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 .
Response to Amendment
With respect to the claim objections, applicant amended claims 7 and 19, which overcome the claim objection. Therefore, claim objections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim rejection, applicant’s argument is not persuasive, the claim amendment does not solve the indefiniteness of the term “electrical discharge section” is a structure or a location of the claimed invention. In addition, the claim language does not positively recite the “electrical discharge section”. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “electrical discharge section” is part of the claimed invention.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant merely argues “Kouda does not disclose, either expressly or inherently, at least the claimed repairing device and the claimed suspended-state repairing procedure” , but does not explicitly point out which limitation is not taught by the reference Kouda. They amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. In addition, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the claimed suspended-state repairing procedure”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, reference Kouda teaches every limitation in the claim 1 as shown in the rejection below, including a portion of wire electrode 50 is in a suspended state as shown in figure 1.
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 1-23 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “electrical discharge section” is indefinite. It is unclear whether the “electrical discharge section” is a part of the invention, if so, is it a structure or a location? The metes and bounds of this term is unclear.
For the purpose of examination, the term “electrical discharge section” is interpreted to location where the electrode is located.
Regarding claims 2-23, these claims are rejected due to their dependency on an indefinite claim as shown above.
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, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kouda (US 2015/0144599).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kouda teaches an electrical discharge machining apparatus (See abstract “A wire electric discharge machine”) at least comprising:
a carrier platform (workpiece table 32) for carrying at least one to-be-machined object (workpiece 40);
an electrical discharge machining unit (wire electrode 50, machining power supply unit 110, upper wire guide 22, lower wire guide 24, and other associated components) comprising at least one electrode (wire electrode 50) and a power supply unit (machining power supply unit 110), and used for performing an electrical discharge machining procedure on at least one machined target area of the to-be-machined object on the carrier platform by the electrode (wire electrode 50) along a machining direction, wherein a portion of the electrode (wire electrode 50) is in a suspended state in an electrical discharge section, the power supply unit (machining power supply unit 110) provides a first power source to the electrode and the to-be-machined object in the electrical discharge machining procedure for applying an electrical discharge energy to the machined target area of the to-be-machined object through the portion of the electrode located in the electrical discharge section (See figure 1 and para.[0036] and [0038] “During machining, the wire electrode 50 is stretched between the upper wire guide 22 and a lower wire guide 24 by wire connection so that a voltage for generating electric discharge between the wire electrode 50 and the workpiece 40 can be applied to the wire electrode 50.” “The wire electrode 50 is supplied with electrical energy for electric discharge machining from a machining power supply unit 110 through the power supply roller 56.”); and
a repairing device (automatic connecting device; see para.[0016]) for performing a repairing procedure on an area to be repaired of an appearance of the electrode to repair the appearance of the electrode (See para.[0016] “an automatic connecting device configured to cut the wire electrode”. The automatic connecting device is capable to repair the appearance of the electrode by cutting the deformed portion of the electrode.), wherein the repairing procedure is performed while the portion of the electrode remains in the suspended state [Examiner’s note: This is an intended function of the electrical discharge machining apparatus. Operator can manipulate the electrical discharge machining apparatus to perform the repairing procedure while the portion of the electrode remains in the suspended state.]
Regarding claim 2, Kouda teaches the repairing device performs the repairing procedure on the electrode while the electrode performs the electrical discharge machining procedure on the machined target area [Examiner’s note: Reference Kouda teaches all structure of the electrical discharge machining apparatus .Operator can manipulate the electrical discharge machining apparatus to repair the electrode by the repairing device while performing the electrical discharge machining procedure.]
Regarding claim 3, Kouda teaches the repairing device performs the repairing procedure on the electrode before or after the electrode performs the electrical discharge machining procedure on the machined target area [Examiner’s note: Reference Kouda teaches all structure of the electrical discharge machining apparatus .Operator can manipulate the electrical discharge machining apparatus to repair the electrode by the repairing device before or after performing the electrical discharge machining procedure.].
Regarding claim 4, Kouda teaches the repairing device repairs the appearance of the electrode in a quantitative adjustment manner according to a wear rate of the electrode and a feed speed of the electrical discharge machining procedure [Examiner’s note: Reference Kouda teaches all structure of the electrical discharge machining apparatus. Operator can manipulate the electrical discharge machining apparatus to repair the electrode by the repairing device in a quantitative adjustment manner according to a wear rate of the electrode and a feed speed.].
Regarding claim 5, Kouda teaches the repairing device repairs the appearance of the electrode in a dynamic adjustment manner according to a real-time state of the electrode [Examiner’s note: Reference Kouda teaches all structure of the electrical discharge machining apparatus. Operator can manipulate the electrical discharge machining apparatus to repair the electrode by the repairing device in a dynamic adjustment manner according to a real-time state of the electrode.].
Regarding claim 6, Kouda teaches the repairing device (automatic connecting device; see para.[0016]) comprises a dressing element, and a relative displacement is generated between the dressing element and the electrode during the repairing procedure to repair the appearance of the electrode [Examiner’s note: As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, an automatic connecting device configured to cut the wire electrode. Hence, it is inherent the automatic connecting device has a relative displacement with respect to the electrode for during the cutting procedure.].
Regarding claim 8, Kouda teaches the dressing element is a laser source, a cutter or a grinding element [Examiner’s note: As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, an automatic connecting device is a cutter.]
Regarding claim 10, Kouda teaches a scrolling mechanism (lower guide roller 54) for scrolling the electrode during the repairing procedure, so that the area to be repaired of the appearance of the electrode keeps away from the machined target area of the to-be-machined object for repairing the appearance of the electrode (see para.[0037] “The wire electrode 50 is taken up through a machining spot 58, the lower wire guide 24, and a lower guide roller 54 by a take-up reel (not shown), which pulls the wire electrode 50 under predetermined tension.”).
Regarding claim 12, Kouda teaches a clamping element (jig plates 10a and 10b) for clamping at least one side of the electrical discharge section of the electrode when the electrode performs the electrical discharge machining procedure, and releasing the at least one side of the electrical discharge section of the electrode when the repairing device performs the repairing procedure (see fig.4 and para.[0015] “The workpiece 4 is fixed to the conductive side of the pair of jig plates 10a and 10b.” Jig plates 10a and 10b are capable to clamp/release the electrode.”).
Regarding claim 15, Kouda teaches a jig (upper guide roller 52, lower guide roller 54, upper wire guide 22, lower wire guide 24) composed of at least two carrying members (upper guide roller 52, lower guide roller 54) and at least two holding members (upper wire guide 22, lower wire guide 24) correspondingly assembled, wherein the two holding members are disposed on two seat bodies, and the two seat bodies are moving mechanisms or rotating mechanisms, so that when the electrical discharge machining unit performs the electrical discharge machining procedure along the machining direction, the electrical discharge section of the electrode and the machined target area of the to-be-machined object move relative to each other in a reciprocating or cyclical manner [Examiner’s note: The two sear bodies are not positively cited as a part of the invention. Therefore, the structure and the function do not limit the invention. Upper wire guide 22 and lower wire guide 24 are capable to be position on two seat bodies]
Regarding claim 16, Kouda teaches the electrode (wire electrode 50) abuts against the two carrying members(upper wire guide 22, lower wire guide 24) in a surrounding manner or abuts against the two carrying members with two sides of the electrode respectively, so that the portion of electrode is in the suspended state in the electrical discharge section (See fig.1, wire electrode 50 abuts upper wire guide 22 and lower wire guide 24 in a surrounding manner so that the electrode is in the suspended state).
Regarding claim 17, Kouda teaches an orientation correction element (servomotors 10, 12, 14) for adjusting a relative orientation of the electrode and the to-be-machined object to correct the machining direction according to a deviation phenomenon in the machining direction of the electrode (See para.[0039] “The upper wire guide 22 can be driven on a plane parallel to the XY-plane by a servomotor 12 for U-axis drive and a servomotor 14 for V-axis drive. Further, the upper wire guide 22 can be driven in the direction of a Z-axis perpendicular to the XY-plane by a servomotor 10 for Z-axis drive”).
Regarding claim 18, Kouda teaches the repairing device moves a position of the electrode with the area to be repaired appearing on the appearance of the electrode, so that the area to be repaired keeps away from the machined target area of the to-be-machined object, and the area to be repaired is a fracture phenomenon or a fracture sign [Examiner’s note: As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, an automatic connecting device configured to move a position of the electrode to away from the workpiece.]
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.
The factual inquiries 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 7, 11, 19-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda in view of Yuzawa (WO 2020213040).
Regarding claim 7, Kouda does not explicitly teach the repairing device comprises one or both of a lifting mechanism and a translation mechanism for disposing the dressing element so that the dressing element is capable of moving to generate the relative displacement with the electrode.
However, Yuzawa teaches same field of endeavor of an electrical discharge machining apparatus, comprising a repairing device (see fig.6) comprises a translation mechanism (positioning guide rollers 2e, 2f and Z-axis stage 27) for disposing a dressing element so that the dressing element is capable of moving to generate the relative displacement with the electrode (See para.[0020] “The portion of the wire electrode 1 that is stretched parallel between the guide roller 2b and the guide roller 2c forms a parallel cutting wire section 15. The parallel cutting wire section 15 performs electrical discharge machining on multiple locations of the workpiece 4 simultaneously. The parallel cutting wire section 15 restrains each wire electrode 1 in an appropriate position using positioning guide rollers 2e and 2f. A Z-axis stage 27, whose position in the Z-axis direction can be adjusted, is installed inside the processing tank 26. A processing fluid guide unit 10 is installed on the Z-axis stage 27. Therefore, by driving the Z-axis stage 27, the workpiece 4 held in the processing fluid guide section 10 moves in the Z-axis direction.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
666
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the electrical discharge machining apparatus of Kouda by replacing the repairing device with the repairing device comprising a mechanism for disposing a dressing element as taught by Yuzawa, in order to enable improved machining speed, stabilization of machining conditions, prevention of wire breakage, reduction of machining groove width, and improvement of machined surface roughness (para.[0033] of Yuzawa).
Regarding claim 11, Kouda does not explicitly teach the repairing device further comprises a slitting element for dividing the electrode in the electrical discharge section into a plurality of electrode strips parallel to one another.
PNG
media_image3.png
502
452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Yuzawa teaches same field of endeavor of an electrical discharge machining apparatus, comprising a repairing device comprises a slitting element (parallel cutting wire section 15) for dividing the electrode in the electrical discharge section into a plurality of electrode strips parallel to one another (See fig.7 and para.[0023] “As the processing groove is formed by the electrical discharge, the workpiece 4 is gradually fed towards the parallel cutting wire section 15, causing the processing groove to deepen, and ultimately the workpiece 4 is cut into a thin plate shape.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the electrical discharge machining apparatus of Kouda by replacing the repairing device with the repairing device comprising slitting element for dividing the electrode as taught by Yuzawa, in order to perform electrical discharge machining on multiple locations of the workpiece simultaneously (para.[0020] of Yuzawa).
Regarding claim 19, Kouda does not explicitly teach a quantity of the electrode is multiple, and the electrodes are arranged parallel to one another along one or both of a first direction and a third direction in the electrical discharge section, wherein the third direction is perpendicular to the first direction.
However, Yuzawa teaches same field of endeavor of an electrical discharge machining apparatus, comprising a quantity of the electrode (electrode 1) is multiple (See figs.6-7), and the electrodes (electrode 1) are arranged parallel to one another along a direction (see figs.6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the electrical discharge machining apparatus of Kouda by adding more electrodes arranged parallel to one another as taught by Yuzawa, in order to perform electrical discharge machining on multiple locations of the workpiece simultaneously (para.[0020] of Yuzawa).
Regarding claim 20, the modification of Kouda and Yuzawa teaches an adjusting element (guide rollers 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d of Yuzawa) separates the electrodes so that the electrodes are maintained to be parallel to one another in the electrical discharge section (See fig.7 of Yuzawa, guide rollers 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d are capable to maintain the electrodes to be parallel to one another”).
Regarding claim 21, the modification of Kouda and Yuzawa teaches a separation column (guide rollers 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d), and the electrodes abut against the separation column, so that the electrodes are arranged parallel to one another in the electrical discharge section (See fig.7, electrodes 1 abut against guide rollers 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d so that electrode 1 are arranged to be parallel to one another”).
Regarding claim 23, the modification of Kouda and Yuzawa teaches the repairing device moves a position of at least one of the electrodes with the area to be repaired appearing on the appearance of the electrodes, so that the area to be repaired keeps away from the machined target area of the to-be-machined object, and the area to be repaired is a fracture phenomenon or a fracture sign [Examiner’s note: Reference Kouda in view of Yuzawa teaches all structure of the electrical discharge machining apparatus. Operator can manipulate the electrical discharge machining apparatus so that the repairing device move a position of the electrodes with the area to be repaired appearing on the appearance of the electrodes, so that the area to be repaired keeps away from the machined target area of the to-be-machined object.]
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda in view of Zhou (CN 214518026).
Regarding claim 9, Kouda does not explicitly teach the repairing device further comprises a chip removal element for removing a residual chip generated when repairing the appearance of the electrode while the repairing device performs the repairing procedure.
However, Zhou teaches same field of endeavor of an electrical discharge machining apparatus, comprising a repairing device (see fig.1) further comprises a chip removal element (brush 4) for removing a residual chip generated when repairing the appearance of the electrode while the repairing device performs the repairing procedure (See para.[0025] “the first telescopic rod 3 drives the brush 4 to extend to the bottom of the first cutting blade 5, and then cleans the residue remaining at the bottom of the first cutting blade 5, which facilitates the cleaning of the residue at the bottom of the first cutting blade 5.”).
PNG
media_image4.png
588
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the electrical discharge machining apparatus of Kouda by adding the repairing device with a chip removal element for removing a residual chip as taught by Zhou, in order to avoid residual slag from affecting the cutting effect of the cutting tool, and improves the cutting effect of the first cutting tool in the next cut, thus increasing the practicality of the cutting tool. (para.[0012] of Zhou).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouda in view of Chen (TW 201600202A).
Regarding claims 13-14, Kouda does not explicitly teach a slag removal unit, when the electrical discharge machining unit performs the electrical discharge machining procedure on the to-be-machined object, the slag removal unit provides at least one external force to remove residues produced when the electrode applies the electrical discharge energy to the to-be-machined object, wherein the slag removal unit adjusts an applied direction or an applied position of the external force according to a shape of the to-be-machined object to remove the residues.
However, Chen teaches same field of endeavor of an electrical discharge machining apparatus, comprising a repairing device (see fig.1) further comprises slag removal unit (vibration module 20), when the electrical discharge machining unit performs the electrical discharge machining procedure on the to-be-machined object, the slag removal unit (vibration module 20) provides at least one external force to remove residues produced when the electrode applies the electrical discharge energy to the to-be-machined object, wherein the slag removal unit adjusts an applied direction or an applied position of the external force according to a shape of the to-be-machined object to remove the residues (See fig.1 and para.[0041] and [0043] “The vibration module 20 causes the workpiece 30 to vibrate to shake off and remove the residual debris left on the plurality of wire electrodes 18 and the workpiece 30 during wire EDM.” “The connecting module 40 is located on the bottom side of the main body 10 and is used to adjust the tilt angle of the main body 10 according to the user's needs, so as to change the processing direction of the multi-wire fine wire EDM device 1 on the workpiece 30, so as to provide various array probe manufacturing needs”).
PNG
media_image5.png
816
606
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the electrical discharge machining apparatus of Kouda by adding the repairing device with a slag removal unit for removing a residues as taught by Chen, in order to avoid secondary discharge (para.[0043] of Chen).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: References in the record do not teach the limitation in claim 22.
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 CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
