DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9-19 and 21 remain pending in the application. Claim 8 and 20 were cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 21 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Species A, Figures 7A-7B, vs species B Figures 7C.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species of Species A, Figures 7A-7B, vs species B Figures 7C. The species are independent or distinct because Species A, requires a tooth while species B requires a taper. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no generic claims.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
A) The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
B) The inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
C) The prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; or
D) The additional searching required for reviewing the results, potentially numbering in the 1000s, from key word text searches, as Species A requires tooth and Species B requires taper.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Accordingly, claim 21 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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, 5-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toba (US 20150047622 A1) in view of Raper (US 3316636).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Toba teaches a method of cutting an extrudate, comprising
extruding a first honeycomb (20) extrudate in a first direction (x-direction, see Figure 2);
engaging the first honeycomb extrudate with a cutting apparatus (100, see Figure 1-2), comprising:
a frame (14);
a first actuator coupled to the frame (vibrator in 12, paragraph 0057);
an elongate cutting element (10) extending between and coupled to a first portion of the frame at a first end of the elongate cutting element and a second portion of the frame at a second end of the elongate cutting element (left and right portion of 14, see Figure 1), the elongate cutting element comprising a first contact edge of the elongate cutting element (double cutting edge paragraph 0053, bottom cutting edge of 10 in Figure 10);
vibrating the frame with a vibratory oscillation produced by the first actuator and the first cutting element engaging an outer skin of the first honeycomb extrudate (see Figure 2),
traversing the frame in a second direction (Y direction) orthogonal to the first direction such that the elongate cutting element cuts through the first honeycomb extrudate as the frame is vibrated (see Figure 2, paragraph 0057).
Toba fails to teach a first single tooth, while the first tooth is engaged with the first honeycomb extrudate such that the first tooth pierces an outer skin of the first honeycomb extrudate (as required by claim 1), the elongate cutting element further comprises a second contact edge, the second contact edge comprising comprises a second single tooth (as required by claim 9).
Raper teaches a cutting tooth on a blade for better engage the work piece during cutting (col. 1 lines 21-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Toba to add a tooth to each side of the cutting edge, as taught by Raper, in order to better engage the work piece during cutting (col. 1 lines 21-30 of Raper).
Regarding claim 2, Toba teaches the elongate cutting element comprises a second single tooth on a second contact edge of the elongate cutting element opposite the first contact edge (using the saw variant of the blade with a double cutting edge, paragraph 0053), whereupon, after cutting through the first honeycomb extrudate, traversing the frame in a direction opposite the second direction such that the elongate cutting element engages with a second honeycomb extrudate and the second single tooth pierces an outer skin of the second honeycomb extrudate, the elongate cutting edge cutting through the second honeycomb extrudate as the frame traverses in the direction opposite the second direction (using the saw variant of the blade with a double cutting edge, paragraph 0053, see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Toba teaches the vibrating the frame causes a vibratory oscillation of the elongate cutting element in a direction orthogonal to the first direction .
Regarding claim 6, Toba teaches a frequency of the vibratory oscillation is in a range from 5 Hz to 1000 Hz (0.3 kHz, paragraph 0059).
Regarding claim 10, Toba teaches translating the frame in a direction orthogonal to the first and the second directions as the elongate cutting element is engaged with the first honeycomb extrudate (see Figure 2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toba (US 20150047622 A1) in view of Raper (US 3316636) and in further view of Fairfield (US 3674065).
Regarding claim 3, modified Toba teaches all elements of the current elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 stated above.
Modified Toba finals to teach reducing modal vibrations of the elongate cutting element in a direction orthogonal to a length direction of the elongate cutting element by engaging the elongate cutting element with at least a first set of static fluid bearings that exert a first fluid pressure on a first side face and a second side face of the elongate cutting element, and wherein the first set of static fluid bearings do not contact the elongate cutting element.
Fairfield teaches at least one set of fluid bearings (6 and 7), the at least one set of fluid bearings does not contact the one or more longitudinal cutting blades but is configured to exert fluid pressure on a first side face and a second side face of the one or more longitudinal cutting blades (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Toba to add the fluid bearings, as taught by Fairfield, in order to increase accuracy of the blade (col. 1 lines 11-15 of Fairfield).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toba (US 20150047622 A1) in view of Raper (US 3316636) and in further view of Fairfield (US 3674065) and in further view of Yamasaki (US 7228855 B2).
Regarding claim 4, modified Toba teaches Toba teaches all elements of the current elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 3 stated above.
Modified Toba finals to teach the reducing comprises engaging the elongate cutting element with a second set of static fluid bearings spaced apart from the first set of static fluid bearings, the second set of static fluid bearings exerting a second fluid pressure on the first side face and the second side face, and wherein the second set of static fluid bearings do not contact the elongate cutting element.
Yamasaki teaches a saw device with an actuator (ascending/descending unit, col.5 lines 42-65), a frame (16), a support plate (19), two bearings (20s) and one or more longitudinal cutting blades (18) mounted together (see Figure 1), wherein the at least one set of fluid bearings enclosing both a longitudinal first contact edge and a longitudinal second contact edge of the one or more cutting blades (see Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Toba to have two fluid bearings, as taught by Yamasaki, in order to teach a mounting method for the bearings in relation to a cutting device that is movable (see Figure 7 and col.5 lines 42-65 of Yamaski).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toba (US 20150047622 A1) in view of Raper (US 3316636) and in further view of Biagiotti (US 5873806).
Regarding claim 7, Toba further teaches M is a unknown value; P is selected from within a range between 0 watts and 20 kilowatts (50 W, paragraph 0067); A is a second unknown value; and f is selected from within the range of 5 Hz to 1000 Hz (0.3 kHz, paragraph 0059).
Toba fails to teach a combined mass of vibratory oscillating components of the cutting apparatus is less than a mass defined by P/(A²4π³f³), where A is a displacement of the elongate cutting element as a result of the vibratory oscillation, P is the power at a tip of the first tooth, and f is the frequency of the vibratory oscillation.
Biagiotti teaches a cutting system with a reciprocating motion for cutting, wherein minimize the mass in the system reduce the inertial forces (col. 1 lines 45-57).
Therefore, as taught by Biagiotti, minimize the mass in the system reduce the inertial forces (col. 1 lines 45-57), therefore the mass in the system is considered as a result effected variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the specific size of M, A and the relationship of M = P/((A^2)(4π^3)(f^3)), in an attempt to provide a system with less vibration as required by the end user, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue all known options within his or her technical grasp.
Furthermore, Biagiotti recognized a design need for less mass to reduce vibration and there are a finite number of solutions available based on the materials and formula being used, also described by Biagiotti (col. 1 lines 45-57 of Biagiotti). See MPEP § 2144.05 II. (B) and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), (the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions).
Claims 11-12, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toba (US 20150047622 A1) in view of Kosashiwa (JP 2022007043) and Raper (US 3316636).
Regarding claim 11, Toba teaches a method of cutting an extrudate, comprising
extruding a first honeycomb extrudate in a first direction (x-direction, see Figure 2);
engaging the first honeycomb extrudate with a cutting apparatus (See Figure 2), comprising:
a frame (14);
a first actuator coupled to the frame (vibrator within 12, paragraph 0053);
an elongate cutting element extending between a first portion of the frame and a second portion of the frame, the elongate cutting element comprising a first contact edge of the elongate cutting element and a second contact edge of the elongate cutting element opposite the first contact edge (using the saw variant of the blade with a double cutting edge, paragraph 0053); and
vibrating the frame with a vibratory oscillation produced by the first actuator as the elongate cutting element is engaged with the honeycomb extrudate such that the cutting end pierces an outer skin of the first honeycomb extrudate (paragraph 0052 and 0057);
traversing the frame in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction with the frame undergoes the vibratory oscillation (See Figure 2); and
upon cutting through the first honeycomb extrudate, traversing the frame in a third direction opposite the second direction such that the elongate cutting element engages with a second honeycomb extrudate while the frame undergoes the vibratory oscillation and the second cutting edge pierces an outer skin of the second honeycomb extrudate, the elongate cutting edge cutting through the second honeycomb extrudate as the frame traverses in the third direction (see Figure 2).
Toba fails to teach a second actuator coupled to the frame, a first/second tooth, while the first/second tooth is engaged with the first honeycomb extrudate such that the first/second tooth pierces an outer skin of the first honeycomb extrudate (as required by claim 11), the first contact edge comprises a single tooth (as required by claim 20).
Kosashiwa teaches the second actuator (robot arm 500, see Figure 15) is configured to impart a major transverse movement wherein the major transverse movement is substantially orthogonal to the major axial movement and move in the major axial movement (see Figure 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Toba to change the second actuator in the robot actuator, as taught by Kosashiwa, in order to cut thing at angle (last paragraph of page 47 and first paragraph of page 48 in the PDF doc attached).
Raper teaches a cutting tooth on a blade for better engage the work piece during cutting (col. 1 lines 21-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Toba to add a tooth to each side of the cutting edge, as taught by Raper, in order to better engage the work piece during cutting (col. 1 lines 21-30 of Raper).
Regarding claim 12, modified Toba further teaches translating the frame in a fourth direction orthogonal to the first, the second, and the third directions as the elongate cutting element is engaged with the first honeycomb extrudate (as modified by Tanaka using the robot arm for movement, see Figure 1 of Tanaka).
Regarding claim 15, modified Toba further teaches the vibrating the frame causes a vibratory oscillation of the elongate cutting element in a direction orthogonal to the first direction (See Figure 2 of Toba).
Regarding claim 16, modified Toba further teaches a frequency of the vibratory oscillation is in a range from 5 Hz to 1000 Hz (0.3 kHz abstract of Toba).
Regarding claim 19, modified Toba further teaches the first tooth is positioned substantially equidistant from a first end and a second end of the elongate cutting element (pick the middle tooth as the first tooth for the device, see Figure 1 of Toba).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toba (US 20150047622 A1) in view of Kosashiwa (JP 2022007043) and Raper (US 3316636) and in further view of Fairfield (US 3674065).
Regarding claim 13, Toba teaches all elements of the current elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 11 stated above.
Toba finals to teach reducing modal vibrations of the elongate cutting element in a direction orthogonal to a length direction of the elongate cutting element by engaging the elongate cutting element with at least a first set of static fluid bearings that exert a first fluid pressure on a first side face and a second side face of the elongate cutting element, and wherein the first set of static fluid bearings do not contact the elongate cutting element.
Fairfield teaches at least one set of fluid bearings (6 and 7), the at least one set of fluid bearings does not contact the one or more longitudinal cutting blades but is configured to exert fluid pressure on a first side face and a second side face of the one or more longitudinal cutting blades (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Toba to add the fluid bearings, as taught by Fairfield, in order to increase accuracy of the blade (col. 1 lines 11-15 of Fairfield).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toba (US 20150047622 A1) in view of Kosashiwa (JP 2022007043) and Raper (US 3316636) and in further view of Fairfield (US 3674065) and in further view of Yamasaki (US 7228855 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Toba teaches Toba teaches all elements of the current elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 13 stated above.
Toba finals to teach the reducing comprises engaging the elongate cutting element with a second set of static fluid bearings spaced apart from the first set of static fluid bearings, the second set of static fluid bearings exerting a second fluid pressure on the first side face and the second side face, and wherein the second set of static fluid bearings do not contact the elongate cutting element.
Yamasaki teaches a saw device with an actuator (ascending/descending unit, col.5 lines 42-65), a frame (16), a support plate (19), two bearings (20s) and one or more longitudinal cutting blades (18) mounted together (see Figure 1), wherein the at least one set of fluid bearings enclosing both a longitudinal first contact edge and a longitudinal second contact edge of the one or more cutting blades (see Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Toba to have two fluid bearings, as taught by Yamasaki, in order to teach a mounting method for the bearings in relation to a cutting device that is movable (see Figure 7 and col.5 lines 42-65 of Yamaski).
Claim 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toba (US 20150047622 A1) in view of Kosashiwa (JP 2022007043) and Raper (US 3316636) and in further view of Biagiotti (US 5873806).
Regarding claim 17, Toba further teaches M is a unknown value; P is selected from within a range between 0 watts and 20 kilowatts (50 W, paragraph 0067); A is a second unknown value; and f is selected from within the range of 5 Hz to 1000 Hz (0.3 kHz, paragraph 0059).
Toba fails to teach a combined mass of vibratory oscillating components of the cutting apparatus is less than a mass defined by P/(A²4π³f³), where A is a displacement of the elongate cutting element as a result of the vibratory oscillation, P is the power at a tip of the first tooth, and f is the frequency of the vibratory oscillation.
Biagiotti teaches a cutting system with a reciprocating motion for cutting, wherein minimize the mass in the system reduce the inertial forces (col. 1 lines 45-57).
Therefore, as taught by Biagiotti, minimize the mass in the system reduce the inertial forces (col. 1 lines 45-57), therefore the mass in the system is considered as a result effected variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the specific size of M, A and the relationship of M = P/((A^2)(4π^3)(f^3)), in an attempt to provide a system with less vibration as required by the end user, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue all known options within his or her technical grasp.
Furthermore, Biagiotti recognized a design need for less mass to reduce vibration and there are a finite number of solutions available based on the materials and formula being used, also described by Biagiotti (col. 1 lines 45-57 of Biagiotti). See MPEP § 2144.05 II. (B) and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), (the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Toba further teaches the combined mass is an unknown value.
Modified Toba fails to teach less than about 500 kg.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific mass of less than 500kg, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Toba to have the desired mass wanted by the end user for the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument based Toba fails to teach “a first single tooth”. The examiner disagree and notes that Toba teaches a cutting edge without teeth, and Raper teaches tooth are use to better engage the work piece, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Toba to add a tooth to each side of the cutting edge, as taught by Raper, in order to better engage the work piece during cutting (col. 1 lines 21-30 of Raper), which meets the limitation, since the modification is only add one tooth on each side.
Conclusion
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 LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 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, Ashley Boyer 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights