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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Amendments filed 1/2/2026 have been entered, wherein claims 1, 3-14 and 16-20 are pending. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-14 and 16-20 have been examined herein. The previous specification objections and claim objections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. This action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 14, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US PGPUB 20140087635), hereinafter Ogawa, in view of Funatsu et al. (US Patent 8342912), hereinafter Funatsu.
Regarding claim 1, Ogawa teaches a waterjet system (fig. 1-3), comprising:
a high-pressure water supply device (fig. 2, 101);
a hopper configured to store abrasive (fig. 2, 81);
a mixing chamber (fig. 2, mixing chamber 13) configured to mix the abrasive from the hopper and the fluid to produce a slurry (fig. 2);
a cutting bed configured to receive a workpiece to be cut (see annotated fig. 1 below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
564
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a cutting head (see annotated fig. 1 above), including an outlet nozzle (fig. 2, nozzle 15) in downstream fluid communication from the mixing chamber (fig. 2), the cutting head configured to expel the slurry through the outlet nozzle as a high-velocity jet into the workpiece (fig. 1, [0059]),
a motion system configured to move the cutting head (fig. 1 of Ogawa).
Ogawa does not explicitly teach the high pressure water supply device includes:
a pump configured to pump fluid;
an electric motor configured to drive the pump;
a mixing chamber configured to mix abrasive from the hopper and the fluid from the pump to produce a slurry,
a valve configured to start and stop flow of the abrasive from the hopper; and the motion system configured to move the cutting head relative to one or more of the following: the valve and the hopper.
However Funatsu teaches an abrasive water jet processing machine including
a pump configured to pump fluid (Funatsu teaches the fluid supply device 31 supplies pressurized fluid and comprises a high pressure pump (col. 4, lines 50-52));
a mixing chamber configured to mix abrasive from the hopper and the fluid from the pump to produce a slurry (fig. 1),
and a needle valve 41d configured to start and stop flow of the abrasive from the hopper (fig. 1, col. 9, lines 37-40).
Additionally, Ogawa teaches it is known to use an electric motor to drive a pump [0106] in order for the pump to operate as intended. Overall, Ogawa additionally teaches an electric motor configured to drive the pump [0106].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ogawa to incorporate the teachings of Funatsu and the additional teachings of Ogawa to provide wherein the high pressure water supply device includes: a pump configured to pump fluid; an electric motor configured to drive the pump; a mixing chamber configured to mix abrasive from the hopper and the fluid from the pump to produce a slurry, and a needle valve 41d configured to start and stop flow of the abrasive from the hopper. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate a pump (as taught by Funatsu) and an electric motor for driving the pump (as additionally taught by Ogawa) to act as the high-pressure water supply device 101 of Ogawa, and wherein the needle valve teachings of Funatsu is incorporated into the hopper 81 of Ogawa. Doing so would provide explicit structure for pumping the fluid which allows the device to operate as intended, wherein Ogawa does not teach what structure makes up the high-pressure water supply device. Additionally, doing so would promote longevity by having serviceable structures and not a black box. Incorporating the needle valve teachings would allow the abrasive to be selectively supplied or shut off, which prevents waste of the abrasive. Additionally, doing so would allow the supply to be increased or decreased (col. 5, lines 33-39 of Funatsu) which allows the operator to customize the slurry formula.
In summary, Ogawa, as modified, teaches a valve configured to start and stop flow of the abrasive from the hopper (as incorporated from Funatsu); and the motion system (of Ogawa) configured to move the cutting head (of Ogawa) relative to one or more of the following: the valve and the hopper (see annotated fig. 1 of Ogawa below, wherein Ogawa has been modified to include the valve in the hopper of Ogawa, wherein the motion system of Ogawa can move the cutting head relative to the valve and the hopper, wherein the valve and the hopper connect to the connecting head through the depicted side hose. Specifically, the cutting head is configured to move relative to the valve and the hopper via the vertical translating mechanism, wherein the valve and hopper are not adjusted in the vertical direction via the vertical translating mechanism).
PNG
media_image2.png
784
904
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Ogawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Ogawa, as modified, teaches wherein the hopper and the mixing chamber are in fluid communication via an abrasive line (fig. 2 of Ogawa, line 87a), the abrasive line being in fluid communication with the mixing chamber (fig. 2 of Ogawa);
wherein the hopper is open to ambient (fig. 2 of Ogawa, wherein hopper 81 is open at the top);
wherein the abrasive line is open to the ambient so as to reduce pressure differential between the abrasive at an upper portion of the hopper and the abrasive at an output of the valve (fig. 2 of Ogawa, wherein the abrasive line is open to ambient and the pressure differential between the abrasive at an upper portion of the hopper and the abrasive at an output of the valve (as incorporated from Funatsu) is reduced).
Regarding claim 4, Ogawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 3. Additionally, Ogawa, as modified, teaches wherein the abrasive flows from the hopper and into the cutting head due to gravitational force and/or a suction force created in the mixing chamber [0072 of Ogawa].
Regarding claim 5, Ogawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 3. Additionally, Ogawa, as modified, teaches wherein a negative pressure from the mixing chamber draws abrasive toward the mixing chamber [0072 of Ogawa].
Regarding claim 9, Ogawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Ogawa, as modified, teaches further comprising an abrasive collection system including a tank (fig. 5 of Ogawa, tank 2) configured to receive the slurry expelled from the cutting head (fig. 5 of Ogawa), the tank having one or more suction ports configured to suction the slurry from the tank (fig. 5, abrasive material recovery device 9 with suction port at end of 91, [0104] of Ogawa).
Regarding claim 14, Ogawa teaches A method of cutting with a waterjet system (fig. 1-3), comprising:
providing the waterjet system, including:
a high-pressure water supply device (fig. 2, 101);
a hopper configured to store abrasive (fig. 2, 81);
a mixing chamber (fig. 2, mixing chamber 13) configured to mix abrasive from the hopper and the fluid to produce a slurry (fig. 2);
a cutting bed configured to receive a workpiece to be cut (see annotated fig. 1 below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
564
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a cutting head (see annotated fig. 1 above), including an outlet nozzle (fig. 2, nozzle 15), in downstream fluid communication from the mixing chamber (fig. 2), the cutting head configured to expel the slurry through the outlet nozzle as a high-velocity jet into the workpiece (fig. 1, [0059]);
placing the workpiece on the cutting bed (fig. 1); and
cutting the workpiece with the slurry [0117],
wherein the waterjet system further comprises:
a motion system configured to move the cutting head (fig. 1 of Ogawa).
Ogawa does not explicitly teach the high pressure water supply device includes:
a pump configured to pump fluid;
an electric motor configured to drive the pump;
a mixing chamber configured to mix abrasive from the hopper and the fluid from the pump to produce a slurry,
a valve configured to start and stop flow of the abrasive from the hopper; and the motion system configured to move the cutting head relative to one or more of the following: the valve and the hopper.
However Funatsu teaches an abrasive water jet processing machine including
a pump configured to pump fluid (Funatsu teaches the fluid supply device 31 supplies pressurized fluid and comprises a high pressure pump (col. 4, lines 50-52));
a mixing chamber configured to mix abrasive from the hopper and the fluid from the pump to produce a slurry (fig. 1),
a needle valve 41d configured to start and stop flow of the abrasive from the hopper (fig. 1, col. 9, lines 37-40).
Additionally, Ogawa teaches it is known to use an electric motor to drive a pump [0106] in order for the pump to operate as intended. Overall, Ogawa additionally teaches an electric motor configured to drive the pump [0106].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ogawa to incorporate the teachings of Funatsu and the additional teachings of Ogawa to provide wherein the high pressure water supply device includes: a pump configured to pump fluid; an electric motor configured to drive the pump; a mixing chamber configured to mix abrasive from the hopper and the fluid from the pump to produce a slurry, and a needle valve 41d configured to start and stop flow of the abrasive from the hopper. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate a pump (as taught by Funatsu) and an electric motor for driving the pump (as additionally taught by Ogawa) to act as the high-pressure water supply device 101 of Ogawa, wherein the needle valve teachings of Funatsu are incorporated to start and stop flow of the abrasive from the hopper. Doing so would provide explicit structure for pumping the fluid which allows the device to operate as intended, wherein Ogawa does not teach what structure makes up the high-pressure water supply device. Additionally, doing so would promote longevity by having serviceable structures and not a black box. Incorporating the needle valve teachings of Funatsu would allow the abrasive to be selectively supplied or shut off, which prevents waste of the abrasive. Additionally, doing so would allow the supply to be increased or decreased (col. 5, lines 33-39 of Funatsu) which allows the operator to customize the slurry formula.
In summary, Ogawa, as modified, teaches a valve configured to start and stop flow of the abrasive from the hopper (as incorporated from Funatsu); and the motion system (of Ogawa) configured to move the cutting head (of Ogawa) relative to one or more of the following: the valve and the hopper (see annotated fig. 1 of Ogawa below, wherein Ogawa has been modified to include the valve in the hopper of Ogawa, wherein the motion system of Ogawa can move the cutting head relative to the valve and the hopper, wherein the valve and the hopper connect to the connecting head through the depicted side hose. Specifically, the cutting head is configured to move relative to the valve and the hopper via the vertical translating mechanism, wherein the valve and hopper are not adjusted in the vertical direction via the vertical translating mechanism).
PNG
media_image2.png
784
904
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Ogawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 14. Additionally, Ogawa, as modified, teaches wherein the hopper and the mixing chamber are in fluid communication via an abrasive line (fig. 2 of Ogawa, line 87a), the abrasive line being in fluid communication with the mixing chamber (fig. 2 of Ogawa);
wherein the hopper is open to ambient (fig. 2 of Ogawa, wherein hopper 81 is open at the top);
wherein the abrasive line is open to the ambient so as to reduce pressure differential between the abrasive at an upper portion of the hopper and an output of the valve (fig. 2 of Ogawa, wherein the abrasive line is open to ambient and the pressure differential between the abrasive at an upper portion of the hopper and the abrasive at an output of the valve (as incorporated from Funatsu) is reduced).
Regarding claim 17, Ogawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Ogawa, as modified, teaches wherein a negative pressure from the mixing chamber draws abrasive toward the mixing chamber [0072 of Ogawa].
Regarding claim 19, Ogawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 17. Additionally, Ogawa, as modified, teaches wherein the waterjet system further comprises an abrasive collection system including a tank (fig. 5 of Ogawa, tank 2) configured to receive the slurry expelled from the cutting head (fig. 5 of Ogawa), the tank having one or more suction ports configured to suction the slurry from the tank (fig. 5, abrasive material recovery device 9 with suction port at end of 91, [0104] of Ogawa).
Regarding claim 20, Ogawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 14. Additionally, Ogawa, as modified, teaches wherein the waterjet system further comprises an abrasive collection system including a tank (fig. 5 of Ogawa, tank 2) configured to receive the slurry expelled from the cutting head (fig. 5 of Ogawa), the tank having one or more suction ports configured to suction the slurry from the tank (fig. 5, abrasive material recovery device 9 with suction port at end of 91, [0104] of Ogawa).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US PGPUB 20140087635), hereinafter Ogawa, in view of Funatsu et al. (US Patent 8342912), hereinafter Funatsu, as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US Patent 8622784), hereinafter Miller.
Regarding claim 6, Ogawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 3.
Additionally, Ogawa, as modified, teaches a pressure range of 200 to 400 Mpa [0045 of Ogawa].
Ogawa, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein pressure of the fluid from the pump is between 2000psi and 8000psi.
However, Miller teaches a water jet which delivers jetted fluid in the range of 5,000 psi to 55,000 psi (col. 2, lines 64-65).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ogawa, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Miller to provide wherein pressure of the fluid from the pump is between 5000 psi and 55000 psi. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify Ogawa, as modified, to include wherein the pressure range is 5000 psi to 55000 psi. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known pressure range for another known pressure range to obtain the predictable results of providing pressurized fluid/slurry to cut and process the workpiece.
Ogawa, as modified, teaches a range of 5,000 psi to 55,000 psi (see above combination).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure of Ogawa, as modified, from between 5000 and 55000 psi to between 2000 and 8000 psi as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pp. [0042] indicating the range may be 2000-5000 or 2000-8000 in order to have “minimal” leakage) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US PGPUB 20140087635), hereinafter Ogawa, in view of Funatsu et al. (US Patent 8342912), hereinafter Funatsu, as applied to claim 1 and 14 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Kondoh (US PGPUB 20150266156).
Regarding claim 7, Ogawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Ogawa, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the pump, the electric motor, the hopper, the mixing chamber, the cutting bed, and the cutting head are enclosed within a common enclosure.
However, Kondoh teaches a machining device wherein the entire workspace and all of the components are enclosed by a common enclosure (fig. 1, cover 6) which makes it possible to keep a working atmosphere clean as well as to achieve a prevention of scattering of fluids, protection from dust, sound insulation and improvement in appearance [0039].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ogawa, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Kondoh to provide a common enclosure for enclosing the entire workspace and all of the components. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the enclosure of Kondoh around the device of Ogawa, as modified. Doing so would keep a working atmosphere clean as well as achieve a prevention of scattering of fluids, protection from dust, sound insulation and improvement in appearance [0039 of Kondoh].
In summary, Ogawa, as modified, teaches wherein the pump, the electric motor, the hopper, the mixing chamber, the cutting bed, and the cutting head are enclosed within a common enclosure (via the all-encompassing common enclosure incorporated from Kondoh).
Regarding claim 18, Ogawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 17. Ogawa, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the pump, the electric motor, the hopper, the mixing chamber, the cutting bed, and the cutting head are enclosed within a common enclosure.
However, Kondoh teaches a machining device wherein the entire workspace and all of the components are enclosed by a common enclosure (fig. 1, cover 6) which makes it possible to keep a working atmosphere clean as well as to achieve a prevention of scattering of fluids, protection from dust, sound insulation and improvement in appearance [0039].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ogawa, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Kondoh to provide a common enclosure for enclosing the entire workspace and all of the components. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the enclosure of Kondoh around the device of Ogawa, as modified. Doing so would keep a working atmosphere clean as well as achieve a prevention of scattering of fluids, protection from dust, sound insulation and improvement in appearance [0039 of Kondoh].
In summary, Ogawa, as modified, teaches wherein the pump, the electric motor, the hopper, the mixing chamber, the cutting bed, and the cutting head are enclosed within a common enclosure (via the all-encompassing common enclosure incorporated from Kondoh).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US PGPUB 20140087635), hereinafter Ogawa, in view of Funatsu et al. (US Patent 8342912), hereinafter Funatsu, and further in view of Kondoh (US PGPUB 20150266156), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US Patent 8622784), hereinafter Miller.
Regarding claim 8, Ogawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 7.
Additionally, Ogawa, as modified, teaches a pressure range of 200 to 400 Mpa [0045 of Ogawa].
Ogawa, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein pressure of the fluid from the pump is between 2000psi and 8000psi.
However, Miller teaches a water jet which delivers jetted fluid in the range of 5,000 psi to 55,000 psi (col. 2, lines 64-65).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ogawa, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Miller to provide wherein pressure of the fluid from the pump is between 5000 psi and 55000 psi. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify Ogawa, as modified, to include wherein the pressure range is 5000 psi to 55000 psi. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known pressure range for another known pressure range to obtain the predictable results of providing pressurized fluid/slurry to cut and process the workpiece.
