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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The examiner notes that both claim sets filed on 06/20/2024 contain the same claims.
Claim Objections
In claim 6, consider --further comprising a control system to determine [[the]] a measurement from the measuring system before, during or after a cutting operation.--
In claims 19 and 20, consider using --the linear measuring device-- instead of “the measuring system”, to be consistent with claim 12.
While correction is not required, the examiner notes that that the instant disclosure allows for more than one measuring device 140, and the applicant may wish to consider “wherein the measuring system [[is]] includes a substantially linear ruler”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“control system” in claims 6, 12, and 14, corresponding to control system 128, including control and network circuitry.
“linear measuring device” in claim 12 and “measuring system” in claim 19, corresponding to measuring system 122, including one or more “measuring devices” 140 with indicia 144.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The term “measuring system” or “measurement system” in claims 1 (and its dependents) and claim 20 was defined with sufficient structure (marks) such that a 35 USC 112(f) interpretation would not be appropriate.
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.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolf (US 20150148937 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Wolf discloses: A method for controlling a rotational velocity of a cutting device ([0005]), comprising: measuring, by a linear measuring device, a first diameter of a cutting wheel of the cutting device (the linear measuring device would be a combination of the optical sensor 10, fig. 2 that reads a linear barcode 11, fig. 3, which is 112(f) equivalent to a system which measures diameter using marks, [0022,0024], a first diameter D1 is measured as shown in fig. 2A of cutting “cutting-off” wheel 9, [0021, 0023]) ; conducting a cutting operation using the cutting wheel (the grinding [cutting off] wheel 9 is used in a manner to cause wear [0014], indicating that a cutting operation was done [intended cutting operation using the wheel]); measuring, by the linear measuring device, a second diameter of the cutting wheel during or after the cutting operation (the worn diameter D2 is measured, fig .2b, [0023], requiring the increase in speed); and adjusting, by a control system, one or more operational parameters of the cutting wheel based on a difference between the first and second diameter (an evaluation and control unit 5, fig. 2, 112(f) equivalent to instant control system as a controller that generates output, U2 that is based on the new diameter, reduced from D1 [the difference between the first and second diameter], and changes the rotational speed [0021, 0023]).
With respect to claim 13, Wolf discloses the limitations of claim 12 above, and further discloses wherein the one or more operational parameters of the cutting wheel includes a position, an orientation, a rotational velocity, or a power of the cutting wheel (the rotational speed is changed to a speed U2, [0021,0023])
With respect to claim 15, Wolf discloses the limitations of claim 12 above, and further discloses wherein the first diameter is an initial diameter of the cutting wheel when the cutting device starts the cutting operation ([0023,0039] provides that the diameter D1 is of a new grinding wheel [which would be before a cutting operation or use]).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (US 20230249310 A1) in view of Chen (CN 203077098 U)
With respect to claim 1, Muller discloses A cutting apparatus (abstract) comprising: a housing defining an operating cavity (housing 12, fig. 1, with cavity 14 inside, [0064]); a cutting wheel arranged in the operating cavity (cutting wheel 22, fig. 2; [0064]), however does not explicitly disclose a measuring system configured to measure a change in diameter of the cutting wheel, the measuring system including one or more marks corresponding to a size of the cutting wheel. Muller, however discloses an arrangement to measure the diameter of the grinding wheel to compensate for wear (48, fig .2, [0066], measures diameter of cutting wheel, to compensate for wear as in [0034], and can thus measure multiple diameters or the change between the diameters).
PNG
media_image1.png
672
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 1 (Chen)
Chen, in the same field of endeavor, related to cutting ([0001,0002]), teaches of providing a measuring system configured to measure a change in diameter of the cutting wheel, the measuring system including one or more marks corresponding to a size of the cutting wheel (a ruler 200, fig. 1; [0024,0027], as shown on the top of fig. 1, the ruler including markings [by the nature of being a ruler, which is also shown in ann. fig. 1 above], corresponding to a size/diameter [indicated as radius, diameter is simply 2 times the radius] of the cutting wheel as in [0029] of cutting wheel 102, fig .1, and can measure a change in the radius). Chen teaches this allows for real time observation of the size of the cutting wheel to prevent overload and prevent damage to the cutting machine ([0029,0032]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Muller with the measuring system (ruler) of Chen, to provide for real time observation of the size of the cutting wheel to prevent overload and prevent damage to the cutting machine.
With respect to claim 2, Muller, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the one or more marks of the measuring system includes a first mark and a second mark (as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, the measuring system taught in Chen includes a ruler, which includes multiple marks to observe the radius of the wheel).
With respect to claim 3, Muller, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, and further teaches wherein the first mark corresponds to a first diameter and the second mark corresponds to a second diameter of the cutting wheel (as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, the measuring system taught in Chen includes a ruler, which includes multiple marks to observe the radius of the wheel, which results in multiple marks that correspond to different diameters of the wheel).
With respect to claim 4, Muller, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 3 above, and further teaches wherein the cutting wheel is configured to perform a cutting operation on a sample (Muller, [0004,0005] provides that the cutting machine is configured to cut a sample).
With respect to claim 5, Muller, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 3 above, and further teaches wherein a size of the cutting wheel changes from the first diameter to the second diameter during a cutting operation (Muller, [0034,0066] provides that the wear of the cutting wheel is measured through a change in diameter; Chen, [0029] provides that the diameter of the cutting wheel is reduced due to abrasion)
With respect to claim 7, Muller, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach a mount to secure the measuring system to a cover of the cutting wheel.
PNG
media_image2.png
565
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 2 (Muller)
Muller, however teaches a cover of the cutting wheel (ann. fig. 2 above).
Chen further teaches of a mount to secure the measuring system (mount 201, fig. 1; [0024]). Chen teaches of mounting the ruler/measuring system so that it is stationary ([0024,0027], through a bearing to the motor shaft, the scale 200 is stationary). Chen teaches that this prevents injury ([0031]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Muller with a mount to secure the measuring system, as taught by Chen so that the measurement system remains stationary and prevents injury. The arrangement would result in a mount to secure the measuring system to a cover of the cutting wheel, as the cutting wheel, in Muller is mounted to the cover, and the measurement system would thus be indirectly mounted to the cover in a stationary manner (this would be consistent with the use of “mount” the instant disclosure to include indirect mounting as instant [0035] provides that the measuring system 122 is mounted to the cutting wheel 122, indirectly though the cover, and instant [0038] is also evidence of indirect mounting as the measuring system can be spaced from the cutting wheel).
With respect to claim 8, Muller, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein a position or an orientation of the measuring system is fixed relative to the cutting wheel. Chen further teaches of mounting the ruler/measuring system so that it is stationary ([0024,0027], through a bearing, the scale 200 is stationary). Chen teaches that this prevents injury ([0031]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Muller such that a position or an orientation of the measuring system is fixed relative to the cutting wheel, as taught by Chen, for the purpose of preventing operator injury.
With respect to claim 9, Muller, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the measuring system is a substantially linear ruler, the one or more marks being provided on a surface of the linear ruler (Chen, the measuring system 200 includes a linear ruler, with marks as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, substantially interpreted as an approximate term consistent with MPEP 2173.05(b)), wherein the linear ruler is arranged on a first side of the cutting wheel (see ruler 200, fig. 1; and cutting wheel 102, fig. 1 in Chen).
With respect to claim 10, Muller, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches a platform to support a sample, wherein the cutting apparatus is configured to cut the sample on the platform (Muller, platform 32, with workpiece/sample 80 supported and moved on it, fig. 5; [0068]).
With respect to claim 11, Muller, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches further comprising a door connected to the housing to open or close the operating cavity (Muller, slidable hood 16, fig. 1; [0064]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (US 20230249310 A1) in view of Chen (CN 203077098 U) and further in view of Beranek (US 20200023483 A1)
With respect to claim 6, Muller, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach a control system to determine the measurement from the measurement system before, during or after a cutting operation.
Beranek, in the same field of endeavor, related to abrasive cutting ([0013]), teaches a control system to determine the measurement from the measurement system before, during or after a cutting operation (there is a sensor 304, fig. 3a, or camera that can image markers [analogous to the ruler in Chen] positioned along a diameter of the wheel 108 in [0041-0042], and is processed by a control system 106, fig. 1, [112(f) equivalent as circuitry] as in [0061] to determine the diameter of the cutting wheel, and can be done at any time as in [0063]). Beranek teaches that this allows for improved cut quality and consistency ([0015-0016]), by maintaining a constant speed based on diameter ([0013])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Muller with the control system of Beranek, to determine the diameter of the cutting wheel based on markers [ruler of Chen], for improved cut quality and consistency.
Claim(s) 12-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beranek (US 20200023483 A1) in view of Chen (CN 203077098 U)
With respect to claim 12, Beranek discloses A method for controlling a rotational velocity of a cutting device, comprising: measuring, a first diameter of a cutting wheel of the cutting device (continuous measurement of the diameter of cutting wheel 108, fig. 1 indicating that there are multiple diameter measurements, including a first diameter measurement in [0082-0083]); conducting a cutting operation using the cutting wheel (the device is used to perform cutting in [0013], which causes the diameter to change through wear or consumption); measuring, a second diameter of the cutting wheel during or after the cutting operation continuous measurement of the diameter of cutting wheel 108, fig. 1 indicating that there are multiple diameter measurements, including a first diameter measurement in [0082-0083], meaning that there is a second diameter measurement); and adjusting, by a control system, one or more operational parameters of the cutting wheel based on a difference between the first and second diameter (based on the rate of change of the diameter, the cutting wheel may be stopped [velocity is controlled to be zero] as in [0082-0083]). Beranek does not explicitly disclose that the first and second diameters are measured using a linear measurement device, however discloses that the diameter can be measured using a sensing arrangement to sense markers positioned along a diameter of the grinding wheel (sensor 304, fig. 3a, or camera that can image markers positioned along a diameter of the wheel 108 in [0041-0042]).
Chen, in the same field of endeavor, related to cutting ([0001,0002]), teaches of providing linear measurement device configured to measure diameter of the cutting wheel, (a ruler 200, fig. 1; [0024,0027], as shown on the top of fig. 1, the ruler including markings [by the nature of being a ruler, which is also shown in ann. fig. 1 above in section 22], corresponding to a size/diameter [indicated as radius, diameter is simply 2 times the radius] of the cutting wheel as in [0029] of cutting wheel 102, fig .1, and 112(f) equivalent by being a ruler with indicia). Chen teaches this allows for real time observation of the size of the cutting wheel to prevent overload and prevent damage to the cutting machine ([0029,0032]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Beranek with the measuring system (ruler) of Chen, to provide for real time observation of the size of the cutting wheel to prevent overload and prevent damage to the cutting machine. The modification would have resulted in the measurement of the first and second diameters using the linear measurement device taught by Chen with the image sensing of Beranek to determine the diameter through the use of marks on the ruler.
With respect to claim 13, Beranek, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 12 above, and further teaches wherein the one or more operational parameters of the cutting wheel includes a position, an orientation, a rotational velocity, or a power of the cutting wheel (Beranek, based on the rate of change of the diameter, the cutting wheel may be stopped [velocity is controlled to be zero or power is controlled to be zero] as in [0082-0083]).
With respect to claim 14, Beranek, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 12 above, and further teaches wherein the first or second diameter is measured in response to a user input or in based on an instruction from the control system (Beranek, [0085] the diameter can measured based on either input or automatically).
With respect to claim 15, Beranek, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 12 above, and further teaches wherein the first diameter is an initial diameter of the cutting wheel when the cutting device starts the cutting operation (Beranek, as the diameter is continuously measured, in [0082], the first measurement thus would be an initial diameter when the cutting device starts, then the diameter is continued to be measured during the process since the continuous measurement would include measurements whenever the device is operating).
With respect to claim 16, Beranek, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 12 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein a type or amount of adjustment for the one or more operational parameters is based in part on a type of material of a sample being cut.
Beranek further discloses of another [second] method for controlling a rotational velocity of a cutting device ([0075], [0097] provides that the methods can be combined), comprising: acquiring a first diameter of a cutting wheel of the cutting device ([0076], a determination of initial diameter of the cutting wheel); conducting a cutting operation using the cutting wheel (the device is used to perform cutting in [0013], which causes the diameter to change through wear or consumption); measuring, a second diameter of the cutting wheel during or after the cutting operation ([0079] continuously or periodically measuring a size of the cutting wheel, which can be done with any method described as provided in [0077]); and adjusting, by a control system, one or more operational parameters of the cutting wheel based on a difference between the first and second diameter ([0080,0092], the change [or result of a difference in diameter] is used to determine that the target speed needs to be changed for consistence, if the diameter did not change the target speed would not need to be adjusted), and a type or amount of adjustment for the one or more operational parameters is based in part on a type of material of a sample being cut ([0076]). In the referenced second method of Beranek, the first [initial] diameter is determined by entry by the user or based on electronic indicia. Beranek however also teaches that any appropriate method may be used to determine the size of the cutting wheel ([0084]), and provides an example where the initial size is measured ([0046]).
MPEP 2144.06 provides that substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a measured size, in place of a user entered size of the cutting wheel for the determination of the initial size [first size] of the cutting wheel, as Beranek recognizes that the diameter can be determined in any way. Beranek discloses that the diameter can be measured using a sensing arrangement to sense markers positioned along a diameter of the grinding wheel (sensor 304, fig. 3a, or camera that can image markers positioned along a diameter of the wheel 108 in [0041-0042]).
Chen, as noted in the rejection of claim 12 above, teaches of providing a linear measurement device configured to measure diameter of the cutting wheel, (a ruler 200, fig. 1; [0024,0027], as shown on the top of fig. 1, the ruler including markings [by the nature of being a ruler, which is also shown in ann. fig. 1 above], corresponding to a size/diameter [indicated as radius, diameter is simply 2 times the radius] of the cutting wheel as in [0029] of cutting wheel 102, fig .1, and 112(f) equivalent by being a ruler with indicia). Chen teaches this allows for real time observation of the size of the cutting wheel to prevent overload and prevent damage to the cutting machine ([0029,0032]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Beranek with the measuring system (ruler) of Chen, to provide for real time observation of the size of the cutting wheel to prevent overload and prevent damage to the cutting machine. The modification would have resulted in the measurement of the first and second diameters using the linear measurement device taught by Chen with the image sensing of Beranek to determine the diameter through the use of marks on the ruler (as applied to the second method disclosed by Beranek).
With respect to claim 17, Beranek, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 12 above, and further teaches comparing a change in diameter with one or more threshold values; and adjusting one or more operational parameters of the cutting device if the change in diameter is greater than the one or more threshold values (Beranek, [0082-0083], the grinding wheel is stopped when the change in diameter exceeds threshold).
With respect to claim 20, Beranek, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 12 above, and further teaches wherein the measuring system is a substantially linear ruler the one or more marks being provided on a surface of the linear ruler (Chen, the measuring system 200 includes a linear ruler, with marks/indicia as explained in the rejection of claim 12 above, substantially interpreted as an approximate term consistent with MPEP 2173.05(b)), wherein the linear ruler is arranged on a first side of the cutting wheel wherein the linear ruler is arranged on a first side of the cutting wheel (see ruler 200, fig. 1; and cutting wheel 102, fig. 1 in Chen).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (US 20150148937 A1), as applied in section 11 above, and further in view of Haller (US 20050286875 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Wolf teaches the limitations of claim 12 above, however does not explicitly teach comparing the second diameter with one or more threshold values; and adjusting one or more operational parameters of the cutting device if the second diameter is greater than the one or more threshold values.
Haller, in the same field of endeavor, related to cutting, provides for an arrangement where the tool is stopped if the wear exceeds a threshold limit ([0029], the tool is stopped when wear exceeds a threshold, or the speed adjusted otherwise, the tool continuously samples for wear, which can be based on diameter as in [0016], the second diameter analogously being a diameter where the tool is worn down) Haller teaches that this improves efficiency by compensating for tool wear ([0002]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wolf, such that the tool turns off if wear exceeds a threshold, otherwise the tool speed is continuously adjusted, as taught by Haller, to improve efficiency, and also for the reason of preventing continued use of a worn tool. The arrangement would have resulted in comparing the second diameter with one or more threshold values (the threshold diameter where the wear exceeds a limit); and adjusting one or more operational parameters of the cutting device if the second diameter is greater than the one or more threshold values (if the diameter remains above the threshold, the speed [one or more operational parameters] can continue to be adjusted, otherwise the tool is stopped).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beranek (US 20200023483 A1) in view of Chen (CN 203077098 U), as in section 29 above and further in view of Munekata (US 4365446 A).
With respect to claim 19, Beranek, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12 above, however does not explicitly teach mounting the measuring system to a cover of the cutting wheel, wherein a position or an orientation of the measuring system on the cover is fixed relative to the cutting wheel.
Munekata teaches of providing a cover to an abrasive tool (cover 12, fig. 2; col 2 lines 9-23, with an abrasive wheel 11 on one side, and a shaft adjacent to wheel support 10 passing though). Munekata teaches that this arrangement ensures safety (col 1 lines 10-17).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Beranek to include a cover on one side of the cutting wheel for safety, as taught by Munekata. As for mounting the measuring system to a cover of the cutting wheel, wherein a position or an orientation of the measuring system on the cover is fixed relative to the cutting wheel, Chen further teaches of a mount to secure the measuring system (mount 201, fig. 1; [0024]). Chen teaches of mounting the ruler/measuring system so that it is stationary ([0024,0027], through a bearing to the motor shaft, the scale 200 is stationary). Chen teaches that this prevents injury ([0031]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Beranek with a mount to secure the measuring system, as taught by Chen so that the measurement system remains stationary and prevents injury. The arrangement would result in mounting the measuring system to a cover of the cutting wheel, wherein a position or an orientation of the measuring system on the cover is fixed relative to the cutting wheel and the measurement system as the measuring system would be indirectly mounted on to the cover in a stationary [fixed position] manner, through the cutting wheel shaft bearing (this would be consistent with the use of “mount” the instant disclosure to include indirect mounting as instant [0035] provides that the measuring system 122 is mounted to the cutting wheel 122, indirectly through the cover, and instant [0038] is also evidence of indirect mounting as the measuring system can be spaced from the cutting wheel).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights