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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The lengthy specification (27 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
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.
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 “cable tensioning device” in claim 13 invokes 112F because first, "device" is a generic substitute for “means”; second, the "device" is modified by functional language including “tensioning”; and third, the " device" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "tensioning" preceding device describes the function, not the structure of the device.
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 § 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hans (WO 0012250A1 and Translation).
Regarding claim 13, Hans shows a cable saw (Figures 1-3) for cutting a workpiece (6 or 6’), the cable saw comprising:
at least one circulating saw cable (1) arranged to be driven by a drive (page 1 of the translation, the last 3rd paragraph “a motor drive for the saw cable 1”) and comprising a sawing section (22, Figures 1-3);
at least one guide device (as whole arm assembly 14 with deflection rollers 10-13) for guiding the saw cable, wherein the guide device is arranged to move the sawing section along a cutting direction for cutting engagement with the workpiece (see Figures 1-2),
wherein the at least one guide device is arranged to allow several movement directions (see figures 1-2 and also see the dashed lines in Figure 3) including the cutting direction and at least one lengthening or shortening of the sawing section (Figures 1-3),
wherein the guide device includes a plurality of deflection rollers (see the deflection rollers 10-13), including a first deflection roller and a second deflection roller forming the sawing section therebetween (see the rollers 10 and 11, Figures 1-2); and
at least one cable storage device (page 2 of the translation, the last 2nd paragraph “a rope storage unit…with means for maintaining an approximately constant rope tension”) and a cable tensioning device (18, 20, Figure 1) for storing, releasing and/or tensioning the saw cable when a position of the sawing section is changed and/or length of the sawing section is changed (see Figures 1-2),
wherein the at least one guide device comprises:
a base holder (Figure 1 below);
a first guide holder (the arm 14, Figure 1), wherein the first deflection roller is coupled to the first guide holder (see the deflection roller 10, Figure 1); and
a first pivot lever (28, page 2 of the translation, the 4th paragraph as discussed as “a hydraulic or electric motor drive” or see as 44, 45, Figure 3. Regards to “pivot”, as the configuration in figures 1-3, the arm 14 is pivoted at the point 19 and the hydraulic or lever 28 connected to the arm 14 is also slightly pivoted during pivoting the arm 14) rotatably hinged to the base holder (see Figure 1 below) and to the first guide holder (the arm 14, Figure 1 below),
wherein the first pivot lever (28) is arranged to convert a rotational movement of the first pivot lever into a movement of the first pivot lever with respect to the base holder (Figure 1 below) into a movement of the first guide holder (14) and the first deflection roller (10) towards or away from the second deflection roller (11) to lengthen and/or shorten the sawing section (the distance between rollers 10-11 in a first position in Figure 1 is greater than the distance between the rollers 10-11 in second position of Figure 2 and also, see the length of the rope 1 is changed).
PNG
media_image1.png
731
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hans (WO 0012250A1 and Translation).
Regarding claim 25, Hans shows all of the limitations as stated in claim 13 above (the embodiment of Figures 1-2), however, this embodiment shows only one arm or one guide device. Claim 25 requires to have 2 arms or two guide device (see one in claim 13), wherein the second guide device includes “a second guide holder…a second pivot lever…” as stated in claim 25.
Hans also shows a second embodiment (Figure 3) having two arm assemblies (30, 32).
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 additional guide device (as stated in claim 25), in order to allow the cable saw to cut different angles and different shapes of workpieces.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made two guide devices, 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 the cable saw to cut different angles and different shapes of workpieces.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-21 and 26-28 are 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: claims 17 and 26 do not anticipate or render obvious the features of first or
second auxiliary lever rotatably hinged to the base holder and to the first or second guide holder, and wherein the first or second pivot lever and the first or second auxiliary lever form a parallelogram linkage (respectively), in combination with the limitations as set forth in the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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.
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 2/19/2026