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
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 October 2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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: “d”, “t”, and “12”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate both “cutting assembly” and “disc cutter”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “32” and “34”.
The drawings are objected to because:
Regarding Figs. 1 and 3, it is unclear what the number “4” surrounded by a circle (
PNG
media_image1.png
16
29
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) represents.
Regarding Fig. 2, it is unclear what the number “1” surrounded by a circle and the number “3” surrounded by a circle represent.
PNG
media_image2.png
51
71
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Fig. 2, the numbers and text matter located to the right of the number “1” surrounded by a circle and the number “3” surrounded by a circle are difficult to read.
Regarding Fig. 4, it is unclear what the number “1” surrounded by a circle, the number “2” surrounded by a circle, and the number “3” surrounded by a circle represent.
PNG
media_image3.png
93
117
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is unclear if Figs. 5 and 6 illustrate prior art. Figs. 5 and 6 are labeled “prior art” is the drawings but are not described as prior art in the specification.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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.
Claims 1 - 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boland et al. (US 2003/0150442).
Regarding claim 1, Boland discloses a method of mining rock using a disc cutter comprising a cutter body (saw body 230) with a diameter d, a plurality of tool holders (cutting segment 232) mounted about a peripheral surface of the cutter body (230) and a plurality of cutting elements (10) attached to the tool holders, the method comprising cutting a slot with a slot depth D in the rock at a cutting position of the disc cutter, wherein a rotational speed of the disc cutter during cutting is greater than 60 rpm (1000 rpm) (Figs. 3 and 3a; abstract; paragraphs 0002, 0004, 0026 - 0028, 0032, 0034, 0060, 0094, and 0099 - 0101).
Regarding claim 2, Boland further discloses the cutting elements comprise polycrystalline diamond (PDC) (paragraphs 0026, 0032, and 0034).
Regarding claim 3, Boland further discloses the cutting elements are polycrystalline diamond compacts (PDCs) (PDC comprising polycrystalline diamond in a silicon carbide matrix) (paragraph 0032).
Regarding claims 4 - 7, Boland further discloses the rotational speed of the disc cutter during cutting is greater than 80 rpm (1000 rpm) (paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 16, Boland further discloses a feed rate of the rock to the cutter body is from approximately 0.25 m/min to approximately 10 m/min (1 m/min) (paragraph 0060).
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.
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.
Claims 1 - 8, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeming et al. (US 2021/0032988) in view of Boland et al.
Regarding claim 1, Leeming discloses a method of mining rock using a disc cutter (18) comprising a cutter body (20) with a diameter d, a plurality of tool holders (24) mounted about a peripheral surface of the cutter body and a plurality of cutting elements (22) attached to the tool holders, the method comprising cutting a slot (cuts formed by disk cutters 18) having a narrow width (16mm) with a slot depth D in the rock at a cutting position of the disc cutter (18); and rotating the disk cutter (18) (Figs. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10a, and 10b; paragraphs 0035, 0040, 0044, 0053, 0055, and 0073). Leeming fails to disclose wherein a rotational speed of the disc cutter during cutting is greater than 60 rpm. Boland teaches a disc cutter having a rotational speed that is greater than 60 rpm (1000 rpm) (paragraph 0060). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed by Leeming with the rotational speed as taught by Boland as a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the properties of the rock through which the disc cutter is cutting.
Regarding claim 2, Leeming further discloses the cutting elements comprise polycrystalline diamond (PCD) (paragraphs 0057 - 0060).
Regarding claim 3, Leeming further discloses the cutting elements are polycrystalline diamond compacts (PDCs) (paragraph 0018).
Regarding claims 4 - 7, Leeming discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the rotational speed of the disc cutter. Boland teaches the rotational speed of the disc cutter during cutting is greater than 80 rpm (1000 rpm) (paragraph 0060). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the rotational speed as taught by Boland based upon the properties of the rock through which the disc cutter cuts to produce a narrow slot.
Regarding claim 8, Leeming further discloses a ratio of the slot depth to the diameter of the cutter body (20) is less than 0.50 (paragraph 0050 teaches a slot depth of up to 400 mm and a diameter of the cutter body of 1000 mm; paragraph 0082 teaches a slot depth of 50 mm - 100 mm and a diameter of the cutter body of 300 mm).
Regarding claim 11, Leeming further discloses a ratio of the slot depth (50 mm - 100 mm) to the diameter (300 mm) of the cutter body is at least 0.15 (paragraph 0082).
Regarding claim 12, Leeming further discloses a ratio of the slot depth (500 mm - 100 mm) to the diameter (300 mm) of the cutter body is at least 0.20 (paragraph 0082). Examiner notes that range of the ratio of the slot depth to the diameter of the cutter body includes ratios of at least 0.20. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the ratio as disclosed by Leeming with the ratio that is at least 0.20 since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, Leeming discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a feed rate of the rock to the cutter body is from approximately 0.25 m/min to approximately 10 m/min. Boland teaches a feed rate of the rock to the cutter body is from approximately 0.25 m/min to approximately 10 m/min (1 m/min) (paragraph 0060). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the feed rate as taught by Boland to optimize cutting efficiency based upon the properties of the rock through which the disc cutter cuts.
Regarding claim 17, Leeming further discloses a cutting width is from approximately 8 mm to approximately 70 mm (16 mm) (paragraph 0073).
Regarding claim 19, Leeming further discloses the slot depth is from approximately 150 mm to approximately 2500 mm (paragraph 0050 teaches a slot depth of up to 400 mm). Examiner notes that range of slot depths as taught by Leeming include values within the claimed range. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the slot depth as disclosed by Leeming so that the depth is between approximately 150 mm and approximately 2500 mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (CCPA 1955).
Claims 2, 8, 11, 12, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boland et al. in view of Leeming et al.
Regarding claim 2, Boland fails to explicitly teach the cutting elements comprise polycrystalline diamond (PCD). Leeming teaches cutting elements comprising polycrystalline diamond (PCD) or polycrystalline diamond compacts (PDC) (paragraphs 0018 and 0057 - 0060). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the cutting elements comprising PCD as taught by Leeming for the cutting elements as disclosed by Boland as a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the properties of the rock through which the disc cutter cuts. The substitution of one known element (PCD as taught by Leeming) for another (diamond material as disclosed by Boland) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007).
Regarding claim 8, Boland discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a ratio of the slot depth D to the diameter d of the cutter body is less than 0.50. Leeming teaches a ratio of the slot depth to the diameter of the cutter body (20) is less than 0.50 (paragraph 0050 teaches a slot depth of up to 400 mm and a diameter of the cutter body of 1000 mm; paragraph 0082 teaches a slot depth of 50 mm - 100 mm and a diameter of the cutter body of 300 mm). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the ratio of slot depth to the diameter of the cutter body as taught by Leeming to create a slot having a small width so that there is less rock wastage.
Regarding claim 11, Boland discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a ratio of the slot depth D to the diameter d of the cutter body is at least 0.15. Leeming further discloses a ratio of the slot depth (50 mm - 100 mm) to the diameter (300 mm) of the cutter body is at least 0.15 (paragraph 0082). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the ratio of slot depth to the diameter of the cutter body as taught by Leeming as a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the desired size of the slot to be formed and the materials through which the disc cutter cuts.
Regarding claim 12, Boland fails to disclose the ratio of the slot depth D to the diameter d of the cutter body is at least 0.20. Leeming teaches a ratio of the slot depth (500 mm - 100 mm) to the diameter (300 mm) of the cutter body is at least 0.20 (paragraph 0082). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the ratio of slot depth to the diameter of the cutter body as taught by Leeming as a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the desired size of the slot to be formed and the materials through which the disc cutter cuts. Examiner notes that range of the ratio of the slot depth to the diameter of the cutter body includes ratios of at least 0.20. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the ratio as disclosed by Leeming with the ratio that is at least 0.20 since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, Boland discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a cutting width is from approximately 8 mm to approximately 70 mm. Leeming teaches a cutting width is from approximately 8 mm to approximately 70 mm (16 mm) (paragraph 0073). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the cutting width as taught by Leeming as a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the desired size of the slot.
Regarding claim 19, Boland discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the slot depth D is from approximately 150 mm to approximately 2500 mm. Leeming teaches the slot depth is from approximately 150 mm to approximately 2500 mm (paragraph 0050 teaches a slot depth of up to 400 mm). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the slot depth as taught by Leeming as a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the desired size of the slot. Examiner notes that range of slot depths as taught by Leeming include values within the claimed range. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the slot depth as disclosed by Leeming so that the depth is between approximately 150 mm and approximately 2500 mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (CCPA 1955).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boland et al. in view of Leeming et al. (US 2021/0010371; hereinafter Leeming ‘371). Boland discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the diameter of the cutter body is from approximately 1.0 m to approximately 5.0 m. Leeming ‘371 teaches a diameter of the cutter body is from approximately 1.0 to approximately 5.0 m (1000 mm) (paragraph 0044). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the cutter body as disclosed above with the diameter as taught by Leeming as a design consideration within the skill of the art based on the desired depth of the slot to be cut.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeming et al. in view of Boland et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leeming ‘371. Leeming in view of Boland discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the diameter of the cutter body is from approximately 1.0 m to approximately 5.0 m. Leeming ‘371 teaches a diameter of the cutter body is from approximately 1.0 to approximately 5.0 m (1000 mm) (paragraph 0044). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the cutter body as disclosed above with the diameter as taught by Leeming as a design consideration within the skill of the art based on the desired depth of the slot to be cut.
Claims 20 - 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boland et al. in view of Zhou et al. (CN 104060996).
