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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because line 2 of the abstract “a blade” should read—the blade--. Lines 2-3 “can smoothly execute the water supply work without fail during cutting work” in unclear what it is actually disclosed. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1, 3-9 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.
The preamble of claim 1 is “a water supply device for supplying cool water toward a blade, the blade being fixed to a blade shaft”. From this preamble, it appears Applicant is seeking protection for the water supply device by itself, without the blade.
However, in the body of claim 1 recites “the blade shaft” and especially, in the last paragraph recites “…cooling water supplied …toward the blade through the connection passage…” and the 2nd last paragraph recites “…a blade fixing member”. There are two lines of thought on this;
One is that claim should be interpreted as a combination of the water supply device and the blade including a blade mount (a blade fixing member), which is seemingly not what the preamble suggests.
Two is that it is not a combination, but then it is not clear what structural scope to give the language in the body of the claim. Would a water supply device that includes a pressure case, a pressure chamber, an impeller on a rotation shaft, and inlet/outlet meet this preamble and the claimed invention, even if there was no teaching of a blade? If the blade is not positively recited, then any prior art held against it would not need to show a blade and a blade fixing member, it would only need to show the structures of the water supply device including a rotation shaft, right?
Claim 6 recites “a flange passage…between the blade fixing member and the blade” is unclear and confusing whether the blade is positively claimed or not since claim 1 is directed to “a water supply device (see the discussion above). What is the flange passage relative with the water supply device?
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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 1, 3-4, 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 201581342U and Translation) in view of Marks (US 3109238) and Holcomb (US 5001973).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Liu shows a water supply device (Figures 1-2) for supplying cooling water toward a blade (blade 3, as it is written, the blade is not positively claimed), the blade being fixed to a “blade” shaft (1), the water supply device comprising:
a pressure case (4) that surrounds an outer peripheral surface of the “blade” shaft and forms an annular pressure chamber between the pressure case and the outer peripheral surface of the “blade” shaft (see Figure 2),
an upstream supply passage (see Figure 2 below) communicating with the pressure chamber at a position adjacent to the outer peripheral surface of the “blade” shaft, the upstream supply passage being configured to supply cooling water to the pressure chamber;
a water feeding chamber (a bore of the outer sleeve 4 for receiving a water injection port 7, Figure 2) inside the pressure case, through which the blade shaft extends;
a connection passage (see Figure 2 below whether the upstream supply passage) connecting the pressure chamber and the water feeding chamber, the connection passage including a direction passage having one end opening to the pressure chamber at an inner peripheral surface of the pressure chamber and extending in a direction of the inner peripheral surface of the pressure chamber;
a center water passage (8) formed inside the blade shaft and extending along a center axis of the blade shaft;
a first radial direction water passage (9, Figure 2) formed inside the blade shaft, the first radial direction water passage having one end opening on the outer peripheral surface of the blade shaft inside the water feeding chamber and another end communicating with the center water passage; and
a second radial direction water passage (an outlet 10, Figure 2) formed inside the blade shaft, the second radial direction water passage having one end opening on the outer peripheral surface of the blade shaft at a position radially inward of a blade fixing member (2) and another end communicating with the center water passage (see Figure 2).
However, Liu silently discuss an impeller and a tangential direction passage of the water supply device (as this is written, it is unclear whether the passage is a structure or a path or a flow that is tangent).
Marks shows a cutting device (Figure 4) including a driver (52) for driving a shaft (58), wherein the shaft includes an impeller (vanes 78) disposed in a pressure chamber (74) and fixed to an outer peripheral surface of the shaft, the impeller being configured to move cooling air inside the pressure chamber or blow out via passages (72, Figure 2). Marks also discusses a convention device (prior art) can be cooled by air or water.
Holcomb’s device (Figures 3-5) having a water inlet (36), a tangent passage (38) for causing the water fed in a tangential direction passage or path, and an impeller (26).
Based on the teachings above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the water supply device of Liu to have an impeller, as taught by Marks and Holcomb, in order to aid improving a force flow of water or air directly to the blade (cutting feature) while being operated on (Col. 1, lines 49-53 of Marks) and create a circulation water flow in the pressure chamber for motivating flow and turning an impeller.
In doing so, it can help to reduce power for driving the “blade” shaft (since the impeller turned, it will help some rotation force to turn the shaft). Also, the impeller is configured such that, when the impeller rotates inside the pressure chamber, cooling water supplied to the pressure chamber from the upstream supply passage flows out of the pressure chamber into the tangential direction passage (since the inlet water is introduced a tangent connection 38 of Holcomb, the water can be created into the tangential direction passage or path or flow) and is supplied toward the blade through the connection passage, the water feeding chamber, the first radial direction water passage, the center water passage, and the second radial direction water passage (see the modification above).
Regarding claim 3, the modified water supply device of Liu shows that the impeller includes a plurality of vanes (32, Figure 5 of Holcomb), and each of the vanes is formed such that a front edge (left edge of the vane 32, Figure 5 of Holcomb in a thickness direction) on a front side in a rotating direction is located on an inner side in the radial direction of a rear edge (right edge of the vane in the thickness direction) on a rear side in the rotating direction, and moves fluid on the front side in the rotating direction toward the outer side in the radial direction during the rotation (this is inherent since the vanes 32 extend radially and inside the chamber as seen in Figure 5 of Holcomb).
Regarding claim 4, the modified water supply device of Liu shows that the blade shaft is rotatably supported by two bearings (20 and 24 of Holcomb) which are disposed with a space therebetween in a longitudinal direction, and the pressure case is disposed in a position between the bearings (see Figure 2 of Liu).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the modified cutting system of Liu including the water supply device (as stated in claim 1) and a flange passage (a liquid flow groove 12 , Figure 2 of Liu) which communicates from the outer peripheral surface of the blade shaft to an outer peripheral surface of the blade fixing member (2 of Liu) is formed between the blade fixing member and the blade (see Liu’s Figure 2), and
by rotation of the impeller inside the pressure chamber, the cooling water flowing out from the pressure chamber is supplied to the blade, through the connection passage, the water feeding chamber, the first radial direction water passage, the center water passage, the second radial direction water passage, and the flange passage (see the modification of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, the modified water supply device of Liu shows that the upstream supply passage includes an introduction chamber formed inside the pressure case and through which the blade shaft extends, and the introduction chamber communicates with the pressure chamber so that cooling water flows from the introduction chamber into the pressure chamber (as this is written, it is unclear whether there are two different chambers or one chamber having an introduction chamber or a top portion of the pressure chamber and a bottom of the pressure chamber, therefore, Liu’s Figure 2, the far left portion of the pressure chamber including an inlet 4 of the sleeve is considered as an introduction chamber).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify chamber to make two chambers including an introduction chamber since it has been held that forming in one piece an article (one chamber) which has formerly been formed in two pieces (two chambers) and put together involves only routine skill in the art (see Howard V. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993)). As previously modified, there is one chamber (a pressure chamber for retaining water and the shaft pass through). However, integrating the two chambers into one singular chamber would allow easily made. In doing so, fewer parts are required, thus simplifying the operation and making it less expensive.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 201581342U and Translation) in view of Marks (US 3109238) and Holcomb (US 5001973) and Freerks (US 4484419).
Regarding claim 5, the modified cutting device of Liu shows all of the limitations as stated above except an air vent hole for releasing air from inside the pressure chamber is formed at a position higher than a position where the pressure chamber and the upstream supply passage communicate with each other.
Freerks shows a device (Figure 3) having a chamber (18) for retaining water that provides to an abrasive blade (16), wherein the chamber has a vent (20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the water supply device of Liu to have a vent, as taught by Freerks, in order to help water smoothly flowing through to the downstream.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 8-9 do not anticipate or render obvious the features of a partition, having an opening through which the blade shaft is inserted, is formed between the pressure chamber and the introduction chamber inside the pressure case, and an inner diameter of the opening in the partition is set to a dimension larger than an outer diameter of the blade shaft, so that the pressure chamber and the introduction chamber communicate with each other through a gap between the opening and the blade shaft as set in claims 8 (claim 9 depends on claim 8 and it considers to have the allowable subject matter).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See new rejections with new art above.
Since Applicant has a massive amendment to claim 1, the scope of claim 1 is changed. Thus, the allowable subject matter of claims 6-7 are withdrawn. Claims 8-9 are considered to contain allowable subject matter based on the amendment of claim 1 (that appears directing “a water supply device”).
With regards to the preamble issue, this reject remains the same since the body claim appears claiming a positive feature (blade…) that does not belong to a water supply device. Thus, there is confusing. See the rejection above.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
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 NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 9/2/2026
