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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Line V-V in Fig. 1 and arrow V in Fig. 3. Using the same character for both, especially when both Line V-V and arrow V are oriented vertically, can make things unclear. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
All instances of “Eddy current brake” or “Eddy current” throughout the Specification, as seen on pgs. 6-7, and 11 should be decapitalized to “eddy current brake” and “eddy current”, unless at the beginning of a sentence. As noted by Merriam-Webster, an eddy-current brake and an eddy current are both common nouns.
All instances of “figure” throughout the Specification, as seen on pgs. 7-8 and 10-13, should be capitalized to “Figure” when used to refer to a specific figure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 22, 27, 31, and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22 is objected to because of “an axial direction parallel to the disc axis” in line 2. This should be corrected to “an axial direction extends parallel to the disc axis.”
Claim 27 is objected to because of “twenty millimeters” in line 3. This should be corrected to “20 millimeters.”
Claim 31 is objected to because of “opposite to the brake disc in an radial direction” in line 4. This should be corrected to “opposite to the brake disc in a radial direction.”
Claim 37 is objected to because of “an Eddy current brake” in line 2. This should be corrected to “eddy current brake.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 22-26, 28-30, 33, 38-39 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101340698 B1 by Kim in view of AU 2007201914 A1 by Betts-Lacroix (hereinafter “Betts”).
Regarding claim 22, Kim discloses a cutting device for cutting a tire component (see Kim English Machine Translated Document, hereinafter “KEMTD”; Description, para. 21, “the belt cutting device of the tire building machine”), the cutting device comprising: a counter member (Kim, Fig. 1, base anvil 45) extending along a cutting line; and a cutting disc (Kim, Fig. 1, circular cutting knife 15) that is movable in a cutting direction over a cutting stroke along said cutting line (KEMTD, Description, para. 22, “a pair of guides (14) installed on the left and right of the circular cutting knife (15) to guide the knife support bracket (13) to move linearly”) while the cutting disc is rotatable about a disc axis for cutting the tire component in cooperation with said counter member (KEMTD, Description, para. 22, “a knife support bracket (13) on which the circular cutting knife (15) is rotatably installed”), wherein the cutting disc, at an end of the cutting stroke, is movable in a lifting direction from a cutting position at the counter member into a standby position away from the counter member (KEMTD, para. 22, “a knife drive cylinder (12) installed on the knife fixing frame (11) to elevate a circular cutting knife (15)”), wherein the cutting disc, in said standby position, is movable in a return direction opposite to the cutting direction over a return stroke (KEMTD, Description, para. 21, “a pair of limit detection sensors (44) that are respectively installed at both ends of the guide bar (42) to detect the rodless cylinder (43) for knife transfer so that the rodless cylinder (43) for knife transfer is transferred in opposite directions”). Kim does not explicitly disclose a braking member.
Betts, however, does teach a cutting device (Betts, Fig. 161, blade 40) further comprises a braking member (Betts, Fig. 161, pawl 60; Betts, pg. 11, line 31, “brake mechanism 28 includes a pawl 60”) that is fixed (Betts, pg. 116, lines 14-21, “The ability of the blade to retract minimizes any injury from accidental contact with the blade and works simultaneously with the baking system described above… The brake cartridge is also mounted on this ‘back side,’ and may be mounted to pivot with the blade as described above, or may be fixedly mounted to the frame of the saw so it does not pivot with the blade…”) in the lifting direction (see Examiner annotated Betts Figure 161, hereinafter “EABF161”; lifting direction) at the standby position for braking the rotation of the cutting disc when said cutting disc is in the standby position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a braking member to the cutting device of Kim as taught by Betts in order to minimize injury and protect the user (Betts, pg. 9, lines 18-19, “Machine 10 also includes a safety system 18 configured to minimize the potential of a serious injury to a person using machine 10”).
PNG
media_image1.png
520
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, the Kim/Betts combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Furthermore, Kim discloses the lifting direction (see Examiner annotated Kim Figure 3, hereinafter “EAKF3”; lifting direction) extends perpendicular to the cutting line (EAKF3, cutting line) and an axial direction (EAKF3, axial direction) parallel to the disc axis (Kim, Fig. 3, circular cutting knife 15; EAKF3, disc axis).
PNG
media_image2.png
547
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, the Kim/Betts combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 22 above. Furthermore, the Kim/Betts combination discloses the cutting device comprises a carriage (Kim, Fig. 3, knife transport rodless cylinder 43) for holding the cutting disc (Kim, Fig. 3, circular cutting knife 15) and a cutting guide (Kim, Fig. 3, guide bar 42) for guiding the carriage along said cutting guide in the cutting direction (KEMTD, para. 21, “a rodless cylinder (43) for knife transfer that moves linearly along a guide bar (42) installed on a cutting device frame (41) installed on the belt servicer (50) and to which the knife device (10) is integrally coupled”), wherein the braking member (Betts, Fig. 161, pawl 60) is supported by the carriage (Betts, Fig. 161, bracket 1438) to move together with the cutting disc in the cutting direction (Betts, pg. 114, lines 17-1, “It should be noted that by placing the pawl and the charging plates on bracket 1438 which is attached to the swing arm, the pawl and charging plates move with the blade when it is adjusted”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a braking member to the cutting device of Kim as taught by Betts in order to minimize injury and eliminate the need for repositioning the braking member (Betts, pg. 9, lines 18-19, “Machine 10 also includes a safety system 18 configured to minimize the potential of a serious injury to a person using machine 10”; Betts, pg. 114, lines 18-19, “This eliminates the need to reposition the pawl and/or the charging plates whenever the blade is moved”).
Regarding claim 25, the Kim/Betts combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 24 above. Furthermore, the Kim/Betts combination discloses the braking member is arranged in a fixed position on the carriage (Betts, pg. 116, lines 14-21, “The ability of the blade to retract minimizes any injury from accidental contact with the blade and works simultaneously with the baking system described above… The brake cartridge is also mounted on this ‘back side,’ and may be mounted to pivot with the blade as described above, or may be fixedly mounted to the frame of the saw so it does not pivot with the blade…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a fixed braking member to the cutting device of Kim as taught by Betts in order to minimize injury and as obvious to try as one of the coupling options for a braking mechanism to a cutting device (Betts, pg. 116, lines 14-21, “The ability of the blade to retract minimizes any injury from accidental contact with the blade and works simultaneously with the baking system described above… The brake cartridge is also mounted on this ‘back side,’ and may be mounted to pivot with the blade as described above, or may be fixedly mounted to the frame of the saw so it does not pivot with the blade…”).
Regarding claim 26, the Kim/Betts combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 24 above. Furthermore, Kim discloses the cutting disc is movable relative to the carriage in the lifting direction between the cutting position and the standby position (KEMTD, Description, para. 22, “knife drive cylinder (12) installed on the knife fixing frame (11) to elevate a circular cutting knife (15)”; Kim, Fig. 1, knife drive cylinder 12, knife transport rodless cylinder 43, circular cutting knife 15).
Regarding 28, the Kim/Betts combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 22 above. Furthermore, the Kim/Betts combination discloses the cutting disc has a disc body (Kim, Fig. 3, circular cutting knife 15) that defines a circumferential edge (see Examiner annotated Kim Figure 2, hereinafter “EAKF2”; edge), wherein the braking member (Betts, Fig. 107, pawl 60) is located opposite to the circumferential edge (Betts, Fig. 161, blade 40) in an axial direction (see Examiner annotated Betts Figure 107, hereinafter “EABF107”; axial direction) parallel to the disc axis (EABF107, disc axis) when the cutting disc is in the standby position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the cutting device of Kim to have a braking member as taught by Betts in order to engage with the blade to minimize injury and protect the user (Betts, pg. 9, lines 18-19, “Machine 10 also includes a safety system 18 configured to minimize the potential of a serious injury to a person using machine 10”).
PNG
media_image3.png
421
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
328
460
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29, the Kim/Betts combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 28 above. Furthermore, the Kim/Betts combination discloses the braking member comprises a braking body (Betts, Fig. 161, pawl 60) extending along a part of the circumferential edge (Betts, Fig. 161, blade 40) when the cutting disc is in the standby position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the cutting device of Kim to have a braking member as taught by Betts in order to minimize injury and protect the user (Betts, pg. 9, lines 18-19, “Machine 10 also includes a safety system 18 configured to minimize the potential of a serious injury to a person using machine 10”).
Regarding claim 30, the Kim/Betts combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 29 above. Furthermore, the Kim/Betts combination discloses the braking body is arcuate (Kim, Fig. 111, curved wall 818) with a radius matching the cutting disc (Kim, Fig. 111, blade 40; see also Kim, Figs. 74-76, pawl 60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the cutting device of Kim to have a braking member as taught by Betts in order to engage with the blade to minimize injury and protect the user (Betts, pg. 9, lines 18-19, “Machine 10 also includes a safety system 18 configured to minimize the potential of a serious injury to a person using machine 10”; Betts, pg. 76, lines 7-9, “A curved wall 818 is formed along part of the inside front edge of the cartridge. The curved wall is positioned to engage the perimeter of the blade”).
Regarding claim 33, the Kim/Betts combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 22 above. Furthermore the Kim/Betts combination discloses the cutting disc (Betts, Fig. 112, blade 40), in the standby position, is spaced apart from the braking member (Betts, Fig. 112, pawl 60) in an axial direction parallel to the disc axis (see Examiner annotated Betts Figure 112, hereinafter “EABF112”; disc axis) over a spacing distance (EABF112, spacing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the cutting device of Kim to have a braking member as taught by Betts in order to engage with the blade to minimize injury and protect the user (Betts, pg. 9, lines 18-19, “Machine 10 also includes a safety system 18 configured to minimize the potential of a serious injury to a person using machine 10”; Betts, pg. 76, lines 7-9, “A curved wall 818 is formed along part of the inside front edge of the cartridge. The curved wall is positioned to engage the perimeter of the blade”).
PNG
media_image5.png
255
494
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 38, the Kim/Betts combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 22 above. Furthermore, the Kim discloses the counter member (Kim, Fig. 1, base anvil 45) comprises a cutting bar (Kim, Fig. 1, anvil fixing bracket 46).
Regarding claim 39, the Kim/Betts combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 22 above. Furthermore, the Kim/Betts combination discloses a method for cutting a tire component using the cutting device according to claim 22, the method comprising the steps of: moving the cutting disc in the cutting direction over the cutting stroke along the cutting line (KEMTD, pg. 14, para. 2, “since the circular cutting knife (15) is maintained in a lowered state, the rubber between the wires of the belt semi-finished product (60) is cut to the end by the returning circular cutting knife (15)”) while the cutting disc rotates about the disc axis for cutting the tire component in cooperation with the counter member (KEMTD, pg. 7, para. 2, “a cutting device rotating unit that rotates the cutting device frame within a predetermined range according to the wire direction of the belt semi-finished product”); moving the cutting disc in the lifting direction from the cutting position at the counter member into the standby position away from the counter member at the end of the cutting stroke (KEMTD, pg. 13, para. 2-3, “The knife device (10), which is usually located at the left end of the cutting device frame (41), is moved to the right by the knife transport rodless cylinder (43), and at this time, the belt width detection laser sensor (16) of the knife device (10) detects the end of the belt semifinished product (60)… “Afterwards, the circular cutting knife (15) is lowered by the knife drive cylinder (12) of the knife device (1) installed in the rodless cylinder (43) for knife transport, thereby cutting the belt semi-finished product (60) by the circular cutting knife (15)”); moving the cutting disc in the return direction over the return stroke; and braking (Betts, Fig. 161, pawl 60) the rotation of the cutting disc with the braking member when said cutting disc is in the standby position (see Betts Figure 161).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a braking member to the cutting device of Kim as taught by Betts in order to minimize injury and protect the user when the blade is moved in a lifting direction (Betts, pg. 9, lines 18-19, “Machine 10 also includes a safety system 18 configured to minimize the potential of a serious injury to a person using machine 10”).
Regarding claim 42, the Kim/Betts combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 39 above. Furthermore, the Kim/Betts combination discloses the method further comprises the step of: moving the cutting disc in a lowering direction opposite to the lifting direction at an end of the return stroke (KEMTD, pg. 13, para. 3, “Afterwards, the circular cutting knife (15) is lowered by the knife drive cylinder (12) of the knife device (10) installed in the rodless cylinder”) only when the cutting disc has stopped rotating as a result of the braking by the braking member (Betts, pg. 12, lines 3-5, “The spring is adapted to urge pawl 60 into the teeth of the blade with sufficient force to grip the blade and quickly bring it to a stop”).
While the Kim/Betts combination does not explicitly detail that the knife is lowered after the cutting disc has stopped rotating as a result of braking, Betts teaches a braking mechanism that is able to rapidly stop the rotation of the blade (Betts, pg. 17, lines 16-18, “As a result, injury to the operator is minimized in the event of accidental contact with the cutting tool. With appropriate selection of components, it may be possible to stop the blade within 2 ms, or less”). Due to how fast the braking mechanism of Betts acts, and the time necessary for the cutting disc to travel the distance of the cutting/return stroke, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention could reasonably determine that the rotation of the blade would have already stopped by the time the cutting disc reaches the end of it’s respective stroke, before moving onto the next cutting step.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101340698 B1 by Kim in view of AU 2007201914 A1 by Betts as detailed in the rejections above, and further in view of WO 0189776 A1 by Sala et al. (hereinafter “Sala”).
Regarding claim 27, the Kim/Betts combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 22 above. Furthermore, the Kim/Betts combination does not explicitly disclose a lifting distance.
Sala, however, does teach the cutting disc (Sala, Fig. 3a, cutting profile/edge 34) is displaced in the lifting direction (Sala, Fig. 1, supporting structure 12 & adjuster 26) when moving from the cutting position into the standby position over at least twenty millimeters (Sala, pg. 11, lines 17-20, “Said supporting structure 12 is also provided with an adjuster 26 for modifying the distance of the cutting profile or edge 34 (see Figures 3a-3c) of the blade 11 from the elastomeric element 50”; Sala, pg. 12-13, lines 36-4, “This blade 11 is a circular blade with, as indicated, a continuous cutting profile 34 that is very suitable for cutting elements 50 made of elastomeric material alone whose thickness may vary over a wide range of values, from a small value such as the thickness of a liner sheet (for example 5 mm) to a large value such as that of a tread band for a giant tyre (for example 5 cm)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the cutting device of the Kim/Betts combination to have a lifting distance over twenty millimeters in order to accommodate tyre components of varying thicknesses (Sala, pg. 12-13, lines 36-4, “This blade 11 is a circular blade with, as indicated, a continuous cutting profile 34 that is very suitable for cutting elements 50 made of elastomeric material alone whose thickness may vary over a wide range of values, from a small value such as the thickness of a liner sheet (for example 5 mm) to a large value such as that of a tread band for a giant tyre (for example 5 cm)”). While Sala does not explicitly detail that the cutting disc is being lifted over twenty millimeters, Sala teaches that tire component thicknesses range from 5cm to 50cm. In order for the cutting device of the Kim/Betts combination to accommodate a tire component with a thickness over 20 millimeters (e.g. 40 mm) and still be able to lift the cutting device into a standby position, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably determine that the cutting device of Kim/Betts must be able to be lifted over twenty millimeters.
Claim 31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101340698 B1 by Kim in view of AU 2007201914 A1 by Betts as detailed in the rejections above, and further in view of CN 203712744 U by Xue.
Regarding claim 31, the Kim/Betts combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 22 above. Furthermore, the Kim/Betts combination discloses the cutting disc has a disc body (Betts, Fig. 107, blade 40). The Kim/Betts combination does not explicitly disclose a brake disc.
Xue, however, does teach a brake disc (Xue, Fig. 2, brake disc 11) located in an axial direction parallel (Xue, Fig. 2, first pivot 3) to the disc axis (Xue, Fig. 2, second pivot 9) behind the disc body (Xue, Fig. 1, annular cutting knife 5) and rotationally fixed to said disc body (see Xue English Machine Translated Document, hereinafter “XEMTD”; Description, para. 29, “The power mechanism is disposed at the second end of the first pivot to provide a rotational force for the first pivot 3), wherein the braking member is located opposite to the brake disc (Xue, Fig. 2, brake disc 11, brake claw 12) in an radial direction perpendicular to the disc axis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the braking mechanism of the Kim/Betts combination by adding a brake disc as taught by Xue in order to apply a braking force through the center of the disc body (XEMTD, Description, para. 29, “the inertial rotation of the driven disc needs to be controlled by the work of the brake claw 12 and the brake disc 11 to stop it and prepare for the next cutting”), working in conjunction with the braking member of Betts, which applies a braking force to the edge of the disc body.
Although the Kim/Betts combination does not explicitly disclose a braking member in relation to a brake disc, the braking member of Betts is located opposite to the disc body in a radial direction perpendicular to the disc axis. When viewed in combination with Xue as described above, because the brake disc of Xue stops rotation of a disc body through a rotational disc axis and the braking member of Betts stops rotation through the edge of the disc body, then the braking member has to be spaced radially from the brake disc.
Regarding claim 34, the Kim/Betts/Xue combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 31 above. Furthermore, while the Kim/Betts/Xue combination does not explicitly disclose a braking member spaced apart from a brake disc, the braking member of Betts (Betts, Fig. 161, pawl 60) is located opposite to the disc body (Betts, Fig. 161, blade 40) in a radial direction (EABF161, radial direction) perpendicular to the disc axis (EABF161, disc axis). When viewed in combination with Xue as described above, because the brake disc of Xue (Xue, Fig. 2, brake disc 11) stops rotation of a disc body through a rotational disc axis (Xue, Fig. 2, first pivot 3 & second pivot 9) and the braking member of Betts stops rotation through the edge of the disc body (see Betts Figure 161), then the brake disc has to be spaced apart from the braking member in the radial direction over a spacing direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the braking mechanism of the Kim/Betts combination by adding a brake disc as taught by Xue in order to apply a braking force through the center of the disc body (XEMTD, Description, para. 29, “the inertial rotation of the driven disc needs to be controlled by the work of the brake claw 12 and the brake disc 11 to stop it and prepare for the next cutting”), working in conjunction with the braking member of Betts, which applies a braking force to the edge of the disc body.
Claim 32, 35-36, and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101340698 B1 by Kim in view of AU 2007201914 A1 by Betts and CN 203712744 U by Xue as detailed in the rejections above, and further in view of WO 2014162803 A1 by Ishida et al. (hereinafter “Ishida”).
Regarding claim 32, the Kim/Betts/Xue combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 31 above. Furthermore, the Kim/Betts/Xue combination does not explicitly disclose contactless braking.
Ishida, however, does teach the braking member (Ishida, Fig. 6, non-contact braking mechanism 40) is configured for contactless braking of the rotation of the disc (see Ishida English Machine Translated Document, hereinafter “IEMTD”; Abstract, “a permanent magnet is disposed so as to face a rotating body in a non-contact state in a positional relationship such that the magnetic field generated by the permanent magnet intersects the disc (35), whereby an eddy current produces a braking force in the rotating body, stopping the rotary motion of the cutting blade”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the braking member of the Kim/Betts/Xue combination to be contactless as taught by Ishida in order to improve brake longevity and improving overall device cost and workability (IEMTD, pg. 4, para. 2, “with the above structure, if the brake is used for a long period of time, the brake shoe gradually wears down at the point where it is connected to the brake wire… a shock is generated due to contact between the brake shoes and the brake drum, which deteriorates operability. In addition, the brake mechanism requires a large number of parts, which means that the space required to accommodate the brake mechanism is large, which increases the weight and size of the portable engine-powered machine, resulting in increased costs and reduced workability…”).
Regarding claim 35, the Kim/Betts combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 22 above. Furthermore, the Kim/Betts combination does not explicitly disclose brake magnets.
Ishida, however, does teach the braking member (Ishida, Fig. 6, non-contact braking mechanism 40) comprises one or more magnets (Ishida, Fig. 6, permanent magnets 43a & 43b) for magnetically braking the rotation of the disc (IEMTD, pg. 16, para. 2, “the permanent magnets 43a and 43b generate eddy currents on the disk 35, generating a braking force”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the braking member of the Kim/Betts/Xue combination to be utilize magnets for contactless braking as taught by Ishida in order to improve brake longevity and improving overall device cost and workability (IEMTD, pg. 4, para. 2, “with the above structure, if the brake is used for a long period of time, the brake shoe gradually wears down at the point where it is connected to the brake wire… a shock is generated due to contact between the brake shoes and the brake drum, which deteriorates operability. In addition, the brake mechanism requires a large number of parts, which means that the space required to accommodate the brake mechanism is large, which increases the weight and size of the portable engine-powered machine, resulting in increased costs and reduced workability…”).
Regarding claim 36, the Kim/Betts/Ishida combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 35 above. Furthermore, the Kim/Betts/Ishida combination teaches the one or more magnets (Ishida, Fig. 6, permanent magnets 43a & 43b) comprises a plurality of magnets distributed in an arcuate array with a radius matching the cutting disc.
While Ishida does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of magnets are distributed in an arcuate array, the non-contacting braking magnets of Ishida replace the contacting braking pawls of Betts. As demonstrated in Betts Figure 84 and Betts Figure 161, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to try a varying number of braking mechanisms (Betts, Fig. 84, pawls 60; Betts, Fig. 161, pawl 60) arranged in an arcuate array with a radius matching the cutting disc (Betts, Fig. 84, blade 40). Therefore, while the arrangement of the magnets of Ishida is not in an arcuate array, Betts teaches that arranging the braking mechanisms in a configuration that matches the curved edge of the cutting blade would be obvious to try out of the finite number of identified, predictable solutions for configurations of a braking mechanism further detailed throughout Betts.
Regarding claim 37, the Kim/Betts combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 22 above. Furthermore, the Kim/Betts combination does not explicitly disclose an eddy current brake.
Ishida, however, does teach the braking member (Ishida, Fig. 6, non-contacting brake mechanism 40) is an eddy current brake (IEMTD, Abstract, “said power tool being designed such that a non-contact eddy current braking mechanism (40) is actuated”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the braking member of the Kim/Betts/Xue combination to utilize an eddy current brake for contactless braking as taught by Ishida in order to improve brake longevity and improving overall device cost and workability (IEMTD, pg. 4, para. 2, “with the above structure, if the brake is used for a long period of time, the brake shoe gradually wears down at the point where it is connected to the brake wire… a shock is generated due to contact between the brake shoes and the brake drum, which deteriorates operability. In addition, the brake mechanism requires a large number of parts, which means that the space required to accommodate the brake mechanism is large, which increases the weight and size of the portable engine-powered machine, resulting in increased costs and reduced workability…”).
Regarding claim 40, the Kim/Betts combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 39 above. Furthermore, the Kim/Betts combination does not explicitly disclose contactless braking.
Ishida, however, does teach the braking member (Ishida, Fig. 6, non-contact braking mechanism 40) brakes the rotation of the disc with contactless braking (IEMTD, Abstract, “a permanent magnet is disposed so as to face a rotating body in a non-contact state in a positional relationship such that the magnetic field generated by the permanent magnet intersects the disc (35), whereby an eddy current produces a braking force in the rotating body, stopping the rotary motion of the cutting blade”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the braking member of the Kim/Betts combination to be contactless as taught by Ishida in order to improve brake longevity and improving overall device cost and workability (IEMTD, pg. 4, para. 2, “with the above structure, if the brake is used for a long period of time, the brake shoe gradually wears down at the point where it is connected to the brake wire… a shock is generated due to contact between the brake shoes and the brake drum, which deteriorates operability. In addition, the brake mechanism requires a large number of parts, which means that the space required to accommodate the brake mechanism is large, which increases the weight and size of the portable engine-powered machine, resulting in increased costs and reduced workability…”).
Regarding claim 41, the Kim/Betts combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 39 above. Furthermore, the Kim/Betts combination does not explicitly disclose an eddy current brake.
Ishida, however, does teach the braking member (Ishida, Fig. 6, non-contacting brake mechanism 40) is an eddy current brake (IEMTD, Abstract, “said power tool being designed such that a non-contact eddy current braking mechanism (40) is actuated”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the braking member of the Kim/Betts/Xue combination to utilize an eddy current brake for contactless braking as taught by Ishida in order to improve brake longevity and improving overall device cost and workability (IEMTD, pg. 4, para. 2, “with the above structure, if the brake is used for a long period of time, the brake shoe gradually wears down at the point where it is connected to the brake wire… a shock is generated due to contact between the brake shoes and the brake drum, which deteriorates operability. In addition, the brake mechanism requires a large number of parts, which means that the space required to accommodate the brake mechanism is large, which increases the weight and size of the portable engine-powered machine, resulting in increased costs and reduced workability…”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 108527479 A by Ceng discloses a braking disc fixed to a rotating cutting blade that also moves up and down.
CN 112170934 A by Liang teaches a circular cutting disc with a non-contact electromagnetic brake.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH LIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5936. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 7:30am-5:00pm, every other Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at (571) 270-3818. 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.
/DEBORAH LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724