Regarding claim 20, Boland discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the rock has a Uniaxial Compressive Strength of 5 MPa to 50 MPa. Zhou teaches a cutter for use in rock having a Uniaxial Compressive Strength of 5 MPa to 50 MPa (less than 30 MPa) (abstract; paragraphs 0002 and 0005). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the Uniaxial Compressive Strength as taught by Zhou to allow the method to be applicable to situations in which the rock is of medium strength. Examiner notes that range of Uniaxial Compressive Strength as taught by Zhou include values within the claimed range. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the Uniaxial Compressive Strength as taught by Zhou so that the Uniaxial Compressive Strength is between 5 MPa and 50 MPa since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 21, Boland further discloses a feed rate of the rock to the cutter body is less than or equal to 10 m/min (1 m/min) (paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 22, Boland discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the rock has a Uniaxial Compressive Strength of 50 MPa to 100 MPa. Zhou teaches a cutter for use in rock having a Uniaxial Compressive Strength of 50 MPa to 100 MPa (greater than 60 MPa) (abstract; paragraphs 0002 and 0004). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the Uniaxial Compressive Strength as taught by Zhou to allow the method to be applicable to situations involving hard rock. Examiner notes that range of Uniaxial Compressive Strength as taught by Zhou include values within the claimed range. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the Uniaxial Compressive Strength as taught by Zhou so that the Uniaxial Compressive Strength is between 50 MPa and 100 MPa since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 23, Boland further discloses a feed rate of the rock to the cutter body is less than or equal to 6 m/min (1 m/min) (paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 24, Boland discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the rock has a Uniaxial Compressive Strength of 100 MPa to 250 MPa. Zhou teaches a cutter for use in rock having a Uniaxial Compressive Strength of 100 MPa to 250 MPa (up to 140 MPa) (abstract; paragraphs 0002 and 0004). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the Uniaxial Compressive Strength as taught by Zhou to allow the method to be applicable to situations involving extremely hard rock. Examiner notes that range of Uniaxial Compressive Strength as taught by Zhou include values within the claimed range. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the Uniaxial Compressive Strength as taught by Zhou so that the Uniaxial Compressive Strength is between 100 MPa and 250 MPa since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 25, Boland further discloses a feed rate of the rock to the cutter body is less than or equal to 1 m/min (1 m/min) (paragraph 0060).
Claims 20 - 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeming et al. in view of Boland et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al.
Regarding claim 20, Leeming in view of Boland discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the rock has a Uniaxial Compressive Strength of 5 MPa to 50 MPa. Zhou teaches a cutter for use in rock having a Uniaxial Compressive Strength of 5 MPa to 50 MPa (less than 30 MPa) (abstract; paragraphs 0002 and 0005). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the Uniaxial Compressive Strength as taught by Zhou to allow the method to be applicable to situations in which the rock is of medium strength. Examiner notes that range of Uniaxial Compressive Strength as taught by Zhou include values within the claimed range. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the Uniaxial Compressive Strength as taught by Zhou so that the Uniaxial Compressive Strength is between 5 MPa and 50 MPa since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 21, Leeming fails to disclose discloses a feed rate of the rock to the cutter body is less than or equal to 10 m/min. Boland teaches a feed rate of the rock to the cutter body is less than or equal to 10 m/min (1 m/min) (paragraph 0060). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the feed rate as taught by Boland to optimize cutting efficiency based upon properties of the rock through which the slot is cut.
Regarding claim 22, Leeming in view of Boland discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the rock has a Uniaxial Compressive Strength of 50 MPa to 100 MPa. Zhou teaches a cutter for use in rock having a Uniaxial Compressive Strength of 50 MPa to 100 MPa (greater than 60 MPa) (abstract; paragraphs 0002 and 0004). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the Uniaxial Compressive Strength as taught by Zhou to allow the method to be applicable to situations involving hard rock. Examiner notes that range of Uniaxial Compressive Strength as taught by Zhou include values within the claimed range. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the Uniaxial Compressive Strength as taught by Zhou so that the Uniaxial Compressive Strength is between 50 MPa and 100 MPa since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 23, Leeming fails to disclose discloses a feed rate of the rock to the cutter body is less than or equal to 6 m/min. Boland teaches a feed rate of the rock to the cutter body is less than or equal to 6 m/min (1 m/min) (paragraph 0060). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the feed rate as taught by Boland to optimize cutting efficiency based upon properties of the rock through which the slot is cut.
Regarding claim 24, Leeming in view of Boland discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the rock has a Uniaxial Compressive Strength of 100 MPa to 250 MPa. Zhou teaches a cutter for use in rock having a Uniaxial Compressive Strength of 100 MPa to 250 MPa (up to 140 MPa) (abstract; paragraphs 0002 and 0004). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the Uniaxial Compressive Strength as taught by Zhou to allow the method to be applicable to situations involving extremely hard rock. Examiner notes that range of Uniaxial Compressive Strength as taught by Zhou include values within the claimed range. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the Uniaxial Compressive Strength as taught by Zhou so that the Uniaxial Compressive Strength is between 100 MPa and 250 MPa since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 25, Leeming fails to disclose a feed rate of the rock to the cutter body is less than or equal to 1. Boland teaches a feed rate of the rock to the cutter body is less than or equal to 1 m/min (1 m/min) (paragraph 0060). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the feed rate as taught by Boland to optimize cutting efficiency based upon properties of the rock through which the slot is cut.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 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, 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
7/30/2026
Prosecution Insights