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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the part of the cutter unit in claims 5-6 (there are many parts of the cutter unit and it is unclear which part of claims 5-6 refers to) and an end part thereof is bend along a bending line crossing a direction of movement of the cutter unit in claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
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.
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:
The “guiding part linked to the case” and “the connecting member…” in claims 1, 8, 10.
For an example, In claims 1,8, 10, the “guiding part linked to the case” invokes 112F because first, "part" is a generic substitute for “means”; second, the "part" is modified by functional language including “linked to the case…”; and third, the "part" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "guiding" preceding part describes the function, not the structure of the part.
Similarly analysis with other limitation “a connecting member…”.
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. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-6, 8, 10, 12 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.
Claim 1 recites “a cutting device…a single rotary blade …the sole cutting element and a cutter unit” that is unclear. The specification discusses only one circular blade. The drawing only shows one circular blade. As this is written, it appears that there are three cutting features (the single rotary blade, the sole cutting element and the cutter unit). Therefore, it is confusing and indefinite. How many cutting blades or features are in this system? Also, the sole cutting element lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers a new cutter or inherently refers to previously introduced cutter. Does this cutting system have other structures used for cutting? Claims 8 and 10 have the same issue.
Claim 1, lines 7-9 recites “ a case that houses a part of the rotary blade” and later it recites “the guiding part housing another part of the rotary blade…” is unclear. As this is written, it appears there are many parts formed the rotary blade, however, reviewing at the Figures and the specification, there is only one cutting part or blade 21. Thus, it is unclear whether the “part” or “another part” refers to components of the blade or portions of the blade. Claims 8 and 10 have the same issue
Claim 1, a term of “a cutter unit configured to hold the rotary blade” is unclear. The cutter unit is inherently includes a blade. As it is written, it appears that cutter configured to hold another rotary blade. Reviewing the specification and figures, it seems that a case 22 or plate members 222- 223 configured to hold the rotary blade. Thus, the term is unclear. Claims 8 and 10 have the same issue.
Claim 1, a term of “a the case and the guiding part together defining a space for cutting” is unclear. Reading the specification, only blade 21 is for cutting, the space or other parts. Claims 8 and 10 have the same issue.
Claim 1, the last paragraph “…the cutter unit …attachable to and detachable from the body together with the rotary blade” is unclear? The cutter unit inherently has a cutting feature. As it is written, it appears that the cutting feature “attachable to and detachable from the body together with the rotary blade”, in which appears having two cutters. Claims 8 and 10 have the same issue.
Claim 12, line 5 “a space” is unclear whether it refers the space of claim 1 or an additional space.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claims.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strong (US 9126349).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Strong shows a cutting system (Figures 1-5) comprising:
a cutting device (10, Figure 5) including a body (180) having a motor (215, Figure 1) that rotates a single rotary blade (110);
a case (43/42/312. See the issue above for “a cutter unit”) configured to hold the rotary blade, the case housing a upper portion of the rotary blade (Figure 2); and
a guiding part (22) linked to the case (via parts 150, 180) and the guiding part housing another part (a lower portion) of the rotary blade (see the slot 281, Figure 2) and
wherein the case and the guiding part together defining a space which is for cutting region which an object (343/344) to be cut is introduced (Figure 3); and
a transport device (as it is written, it is loosely claimed without providing a further structure, therefore, the handle 234 or rollers 265/302 that are for moving the tool during cutting that meets this limitation) that moves the cutting device relative with the object to be cut,
wherein a portion of the rotary blade (Figure 3) is exposed in the space for cutting the object, and the cutter unit is detachably mounted to the body together with the rotary blade (Figures 5-6), and
a connecting member (180) that connects the case and the guiding part, the connecting member having a thickness whereby the connecting member avoids tearing the object to be cut during a cutting operation (Figure 3 and Col. 9, lines 48-52 “this direction of rotation causes the cutting edge 113 of the cutting blade 112 to cut through the end of the workpiece 340 as a result of the operator moving the apparatus” that means the connecting member avoids tearing the object to be cut during a cutting operation).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Strong shows an opening width of an opening of the space increases in a direction toward an opened end (Figure 3 shows the forward portion 253 being tapered down that makes end of the frame increased opening).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Strong shows that a part of the cutter unit on a side opposite to the opening of the space is thinner than another part of the cutter unit (Figure 5 shows a plate 180 is curved up that makes less opening compared to the portion of the opening at the ramp 253).
Regarding claim 4, Strong shows that a part of the cutter unit on a side opposite to the opening of the space becomes thicker in a direction away from the space for cutting (Figure 5 shows parts 180 and 150 mounted together that makes it thicker).
Regarding claim 5, Strong shows that a part of the cutter unit on a side opposite to the opening of the space is spaced apart from the rotary blade (Figures 2 and 4, the plates 180, 150 are spaced from the blade), and a space where no member is present is formed between the part and the rotary blade (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Strong shows that a part of the cutter unit on a side opposite to the opening of the space has, in a portion adjacent to the rotary blade, a space where no member is present (see the discussion in claim 5 above, the space is between the blade and the edge 184), and an end part thereof is bent along a bending line (an arcuate forward edge 184, Figure 4. See https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bend that is to become curved, crooked, or bent) crossing a direction of relative movement of the cutter unit and the object to be cut (the edge 184 is curved or bent upwardly and crossing a direction of movement of the cutter unit as seen in Figure 3).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Strong shows all of the limitations as stated in claims 1-6 above.
Regarding Claim 12, strong shows the thickness of the connecting member (180) is set such that the connecting member does not cause a tearing action on the object to be cut when the object to be cut moves past the connecting member during the cutting operation (see the discussion in claim 1 above), and
in the cutting operation, the object to be cut moves within a space defined between the case and the guiding part while being supported on both sides of the connecting member by the guiding part (Figure 5).
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strong in view of Gong (US 2017/0008102).
Regarding claims 1-6, as best understood, these are alternative rejections if one argues that the handle or rollers 265/302 of Strong is NOT a transport device, therefore, Gong shows a transport device (an arm of a robot, figure 1) for transporting a saw (cutting unit 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had a transport device, as taught by Gong to transport the cutter unit of Strong, in order to reduce a labor cost and allow the workpiece can be accurately cut.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amended claims to attempt overcome the previous issues, however, new issues are arisen.
With regards to the “prior art rejection”, Applicant has amended to the claims, however, new issues are arisen. Also, the amendments are not enough or unique to distinct from the prior art, therefore, the prior art, Strong still reads on the claimed invention. See the rejections above for details.
With regards to “the connecting member having a thickness…avoids tearing the object to be cut during cutting operation”, this argument is acknowledged, but is persuasive because the connecting member (the guide plate 180 “Preferably, although not necessarily, the arcuate forward edge 184 is of a tapered or sharpened configuration for reasons subsequently to be discussed” which is for guiding the split pieces after cutting, Not for tearing the workpiece or object. See the plate 180 is a GUIDE plate. Moreover, as the claim is written, it is unclear what material of the object is cut, for examples, if the object is very strong and resistant composition or resilient material as discussed in the background of the invention of Strong which is not easily to further tear. Please note that there is NO discussion of tearing by the guide plate 180 in Strong’s specification).
With regards claim 6, see the further discussion above.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method 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
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 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 10/10/2025