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 .
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 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR20220090297 to Yeom et al.
In re claim 9, Yeom teaches a system for manufacturing a part using water jet cutting, comprising:
a discardable sacrificial material system (12a,12b) configured to be coupled to a working surface of a water jet cutting system so as to be removable upon completion of the part, wherein the discardable sacrificial material system comprises a block;
a stock material (12c) positioned adjacent to the discardable sacrificial material system, the part configured to be composed of the stock material; and
the water jet cutting system (as shown in at least Figure 1) having a water cutter (120) configured to cut the part from the discardable sacrificial material system and the stock material.
Note, the preamble is directed to an apparatus, which is a system. The phrase “for manufacturing a part using water jet cutting” is intended use. The workpiece has not been positively recited or claimed in combination with the system.
In re claim 10, wherein the discardable sacrificial material system includes a first sheet (12a) and a second sheet (12b), the stock material (12c) has a first surface opposite a second surface, and the second sheet is positioned adjacent to the first surface of the stock material such that the stock material is positioned between the first sheet and the second sheet.
The preamble is directed to an apparatus and the workpiece has not been positively recited or claimed in combination with the system.
In re claim 11, wherein the first sheet and the second sheet are positioned adjacent to the stock material so as to be removable upon completion of the part.
The preamble is directed to an apparatus and the workpiece has not been positively recited or claimed in combination with the system; therefore, the first and second merely has to be capable of being coupled to the stock and removable upon completion of the part.
In re claim 12, wherein the first sheet is composed of a first material and the second sheet is composed of a second material (Pg. 4, lines 16-19)
The preamble is directed to an apparatus and the workpiece has not been positively recited or claimed in combination with the system.
In re claim 13, wherein the first material and the second material are the same (Pg. 4, lines 16-19).
The preamble is directed to an apparatus and the workpiece has not been positively recited or claimed in combination with the system.
In re claim 14, wherein the stock material is composed of a third material, and the third material is different from the first material (Pg. 4, lines 20-30).
The preamble is directed to an apparatus and the workpiece has not been positively recited or claimed in combination with the system.
In re claim 15, wherein the first sheet has a first hardness, the second sheet has a second hardness, and the stock material has a third hardness, and the third hardness is greater than the first hardness and the second hardness (Pg. 4, lines 16-30; 12c may include a composite material of a metal oxide or a semimetal oxide, in which the metalloid oxide may be silica. Silica has a greater hardness than the first and second layer, which may be Aluminum).
The preamble is directed to an apparatus and the workpiece has not been positively recited or claimed in combination with the system.
In re claim 16, wherein the first sheet is composed of a first material, the second sheet is composed of a second material, the stock material is composed of a third material, and the first material, the second material and the third material are the same (Pg. 4, lines 16-30).
Note, the first, second, and third materials merely have to be capable of being the same. The preamble is directed to an apparatus and the workpiece has not been positively recited or claimed in combination with the system.
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 1-7 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom et al. in view of Wood Magazine Staff (hereinafter Wood) and evidentiary reference to US Patent No. 20090080028 to Gallant.
In re claim 1, Yeom teaches a method for manufacturing a part using water jet cutting, comprising:
providing a water jet cutting system (as shown in at least Figure 1) having a water cutter (120) configured to define a cutting stream and having a working surface (110), the water jet cutting system including at least one actuator (Pg. 3, lines 33-35) responsive to one or more control signals from a controller (Pg. 3, lines 28-30) to move the water cutter relative to the working surface;
positioning a sacrificial material system (12a,12b) on the working surface (110) of the water jet cutting system;
positioning a first stock material (12c) adjacent to the sacrificial material system, the part configured to be composed of the first stock material (12c); and
cutting the part from the first stock material using the water jet cutting system.
Note, the part is cut from the stock material when the water jet cutter cuts during cutting of the sacrificial material system and the stock material.
In re claim 7, wherein the first sheet has a first hardness, the second sheet has a second hardness, and the stock material has a third hardness, and the third hardness is greater than the first hardness and the second hardness (Pg. 4, lines 16-30; 12c, may include a composite material of a metal oxide or a semimetal oxide. The metalloid oxide may be silica which has a greater hardness than the first and second layer (which may be Aluminum)).
Regarding claim 1, Yeom does not teach discarding all of the sacrificial material system.
Note, the limitation is an “or” clause, therefore, the limitation being examined is to “discarding all of the sacrificial material system.”
Wood teaches in order to make good, clean cuts, in a thin metal, plastic, or veneer with a scroll saw or a band saw placing it between two pieces of plywood or similar think stock, held with dabs of 5-minute epoxy (Page 1).
Gallant is evidentiary that plywood can be cut using either a scroll saw or water jets (Para 0006).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the water jet cutter of Yeom with a sacrificial material system and first stock as taught by Wood, in light of the evidentiary reference to Gallant, in order to provide additional support to a flimsy material to prevent ruining the stock or user injury (Para 0001, Wood).
In re claim 2, modified Yeom teaches further comprising: positioning the first stock material between a first sheet (Page 1, Wood) of the sacrificial material system and a second sheet (Page 1, Wood) of the sacrificial material system.
In re claim 3, modified Yeom wherein the first sheet is composed of a first material and the second sheet is composed of a second material (Page 1, Wood).
In re claim 4, modified Yeom wherein the first material and the second material are the same (Page 1, Wood).
In re claim 5, modified Yeom wherein the first stock material is composed of a third material, and the third material is different from the first material (Pg. 1, Wood).
In re claim 6, modified Yeom further comprising: positioning the first sock material between a first sheet of the sacrificial material system and a second sheet of the sacrificial material system, securing (via, 150, Yeom) the first sheet, the first stock material and the second sheet to the working surface (Page 1, Yeom), and using uncut portions of the sacrificial material system comprises positioning the uncut portions of the sacrificial material system on the working surface of the water jet cutting system;
positioning a second stock material adjacent to the uncut portions of the sacrificial material system; and
cutting a second part from the second stock material using the water jet cutting stream.
Note, the limitations to the uncut portions of the sacrificial material are directed to the “or” limitation of claim 1 (and the alternative limitation has been examined for the pending application).
In re claim 17, a method of a part using water jet cutting, comprising:
providing a water jet cutting system (as shown in at least Figure 1) having a water cutter (120) configured to define a cutting stream and having a working surface (110), the water jet cutting system including at least one actuator (Pg. 3, lines 33-35) responsive to one or more control signals from a controller (Pg. 3, lines 28-30) to move the water cutter relative to the working surface;
positioning a first sheet of a sacrificial material system on the working surface of the water jet cutting system, the first sheet composed of a first material having a first hardness (Pg. 4, lines 16-19);
positioning a first stock material adjacent to the first sheet of the sacrificial material system, the part configured to be composed of the first stock material (12c), and the stock material having a stock hardness (Pg. 4, lines 20-30);
positioning a second sheet (12b) of the sacrificial material system on the stock material, the second sheet composed of a second material having a second hardness (Pg. 4, lines 16-19), the first hardness and the second hardness less than the stock hardness (Pg. 4, lines 16-30; 2c may include a composite material of a metal oxide or a semimetal oxide, in which the metalloid oxide may be silica. Silica has a greater hardness than the first and second layer, which may be Aluminum) and cutting the part from the first sheet, the first stock material and the second sheet using the water jet cutting system.
In re claim 18, wherein the first stock material (12c) has a first surface opposite a second surface, the positioning the second sheet (12b) on the first stock material comprises positioning the second sheet on the first surface and the positioning the first stock material adjacent to the first sheet (12a) comprises positioning the second surface of the first stock material on the first sheet such that the first stock material is sandwiched between the first sheet and the second sheet (as shown in at least Figure 3).
Note, the limitations to the uncut portions of the sacrificial material are directed to the “or” limitation of claim 17 (and the alternative limitation has been examined for the pending application).
In re claim 19, wherein the first material and the second material are the same (Pg. 4, lines 16-19), and the method further comprises: securing the first sheet, the first stock material and the second sheet to the working surface (via 150), and positioning the uncut portions of the first sheet of the sacrificial material system and the second sheet of the sacrificial material system on the working surface of the water jet cutting system;
positioning a second stock material adjacent to the uncut portions of the first sheet of the sacrificial material system and the second sheet of the sacrificial material system; and cutting a second part form the second stock material using the water jet cutting system.
Note, the limitation is an “or” clause, therefore, the limitation being examined is to “discarding all of the sacrificial material system.”
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Yeom does not teach discarding all of the sacrificial material system.
Wood teaches in order to make good, clean cuts, in a thin metal, plastic, or veneer with a scroll saw or a band saw placing it between two pieces of plywood or similar think stock, held with dabs of 5-minute epoxy (Page 1).
Gallant is evidentiary that plywood can be cut using either a scroll saw or water jets (Para 0006).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the water jet cutter of Yeom with a sacrificial material system and first stock as taught by Wood, in light of the evidentiary reference to Gallant, in order to provide additional support to a flimsy material to prevent ruining the stock or user injury (Para 0001, Wood).
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom et al. in view of Wood Magazine Staff (hereinafter Wood) and evidentiary reference to US Patent No. 20090080028 to Gallant, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of evidentiary reference to Resin Expert.
In re claims 8 and 20, modified Yeom teaches cutting the part form the first stock material using the water jet cutting system further comprises:
cutting the part from the first sheet and the second sheet (Page 1, Wood), but does not explicitly teach removing the first sheet and the second sheet form the part at completion of the cutting.
Evidentiary reference to Resin Expert teaches removing the first sheet and the second sheet form the part (see epoxy remover usable on wood).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to remove the first sheet and the second sheet from the part of modified Yeom as provided by evidentiary reference to Resin Expert to repurpose the plywood. Removing the plywood from the first sheet would lead to the plywood being able to be used for furniture or craft projects.
Response to Arguments
The claim objections in the Office Action mailed March 13, 2026 have been obviated by the amendments filed April 16, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights