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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/12/2026 has been entered.
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 second group od the linear actuators moves the foam ALONG the fence with respect to the original coordinate position in claim 7 and the pulley tensioner in claim 14 (it shows the pulleys, but need to label it) 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. Is “Turcotte sculptor” a name or a brand of the system, right? Or is “Turcotte sculptor” a technical term of the machine?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7, 9-10, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 introduces new matters of:
a first group of the linear actuators move the foam on the table…;
a second group of the linear actuators moves the foam along the fence… are new matter because the original specification does not support it. See the explanation below.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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, lines 5-6 “an original position”, line 13 “an original coordinate position”, lines 15, 18, 23 “the original coordinate position” are unclear whether both the original position and the original coordinate position the same or different?
Claim 7, lines 11-13 recites “a first group of the linear actuators move the foam on the table…” that is unclear. Looking at Figure 10, the first group 90 is under the table 70 which is unclear how to move the foam on the table.
Claim 7, lines 13-15 “a second group of the linear actuators moves the foam along the fence” that is unclear since the second group of the linear actuators moves the fences 78a to push the foam against the fence 78b that is NOT moved the foam along the fence (see Figure 10). Another word, what does structure of the 2nd group move the foam ALONG the fence 78a or 78b?
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 7 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 claim.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lianji (CN 113070908A and Translation) in view of Xuebo (CN 205325861 U and Translation).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Lianji shows a hot-wire foam cutting system (Figure 1) that “machines” or cuts a foam slab of foam material (a foam board, see the technical field), comprising:
a frame (6);
a table (2, 3) sized to accept the foam slab of foam material;
a fence (5) when actuated aligning the foam slab of foam material with respect to an origin position on the table (this clamping device can be actuated and aligned the foam board on the table (page 6 of Translation “The clamping device 5 is arranged on the worktable 3, and a pair of working ends of the clamping device 5 are arranged opposite to each other and can move close to or away from each other … for aligning clamp the insulation board workpiece”);
an electrothermal hot-wire cutting system (7) when actuated applying an electrical power to a wire and melting a predetermined path within the foam slab of foam material (see page 6 of translation, the middle paragraph “The cutting device 7 is a heating resistance wire cutting device… The controller sends signals to the universal adjusting device 1, the plane displacement driving device 4 and the cutting device 7”);
linear actuators (2 actuators 4, at least one lifting actuator, 5a, b, c) moving the table, the fence, and the electrothermal hot-wire cutting system in three coordinate dimensions (see the see page 6 of translation, the middle paragraph “The controller sends signals to the universal adjusting device 1, the plane displacement driving device 4 and the cutting device 7. After receiving the signal, the universal adjusting device 1 and the plane displacement driving device 4 respectively drive the worktable 3 to perform universal rotation and perform translational movement on the mounting frame 2. After receiving the signal, the cutting device 7 cooperates with the movement of the worktable 3 to cut the insulation board at its upper end”),
wherein a first group of the linear actuators moves the foam on the table (by the clamping device having a motor 5b, a rotation rod 5c that converses two 5 jaws moving linearly) with respect to an original coordinate position;
a second group of the linear actuators moves the foam along the fence with respect to the original coordinate position (see the issue above. As best understood, see two actuators 4 for adjusting the table top and they can adjust the foam relative with the clamping device 5); and
a third group of at least one actuator (two ends of the cutting wire is mounted on two vertical frames and see the discussion above the cutting wire is controlled to displace) moves the electrothermal hot-wire cutting system with respect to the origin coordinate position; and
a computer system (controller, see the see page 6 of translation, the middle paragraph) executing instructions that electrothermally carve or cut the foam slab of foam material.
However, Lianji silently discusses whether the 3rd group is linear actuators and this system is capable of cutting or carving the 3 dimensional channel with the foam slab or not.
Xuebo shows a electrothermal hot-wire cutting system (Figure 1) having an electrical heating wire cutter (2), there are linear actuators (see X, Y, Z electricity cylinders), Para. 15) for moving the cutter system in 3 directions (X, Y, Y as discussed in Paras. 8 and 15).
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 Lianji to have an electrothermal hot-wire cutting wire in three dimensions by linear actuators, as taught by Xuebo, in order to allow the workpiece to be electrothermally carved or cut a three dimensional channel along the three dimensional path within the foam slab of the foam material (as seen in Figure 2 of Xuebo).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lianji (CN 113070908A and Translation) in view of Xuebo (CN 205325861 U and Translation) and Wang (CN 207874426 U and Translation, art of record)
Regarding claim 9, the modified system of Lianji shows all of the limitations as stated above except multiple wires melting multiple three dimensional paths within the foam slab of the foam material.
Wang shows multiple wires melting multiple cutting paths (see 4 heating wires, Figure 1 of Wang).
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 Lianji to have multiple heating wires, as taught by Wang, in order to quickly cut mass productions.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have had multi cutting wires, 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 in order to quickly cut mass productions.
Claims 10, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lianji (CN 113070908A and Translation) in view of Xuebo (CN 205325861 U and Translation) and Hans (WO0012250 A1).
Regarding claims 10, 14-15, the modified system of Lianji shows all of the limitations as stated above except a tensioner (a pulley or an air spring) maintaining a tension in the wire.
Examiner notes that the Lianji’s wire is 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 Lianji to have a tensioner, as taught by Hans, in order to allow the heating cutting wires tensioning for better cutting.
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 matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the new combination arts for the new rejection above.
With regards to the objections, see explanations 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
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 7/23/2026
Prosecution Insights