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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 22 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 and 28 are pending, of which claims 7-14, 16-19, and 28 are withdrawn (see the Election/Restriction section below for a discussion regarding the restriction requirement with respect to Group E, encompassing claim 15, being withdrawn).
Election/Restriction
Initially, the restriction requirement with respect to Group E as set forth in the Restriction Requirement mailed 24 March 2026 is withdrawn. Following a search of the elected Group A, the examiner has determined that it would be unreasonable to maintain the requirement with between Groups A and E. As such, the restriction requirement with respect to Group E is withdrawn (although the restriction between the remainder of Groups remains in effect).
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I in the reply filed on 22 May 2026 is acknowledged. Further, Applicant's election with traverse of Group A in the reply filed on 22 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 1 presents a special technical feature, since US Pub. No. 2021/0343436 A1 to Morikawa et al. is subject to the 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C) exception. This argument not found persuasive because, notwithstanding the availability of the Morikawa reference as prior art under 35 USC 102, it remains the case that claim 1 does not present a special technical feature. As explained below, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 5,263,062 to Guigon et al. in view of US Pub. No. 2021/0287817 A1 to Hwang et al. As such, the features of claim 1 do not make a contribution over the prior art, and the features of claim 1 do not constitute a special technical feature. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 3 of paragraph e. recites, “the reactor vessel”. This recitation should read – a reactor vessel –, or alternatively the preamble of the claim should be amended to read – A cutting device for cutting a reactor vessel –. As the claim presently reads, the preamble describes a purpose of the cutting device, but does not introduce a reactor vessel. As such, paragraph e. should refer to a reactor vessel since no vessel is previously introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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:
“a magnetic stabilization system” as recited in claim 1 (first, “system” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “operable to hold the cutter carriage to a vessel wall of the reactor vessel”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – in this case, the term “magnetic” preceding the generic placeholder is insufficient structure for performing the claimed function since various structures such as an electric motor include a magnet but do not perform the recited function).
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 § 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) 1-4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 5,263,062 to Guigon et al. in view of US Pub. No. 2021/0287817 A1 to Hwang et al.
Regarding claim 1, Guigon discloses a reactor vessel cutting device (see Fig. 1 and the Abstract), comprising:
a. a hoist system (including support base 8, bridge 9, cable 10 and the winch of col. 3, lines 37-41);
b. a cutter 30 (as noted below, the shaft 28 can optionally be considered as part of the cutter, such that references to ‘cutter 30’ below are optionally interpreted as including the shaft 28); and
c. a cutter carriage (including elements 14, 15, 16, and 17a and two stabilization systems, where one stabilization system includes elements 20, 20’, 22, 22’, 24, and 24’ and where another stabilization system includes elements 21, 21’, 23, 23’, 25, and 25’) secured to the hoist system to be suspended by the hoist system (see Figs. 1-2, col. 3, lines 43-49, and col. 4, lines 60-62), and
d. wherein the cutter 30 is secured to a carriage body 14, 15, 16, and 17a of the cutter carriage to be carried by the carriage body 14, 15, 16, and 17a (see Fig. 2 and col. 5, lines 36-45; the cutter 30 is secured to the carriage body 14, 15, 16, and 17a via shaft 28; alternatively, the shaft 28 can be considered as a component of the cutter, such that the cutter includes elements 28 and 30),
e. wherein the cutter carriage includes a stabilization system (the stabilization system including elements 20, 20’, 22, 22’, 24, and 24’) secured to the carriage body 14, 15, 16, and 17a (see Fig. 2) and operable to hold the cutter carriage to a vessel wall 6 of the reactor vessel 1 (see Figs. 1 and 2; see also col. 5, lines 66-68), and
f. wherein the cutter carriage is operable to move the cutter 30 relative to the vessel wall 6 while the cutter carriage is held against the vessel wall by the stabilization system (see Fig. 2 and col. 6, lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 2, Guigon discloses that the cutter carriage is operable to apply the cutter 30 to the vessel wall 6 in a mechanical cutting operation (see col. 5, lines 43-45 and col. 6, lines 9-12) while the cutter carriage is held against the vessel wall 6 by the stabilization system (see Fig. 2, col. 5, lines 66-68, and col. 6, lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 3, Guigon discloses that the hoist system includes a support base 8 and a retractable suspension line 10 to which the cutter carriage is secured (see Figs. 1 and 2; the line 10 is retractable by operation of the winch – see, e.g., col. 6, lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 4, Guigon discloses that the hoist system is configured to bear the weight of the cutter carriage and the cutter 30 (see Figs. 1 and 2; the hoist system also bears the weight of the cutter carriage and the cutter 30 during, e.g., raising and lowering of the cutter carriage and the cutter 30).
Regarding claim 15, Guigon discloses that the cutter includes a circular saw blade 30 (see col. 5, lines 43-45).
Moreover, the products 12 gripped by the stabilization system of Guigon are metal (see the Abstract).
Still, Guigon fails to disclose that the stabilization system is magnetic as required by claim 1.
Hwang teaches a reactor cutting device 130 having a stabilization system 134 that is magnetic (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 46). Hwang teaches that the stabilization system is able to support a cut portion (in particular, portion 42 of tube 40) with magnetic force, thus preventing the cut portion from falling downward (see paragraph 46).
Therefore, since the stabilization system of Guigon grips a cut product and transports the cut product to a compacting press, and since the cut product of Guigon is a metal product, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the stabilization system of Guigon with magnetic properties as taught by Hwang, in particular by providing the product-contacting pads 22 and 22’ of Guigon with magnetic properties. This modification is advantageous to enhance the grip between the stabilization system and the cut product, thus reducing the likelihood of the cut product being dropped. Rather than merely relying on friction to retain the cut product, this modification enhances the connection between the stabilization system and the cut product by further providing a magnetic connection (at least when the cut product is made of a magnetically attractable metal, such as iron or steel).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guigon as modified by Hwang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2009/0245451 A1 to Funkhouser.
Regarding claim 5, Guigon, as modified, discloses that the cutter carriage is secured to a line 10 of the hoist system (see Figs. 1 and 2 and col. 4, lines 60-62 of Guigon).
Guigon, as modified, fails to disclose that the hoist system including a chain fall hoist, and that the line of the hoist to which the cutter carriage is secured is a chain, as required by claim 5.
Funkhouser teaches a hoist system that includes a chain fall hoist 94 (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 39). [Claim 5] Funkhouser teaches that the chain fall hoist is usable to lift, position, and lower reactor service equipment relative to a reactor vessel 10 (see Fig. 9 and the Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art under KSR Rationale B – simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results to substitute a chain fall hoist as taught by Funkhouser in place of the winch and line of Guigon, as modified, by securing the cutter carriage of Guigon, as modified, to a chain of the chain fall hoist of Funkhouser. First, Guigon, as modified, differs from the device of claim 5 by the substitution of a chain fall hoist in place of the hoist of Guigon. Funkhouser, though, teaches a chain fall hoist usable to lift, position, and lower reactor service equipment relative to a reactor vessel, which is a function performed by the hoist of Guigon. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a chain fall hoist as taught by Funkhouser in place of the winch and line of Guigon, as modified, the results of this substitution would have been predictable. No function of Guigon, as modified, is changed by this modification – instead, the structure used to lower, position, and raise the cutter carriage is merely changed. Funkhouser teaches that a chain fall hoist is a suitable structure for lifting, positioning, and lowering reactor service equipment relative to a reactor vessel, so using a chain fall hoist to lift, position, and lower a cutter carriage that services a reactor relative to a reactor vessel is predictable.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guigon as modified by Hwang and Funkhouser as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2011/0185867 A1 to MacNeil et al.
Regarding claim 6, Guigon, as modified, teaches that the hoist system includes a chain (see the rejection of claim 5 above, where the chain fall hoist of Funkhouser includes a chain), and the cutter carriage is secured to the chain (see the rejection of claim 5 above).
Guigon, as modified, fails to disclose that the hoist system includes two chains in parallel, and that the cutter carriage is secured to each of the two chains as required by claim 6.
MacNeil, though, teaches a hoist system that includes two lines 104 in parallel (see Fig. 1), where a suspended structure 103 is secured to each of the two lines 104 (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the hoist system of Guigon, as modified, with two chains in parallel, where the cutter carriage is secured to each of the chains, in view of MacNeil teaching securing a suspended structure from multiple parallel lines. This modification is advantageous for multiple reasons. First, the load on each chain is reduce by providing multiple chains, such that the risk of chain failure is reduced because the load is spread between multiple chains. Second, in the event that one chain does fail, safety is regardless retained because a second chain is provided for back-up, such that this modification provides redundancy. Third, providing multiple points of contact with the cutter carriage allows for better horizontal control of the cutter carriage. With only a single chain, the mass of the cutter carriage must be precisely aligned with the chain in order to balance the cutter carriage in a desired horizontal alignment. However, by providing multiple chains, where the chains are attached to the cutter carriage at spaced apart locations, allows for raising or lowering one of the chains to achieve a desired orientation of the cutter carriage (such as a horizontal orientation). In other words, providing multiple chains allows for better positional control of the cutter carriage since one of the chains can be adjusted to adjust the position of the cutter carriage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights