DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 10 (Power unit) and 20 (Stand). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5 and 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 9-10: The claim reads “a slider configured to move forwards or downwards on the main frame” should read “a slider configured to move forwards or rearwards on the main frame”.
Claim 5, lines 4-7: The claim reads “first protrusions each having a structure corresponding to a structure of upper grooves, and second protrusions each having a protruding structure corresponding to a structure of side grooves” should read “small protrusions each having a structure corresponding to a structure of upper grooves, and large protrusions each having a protruding structure corresponding to a structure of side grooves”
Claim 10, lines 5-6: The claim reads “wherein the slider is configured to move forwards or downwards on the main frame and the additional frame” should read “wherein the slider is configured to move forwards or rearwards on the main frame and the additional frame”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim states “a main frame having a bar shape elongated forwards and rearwards in a state in which an object to be cut is disposed in front of the small-sized wire saw device” in lines 2-5 of the claim. It is unclear as to what the applicant considers to be the “state”. It is not known from the claim if this limitation only requires the object to be cut to be in front of the device or if the device itself need to be disposed in a specific orientation or what other things may be required by the “state”. As such the scope of the claim cannot be discerned and the claim is rejected as indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-10, these claims are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the claim states “wherein the slider comprises a central groove having a structure corresponding to a structure of a central rail, first protrusions each having a structure corresponding to a structure of upper grooves, and second protrusions each having a protruding structure corresponding to a structure of side grooves” in lines 2-7 of the claim. It is unclear from the claim as to what structure the central rail, upper grooves and side grooves are comprised by. The claim does not link these features to previously claimed structures. As such, the scope of the claim is unclear and the claim is rejected as indefinite.
Regarding claim 6, the claim states “upper grooves respectively formed in a longitudinal direction at opposite sides of the central rail to have an engraved structure; and side grooves respectively formed in the longitudinal direction at opposite side surfaces of the main frame to have an engraved structure” in lines 5-10 of the claim. It is unclear what an “engraved structure” is. The common definition of engrave is to impress deeply, to cut or form by incision, or to form figures, letters or designs into. As such, it is unclear if this indication some aesthetic design on the central rail or an indication of the method by which these structures are formed in the central rail which renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (CN 112008154 A).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a small-sized wire saw device (Li, Fig. 1-8) comprising:
a stand (Li, Fig. 1-4 and 6, 1) comprising a main frame (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Li) below) having a bar shape elongated forwards and rearwards in a state in which an object to be cut is disposed in front of the small-sized wire saw device, an outer frame (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Li) below) disposed at a front portion of the main frame, and a connection frame (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Li) below) configured to interconnect the main frame and the outer frame;
a slider (Li, Fig. 4, 303) configured to move forwards or downwards on the main frame (Li, P. 0044);
a power unit (Li, Fig. 1-2, 4 and 6, 2) comprising a first motor (Li, Fig. 1-2, 4 and 6, 2) attached to an upper end of the slider;
a main wheel (Li, Fig. 1-3 and 5, 401) attached to one side surface of the power unit and configured to be rotated by the first motor (Li, P. 0020 and 0045); and
a second motor (Li, Fig. 1-4, 302) disposed at another side surface of the power unit and configured to support movement of the slider (Li, P. 0044).
PNG
media_image1.png
498
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses the small-sized wire saw device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a reducer (Li, Fig. 4, 305) disposed at the other surface of the power unit between the second motor and the slider and configured to transmit power generated from the second motor to the slider (Li, P. 0044).
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses the small-sized wire saw device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first hose (Li, Fig. 2, 502) connected to the first motor and configured to supply a coolant to the first motor (Li, P. 0037), when the first motor is an electric motor; and a second hose (Li, Fig. 6, 506) disposed between the first motor and the main wheel and configured to outwardly discharge the supplied coolant (Li, P. 0037).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses the small-sized wire saw device according to claim 1, wherein:
a vertical frame (Li, Fig. 2 and 5, 405 and 406) is provided at an upper end of the front portion of the main frame, and the outer frame (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Li) above) is provided at a lower end of the front portion of the main frame; and
an upper auxiliary wheel (Li, Fig. 1 and 5, 402) or a lower auxiliary wheel is provided at one side surface of the vertical frame, and a wire (Li, Fig. 1, 6) configured to be driven by the main wheel (Li, P. 0039) contacts the upper auxiliary wheel or the lower auxiliary wheel so as to be rotated.
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses the small-sized wire saw device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a bottom frame (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Li) above) installed at an upper end of the connection frame; and
auxiliary wheels (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Li) above) respectively attached to opposite ends of the bottom frame.
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.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 112008154 A).
Regarding claim 10, Li teaches the small-sized wire saw device according to claim 1.
Li does not teach the device further comprising: an additional frame connected to a rear portion of the main frame, wherein the slider is configured to move forwards or downwards on the main frame and the additional frame.
However, the additional frame is a duplication of the main frame (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Li) above) and would provide the same benefit as the main frame in allowing the slider to move forwards or downwards along its length which allows for the wire saw to cut objects of a larger longitudinal dimension. As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the wire saw device taught by Li to include an additional frame configured to move the slider forwards or downwards over both the main frame and the additional frame as such a duplication of parts only requires an level of ordinary skill in the art. Here the additional frame provides the same benefit as the main frame since both the additional frame and main frame share the same structure and the addition of the additional frame to the main frame has the expected benefit of allowing the slider to move a longer distance. Therefore, the limitation as claimed does not produce an unexpected result which has no patentable significance.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 112008154 A) in view of Rieger et al. (US 2022/0339722 A1), hereafter known as Rieger.
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches the small-sized wire saw device according to claim 1.
Li does not teach wherein the first motor comprises a pneumatic motor.
Rieger teaches a wire saw device wherein the first motor (Rieger, Fig. 4, 25) which powers a wheel (Rieger, Fig. 3, 23) that drives a wire (Rieger, Fig. 1, 3) may be a pneumatic, gas, electric, or hydraulic motor (Rieger, P. 0046).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the first motor taught by Li to be a pneumatic motor or any desirable alternative type of motor as it is well-known in the art to substitute one known motor type for another known equivalent motor type (see MPEP, 2144.06(I & II)). As taught by Rieger it is well known in the art to use gas, electric, hydraulic, and pneumatic motors to drive wire saws. As such, designating a well-known alternative motor type would only require a routine level of knowledge in the art.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 112008154 A) in view of Ward (US 4,184,719 A).
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches the small-sized wire saw device according to claim.
Li does not teach wherein the slider comprises a central groove having a structure corresponding to a structure of a central rail, first protrusions each having a structure corresponding to a structure of upper grooves, and second protrusions each having a protruding structure corresponding to a structure of side grooves.
Ward teaches a slider (Ward, Fig. 4 and 6, 66) and central rail (Ward, Fig. 1 and 6, 21) for a device in a related field of art wherein the slider comprises a central groove (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Ward) below) having a structure corresponding to a structure of a central rail (Ward, Fig. 1, 21), first protrusions (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Ward) below) each having a structure corresponding to a structure of upper grooves (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Ward) below), and second protrusions (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Ward) below) each having a protruding structure corresponding to a structure of side grooves (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Ward) below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the shape of the central rail and slider taught by Li to have the corresponding shapes as taught by Ward as such changes in shape only require a routine level of skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the claimed configuration is significant (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)). Here Ward shows that it is well known in the art to shape both the slider and central rail to have similar shapes as this allows for the slider to be securely held to the rail while also not impeding the sliding of the slider when desired.
PNG
media_image2.png
332
583
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
488
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches the small-sized wire saw device according to claim 1, wherein the main frame (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Li) above) comprise a central rail (Li, Fig. 4, 304) formed on a side of the main frame.
Li does not teach wherein the main frame comprises: a central rail formed at an upper end of the main frame to have a protruding structure; upper grooves respectively formed in a longitudinal direction at opposite sides of the central rail to have an engraved structure; and side grooves respectively formed in the longitudinal direction at opposite side surfaces of the main frame to have an engraved structure.
Ward teaches a main frame (Ward, Fig. 1 and 6, 10) comprising: a central rail (Ward, Fig. 1 and 6, 21) formed at an upper end of the main frame to have a protruding structure (Ward, Fig. 1, 21); upper grooves (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Ward) above) respectively formed in a longitudinal direction at opposite sides of the central rail to have an engraved structure; and side grooves (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Ward) above) respectively formed in the longitudinal direction at opposite side surfaces of the main frame to have an engraved structure.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the position of the central rail taught by Li such that it was positioned on the top of the main frame instead of the side of the main frame as taught by Ward as such rearrangement of parts is an obvious design choice that only requires an ordinary level of skill in the art as the repositioning of the central rail does not change the function of the component (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the central rail to include upper grooves on opposite longitudinal side surfaces of the central rail and to modify the main frame to include side grooves on opposite longitudinal side surfaces of the main frame as taught by Ward as such changes in shape only require a routine level of skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the claimed configuration is significant (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)). Here Ward shows that it is well known in the art to include grooves on the central rail and the main frame to allow the slider to provide surfaces for the slider to slide against.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 112008154 A) in view of Jonsson (US 8,955,505 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches the small-sized wire saw device according to claim 1.
Li does not teach the device further comprising: a controller connected to the second motor, wherein the controller comprises a first manipulator configured to control forward movement or rearward movement of the slider, and a second manipulator configured to control a speed of the slider.
Jonsson teaches a wire saw device (Jonsson, Fig. 24-25 and 26B-30) comprising: a controller (Jonsson, Fig. 24 and 26B, 300) connected to the second motor (Jonsson, Fig. 24, 105), wherein the controller comprises a first manipulator configured to control forward movement or rearward movement of the slider (Jonsson, Col. 13 line 57 – Col. 14 line 3), and a second manipulator configured to control a speed of the slider (Jonsson, Col. 13 line 57 – Col. 14 line 3). It should be noted that while Jonsson does not teach specific manipulators to control the position or speed of the slider, Jonsson does teach the use of buttons or switches to control motors (Jonsson, Col. 6, lines 21-23, Col. 14, lines 16-19) and consider adjusting speed for components operated by a motor (Jonsson, Col. 27, lines 17-42).
The whole of the teaches of Jonsson show that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the wire saw device taught by Li to include a controller connected to the second motor, wherein the controller comprises a first manipulator configured to control forward movement or rearward movement of the slider, and a second manipulator configured to control a speed of the slider as taught by Jonsson as this allows for fine control of the movement of the slider along the main frame during cutting. This is important for wire saws to avoid exerting too much force on the wire which may result in breaking the wire or stopping the wires from rotating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 pm.
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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724