DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
In the claim dated 09/06/2022, claims 1-10 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 02/04/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. In this case, references to prior art Taiwan Patent No. 1597119 and Taiwan patent No. M586006 (paragraphs 3 and 4) were not provided by applicant since the applicant did not attach a copy of the prior art reference and include it in the notice of reference cited.
These references are placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 2, 7, 8, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19 for placing reference numerals within brackets since parentheses are a form of bracket.
See 37CFR1.84 (p) Numbers, letters, and reference characters.
(1) Reference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible, and must not be used in association with brackets or inverted commas, or enclosed within outlines, e.g., encircled. They must be oriented in the same direction as the view so as to avoid having to rotate the sheet. Reference characters should be arranged to follow the profile of the object depicted.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Abstract:
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure because the abstract refers to the purported merits of the invention: “…increases processing yield of pipes”.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“rial” in line 2 of paragraph 27 should be “rail”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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:
Claim 1 recites the limitation(s):
“a clamping device for rotating and clamping the pipe”
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 “device” that is coupled with functional language “rotating and clamping the pipe” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “clamping device” , in figure 4, the “clamping device” is illustrated as clamps 212.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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
Claims 1-2 and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2, “the front end” lacks antecedent basis but not renders the claim indefinite. The term “the front end” should be “a front end”.
Claim 1, lines 10-11, “the Y-axis direction” and “the Z-axis direction” lack antecedent basis but not render the claim indefinite. The term “the Y-axis direction” and “ the Z-axis direction” should be “a Y-axis direction” and “a Z-axis direction”.
Claim 1, line 15, “the X-axis direction” lacks antecedent basis but not renders the claim indefinite. The term “the X-axis direction” should be “a X-axis direction”.
Claim 6, line 2, “the rear end” lacks antecedent basis but not renders the claim indefinite. The term “the rear end” should be “a rear end”.
Claim 8 recites the terms “the diameter of the perforation” and “the outer diameter of the clamping device” lack antecedent basis but not render the claim indefinite. The terms “the diameter of the perforation” and “the outer diameter of the clamping device” should be amended as “a diameter of the perforation” and “an outer diameter of the clamping device”.
Claim 9 recites “the T-shaped vertical surface” and “the T-shaped parallel surface” lack antecedent basis but not render the claim indefinite. The terms “the T-shaped vertical surface” and “the T-shaped parallel surface” should be amended as “a T-shaped vertical surface” and a T-shaped parallel surface”.
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 3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
The term “rabbet” found in Claim 3 is a noun “a channel, groove, or recess”. As such it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “to rabbet” since there is no verb form of the term.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the power source” in last line which is unclear. Claim 1 previously recites two different power sources in lines 5 and 14, including: “the first slide rail driven by a power source” and “the second slide rail driven by a power source”. Thus, it is unclear if “the power source” (claim 5) refers to the one in line 5 or line 14 of claim 1. For examination purposes, “the power source” is construed as one of the power sources recited in claim 1.
Claims 6-7 recites the same limitation “the power source” and these claims are rejected by the same reasons as discussed above in claim 5.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the third rail set" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the limitation "the third rail set" corresponds to the “third slide rail” previously recited in claim 6. If so, claim 7 should be depended upon claim 6. For examination purposes, claim 7 is construed as being depended upon claim 6.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a rack” in line 3. It is unclear if the limitation “a rack corresponds to the “rack” previously recited in line 2 of the same claim. In light of the specification, pub. para.0030 discloses: “a third slide rail 203 containing two rails 2031 and a rack 2032 (as shown in FIG. 19 ), … preferably, the power source 231 includes a gear 2311 that engages with a rack 2032”. Thus, the “rack” (line 3) is construed as the one in line 2. The “a rack” (line 3) should be amended as “the rack”.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (TW201728397A) in view of Inoue (US20020179581A1) and further in view of Schopf (US 20130020295 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Liao discloses
A pipe processing machine (100, see fig.1) with auxiliary support and sorting structure (combo 7-8, see fig.1), comprising:
a machine base (1, see fig.1), having a first slide rail (11, see fig.1) and a second slide rail set (see second slide rail in annotated fig.1 below) on the front end of the machine base (front end of 1, see fig.1);
PNG
media_image1.png
759
1167
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.1 of Liao
a feeding mechanism (combo 31-33, see figs.1-3), movable on the first slide rail (11) and is able to move on the first slide rail (11) driven by a power source (34, see fig.1 and page 6, lines 34-36: “The linear drive unit 34 is used to drive the chuck body 31 to move linearly along the guide rail 11 on the machine table 1”), and comprising a clamping device (combo 31 and 33, see figs.2-3) for rotating and clamping the pipe (see page 4, lines 35-36: “The chuck driving device 35 is for driving the chuck body 31 to rotate its center line. The jaw drive is configured to urge the jaws 33 to actuate to grip the tubular member”);
a main chuck assembly (4, see fig.1), being provided on the machine base (1, see fig.1), the main chuck assembly having a perforation (through hole 410, see fig.1 and page 5, line 57), and containing plural clamps (jaw rollers, see fig.1 and page 5, lines 21-22: “The jaw roller drive of the second rotary chuck 4 is used to urge the jaw rollers to actuate to grip the tubular member”) surrounding the perforation ( 410, see fig.1);
a processing mechanism (2, see fig.1), being disposed on the machine base (11, see fig.1), and
an unloading mechanism (see unloading mechanism in annotated fig. 1 below),
PNG
media_image2.png
898
1198
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.1 of Liao
Liao discloses the processing mechanism (2) and unloading mechanism (See annotated fig.1 above).
Liao does not expressly disclose the processing mechanism comprising a first movable block, a second movable block movable in the Y-axis direction, a third movable block movable in the Z-axis direction, and a rotary processing head incorporated in the third movable block; and
the unloading mechanism, being movably disposed on the second slide rail and is able to move on the second slide rail driven by a power source, and comprising a first movable plate movable in the X-axis direction, a second movable plate movable in the Y-axis direction, and a placement plate pivoted to the second movable plate.
However, Inoue discloses a nozzle holding means, comprising:
the processing mechanism (13, see fig.1) comprising a first movable block (15, see fig.1 and para.0043: “A hardening head 13 …being free to move, drive and position in the X-axis direction, and the hardening head 13 has a saddle 15”),
a second movable block (20) movable in the Y-axis direction (Z direction, See fig.1 and para.0043: “ the slider 16 is provided with an expansion cylinder 20 so as to expand, drive and position in a Z-axis direction, perpendicular to the X-axis and the Y-axis”),
a third movable block (combo 16 and 22) movable in the Z-axis direction (Y direction, See fig.1 and para.0062: “ the slider 16 and the rotatable head 22 are moved in the direction as shown by the arrow Y ”) and a rotary processing head (19, see fig.1) incorporated in the third movable block (see para.0044: “A rotatable head 22 attachably and detachably installing the nozzle 19 at its end…” and para.0062: “ the nozzle 19 is controlled being free to move and position in five axes directions, that is, … in the A-axis direction which is the rotating direction with the axis parallel to the Z-axis direction as its center and in the B-axis direction which is the rotating direction with the axis parallel to the X-axis as its center”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the processing mechanism of Inoue for the one of Liao so as “the processing mechanism comprising a first movable block, a second movable block movable in the Y-axis direction, a third movable block movable in the Z-axis direction, and a rotary processing head incorporated in the third movable block” as claimed, since the substitution one known element for another one would yield a predictable result of machining the pipe/ workpiece using the laser.
Moreover, Liao in view of Inoue discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, but is silent on the unloading mechanism, being movably disposed on the second slide rail and is able to move on the second slide rail driven by a power source, and comprising a first movable plate movable in the X-axis direction, a second movable plate movable in the Y-axis direction, and a placement plate pivoted to the second movable plate.
Schopf discloses an unloading device for a processing device for processing pipes, comprising:
the unloading mechanism (combo 23 and 30, see fig.2), being movably disposed on the second slide rail (see para.0047: “The depositing slide 23 is guided in the longitudinal direction X of the pipe on a guide rail”) and is able to move on the second slide rail (guide rail, see para.0047) driven by a power source (6, see fig.1 and para.0047: “The depositing slide 23 can be actuated and displaced in a controlled manner by the control device 6 shown in FIG. 1”), and comprising a first movable plate (see first movable plate in annotated fig.2 below, which is a smooth flat thin piece so it is interpreted as the claimed “first movable plate”) movable in the X-axis direction (direction X, see fig.2 and para.0047, when The depositing slide 23 is guided in the longitudinal direction X, the annotated first movable plate, which is a part of the depositing slide 23, is movable in the same direction), a second movable plate (see second movable plate in annotated fig.2 below, which is a part of the transverse arm 30, comprises a smooth flat thin portion so it is interpreted as the claimed “second movable plate”) movable in the Y-axis direction (see para.0047: “The depositing surface 24 of the depositing slide 23 is configured in this example as a prismatic depositing table which can be presented and retracted over the top side of the beam 21 in a direction (Y-direction) transverse to the longitudinal direction X of the pipe by an arm 30”), and a placement plate (24, see fig.2) pivoted to the second movable plate (see second movable plate in annotated fig.2 below and see para.0048: “The depositing surface 24 of the depositing slide 23 shown in FIG. 2 is pivotable between a first and a second angular position).
PNG
media_image3.png
691
1293
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Schopf
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the unloading mechanism of Schopf for the one of Liao in view of Inoue ( see the unloading mechanism of Liao in annotated fig.1 above) so as “the unloading mechanism, being movably disposed on the second slide rail and is able to move on the second slide rail driven by a power source, and comprising a first movable plate movable in the X-axis direction, a second movable plate movable in the Y-axis direction, and a placement plate pivoted to the second movable plate” ad claimed, since the substitution one known element for another one would yield a predictable result of unloading the objects/ pipes.
Regarding claim 8, Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf discloses the claimed limitations as set forth except the diameter of the perforation is larger than the outer diameter of the clamping device.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see items 410, combo 31 and 33 as shown in fig.1 of Liao), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf discloses a certain diameter of the perforation (see item 410 of Liao, fig.1) and a certain outer diameter of the clamping device (see outer diameter of the item 33 of Liao), and having “the diameter of the perforation is larger than the outer diameter of the clamping device” is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the diameters is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying the diameters to control the rotation of the pipe effectively, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Regarding claim 10, Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf further discloses a rotary axis (arrow A, see fig.1 and para.0044 of Inoue) is provided between the third movable block (combo 16 and 22 of Inoue) and the rotary processing head (19, see fig.1 of Inoue) to enable the rotary processing head (19 of Inoue) to oscillate and rotary for processing (see fig.1 and para.0044 of Inoue).
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zeng (CN211162145U)
Regarding claim 2, Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except a cylinder is installed between the placement plate and the second movable plate, and the pivot point between the placement plate and second movable plate can be rotated and tilted at an angle by means of the cylinder.
Zeng discloses an automatic discharging device, comprising:
a cylinder (25, see fig.5) is installed between the placement plate (21, see fig.5) and the second movable plate (28, see fig.5), and the pivot point (24, see figs.5-6) between the placement plate (21, see figs.5-6) and second movable plate (28, see figs.5-6) can be rotated and tilted at an angle by means of the cylinder (25, see fig.5-6 and page 5, lines 6-7: “then the fourth cylinder 25 is controlled to flip the rotating plate 21 to the same plane as the flap 22”) .
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the unloading mechanism of Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf to have the “cylinder is installed between the placement plate and the second movable plate, and the pivot point between the placement plate and second movable plate can be rotated and tilted at an angle by means of the cylinder” as taught by Seng. Doing so provides “an automatic feeding device with ingenious structure, strong applicability, practicality and high efficiency” (See page 1, lines 30-31 of Zeng).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Susnjara (US20190077079A1)
Regarding claim 3, Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the second movable plate is provided with a rail for the first movable plate to rabbet, and the second movable plate is provided with an adjustable power source to drive the second movable plate movable in the Y-axis direction.
Susnjara discloses an additive manufacturing system, comprising:
the second movable plate (25, see fig.1) is provided with a rail (35, see fig.1) for the first movable plate (24, see fig.1) to rabbet (see fig.1 and para.0033), and the second movable plate (25, see fig.1) is provided with an adjustable power source (servomotor, see para.0033 and para.0039: “the control system of machine 1, in executing the inputted program, may control several servomotors described above to … displace carrier 25 along the z-axis”) to drive the second movable plate (25, see fig.1) movable in the Y-axis direction (z direction, see fig.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the second movable plate of Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf to be “provided with a rail for the first movable plate to rabbet, and the second movable plate is provided with an adjustable power source to drive the second movable plate movable in the Y-axis direction” as taught by Susnjara. Doing so helps to move the second movable plate to any locations as desired using the rail(s) which allows for the efficient transfer of materials, reducing the time and effort required for loading and unloading operations.
Claims 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Xu (US 20180200822 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf discloses the claimed limitations as set forth. Liao further discloses the main chuck assembly (4, see fig.1) is movable on the first slide rail (11, see fig.1), except the main chuck assembly can be moved on the first slide rail driven by a power source comprising a gear engaged with a rack of the first slide rail.
Xu discloses a gantry cutting machine for pipe, comprising:
the main chuck assembly (43, see fig.1) can be moved on the first slide rail (411, see fig.1) driven by a power source (combo 412 and 413, see fig.8) comprising a gear (412, see fig.8 and para.0131) engaged with a rack of the first slide rail (411, see fig.8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the power source of Liao for the power source of the main chuck assembly Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf, so as “the main chuck assembly can be moved on the first slide rail driven by a power source comprising a gear engaged with a rack of the first slide rail” as claimed, since the substitution one element for another one would yield a predictable result of moving the main chuck assembly on the first rail.
Regarding claim 5, Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf discloses the claimed limitations as set forth. Liao further discloses wherein the first slide rail (11) and the second slide rail (see second slide rail in annotated fig.1 above) both contain two rails (See fig.1), except a rack, and the power source contains a gear engaged with a rack.
Xu discloses a gantry cutting machine for pipe, comprising:
the first slide rail and the second slide rail both contain a rack (413, see fig.8) and the power source contains a gear (412, see fig.8) engaged with a rack (413, see fig.8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first and second side rails of Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf to have the “rack, and the power source contains a gear engaged with a rack” as taught by Xu. Doing so provides precise position and reliable motion. In addition, it ensures minimal wear and long service life.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sekiya (US 20190030651 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except a third slide rail is provided at the rear end of the machine base, so that the processing mechanism can be movably disposed on the third slide rail and can be moved on the third slide rail driven by the power source.
Sekiya discloses a wafer producing method and apparatus for producing a wafer from a semiconductor ingot, comprising:
a third slide rail (24a, see fig.1) is provided at the rear end of the machine base (1, see fig.1), so that the processing mechanism (38, see fig.1) can be movably disposed on the third slide rail (24a, see fig.1) and can be moved on the third slide rail (24a, see fig.1) driven by the power source (28, see fig.1 and para.0046).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the machine of Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf to incorporate the “third slide rail is provided at the rear end of the machine base, so that the processing mechanism can be movably disposed on the third slide rail and can be moved on the third slide rail driven by the power source” as taught by Sekiya. Doing so allows to move the processing mechanism to any desire locations during machining which improves pipe cutting efficiency.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf/ Sekiya as applied to claim 6 above (see 112(b) rejections above), and further in view of Xu (US 20180200822 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf/ Sekiya discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, Sekiya further discloses the third rail set comprises two rails (24a, see fig.1), except a rack, and the power source comprises a gear engaged with a rack.
Xu discloses a gantry cutting machine for pipe, comprising:
the third rail set comprises a rack (413, see fig.8), and the power source comprises a gear (412, see fig.8) engaged with a rack (413, see fig.8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the third rail set of Liao in view of Inoue/ Schopf/ Sekiya to have the “rack, and the power source comprises a gear engaged with a rack” as taught by Xu. Doing so provides precise position and reliable motion. In addition, it ensures minimal wear and long service life.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20120088354 A1 discloses a discharge device (30) for discharging a pipe section (3) which has been machined from a pipe (2) by means of a machining apparatus (20).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights