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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, corresponding claim 7 in the reply filed on 08/01/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6 and 8 have been canceled by Applicant.
Newly submitted claims 11-13, 16-22 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 11-13 recite an electric data base stored in a memory device associated with the computer system, as set forth in the claims.
Claims 16-22 recite an in-feed system, two fences, a six wire hot-wire cutting system, an out-feed system, as set forth in claim 16 (claims 17-22 depend on claim 16).
The previously election and examined claim 7, shows an electrothermal hot-wire cutting system and 36 actuators, have two-way distinction and a search burden compared to new claims 11-13, 16-22. For an example:
Claims 11-13 are not elected by Applicant (see the non-elected claim 6 “a database” and claim 8 “a memory device”) that proves have two-way distinction and a search burden. See the restriction/ requirement mailed on 06/09/2025.
The system of claim 7 does not require “an in-feed system, two fences, a six wire hot-wire cutting system, an out-feed system” of claims 16-22, and conversely, the systems of claims 16-22 does require 6 cutting wires, two fences, in-feed and out-feed systems which are not require in claim 7.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented and elected invention, claims 16-22 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Accordingly, claims 11-13, 16-22 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
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 1st group of 36 linear actuators… the 2nd group of the 36 linear actuators … the 3rd group of 36 linear actuators” in claim 7, lines 9-13 (108 actuators in total; as Figure 10 shown, each group can be one actuator or many actuators. See “actuator(s)”, however, it is not clear how each group of 36 linear actuators coupled in the system as claimed) and the tensioner in claim 10, a pulley tensioner in claim 14, an air spring tensioner in claim 15 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification (28 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. For examples, the language “Turcotte sculptor” is not clear and not descriptive that helps a reader to understand the disclose.
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 7, 9-10, 14-15 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 7, the phrase “a fence when actuated aligning the foam slab of foam material with respect to an origin position on the table” is unclear what Applicant is trying to claim. What is the origin position? How and when does it consider as an origin position on the table. Is the foam slab placed on the table at a first time that is an original position of the foam slab, right? Or is the foam slab just placed on the table (any position) that is an original position of the foam slab, right? Or is the foam slab placed on the table at a first adjusting position that is an original position of the foam slab, right? Or is the foam slab placed on the table before applying any alignment or adjustment that is an original position of the foam slab, right?
See Applicant’s figure 19, the foam slab is adjusted on the table 70. What is the original position of the foam slab? See other issues “the original position” of the fence, the table, the electrothermal hot-wire cutting system….
Claim 7, lines 9-13 is unclear. A 1st group of the 36 linear actuators , a 2nd group of the 36 linear actuators, and a 3rd group of the 36 linear actuators lack of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether each of 1st, 2nd and 3rd groups has the 36 linear actuators or the 36 linear actuators dividing into 1st, 2nd, and 3rd groups. How many are total numbers of linear actuators in the claimed system?
Also, “the first group of the 36 linear actuators couples between the frame and the table” is unclear since figures are not shown, the specification does not clearly disclose and the claim is not well defined how 36 linear actuators are coupled between the frame and the table and what the 36 linear actuators are coupled. Moreover, as this written, it is unclear whether the 36 linear actuators are coupled to the frame or the table or tightening with the cutting system or not. If an art has a cutting system and 36 linear actuators between the frame and the table, it meets the claimed invention, right? See similar issues of the 2nd and 3rd groups of 36 linear actuators.
The language “the original position” used throughout claim 7 is unclear and confusing.
Lines 5-6 “an original position” appears referring back an original position of the foam slab.
Line 11 “moving the table with respect to the original position” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because the original position of the foam slab is different from the original position of the table.
Line 13 “moving the fence with respect to the original position” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because the original position of the foam slab, the original position of the table, the original position of the fence are different.
Lines 15-16 “moving the electrothermal hot-wire cutting system with respect to the original position” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because the original position of the foam slab, the original position of the table, the original position of the fence, the original position of the electrothermal hot-wire cutting system are different.
The last paragraph “the original position…the original position” is unclear what the original position refers back to.
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 7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 207874426 U and Translation) in view of Wei (CN 110757584 A and Translation).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Wang shows a hot-wire foam cutting system (Figure 1) that “machines” or cuts a foam slab of foam material (see abstract), comprising:
a frame (1-2, Figure 1);
a table (11) sized to accept the foam slab of foam material (see page 4, the middle paragraph “the foam is placed in the screw rod sliding table 11 on the screw rod sliding table of the convex 11 is 111 provided for the foam away from the moving direction of the limiting function”);
a fence (111, Figure 1)
an electrothermal hot-wire cutting system (electric heating wire 25 as discussed in the middle paragraph of page 4) when actuated applying an electrical power to a wire and melting a predetermined path within the foam slab of foam material;
a linear actuator (a first motor 12 with a rod for linearly moving the table 11), wherein a first group of the linear actuator couples between the frame and the table (see the rod 13) for moving the table,
a computer system (an inherent controller for controlling movements of the cutting wire and the table) that electrically actuates the linear actuator and the electrothermal hot-wire cutting system melts the predetermined path within the foam slab of foam material (as discussed in Page 4).
However, Wang does not discuss moving the fence (clamping device) by the second group of 36-linear actuators.
Wei shows a electrothermal hot-wire cutting system (Figures 4-5) having an electrical heating wire cutter (210, page 5, the middle paragraph “the cutting wire 210 is electrified to heat…”), a computer (500) for controlling a fence (a clamping device 600 including linear actuators or springs 624 or 640, push rods 610…, Figure 6) to hold a workpiece during cutting.
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 system of Wang to have a fence (a clamping device), as taught by Wei, in order to allow the workpiece to firmly secure on the table.
If one argues that Wang’s system does not have a controller, then see Wei’ s cutting system. 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 system of Wang to a controller, as taught by Wei, in order to allow to adjust or align the foam on the table and correspond the foam to the cutting system, as discussed in the Wang and Wei’s references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to implement known technique to improve similar devices for the same purpose, as per MPEP 2143, section I, and the KSR decision, exemplary rationale C.
With regards to 1st, 2nd, 3rd groups of 36 linear actuators for actuating the electrothermal hot-wire cutting system (1st group), 36 linear actuators for actuating the fence (2nd group), and 36 linear actuators for adjusting the table (3rd group), the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why the groups of 36 linear actuators (or why this system needs 36 actuators?). See Applicant’s para. 18 “A first group 90 may include a single one or multiple ones of the 36 linear actuators 72…depending on a size, shape, weight, and other design considerations.
Based on Applicant’s specification suggestion “for an example, …each group can be one or 36 linear actuators”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have had 36 linear actuators in each group, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8., in order to allow to the cutting system can handle and cut a large size workpiece.
Regarding claim 9, the modified system of Wang shows the electrothermal hot-wire cutting system further comprises multiple wires melting multiple predetermined paths within the foam slab of the foam material (see 4 heating wires, Figure 1 of Wang).
Claims 10, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 207874426 U and Translation) in view of Wei (CN 110757584 A and Translation) and Hans (WO0012250 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the modified system of Wang shows all of the limitations as stated above except a tensioner (a pulley or an air spring) maintaining a tension in the wire melting the predetermined path within the foam slab of the foam material.
Examiner notes that the Wang’s wires are maintaining a tension as seen in Figure 1. However, it is unclear what a device is for tensioning.
Hans shows a tensioner (a pulley 12 and an air spring 20, figure 1) for tensioning a cutting wire (1).
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 system of Wang to have a tensioner, as taught by Hans, in order to allow the heating cutting wires tensioning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the new combination arts for the new rejection above.
With regards to “heating wire” by applied electric, see the rejection above and both arts of Wei and Wang. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to implement known technique to improve similar devices for the same purpose, as per MPEP 2143, section I, and the KSR decision, exemplary rationale C. Therefore, the rejection above is proper.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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 3/11/2026