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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1,4,5,12,16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russian document ‘863 in view of Leeming et al. (US 20210003006).
Russian document ‘863 discloses a method of mining rock using a disc cutter (1,2) comprising a cutter body with a diameter, d, and a thickness, t, a plurality of tool holders (4) mounted about a peripheral surface of the cutter body and a plurality of cutting elements (diamond) attached to the tool holders, the method comprising the steps: cutting a first slot in the rock at a first cutting position of the disc cutter (slot to right see Fig. 1), moving the disc cutter to a second cutting position, and cutting a second slot in the rock, such that the second slot is spaced apart from the first slot by distance S (see Fig. 1), at least one of the first and second slots having a depth of slot D. Russian document ‘863 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Russian document is silent wherein a ratio of depth of slot D, to distance S, is in the range of 2 to 16. Leeming et al. teaches a cutting depth of .4m and spacing between cutting slots .3m, this can be increased or decreased depending on the force required for breakout (see para 0045). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russian document ‘863 to have the cutting depth of .4m and spacing between cutting slots to be lowered than .3m as taught by Leeming et al. ‘006 since such a modification is based on the force required for breakout. Further, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Russian document ‘863 (as modified above) to have the slot spacing be .2m since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F .2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
The limitation “wherein a ratio of depth of slot D, to distance S, is in the range of 2 to 16” is met by the above dimensions.
Re claim 4, wherein the depth of slot D is in the range of 300 to 800 mm (see para 0045 of Leeming et al.).
Re claim 5, wherein the depth of slot D is in the range of 300 to 400 mm (see para 0045 of Leeming et al.).
Re claim 12, wherein the distance, S, is in the range of 50 to 200 mm (see modification above).
Re claims 16-20, Russian document ‘863 (as modified above) is silent about the particular slot width and the unconfined compressive rock strength as called for in claims 16-20. It is well known that the width of the slot when quarrying stone is based on several factors but not limited to mechanical properties of the rock (hardness and abrasiveness of the stone), the physical dimensions and specifications of the cutting tool (machine power, diamond chain saw, circular saw etc). It is well known that the unconfined compressive rock strength varies depending on whether the rock is considered as weak (shale) or extremely strong (dolerite).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter to further modify Russian document ‘863 (as modified above) to have the particular slot width and the unconfined compressive rock strength as called for in claims 16-20 since such a modification would be based on the particular cutting tool being used and particular material being cut to yield the desired result (target block size).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russian document ‘863 in view of Leeming et al. ‘006 as applied to claims 4,1 above, and further in view of Chinese document (CN 1727638)
Russian document ‘863 (as modified above) is directed to extraction of natural stone by open and underground methods (stone sawing) (see machine translation). Chinese document teaches quarry stone mining wherein the depth of the slot can be in the range of 500mm-1000mm (see machine translation). Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter to further modify Russian document ‘863 (as modified above), wherein the depth of slot D is in the range as called for in claims 6-8 as taught by Chinese document since such parameters would be based on many design constraints such as environmental factors (dust, noise), the particular use of the stone and/or the hardness of the stone.
Claim(s) 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russian document ‘863 in view of Leeming et al. ‘006 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Korean document (KR 20210007555).
Russian document ‘863 (as modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Russian document ‘863 (as modified above) is silent about at least partially inserting a rock breaker tool into the first and second slots. Korean document ‘555 teaches to at least partially inserting a rock breaker tool into the first and second slots (see Figs. 2a-3). Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Russian document ‘863 (as modified above) to at least partially inserting a rock breaker tool into the first and second slots as taught by Korean document ’555 since such a modification facilitates fracturing of the stone (retrieve the desired block).
Re claim 22, the method further comprises forming an indentation in rock
adjacent to the first and/or second slots (see Figs. 2a-3 of Korean document).
Re claim 23, wherein the indentation is formed to a depth that is up to 20% of the distance S (see Figs. 2a-3 of Korean document).
Re claim 24, wherein the indentation is formed at a position located in the or each slot, which is measured away from an opening of the slot and equivalent to at least 15% of the depth of slot (see Figs. 2a-3 of Korean document).
Re claim 25, wherein the or each indentation is formed at or proximate to a floor of the slot (see Figs. 2a-3 of Korean document).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russian document ‘863 in view of Leeming et al. and Korean document ‘555 as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Japanese document (JP 60-14190).
Russian document (as twice modified above) discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Russian document ‘863 (as twice modified above) is silent about forming an indentation into adjacent rock of the first and second slots, wherein said indentations face each other. Japanese document ‘190 teaches forming an indentation into adjacent rock of the first and second slots, wherein said indentations face each other (see Figs. 2,7,8).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Russian document ‘863 (as twice modified above) to form an indentation into adjacent rock of the first and second slots, wherein said indentations face each other as taught by Japanese document ‘190 since such a modification provides the desired fracturing of the stone.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,4-8,12,16-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on at least one reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7051. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-3, F 9-8 and 2nd Sat 11-7.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571 270 5281. 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.
/SUNIL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SS
9/5/2026
Prosecution Insights