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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, corresponding claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 7/7/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/05/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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:
The “means for delivering a coolant into the cavity” in claim 1 invokes 112F because first, "means" is a generic substitute for “means”; second, the "means" is modified by functional language including “for delivering a coolant into the cavity”; and third, the " means" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "means" by itself describes the function, not the structure of the means.
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. 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.
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by William (JP 2011031374 A and Translation).
Regarding claim 1, William shows a cutting system (Figures 1-6), comprising:
a cutting disc (28, Figure 2) that is configured to cut a workpiece (W) when rotated; and
a cooling assembly (Figures 4-5) including:
an upper covering (where the reference “60” is in Figure 4) that covers a part of the cutting disc;
a lower base (a bottom surface including a slit or opening 64 is in Figure 4) having a main slot (64) to allow the passage of a segment of the cutting disc (Figure 6),
at least a part of the lower base being configured to be supported on the workpiece (W, Figure 6), the lower base cooperating with the upper covering to form a cavity (the chamber for receiving the blade 28, Figure 6) in which the cutting disc is at least partially housed; and
means for delivering a coolant into the cavity (70, Figure 6 and Page 4, the 1st paragraph “a cutting fluid supply source 70…into a space 66”), the cooling assembly being configured to accumulate the coolant inside the cavity to form a volume of coolant, such that a portion of the cutting disc is submerged in the volume of coolant during a cutting process (see the cooling liquid from the supply source 70 hitting to the blade, Figure 6).
Regarding claim 2, William shows that the lower base comprises a support (the bottom surface) and a containment wall (side walls, for an example, a side wall 58c, Figure 4) extending from the support to the upper covering and surrounding the main slot (see all 4 side walls surround the slit or opening 64), the containment wall cooperating with the upper covering to produce the cavity (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, William shows that the containment wall and at least part of the support is configured to hold the volume of coolant (see Figure 4).
Regarding Claims 6-8, William shows that the upper covering is fixed to a cutting tool (24, Figure 3) that holds the cutting disc, wherein the support of the lower base is also fixed to the cutting tool, and wherein the upper covering comprises a main body made of a first material and a front cover made of a second material (see Figure 1, structures of the cover 58 are fixed to the cutting means 24, Figure 3).
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over William in view of Hutchins (US 5445558 A).
Regarding Claim 4, William shows all of the limitations as stated above except a flat gasket disposed on a lower surface of the lower base,
Hutchins shows a system (Figure 2) having a cover (a shroud 37) including a bottom surface of a groove (150) for receiving a gasket (a seal element 53 having a flat surface as seen in Figures 2, 5) and for being supported on a workpiece (12, Figure 2). Hutchins also discusses the shape of the gasket that depends on a shape of the tool (see Figures 2 and 5 for a circular tool or a rectangular tool).
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 bottom surface or the lower surface of the lower base of William to have a gasket (a seal element), as taught by Hutchins, in order to allow the cutting tool gently engaging the work surface entirely about the periphery of the head and confine the flow of water (the coolant) and cutting particles to a discharge (Co1. 5, lines 53-63 of Hutchins).
In doing so, the flat gasket having a secondary slot (opening for a blade or cutting feature) facing the main slot to allow the passage of the segment of the cutting disc (see Figures 2 and 5 of Hutchins), the flat gasket being configured for being supported on the workpiece (see Figures 2 and 5 of Hutchins).
Regarding claims 5, the modified system of William shows that the flat gasket is configured to produce a leak-tight contact between the workpiece and the lower base (see Figures 2 and 5 of Hutchins).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4406274 shows a cutting system (Figure 4) having a cover 30 for retaining a cooling liquid and covering a cutting disc 22 and US 6450869 shows a cutting system (Figure 2) having a cover 24 for retaining a cooling liquid and covering a cutting disc 22, however, both are not discussed a gasket or seals.
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 8/31/2026
Prosecution Insights