards to “a guidance of the wire between the wire inlet and the wire drive being invariable”, this argument is acknowledged but it is persuasive since as the claim is written, it is unclear what the guidance refers to. See figure 3, the driver 6 and the outlet 9 have structures for guiding the wire and both the driver 6 and the outlet 9 are fixed relative to each other (invariable). See further discussion above. With regards to “the wire store is arranged between the wire drive and the outlet in circulating direction”, see the discussion above and see Figures 1-2, the rollers 14-15 are between the wire drive 6 and the outlet 9 in circulating direction as seen from the left to right direction of Figures 1-2. However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus different from the prior art’s apparatus or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST. 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. /NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 10/21/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 21, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 14, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 16, 2023
Response Filed
Jan 06, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 05, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 16, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 15, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 15, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 26, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 24, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 22, 2025
Interview Requested
Apr 30, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 30, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
May 27, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 08, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604699
PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600047
Safety Knife
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583140
Electrode Cutting Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576547
RAZOR BLADE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564891
SPIN-SAW MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

8-9
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+49.1%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 618 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month