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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 10/22/2024. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (Korean Patent Publication No. KR20220028324) as evidenced by the machine translation, in view of Davison (US Patent No. 5,123,462) and in further view of Baaske et al (US Patent No. 9,422,678), hereinafter referred to as Kim, Davison, and Baaske, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a cutting robot [Kim, fig 1, 10] comprising:
main frames [Kim, fig 6, 130 and 140 which shows at least two frame components each on either side, making at least a four frame components] respectively mounted on opposite sides of a self-propelled vehicle body [Kim, fig 2, 100, which includes two opposite sides of 130 mounted to 10 and per the abstract 10 is a robot which is interpreted to include a self-propelled vehicle body 20], wherein the main frames are rotatably movable upwards and downwards on the vehicle body [Kim, figs 2 and 6, showing that 130 and 140 adjust vertically];
first hydraulic cylinders configured to connect the vehicle body to the respective main frames so as to rotate the main frames [Kim, fig 7, 125 and 135 are connected to 110 to move 130 and 140];
a horizontal frame rotatably connected to front ends of the main frames [Kim, fig 6, 150];
second hydraulic cylinder configured to connect the main frames to the horizontal frame so as to rotate the horizontal frame [Kim, fig 6, 115 is configured to be connected to each 150 and 140 through at least intermediate members and allows for 150 to rotate horizontally relative to the vehicle];
a cutting frame mounted on an upper surface of the horizontal frame and configured to be rotatable in a left-and-right direction [Kim, fig 6, 160 and is configured to be rotated in a left and right direction];
third hydraulic cylinder configured to connect the horizontal frame to the cutting frame so as to rotate the cutting frame in the left-and-right direction [Kim, fig 6, 155 connects 150 to 160 and rotates 160 in horizontal direction];
a cutting blade mounting part mounted on a front end of the cutting frame and rotated around a horizontal rotation axis [Kim, fig 6, 170 mounted to the from part of 160 and is able to be rotated about a horizontal axis extending through 160 and 170] by a hydraulic motor [Kim, page 18, pp 0026, hydraulic motor 165]; and
a cutting blade detachably mounted on a cutting rotation shaft rotatably supported by the cutting blade mounting part [Kim, fig 6, 180 is mounted to 181], wherein the cutting blade is rotated by a hydraulic motor [Kim, page 31, pp 0052, 181 is a hydraulic motor].
Kim may not explicitly disclose second hydraulic cylinders, third hydraulic cylinders each configured to connect the horizontal frame to the cutting frame so as to rotate the cutting frame in the left-and-right direction, and the cutting blade mounting part rotated around a horizontal rotation axis by an electric motor.
Regarding the use of more than one hydraulic cylinder or cylinders in the second and third hydraulic cylinders, Davison teaches a cutting vehicle comprising:
main frames respectively mounted on opposite sides of a propelled vehicle body [Davison, fig 4, 50 and 51 are mounted to boy vehicle 90], wherein the main frames are rotatably movable upwards and downwards on the vehicle body [Davison, fig 2, showing 50/52 movable upwards and downwards];
first hydraulic cylinders configured to connect the vehicle body to the respective main frames so as to rotate the main frames [Davison, figs 2 and 4, 66 and 84];
a horizontal frame rotatably connected to the main frames [Davison, figs 2 and 4, 40];
second hydraulic cylinders configured to rotate the horizontal frame [Davison, fig 4, showing 32 and 34 which rotate 40 horizontally]; and
a cutting blade [Davison, fig 4, 70].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added at least an additional hydraulic cylinder to both the second and third hydraulic cylinder(s) of Kim as taught by Davison because this configuration adds robustness and redundancy to the system which improves reliability in working conditions.
Regarding the cutting blade mounting part being rotated around by an electric motor, Baaske teaches a cutting attachment [Baaske, abstract] comprising the use of electric motors being used for adjustment motors instead of hydraulic motors [Baaske, col 20, line 66 – col 21, lines 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dates of the claimed invention to have substituted the hydraulic motor of Kim for an electric motor as taught by Baaske because per MPEP 2143(I)(B) the substitution of elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Where in the instant case, that is the substitution of the electric motor as taught by Baaske for the hydraulic motor of the cutting blade mounting part of Kim, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. In the substitution each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of using the electric motor to rotate the cutting blade mounting part instead of a hydraulic motor.
Regarding claim 2, Kim as modified further discloses the cutting robot according to claim 1, wherein:
the main frames are rotatably connected to respective upper ends of vehicle body frames respectively fixed to the opposite sides of the vehicle body [Kim, 130 and 140 are rotatably connected to upper ends of the vehicle 20 body frame and fixed to the opposite sides of the vehicle body through at least intermediate members, the office notes that the claim does not say “directly connected” and so under a broad interpretation, intermediate members may be used to connect the elements], and
the first hydraulic cylinders connect respective middle portions of the vehicle body frames to respective middle portions of the main frames [Kim, fig 6, 125 and 135 are connected to the middle portions of the vehicle body frames to the middle of 130 and 140 through at least intermediate members, the office notes that the claim does not say “directly connected” and so under a broad interpretation, intermediate members may be used to connect the elements].
Regarding claim 4, Kim as modified further discloses the cutting robot according to claim 1, wherein the third hydraulic cylinders respectively connect cylinder connection shafts respectively provided at rear ends of opposite sides of the horizontal frame to cylinder connection shafts respectively provided at opposite sides of an upper surface of the cutting frame [Kim, fig 6, showing 166 is connected to lugs on 160 and to lugs on the rear end of 160].
Regarding claim 6, Kim as modified further discloses the cutting robot according to claim 1, further comprising a cover detachably mounted on the cutting blade mounting part and configured to cover a half of one side of the cutting blade [Kim, see annotated fig 6, item A is a cover and covers half of the blade].
PNG
media_image1.png
956
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (Korean Patent Publication No. KR20220028324) as evidenced by the machine translation, in view of Davison (US Patent No. 5,123,462) and in further view of Baaske et al (US Patent No. 9,422,678) as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Sudo et al (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2010214535) as evidenced by the machine translation, hereinafter referred to as Kim, Davison, Baaske, and Sudo, respectively.
Regarding claim 7, Kim as modified further discloses the cutting robot according to claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose the cover is rotatably mounted on the cutting blade mounting part, and a spring connects a front end of the horizontal frame to one side of the cover, thereby enabling the spring to rotate the cover when the cutting frame is rotated.
Sudo teaches a blade cutting tool [Sudo, fig 16] comprising a cutting blade mounting part [Sudo, fig 16, 50] comprising a cutting blade mounted thereon [Sudo, fig 16, 61], and a protective cover [Sudo, fig 13, 53 and 65], wherein the cover [Sudo, fig 13, 65] is rotatably mounted on the cutting blade mounting part [Sudo, figs 13a and 13b, showing 65 is mounted], and a spring connects a front end of the horizontal frame to one side of the cover [Sudo, fig 13a, 66], thereby enabling the spring to rotate the cover when the cutting frame is rotated [Sudo, page 42, pp 0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cutting blade mounting part and cover of Kim to include the spring and movable cover of Sudo because this reduces the amount of exposure when the blade is not in use [Sudo, pages 42-43, pp 0054, summarized].
Regarding claim 8, Kim as modified further discloses the cutting robot according to claim 6, wherein the cover comprises:
a main body part formed to have a semicircular disk shape, wherein the main body part has an incised portion formed at a central portion thereof [Kim, see annotated fig 6, showing item A is semicircular and is incised].
Kim as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the cover comprises: a curved cover part coupled to an outer circumferential surface of the main body part in a height adjustable manner.
Sudo teaches a blade cutting tool [Sudo, fig 16] comprising a cutting blade mounting part [Sudo, fig 16, 50] comprising a cutting blade mounted thereon [Sudo, fig 16, 61], and a protective cover [Sudo, fig 13, 63 and 65], wherein the cover [Sudo, fig 13, 65] is rotatably mounted on the cutting blade mounting part [Sudo, figs 13a and 13b, showing 65 is mounted], wherein the cover comprises: a main body part formed to have a semicircular disk shape, wherein the main body part has an incised portion formed at a central portion thereof [Sudo, fig 13, showing 63 and 65 are incised]; and a curved cover part coupled to an outer circumferential surface of the main body part in a height adjustable manner [Sudo, fig 13, showing 65 is curved and is adjustable in height in an adjustable manner by spring 66].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cutting blade mounting part and cover of Kim to include the spring and movable cover of Sudo because this reduces the amount of exposure when the blade is not in use [Sudo, pages 42-43, pp 0054, summarized].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (Korean Patent Publication No. KR20220028324) as evidenced by the machine translation, in view of Davison (US Patent No. 5,123,462) and in further view of Baaske et al (US Patent No. 9,422,678) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Combs III (US Patent No. 11,058,064), hereinafter referred to as Kim, Davison, Baaske, and Combs, respectively.
Regarding claim 10, Kim as modified further discloses the cutting robot according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a frame guide mounted on the upper surface of the horizontal frame so as to be rotatable in the left-and-right direction and configured to extendably and retractably support the cutting frame.
Combs teaches a cutting vehicle [Combs, fig 6, 600] comprising a blade [Combs, fig 6, blade] on a horizontal cutting blade mounting part [Combs, fig 1, 1 and 2 form the cutting blade mounting part], wherein the horizontal cutting blade mounting part further comprises a frame guide mounted on the upper surface of the horizontal frame [Combs, figs 1 and 6, 1 is a frame guide mounted to a frame guide interpreted to be the universal attachment plate] so as to be rotatable in the left-and-right direction [Combs, fig 6, because the first boom 1 is attached to the universal attachment plate, the first boom is configured to be moved in the left and right directions] and configured to extendably and retractably support the cutting frame [Combs, fig 1, showing that 2 extends outwards from 1 such that the cutting blade mounting part is extendable and retractable].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cutting blade mounting part of Kim to include the retractable boom configuration as taught by Combs because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) the combination of old elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to include the extendable boom as taught by Combs in the cutting blade mounting part of Kim as modified, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the extendable and retractable boom as taught by Combs in the system of Kim as modified because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being retractable boom and the cutting blade mounting part. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the retractable boom would extend the reach of the cutting blade mounting part to extend the reach of the cutting blade.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al (Korean Patent Publication No. KR20220028324) as evidenced by the machine translation, teaches the second hydraulic cylinders connected to a second horizontal base frame [Kim, fig 6, 110]. But is silent on the claimed connection points as required by the claim. Therefore the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “the second hydraulic cylinders respectively connect connection frames fixed to respective middle portions of the main frames to vertical frame parts each fixed to an upper side of the horizontal frame, and the vertical frame parts each have two or more connection portions respectively provided therein at different heights” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al (Korean Patent Publication No. KR20220028324) as evidenced by the machine translation, teaches the cutting blade mounting part has a horizontal rotation shaft mounted on the front end of the cutting frame [Kim, fig 6, showing a rotation shaft between 160 and 170].
The prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “the electric motor is mounted on an upper surface of the cutting frame and is decelerated by two reducers so as to perform forward and reverse rotation of the horizontal rotation shaft” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Regarding claim 9, Pu et al (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN110900844) as evidenced by the machine translation, teaches a robotic wire saw [Pu, fig 1, 2] but does not teach a wire wheel detachably mounted on the cutting rotation shaft since the device of Pu does not the use of a wheel, only rollers.
Therefore the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “a wire wheel detachably mounted on the cutting rotation shaft and configured to rotate a wire saw, wherein the wire wheel is used instead of the cutting blade” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Obrzut et al (US PGPUB No. 2019/0134851) teaches a robotic cutting vehicle for cutting stone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights