0

In reference to the patent: WO2017193026A1

I see that claim number 1 is too broad:

  1. A waterjet system, comprising: a pump configured to pump fluid at a pressure between 2000psi and 8000psi;

My point is that in the scientific literature there are public domain examples of waterjet cutting tests done a that pressures, for example:

"Characterization of low pressure AWJ cutting" of Taggart, Nanduri y Kim, American Waterjet Conference 1999

That paper clearly precedes the claims of the "invention", in my opinion turning it invalid. To make an analogy, it would be like trying to patent a car whose maximum speed is 500 km/hour, there is no novelty on that, just a different operation point. Thanks,

Walter

  • It’s only an application. Also, claims have to be considered in their entirety. You quote only the first sentence. – Eric Shain May 31 '18 at 1:23
2

This is a patent application, not yet a patent. It may or may not get granted. Even if it is granted, it is very likely the claims will be significantly narrowed. As to the first claim, it is important to understand that to infringe on a claim, you must implement each and every aspect of a claim. Thus focusing on a single sentence in the claim isn't helpful. Here is the first claim in its entirety.

  1. A waterjet system, comprising:

    a pump configured to pump fluid at a pressure between 2000psi and 8000psi;

    an electric motor configured to drive the pump; a hopper configured to store abrasive;

    a mixing chamber configured to mix abrasive from the hopper and the fluid from the pump to produce a slurry;

    a cutting bed configured to receive a workpiece to be cut; and

    a cutting head, including an outlet nozzle, in downstream fluid communication from the mixing chamber, the cutting head configured to expel the slurry through the outlet nozzle as a high- velocity jet into the cutting bed.

I sort of agree this seems pretty broad and anticipate this claim, as written, would be rejected. Also understand that there is significant prior art cited in this application.

  • Ahh, beat me by 57 seconds. – DonQuiKong May 31 '18 at 17:12
  • @DonQuiKong My claim is formatted nicer too. :-) – Eric Shain May 31 '18 at 22:17
  • Haha, yes, indeed – DonQuiKong Jun 1 '18 at 4:34
0

Claim 1 is:

A waterjet system, comprising:

a pump configured to pump fluid at a pressure between 2000psi and 8000psi;

an electric motor configured to drive the pump;

a hopper configured to store abrasive;

a mixing chamber configured to mix abrasive from the hopper and the fluid from the pump to produce a slurry;

a cutting bed configured to receive a workpiece to be cut; and

a cutting head, including an outlet nozzle, in downstream fluid communication from the mixing chamber, the cutting head configured to expel the slurry through the outlet nozzle as a high- velocity jet into the cutting bed.

All of those need to be present if one is to infringe this claim. Likewise, all of those in that combination need to be known or obvious from the prior art to invalidate the claim.

As a side note, this claim hasn't been granted as you are merely citing an application. It has not been examined. That means, I can file an application claiming " Everything" and it will be published just as this one. I won't get a patent on it though.

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.