Ogawa, as modified, teaches a range of 5,000 psi to 55,000 psi (see above combination).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure of Ogawa, as modified, from between 5000 and 55000 psi to between 2000 and 8000 psi as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pp. [0042] indicating the range may be 2000-5000 or 2000-8000 in order to have “minimal” leakage) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US PGPUB 20140087635), hereinafter Ogawa, in view of Funatsu et al. (US Patent 8342912), hereinafter Funatsu, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Quirke (US Patent 6676486).
Regarding claim 10, Ogawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Additionally, Ogawa, as modified, teaches the abrasive material recovery device 9 with suction port at end of 91 ([0104] of Ogawa, fig. 5 of Ogawa), wherein the suction port is created via a suction pump P2 (fig. 5 of Ogawa, [0104]).
Ogawa, as modified, does not explicitly teach further comprising one or more venturi fittings configured to generate a suction force for suctioning the slurry through the one or more suction ports in the tank.
However, Quirke teaches a water jet system and also teaches a venturi vacuum as a form of a pump (col. 7, lines 53-55).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ogawa, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Quirke to provide further comprising one or more venturi fittings configured to generate a suction force for suctioning the slurry through the one or more suction ports in the tank. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate a venturi vacuum for the pump P2 of Ogawa, wherein the venturi vacuum is a venturi fitting configured to generate a suction force for suctioning the slurry through the one or more suction ports in the tank. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known pumping means for another known pumping means to obtain the predictable results of creating a suction force to suction the slurry.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US PGPUB 20140087635), hereinafter Ogawa, in view of Funatsu et al. (US Patent 8342912), hereinafter Funatsu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Westerheide (US Patent 2765588).
Regarding claim 11, Ogawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Ogawa, as modified, teaches an electric motor (see above rejection of claim 1) for driving the pump.
Ogawa, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the electric motor does not have a variable frequency drive mechanism.
However, Westerheide teaches an electric motor which is a constant speed electric motor that functions as a constant speed prime mover (col. 2, line 29-31). Overall, Westerheide teaches wherein the electric motor does not have a variable frequency drive mechanism (rather, the motor of Westerheide is a constant speed electric motor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ogawa, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Westerheide to provide wherein the electric motor does not have a variable frequency drive mechanism. Specifically, it would have been obvious to substitute the constant speed electric motor of Westerheide for the electric motor of Ogawa, as modified. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known electric motor for another known electric motor in order to obtain the predictable results of providing a motor to drive the pump of Ogawa, as modified.
Regarding claim 13, Ogawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Ogawa, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the electric motor does not include a variable frequency drive mechanism and operates at a fixed rate.
However, Westerheide teaches an electric motor which is a constant speed electric motor that functions as a constant speed prime mover (col. 2, line 29-31).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ogawa, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Westerheide to provide wherein the electric motor does not include a variable frequency drive mechanism and operates at a fixed rate. Specifically, it would have been obvious to substitute the constant speed electric motor of Westerheide for the electric motor of Ogawa, as modified. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known electric motor for another known electric motor in order to obtain the predictable results of providing a motor to drive the pump of Ogawa, as modified.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US PGPUB 20140087635), hereinafter Ogawa, in view of Funatsu et al. (US Patent 8342912), hereinafter Funatsu, and further in view of Westerheide (US Patent 2765588), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US Patent 8622784), hereinafter Miller.
Regarding claim 12, Ogawa, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11.
Additionally, Ogawa, as modified, teaches a pressure range of 200 to 400 Mpa [0045 of Ogawa].
Ogawa, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein pressure of the fluid from the pump is between 2000psi and 8000psi.
However, Miller teaches a water jet which delivers jetted fluid in the range of 5,000 psi to 55,000 psi (col. 2, lines 64-65).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ogawa, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Miller to provide wherein pressure of the fluid from the pump is between 5000 psi and 55000 psi. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify Ogawa, as modified, to include wherein the pressure range is 5000 psi to 55000 psi. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known pressure range for another known pressure range to obtain the predictable results of providing pressurized fluid/slurry to cut and process the workpiece.
Ogawa, as modified, teaches a range of 5,000 psi to 55,000 psi (see above combination).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure of Ogawa, as modified, from between 5000 and 55000 psi to between 2000 and 8000 psi as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pp. [0042] indicating the range may be 2000-5000 or 2000-8000 in order to have “minimal” leakage) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent No 12064849 in view of Ogawa et al. (US PGPUB 20140087635), hereinafter Ogawa.
Instant 18/806,281
US Patent 12064849
A waterjet system, comprising:
1. A waterjet system, comprising:
a pump configured to pump fluid;
a pump configured to pump pressurized fluid;
an electric motor configured to drive the pump;
an electric motor configured to drive the pump;
a hopper configured to store abrasive;
a hopper configured to store abrasive;
a mixing chamber configured to mix abrasive from the hopper and the fluid from the pump to produce a slurry;
a mixing chamber configured to mix abrasive from the hopper and the fluid from the pump to produce a slurry;
a cutting bed configured to receive a workpiece to be cut; and
a cutting bed configured to receive a workpiece to be cut;
a cutting head, including an outlet nozzle in downstream fluid communication from the mixing chamber, the cutting head configured to expel the slurry through the outlet nozzle as a high-velocity jet into the workpiece;
a cutting head, including an outlet nozzle, in downstream fluid communication from the mixing chamber, the cutting head configured to expel the slurry through the outlet nozzle as a high-velocity jet into the cutting bed;
a valve configured to start and stop flow of the abrasive from the hopper; and
a motion system configured to move the cutting head relative to one or more of the following: the valve and the hopper.
a first valve configured to start and stop flow of the abrasive from the hopper; a motion system configured to move the cutting head relative to the cutting bed, and configured to move the cutting head relative to one or more of the following: the first valve and the hopper;
Claim 1 of US Patent 12064849 do not explicitly teach the cutting head configured to expel the slurry through the outlet nozzle as a high-velocity jet into the workpiece.
However, Ogawa teaches the cutting head configured to expel the slurry through the outlet nozzle as a high-velocity jet into the workpiece (fig. 2, [0117]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claim 1 of US Patent 12064849 to incorporate the teachings of Ogawa to provide the cutting head configured to expel the slurry through the outlet nozzle as a high-velocity jet into the workpiece. Doings so would allow the device to process the workpiece and perform as a waterjet system as intended.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As a preliminary matter, the previous priority concerns have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues the combination of Ogawa and Funatsu fails to teach the rolled up limitation of the motion system configured to move the cutting head relative to one or more of the following: the valve and the hopper. Applicant argues the hopper of Ogawa is also mounted on the gantry with the nozzle, wherein fig. 1 of Ogawa shows a drag chain positioned behind the hopper, thereby enabling Y-direction movement of the gantry that carries both the hopper and nozzle. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although the examiner agrees that the hopper of Ogawa moves with the nozzle in both the X and Y directions, the X and Y directions were not relied upon to teach the limitations. Rather, the vertical direction of movement of the nozzle was relied upon to teach the motion system configured to move the cutting head relative to the valve and the hopper.
In summary, Ogawa, as modified, teaches a valve configured to start and stop flow of the abrasive from the hopper (as incorporated from Funatsu); and the motion system (of Ogawa) configured to move the cutting head (of Ogawa) relative to one or more of the following: the valve and the hopper (see annotated fig. 1 of Ogawa below, wherein Ogawa has been modified to include the valve in the hopper of Ogawa, wherein the motion system of Ogawa can move the cutting head relative to the valve and the hopper, wherein the valve and the hopper connect to the connecting head through the depicted side hose. Specifically, the cutting head is configured to move relative to the valve and the hopper via the vertical translating mechanism, wherein the valve and hopper are not adjusted in the vertical direction via the vertical translating mechanism).
PNG
media_image2.png
784
904
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the independent and respective dependent claims are allowable for these reasons. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claims have been rejected above over Ogawa in view of Funatsu. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
5. 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 MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Examiner, Art Unit 3723