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 .
Status
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application papers filed on 12 December 2023.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12 December 2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language includes phrase that can be implied, see line 1: “The present invention discloses…” Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure-
(A) The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
(B) The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6 is/are objected to because of the following informality(ies):
(A) To use the same language as claim 1 at line 8: “four shaft holes of the six shaft holes,” claim 6, at line 2: “the at least four shaft holes” is suggested to be: the
(B) To use the same language as claim 1 at line 7: “four eccentric shaft sleeves,” claim 6, at line 3: “the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves” is suggested to be: the
Claim(s) 7 is/are objected to because of the following informality(ies):
(A) To use the same language as claim 1 at line 8: “four shaft holes of the six shaft holes,” claim 7, at line 2: “the at least four shaft holes” is suggested to be: the
(B) To use the same language as claim 1 at line 7: “four eccentric shaft sleeves,” claim 6, at line 2: “the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves” is suggested to be: the
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/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.
(A) Regarding Claim(s) 2:
Claim(s) 2 recite(s): roughly parallel at line 3. The term “roughly” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting parallel or not parallel to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 219054541 to Yang et al. (hereinafter “YANG”) in view of CN 219445628 to Sun et al. (hereinafter “SUN”) and further in view of CN 115489039 to Fan et al. (hereinafter “FAN”).
(A) Regarding Claim 1:
YANG teaches:
A cutting device, comprising:
a main shaft system (7), wherein the main shaft system comprises a set of rollers (7-10, 7-11, and third un-referenced) and a set of bearing box assemblies (i.e. left, right, bottom bearing housing) for supporting the set of rollers (Figs. 1-3);
a cutting head, wherein the cutting head is provided with a frame main body and at least four shaft holes (i.e. through holes, I-V) formed in the frame main body (Figs. 1-3);
at least four eccentric shaft sleeves, wherein each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves is capable of being mounted in one of the at least four shaft holes in an axial sliding manner (Figs. 1-3), and one of bearing boxes in the set of bearing box assemblies is disposed in each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves (Figs. 1-3);
wherein the eccentric shaft sleeves are inserted into the corresponding shaft holes (Figs. 1-3), and the support arms limit the eccentric shaft sleeves to different angles.
However, the difference between YANG and the claimed invention is that YANG does not explicitly teach a set of locking screw assemblies used for locking axial positions of the rollers and wherein one support arm is disposed on each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves; at least four sets of limiting mechanisms are disposed on the frame main body; each set of limiting mechanisms is combined with one of the at least four shaft holes; the each set of limiting mechanisms comprises at least two limiting clamping seats and fasteners; the support arms are capable of forming a limiting fit with the limiting clamping seats; the fasteners are used for fastening the support arms to the limiting clamping seats.
SUN teaches:
a set of locking screw assemblies used for locking axial positions of the rollers (Figs. 1-5, i.e. fixing block can be connected to the outer fixing piece by a screw) and wherein one support arm (9) is disposed on each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves; at least four sets of limiting mechanisms (i.e. fixing ring 6 with connection piece 7 and fixing piece 10 with locating block 11) are disposed on the frame main body; each set of limiting mechanisms is combined with one of the at least four shaft holes (Figs. 1-5); the each set of limiting mechanisms comprises at least two limiting clamping seats and fasteners (Figs. 1-5); the support arms are capable of forming a limiting fit with the limiting clamping seats; the fasteners are used for fastening the support arms to the limiting clamping seats (i.e. the mounting sleeve and the bearing box are clamped form the inner and outer sides of the mounting side wall of the supporting frame);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting device by having the double-side locating structure with fixing ring and locating piece, as taught by SUN, in order to clamp the rollers and thereby achieve the predictable result of locating the rollers (Figs. 2 and 5, Claim 8, English translation).
However, the difference between modified YANG and the claimed invention is that modified YANG does not explicitly teach two non-eccentric shaft sleeves.
FAN teaches:
The bearing box can be eccentric and also non-eccentric (see “non-eccentric” of English translation).
Thus, all of the claimed elements are known in YANG and FAN. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the combination of the “old elements” into a single cutting device by arrangement of the shaft sleeves.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include two non-eccentric shaft sleeves with the four eccentric shaft sleeves of YANG, since, in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately and the non-eccentric shaft sleeves can be used in combination with the eccentric shaft sleeves to achieve the predictable results of providing a cutting machine (see MPEP 2141(III)).
(B) Regarding Claim 2:
Modified YANG further teaches:
each set of limiting mechanisms further comprises at least one guide rod, a guide hole cooperating with the guide rod is formed in the support arm (SUN Figs. 2 and 5), and the guide rod is parallel or roughly parallel to a centerline of the shaft hole (SUN Fig. 1).
NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPREATION:
Merely stating the result of the limitations in the claim does not add to the patentability or substance of the claim (MPEP 2111.04). The claim recites the result(s) of the limitations is/are “so that the eccentric shaft sleeve integrated with the support arm does not rotate during axial movement.” Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device then the prior art device necessarily achieves the results as claimed. In this case, the guide rod of the cited art meets the structural limitations of the claimed guide rod.
(C) Regarding Claim 3:
Modified YANG further teaches:
a guide mounting hole for mounting the guide rod is formed in each of the at least two limiting clamping seats, and the guide rod is capable of being mounted on another limiting clamping seat after being disassembled from one of the at least two limiting clamping seats; or the guide mounting hole is directly formed in the frame main body (YANG Figs. 1-3 and SUN Figs. 2-5).
(D) Regarding Claim 4:
Modified YANG further teaches:
each set of limiting mechanisms comprises at least three limiting clamping seats and fasteners, the at least three limiting clamping seats are located on a same plane (i.e. YANG, Figs. 1-3, three bearing housings for three rollers; i.e. SUN Figs. 2 and 5 for clamping seat and fasteners); and a distance from each of the at least three limiting clamping seats to a centerline of the corresponding shaft hole is the same (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1-2), and a distance between any two adjacent limiting clamping seats of the at least three limiting clamping seats is the same as a distance between the other two adjacent limiting clamping seats (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1-2).
(E) Regarding Claim 5:
Modified YANG further teaches:
the support arm is disposed on the eccentric shaft sleeve by fastened connection or welding, fixed connection (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1-2).
(F) Regarding Claim 8:
YANG teaches:
A cutting device, comprising:
a main shaft system (7), wherein the main shaft system comprises a set of rollers (7-10, 7-11, and third un-referenced) and a set of bearing box assemblies (i.e. left, right, bottom bearing housing) for supporting the set of rollers (Figs. 1-3);
a cutting head, wherein the cutting head is provided with a frame main body and at least four shaft holes (i.e. through holes, I-V) formed in the frame main body (Figs. 1-3);
at least four eccentric shaft sleeves, wherein each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves is capable of being mounted in one of the at least four shaft holes in an axial sliding manner (Figs. 1-3), and one of bearing boxes in the set of bearing box assemblies is disposed in each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves (Figs. 1-3);
wherein the eccentric shaft sleeves are inserted into the corresponding shaft holes (Figs. 1-3), and the support arms limit the eccentric shaft sleeves to different angles.
However, the difference between YANG and the claimed invention is that YANG does not explicitly teach a set of locking screw assemblies used for locking axial positions of the rollers and wherein one support arm is disposed on each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves; at least four sets of limiting mechanisms are disposed on the frame main body; each set of limiting mechanisms is combined with one of the at least four shaft holes; the each set of limiting mechanisms comprises at least two limiting clamping seats and fasteners; the support arms are capable of forming a limiting fit with the limiting clamping seats; the fasteners are used for fastening the support arms to the limiting clamping seats.
SUN teaches:
a set of locking screw assemblies used for locking axial positions of the rollers (Figs. 1-5, i.e. fixing block can be connected to the outer fixing piece by a screw) and wherein one support arm (9) is disposed on each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves; at least four sets of limiting mechanisms (i.e. fixing ring 6 with connection piece 7 and fixing piece 10 with locating block 11) are disposed on the frame main body; each set of limiting mechanisms is combined with one of the at least four shaft holes (Figs. 1-5); the each set of limiting mechanisms comprises at least two limiting clamping seats and fasteners (Figs. 1-5); the support arms are capable of forming a limiting fit with the limiting clamping seats; the fasteners are used for fastening the support arms to the limiting clamping seats (i.e. the mounting sleeve and the bearing box are clamped form the inner and outer sides of the mounting side wall of the supporting frame);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting device by having the double-side locating structure with fixing ring and locating piece, as taught by SUN, in order to clamp the rollers and thereby achieve the predictable result of locating the rollers (Figs. 2 and 5, Claim 8, English translation).
However, the difference between modified YANG and the claimed invention is that modified YANG does not explicitly teach two non-eccentric shaft sleeves.
FAN teaches:
The bearing box can be eccentric and also non-eccentric (see “non-eccentric” of English translation).
Thus, all of the claimed elements are known in YANG and FAN. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the combination of the “old elements” into a single cutting device by arrangement of the shaft sleeves.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include two non-eccentric shaft sleeves with the four eccentric shaft sleeves of YANG, since, in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately and the non-eccentric shaft sleeves can be used in combination with the eccentric shaft sleeves to achieve the predictable results of providing a cutting machine (see MPEP 2141(III)).
(G) Regarding Claim 9:
Modified YANG further teaches:
a guide mounting hole for mounting the guide rod is formed in each of the at least two limiting clamping seats, and the guide rod is capable of being mounted on another limiting clamping seat after being disassembled from one of the at least two limiting clamping seats; or the guide mounting hole is directly formed in the frame main body (YANG Figs. 1-3 and SUN Figs. 2-5).
(H) Regarding Claim 10:
Modified YANG further teaches:
A diamond wire multi-wire cutting machine, comprising a machine frame, and a cutting device, a feeding system, a wire guide system, a tension system, a wire arrangement system and a wire take-up and pay-off system which are disposed on the machine frame, as well as a mortar bucket located below the machine frame, wherein the cutting device is the cutting device according to any of claim 1 (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1), and is mounted at a front end of the machine frame the feeding system is mounted above the cutting device, the wire take-up and pay-off system consists of two wire take-up and pay-off components arranged below a left side and a right side of the cutting device (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1), the wire guide system consists of two wire guide components symmetrically arranged below the left side and the right side of the cutting device (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1), the tension system consists of two tension components symmetrically arranged below the left side and the right side of the cutting device (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1), and the wire arrangement system consists of two wire arrangement components arranged below the left side and the right side of the cutting device (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified YANG, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 113276295 to Hasegawa et al. (hereinafter “HASEGAWA”).
(A) Regarding Claim 6:
Modified YANG teaches:
The cutting device (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1-5).
However, the difference between modified YANG and the claimed invention is that modified YANG does not explicitly teach at least two sliding grooves are formed in each of the at least four shaft holes, one sliding key is in fastened connection or fixed connection to each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves or each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves is provided with one sliding tooth integrated with the eccentric shaft sleeve, and the sliding key or the sliding tooth is capable of cooperating with each of the at least two sliding grooves; and when the sliding key or the sliding tooth is combined with each of the at least two sliding grooves, a radial angle of the eccentric shaft sleeve is limited to a different position, and the eccentric shaft sleeve does not rotate when moving axially.
HASEGAWA teaches:
at least two sliding grooves are formed in each of the shaft holes (7g, 7h, 46b, 47b Fig. 1), one sliding key is in fastened connection or fixed connection to each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves or each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves is provided with one sliding tooth integrated with the eccentric shaft sleeve, and the sliding key or the sliding tooth is capable of cooperating with each of the at least two sliding grooves (7g, 7h, 46b, 47b Fig. 1).
NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPREATION:
Merely stating the result of the limitations in the claim does not add to the patentability or substance of the claim (MPEP 2111.04). The claim recites the result(s) of the limitations is/are “when the sliding key or the sliding tooth is combined with each of the at least two sliding grooves, a radial angle of the eccentric shaft sleeve is limited to a different position, and the eccentric shaft sleeve does not rotate when moving axially.” Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device then the prior art device necessarily achieves the results as claimed. In this case, the sliding key or tooth and sliding groove of the cited art meets the structural limitations of the claimed the sliding key or tooth and sliding groove.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shaft hole of YANG to include the sliding groove and sliding key, as taught by HASEGAWA, in order to provide a fixing in the sliding shaft hole and thereby achieve the predictable result of fixing in the shaft hole (see claims 2-3 and 5, English translation).
(B) Regarding Claim 7:
Modified YANG teaches:
The cutting device (YANG Figs. 1-3, SUN Figs. 1-5).
However, the difference between modified YANG and the claimed invention is that modified YANG does not explicitly teach at least two sliding grooves are formed in each of the at least four shaft holes, each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves is provided with one sliding tooth integrated with the eccentric shaft sleeve, and the sliding tooth is capable of cooperating with each of the at least two sliding grooves; and when the sliding tooth is combined with each of the at least two sliding grooves, a radial angle of the eccentric shaft sleeve is limited to a different position, and the eccentric shaft sleeve does not rotate when moving axially.
HASEGAWA teaches:
at least two sliding grooves are formed in each of the at least four shaft holes (7g, 7h, 46b, 47b Fig. 1), each of the at least four eccentric shaft sleeves is provided with one sliding tooth integrated with the eccentric shaft sleeve, and the sliding tooth is capable of cooperating with each of the at least two sliding grooves; and when the sliding tooth is combined with each of the at least two sliding grooves (7g, 7h, 46b, 47b Fig. 1).
NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPREATION:
Merely stating the result of the limitations in the claim does not add to the patentability or substance of the claim (MPEP 2111.04). The claim recites the result(s) of the limitations is/are “when the sliding key or the sliding tooth is combined with each of the at least two sliding grooves, a radial angle of the eccentric shaft sleeve is limited to a different position, and the eccentric shaft sleeve does not rotate when moving axially.” Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device then the prior art device necessarily achieves the results as claimed. In this case, the sliding key or tooth and sliding groove of the cited art meets the structural limitations of the claimed the sliding key or tooth and sliding groove.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shaft hole of YANG to include the sliding groove and sliding key, as taught by HASEGAWA, in order to provide a fixing in the sliding shaft hole and thereby achieve the predictable result of fixing in the shaft hole (see claims 2-3 and 5, English translation).
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 115489039 to Fan et al. teaches a diamond cutting machine with eccentric bearing or non-eccentric bearing. CN 113568388 to Zhu teaches an automatic production line. CN 112719444 to Yang teaches a multi-line cutting machine. EP 2826582 to Schmid teaches a wire saw device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA M MCCAFFREY whose telephone number is (571)272-3438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (excluding Wednesday) 10AM - 2 PM 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 Courtney Heinle can be reached on 571-270-3508. 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.
KAYLA M. MCCAFFREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/Kayla McCaffrey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights