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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: . The limitations “interior side” and “exterior side” and “first side” are not defined in the specification. It is not readily apparent what structure corresponds to these limitations. Thus, the Specification and drawings should be amended (as possible while abiding to Written Description requirements) to disclose which structures correspond to these claim limitations.
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 13-23 and 25-28 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The limitation of Claim 13, reading: “a first side with an interior side facing the wire store and an exterior side facing away from the wire store is indefinite. It is unclear how a side can in turn have multiple sides. A structure, such as a sidewall, can have an interior and exterior side. However, it does not appear that a side itself can have multiple sides. The limitations “interior side” and “exterior side” and “first side” are not defined in the specification. As best understood, the storage unit 5 has a left most sidewall, which corresponds to the “first side” and which has one side facing the storage and one side facing away therefrom. This is how the limitation will be interpreted as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 13-14 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPUB 20090314149, Clarke.
Regarding Claim 13, Clarke discloses:
A wire saw device (cutting apparatus 10, abstract) comprising:
a saw wire 16 and
a wire saw (combination of frame 13, rollers 27-31) including:
a wire drive (roller 31);
a wire store for the saw wire (interior of frame 13, fig 1), the wire drive and the wire store defining a drive and storage unit (since the parts 13 and 31 act together to drive and also store the wire, par 0030-0032); and
an actuator (32) for tautening the saw wire (see par 0142 and fig. 4) arranged on the drive and storage unit (fig. 4); and
a first side (25) with an interior side facing the wire store (see annotated fig. 4 below) and an exterior side facing away from the wire store (see annotated fig. 4 below);
the saw wire being an endless saw wire (par.0091/0096) guided from an exterior of the wire saw (see annotated fig. 4 below) to an interior of the wire saw through the first side (see annotated fig. 4 below), and guided to exit the interior of the wire saw through the first side, (see annotated fig. 4 below) the saw wire thus extending away from the wire saw to define a cutting loop section (see annotated fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
632
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, in Clarke: the actuator 32 is provided to set a tension in the saw wire (par 0091).
Regarding Claim 25, in Clarke: the wire store has a plurality of side by side rollers (e.g. 27 and 29 and 30 and 28).
Regarding Claim 26, in Clarke: the wire store has two sets of side by side rollers ((e.g. 27 and 29 and 30 and 28).
Regarding Claims 27 and 28, in Clarke: the saw wire is guided from the exterior of the wire saw to the interior of the wire saw by an inlet guide roller (29), and guided to exit the interior of the wire saw via an outlet guide roller (32), wherein the inlet and outlet guide rollers are located on the exterior side (fig 4, roller 32 being completely exterior and roller 29 partially exterior).
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 15-16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke as applied to Claim 13 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20150101471 to Pierce.
Regarding Claim 15-16, Clarke lacks the wire saw further comprising a cover for the wire store, a wire tension lower than an operating wire tension being settable when the cover is opened (claim 15) and wherein the operating wire tension is settable when the cover is closed (Claim 16).
Pierce discloses a wire saw (see abstract) in the same field of endeavor as the wire saw of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a cover 112 for a wire store thereof (housing), and a wire tension lower than an operating wire tension being settable when the cover is opened (par 0085 which discloses that a wire tension may be reduced while the cover 112 is removed, or prior to and while a cover 112 is removed; and see par 0066 which discloses that “The tension adjustment member 240 is adjustable to adjust a quantity of tension applied to the cutting member 24 and may be adjusted to allow for removal and replacement of the cutting member”) in order to allow for removal of the cover to allow for replacing the wire saw blade when worn, (par 0085)(claim 15) and wherein the operating wire tension is settable when the cover is closed (par 0066) (Claim 16), in order to adjust the tension during use (par. 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clarke by including a cover thereon and by a wire tension lower than an operating wire tension being settable when the cover is opened (claim 15) and wherein the operating wire tension is settable when the cover is closed (Claim 16), in order to adjust the tension during use and to allow for removal of the wire when needing to be replaced as taught by Pierce.
Claims 17 and 21-24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke as applied to Claim 13 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20200061725, Lilly.
Regarding Claim 17, Clarke lacks a remote control, and the actuator for tautening the saw wire being a constituent of the remote control (Claim 17).
Lilly discloses a wire saw (see abstract) in the same field of endeavor as the wire saw of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a remote control, and the actuator for tautening the saw wire being a constituent of the remote control (par 0106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clarke by including a remote control, and the actuator for tautening the saw wire being a constituent of the remote control (Claim 17), in order to control the device and the tension of the device in a remote fashion, which provides greater flexibility to a user in the using of the device.
Regarding Claim 21, Clarke discloses a method for tautening a saw wire in a wire saw (par 0091), the method comprising: a) providing a wire saw 10 with a saw wire 16, the wire saw being as recited in claim 13 or the wire saw being provided as part of a system comprising the wire saw (see claim 13 rejection and as discussed above) and
b) introducing the saw wire into the wire store of the wire saw (fig 1, and par 0091, “An endless diamond wire 16 is wound about the roller guides/sheaves 27-30,”); and c) simultaneously tensioning the saw wire within the wire store manually and actuating an actuator of the wire saw with the result that the saw wire is tautened (see par. 0091 and 0096).
Clarke lacks a remote control.
Lilly discloses a wire saw (see abstract) in the same field of endeavor as the wire saw of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a remote control (par 0106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clarke by including a remote control, used, for example as an actuator for tautening the saw wire being a constituent of the remote control (Claim 17), in order to control the device and the tension of the device in a remote fashion, which provides greater flexibility to a user in the using of the device.
Regarding Claim 22, in Clarke, the actuator is arranged 32 on a drive and storage unit of the wire saw (see fig 1 and 4).
Regarding Claim 23, in Clarke, the method of use is carried out by only one user (see par 0139 where a single operator is disclosed).
Regarding Claim 24, Clarke discloses:
A method for using an actuator 32 for tautening a saw wire in a wire saw (par 0091 and 0096).
Clarke lacks actuating the wire saw method of use comprising using and actuating the actuator while the actuator is a constituent of a remote control and simultaneously tensioning the saw wire within a wire store manually (it is noted that Claim 24 is claimed in the alternative and comprises either the actuator being arranged on the drive and storage unit of the wire saw or being a constituent of a remote control).
Lilly discloses a wire saw (see abstract) in the same field of endeavor as the wire saw of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a remote control, and the actuator for tautening the saw wire being a constituent of the remote control, and the wire being tensioned manually, e.g. through the use of the remote control to tension the wire (par 0106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clarke by including a remote control, and the actuator for tautening the saw wire being a constituent of the remote control and the wire within the wire store being tensioned manually, while the actuator is actuated, e.g. through the use of the remote control to actuate said actuator to tension the wire, in order to control the device and the tension of the device in a remote fashion, which provides greater flexibility to a user in the using of the device.
Claims 18-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke in view of Lilly, as applied to Claim 17 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20210039178, Ramfjord.
Regarding Claims 18-20, modified Clarke discloses all of the limitations of claim 17 as discussed above:
Modified Pierce lacks the device further comprising a communication link between the wire saw and the remote control (claim 18), wherein the communication link is wireless (Claim 19), in Pierce, wherein the remote control is carryable by a user of the system (Claim 20)
Ramfjord discloses a remote controlled saw wire assembly (abstract and also par. 0041) in the same field of endeavor as the wire saw of the present invention and of Modified Pierce, and discloses that the device includes, a communication link (31 and 30b) between the wire saw and the remote control (see par. 0041) (claim 18), wherein the communication link is wireless (see par 017) (Claim 19), in Pierce, wherein the remote control is carryable by a user of the system (par 0009) (Claim 20), in order to reduce injury risk to operators by allowing the control to be performed at a distant location from the cutting (par 009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clarke by having the device further comprising a communication link between the wire saw and the remote control (claim 18), wherein the communication link is wireless (Claim 19), in Pierce, wherein the remote control is carryable by a user of the system (Claim 20) in order to reduce injury risk to operators by allowing the control to be performed at a distant location from a cutting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9/8/25, with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims, as the claims have now been amended, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Clarke.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 3831576 8465227 7922424 4787363 3220149 3478732 5388334 6401346 7387118 7922424 and WO2011141543A each disclose state of the art wire or band saw devices with blade tightening mechanisms. Thus, each of these references disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application.
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 FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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 on 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights