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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6-5-2026 has been entered.
Applicant's submission filed on 8-25-2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 37, and 41 were amended. Claims 2-3, 36, and 45-54 were cancelled. Claims 20-34 and 43 were withdrawn. Claims 1, 4-19, 37-42, 44, and 55-64 are pending and examined in this action.
Claim Objections
Claim 58 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 61. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 59 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 62. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 60 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 63. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-19, 37-42, 44, and 55-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re Claim 1, “a first heater connected with the support member and adapted to heat the support member to bow or flex the blade,” is indefinite. As best understood, the claim requires a blade and a heater that transfers heat to the blade in order to cause the physical properties of the blade to move. According to the MPEP, “Examiners should consider the following factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim; (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained; and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim. These factors are examples of points to be considered when determining whether language is ambiguous and are not intended to be all inclusive or limiting. Other factors may be more relevant for particular arts. The primary inquiry is whether the language leaves room for ambiguity or whether the boundaries are clear and precise. “ (See MPEP 2173,05(e)). Here, there is no clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim. As best understood, the claim requires a heater that heats and a blade / structure that absorbs the heat. Further, the language does not set forth well-defined boundaries but states a result obtained. As best understood, the claim simply requires movement of the blade caused by heat transfer. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand what is being claimed. For example does the claim encompass a particular blade material that moves in a particular manner. Does the blade encompass a heater location. Or, does the claim encompass a particular heat pattern or controller that adjusts the heater in a manner that bows the structures? This is unclear as Applicant has claimed the result and not the structure required to perform the function.
In re Claim 37, “a first heater adapted to heat the support member, the heat capable of inducing a non-uniform thermal expansion along the length of the support member and capable of bowing or flexing the blade in a direction approximately perpendicular to the first axis,” is also indefinite for the same reasons as Claim 1, above.
In re Claim 41, “resulting in bowing or flexing of the blade,” is also indefinite for the same reasons as Claim 1, above.
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, 4-17, 19, 39, 42, 55, 57, 58, 61 37-38, 44, 59, 62, 64, 41, 56, 60, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0366695 to Kien in view of US 4,527,473 to Littleton.
In re Claim 1, Kien teaches a cutting apparatus (see Fig. 15, #10) comprising:
a frame (see e.g., Fig. 1, #28 in view of the embodiment of Figs. 13-15);
a support member rotatably supported by the frame (see Figs. 13-15, #18 and Para. 0092) about an axis (see center axis of #18 in Figs. 13-15);
a blade comprising (see Fig. 15, #20) a proximal end region and a distal end region (blade #20, in Fig. 15, has both a proximal end region and a distal end region), wherein the proximal end region is releasably connected with the support member at a first position (see para. 0094 in view of Fig. 15, #20) and wherein the distal end region comprises a first cutting surface comprising a first distal edge (see Fig. 15, cutting edge of #20; see also Para. 0094);
a roll (see Fig. 15, #12) positioned adjacent the support member, the roll adapted to rotate about a second axis (see Figs. 14-15, showing axis about which #12 rotates), the roll comprising a second cutting surface comprising a second distal edge (see Fig. 15, #16 and Para. 0094), wherein the first distal edge overlaps the second distal edge by an overlap distance in a cross section such that the second cutting surface intermittently contacts the first cutting surface as the roll rotates about the second axis (see Figs. 14-15 and Paras. 0093-94) and the first cutting surface is rotatably fixed about the first axis to form perforations in a substrate passed between the first and second cutting surfaces in a machine direction that is perpendicular to the cross direction (see e.g., Figs. 13-15, showing a substrate passed between the first and second cutting surfaces in a machine direction -- “MD” in Fig. 15 -- that is perpendicular to the cross direction – see directions perpendicular to “MD” in Fig. 15 --; see also Para. 0092).
Kien does not teach a first heater connected with the support member and adapted to heat the support member to bow or flex the blade.
However, Littleton teaches that it is known in the art of rotating blades/knifes to provide a first heater (see Littleton, Fig. 5, #426/426 and Col. 11, ll. 1-30) connected with the support member (see Littleton, Fig. 5, #402-406) and adapted to heat the support member (see Littleton, Col. 9, ll. 28 – Col. 11, ll. 30, and Col. 11, ll. 48 – Col. 12, ll. 7; see also Littleton Fig. 5, showing the heater #426 “opposite the blade edge #106c in Fig. 5). Littleton teaches that when an object is heated thermal expansion occurs (see Littleton, Col. 8, ll. 20-26).
In the same field of invention, rotating cutting devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a heater connected with the support member and adapted to heat the support member, as taught by Littleton, to the device of Kien. Doing so allows for the precise adjustment of the cutting surfaces (see Littleton, Col. 2, ll. 55 – Col. 4, ll. 5) and also allows for the adjustment of the cutting surfaces as the cutters wear during use to prevent damage (see Col. 5, ll. 15-50).
The Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Here, the use of the heater, located adjacent to the blade (as illustrated in Applicant’ Fig. 5A), is the structure of the device that performs the claimed function. In Littleton, the heater is also adjacent to the blade and therefore would perform the same function claimed in Claim 1. Littleton teaches that heating an object causes thermal expansion (see Littleton, Col. 8, ll. 20-26). This thermal expansion changes the blade shape. According to Applicant’s disclosure “One or more heaters 314, 314' may be added to the support member 212 for the purpose of controlling the disposition of the cutting surface 204, such as the blade 234, such that the cutting surface 204 may be bowed or flexed as illustrated by Figures 9A and 9B.” As such placing heaters on the support member, as taught by Littleton, bows or flexes the blade by thermal expansion. In other words, the feature of the apparatus is an inherent characteristic of the prior art (see MPEP 2114, I). Additionally, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art (see MPEP 2114, II).
In re Claim 4, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the first heater is disposed in direct contact with a surface of the support member (see Kien, Fig. 14-15 in view of Littleton, Fig. 8, #428 – placing the heater under the blade of Kien in Figs. 14-15 would read on the first heater is disposed in direct contact with a surface of the support member).
In re Claim 5, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the first heater is embedded within the support member (see Kien, Fig. 14-15 in view of Littleton, Fig. 8, #428 – placing the heater under the blade of Kien in Figs. 14-15 would read on the first heater is embedded within the support member).
In re Claim 6, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, teaches a controller (see Littleton, Fig. 6, #616), wherein the controller is adapted to operate the first heater to maintain a first portion of the support member at a first temperature when the roll is rotating (see Littleton Fig. 6, in view of Littleton, Col. 9, ll. 28 – Col. 11, ll. 30, and Col. 11, ll. 48 – Col. 12, ll. 7).
In re Claim 7, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the controller is adapted to operate the first heater to maintain the first portion at a second temperature when the roll is not rotating, wherein the second temperature is equal to or approximately equal to the first temperature (see Littleton, Col. 14, ll. 56 – Col. 15, ll. 34 and Col. 9, ll. 49-Col. 10, ll. 20, teaching adjusting cutters at rest is known in the art).
In re Claim 8, modified Kien in re Claim 1, does not teach the specific temperature of wherein the first temperature is from about 80 F to about 120. Littleton teaches a general understanding of adjusting the temperature of the support members between cutters to maintain a particular gap (see Littleton, Col. 11, ll. 9-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to utilize any temperature to adjust the structures to maintain the gap, including between 80F to 120F. The examiner notes that these temperatures are generally close to ambient temperature during the summertime in a factory. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective fling date, to use heat the structure of modified Kien to between 80-120F, since it has been held that discovering an optimum result of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Here the result effective variable is using the heaters to adjust the temperature of the structure. Discovering an optimal range of this result effective variable would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Claim 9, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, does not teach a clamp member releasably connected with the support member, wherein the proximal end region of the blade is positioned between the clamp member and the support member. In other words, the embodiments of Figs. 13-15 do not illustrate the #20 being releasable.
However, the embodiment of Kien in Fig. 3 teaches a clamp member (see Kien, Fig. 3, #31 and Para. 0068) releasably connected with the support member, wherein the proximal end region of the blade is positioned between the clamp member and the support member (see Kien, Para. 0068). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the clamp construction illustrated in Fig. 3 of Kien. Doing so provides for inherent flexibility of the blade which allows for improved perforation reliability (see Kien, Para. 0068).
In re Claim 10, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the controller is adapted to operate a second heater to maintain a second portion of the support member at the first temperature when the roll is rotating and at the second temperature when the roll is not rotating (see Littleton, Figs. 4-5, showing two heaters #426 – see also Fig. 6 showing two controllers – see also Col. 9, ll. 28 – Col. 11, ll. 30, and Col. 11, ll. 48 – Col. 12, ll. 7).
In re Claim 11, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the first heater is adapted to maintain a first portion of the support member at a first temperature, and wherein a second heater is adapted to maintain a second portion of the support member at a second temperature, wherein the first and second temperatures are different (see Littleton, Col. 11, ll. 9-26, teaching multiple heaters independently controlled.).
In re Claim 12, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, teaches further comprising a thermocouple (see Littleton, Fig. 6, thermocouple, #616/616; see also Col. 14, ll. 56 - 68).
In re Claim 13, modified Kien, in re Claim 13, teaches wherein the blade comprise a first tooth and a second tooth separated by a notch (see Kien, Para. 0091 teaching: the blade 20 can comprise a smooth-edge or non-notched edge, as shown in FIG. 11. Likewise, if the anvil 16 is smooth-edged, that contains no teeth, the blade 20 can comprise a plurality of teeth 36).
In re Claim 14, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, teaches a controller, wherein the controller (see Littleton, Fig. 6) is adapted to operate the first heater to maintain a first portion of the support member at a first temperature (see Littleton, Col. 11, ll. 9-26 teaching multiple heaters independently controlled).
Modified Kien, in re Claim 1, is silent as to wherein the controller is adapted to operate a second heater to maintain a second portion of the support member at a second temperature, wherein the first and second temperatures are the same.
However, Littleton teaches the controller is adapted to operate a second heater to maintain a second portion of the support member at a second temperature (see Littleton, Col. 11, ll. 9-26 teaching multiple heaters independently controlled), wherein the first and second temperatures are the same (see Littleton, Col. 11, ll. 9-26 teaching multiple heaters independently controlled, which can be controlled to be the same temperature).
In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add additional heaters as taught by Littleton. Doing so would allow the user to maintain control of the gap over a wider blade thereby allowing the user to properly cut a winder workpiece.
In re Claim 15, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the second cutting surface comprise an anvil (see Kien, Para. 0094 in view of Fig. 15, #16, anvil)
In re Claim 16, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the second cutting surface comprises at least one blade (see Kien, Para. 0091 teaching: the blade 20 can comprise a smooth-edge or non-notched edge, as shown in FIG. 11. Likewise, if the anvil 16 is smooth-edged, that contains no teeth, the blade 20 can comprise a plurality of 36).
In re Claim 17, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the roll comprises a plurality of second cutting surfaces circumferentially arranged around the second axis (see Kien Fig. 15, showing multiple structures #16).
In re Claim 19, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, teaches further comprising a controller (see Littleton, Fig. 6, #600/614) capable of using temperature feedback to automatically operate the heater to maintain a temperature at a desired setpoint (see Littleton, Col. 2, ll. 55 – Col. 4, ll. 5; Col. 5, ll. 15-50; Col. 9, ll. 28 – Col. 11, ll. 30, and Col. 11, ll. 48 – Col. 12, ll. 7).
In re Claim 39, modified Kien, in re Claim 1 teaches wherein the first heater is connected with the support member and adapted to heat the support member (see Littleton Fig. 5 in view of Kien Figs. 13-15) to maintain the overlap distance above a first threshold value such that the second cutting surface operatively engages the first cutting surface during operation of the cutting apparatus (see Kien, describing the overlap between blade #20 and anvil #16); and below a second threshold value such that the substrate can advance in the machine direction through a nip defined between the first and second cutting surfaces (see Kien, Figs. 14-15 showing a space or “nip” between the cuter and anvil which the workpiece moves). The examiner notes that Littleton teaches maintaining the two structures at a desired distances and Kien teaches that the desired distance can be a range of, for example, 0.001 inches and about 0.01 inches. As such, creating a temperature range of the heater that corresponds to the measured range between the anvil and blade would read on above a first threshold value and below a second threshold value.
In re Claim 42, modified Kien, in re Claim 1 teaches wherein the first heater is adapted to heat the support member and thereby to maintain the overlap distance within a range of values from about 0.001 inches to about 0.009 inches when the roll is rotating and when the roll is not rotating. The Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, Littleton teaches adjusting the blade spacing with the heaters #426 of Littleton (see Littleton, Col.11, ll. 48 - Col. 12, ll. 6), which is capable of maintaining a gap over the claimed values.
In re Claim 55, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the first heater is disposed at or near the first position (see Littleton, Fig. 5, in view of Fig. 1 and Figs. 13-15 of Kien).
In re Claim 57, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein a center portion of the support and blade are bowed or flexed to a greater extent than end portions of the support and blade (as best understood, the structure of modified Kein teaches structure that performs this function – a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim).
In re Claims 58 and 61, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, does not teach comprising second, third, and fourth heaters. However, Littleton teaches two, three or more thermal elements 426 are mounted across the width of the rotating knife 106A (see Littleton Col. 11, ll. 9-29).
In the same field of invention, rotary blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use multiple heaters, including four heaters, adjacent to the blades, as taught by Littleton. Doing so would allow the user to maintain control of the gap over a wider blade thereby allowing the user to properly cut a winder workpiece.
In re Claim 37, Kien teaches a cutting apparatus for cutting a web (see Fig. 15, #10), the cutting apparatus comprising:
a frame (see e.g., Fig. 1, #28 in view of the embodiment of Figs. 13-15);
a support member supported by the frame (see Figs. 13-15, #18 and Para. 0092):
a blade comprising a first cutting surface (see Figs. 15, #20) and disposed at a first position (the blade is at a position considered a first position – see Fig. 15);
a second cutting surface (see Fig. 15, #12, #16) positioned adjacent the support member (see Fig. 15) wherein the second cutting surface overlaps the first cutting surface in a cross direction by an overlap distance (see Figs. 14-15 and Paras. 0093- 94) such that the second cutting surface intermittently contacts the first cutting surface such that a perforation is formed in a web material passed in a machine direction perpendicular to the cross section (see Figs. 14-15, “MD”).
Kien does not teach a first heater adapted to heat the support member, the heat capable of inducing a non-uniform thermal expansion along the length of the support member and capable of bowing or flexing the blade in a direction approximately perpendicular to the first axis; and wherein the first heater is at a temperature from about 80°F to about 120°F.
However, Littleton teaches that it is known in the art of rotating blades/knifes to provide: a first heater (see Littleton, Fig. 5, #426/426) adapted to heat the support member, the heat capable of inducing a non-uniform thermal expansion along the length of the support member and capable of bowing or flexing the blade in a direction approximately perpendicular to the first axis (see Littleton, Col. 11, ll. 1-29; see also Col. 8, ll. 20-26, Littleton teaches that when an object is heated thermal expansion occurs.).
In the same field of invention, rotating cutting devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a heater connected with the support member and adapted to heat the support member and thereby maintain the overlap distance when the roll is rotating and when the roll is not rotating, as taught by Littleton, to the device of Kien. Doing so allows for the precise adjustment of the cutting surfaces (see Littleton, Col. 2, ll. 55 – Col. 4, ll. 5) and also allows for the adjustment of the cutting surfaces as the cutters wear during use to prevent damage (see Col. 5, ll. 15-50).
The Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Here, the use of the heater, in particular conditions, such as when the roll is rotating and when the roll is not rotation would not change the structure of the heater. As such, because this is an apparatus claim claiming the structure of the heater, and not a method claim, the structure of the heater in modified Kien reads on the claim.
Littleton teaches that each heater is independently controlled to adjust the dimension of an adjacent portion of the blade (see Littleton, Col. 11, l. 9-30). As such, the temperature of the heater is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing, date to provide the heater operating at 80 F to about 120F, since it has been held that discovering an optimum result of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Additionally, the Examiner notes that the claims are apparatus claims and not method claims. As such, the claims are directed to the structure of the device and not the method of use. Here, the claims are directed to a structure that is connected with the support member and adapted to heat the support member. Littleton teaches such a structure in Fig. 5, #426/426.
In re Claim 38, modified Kien, in re Claim 37, teaches wherein the support member is fixedly supported by the frame (the support member of Kien is supported by the frame about the axis it rotates).
In re Claim 44, modified Kien, in re Claim 37 teaches wherein the first heater is adapted to heat the support member and thereby to maintain the overlap distance within a range of values from about 0.001 inches to about 0.009 inches when the roll is rotating and when the roll is not rotating. The Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, Littleton teaches adjusting the blade spacing with the heaters #426 of Littleton (see Littleton, Col.11, ll. 48 - Col. 12, ll. 6), which is capable of maintaining a gap over the claimed values.
In re Claims 59 and 62, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, does not teach comprising second, third, and fourth heaters. However, Littleton teaches two, three or more thermal elements 426 are mounted across the width of the rotating knife 106A (see Littleton Col. 11, ll. 9-29).
In the same field of invention, rotary blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use multiple heaters, including four heaters, adjacent to the blades, as taught by Littleton. Doing so would allow the user to maintain control of the gap over a wider blade thereby allowing the user to properly cut a winder workpiece.
In re Claim 64, modified Kien, in re Claim 37, teaches wherein a second heater is adapted to heat the support member and thereby to maintain the overlap distance when the roll is rotating and when the roll is not rotating. The examiner notes that the claims are apparatus claims and not method claims. The structure of modified Kien adjusts the overlap or maintains the overlap with the roll is rotating or not rotating.
In re Claim 41, Kien teaches a cutting apparatus comprising (see Fig. 15, #10):
a frame (see e.g., Fig. 1, #28 in view of the embodiment of Figs. 13-15);
a support member rotatably supported by the frame (see Figs. 13-15, #18 and Para. 0092) about a first axis (see center axis of #18 in Figs. 13-15);
a blade (see Fig. 15, #20) comprising a proximal end region and a distal end region (blade #20, Fig. 15, has both a proximal end region and a distal end region), wherein the proximal end region is releasably connected with the support member and wherein the distal end region comprises a first cutting surface comprising a first distal edge (see Fig. 15, cutting edge of #20; see also Para. 0094);
a roll (see Fig. 15, #12) positioned adjacent the support member, the roll adapted to rotate about a second axis (see Figs. 14-15, showing axis about which #12 rotates), the roll comprising a second cutting surface comprising a second distal edge (see Fig. 15, #16 and Para. 0094), wherein the first distal edge overlaps the second distal edge by an overlap distance in a cross direction such that the second cutting surface intermittently contacts the first cutting surface as the roll rotates about the second axis (see Figs. 14-15 and Paras. 0093-94) and the first cutting surface is rotatably fixed about the first axis to form perforations in a substrate passed between the first and second cutting surfaces in a machine direction that is perpendicular to the cross direction(see e.g., Figs. 13-15, showing a substrate passed between the first and second cutting surfaces in a machine direction -- “MD” in Fig. 15 -- that is perpendicular to the cross direction – see directions perpendicular to “MD” in Fig. 15 --; see also Para. 0092).
Kien does not teach:
a first heater connected with the support member and adapted to heat the support member;
a second heater connected with the support member and adapted to heat the support member;
wherein the first heater is a first temperature and the second heater is a second temperature; and
wherein the first and second temperatures are different from each other resulting in bowing or flexing of the blade.
However, Littleton teaches that it is known in the art of rotating blades/knifes to provide:
a first heater (see Littleton, Fig. 5, #426/426) connected with the support member and adapted to heat the support member and thereby to maintain the overlap distance when the roll is rotating (see Littleton, Col. 11, ll. 1-29);
a second heater (see Littleton Fig. 5, the other #426/426) connected with the support member and adapted to heat the support member and thereby to maintain the overlap distance when the roll is rotating (see Littleton, Col. 11, ll. 1-29 teaching: Two, three or more thermal elements 426 are mounted across the width of the rotating knife 106A for each cutting surface 106C.);
wherein the first heater is a first temperature and the second heater is a second temperature (see Littleton, Col. 11, ll. 1-29, teaching: Each of the thermal elements 426 can be independently controlled for each cutting surface 106C to extend or retract the respective adjacent portion of the cutting surface relative to the cutting surface 106D of the fixed knife 106B, e.g., to maintain the cutting surfaces of the knives in parallel relationship to one another).
In the same field of invention, rotating cutting devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a heater connected with the support member and adapted to heat the support member and thereby maintain the overlap distance when the roll is rotating and when the roll is not rotating, as taught by Littleton, to the device of Kien. Doing so allows for the precise adjustment of the cutting surfaces (see Littleton, Col. 2, ll. 55 – Col. 4, ll. 5) and also allows for the adjustment of the cutting surfaces as the cutters wear during use to prevent damage (see Col. 5, ll. 15-50; see also Col. 8, ll. 20-26, Littleton teaches that when an object is heated thermal expansion occurs.). Heating to different temperatures would provide different thermal expansion and different locations.
The Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Here, the use of the heater, in particular conditions, such as when the roll is rotating and when the roll is not rotating would not change the structure of the heater. As such, because this is an apparatus claim claiming the structure of the heater, and not a method claim, the structure of the heater in modified Kien reads on the claim.
Littleton teaches that each heater is independently controlled to adjust the dimension of an adjacent portion of the blade (see Littleton, Col. 11, l. 9-30). As such, the temperature of the heater is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing, date to provide the two heaters as wherein the first and second temperatures are within about 0 F to about 25 F from each other, since it has been held that discovering an optimum result of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Additionally, the Examiner notes that the claims are apparatus claims and not method claims. As such, the claims are directed to the structure of the device and not the method of use. Here, the claims are directed to a structure that is connected with the support member and adapted to heat the support member. Littleton teaches such a structure in Fig. 5, #426/426.
In re Claim 56, modified Kien, in re Claim 41, teaches wherein the first heater is disposed at the first position and the second heater is disposed at a second position generally opposite the first position (see Littleton, Fig. 5, #426; see also Para. 0011, 8-30).
In re Claims 60 and 63, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, does not teach comprising second, third, and fourth heaters. However, Littleton teaches two, three or more thermal elements 426 are mounted across the width of the rotating knife 106A (see Littleton Col. 11, ll. 9-29).
In the same field of invention, rotary blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use multiple heaters, including four heaters, adjacent to the blades, as taught by Littleton. Doing so would allow the user to maintain control of the gap over a wider blade thereby allowing the user to properly cut a winder workpiece.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0366695 to Kien in view of US 4,527,473 to Littleton, and further in view of either US 2002/0004441 to Kubick or US 4,948,269 to Hamilton.
In re Claim 18, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, does not teach further comprising a heat pipe connected with the support member. Littleton teaches an electric heater. However, Kubick and Hamilton teach that it is known in the rotating cylinder art to provide heaters utilizing fluid (see Kubick, Fig. 1, #18 and Para. 0057 teaching heat carrier oil; see Hamilton, Fig. 1, #48A/76F and abstract). In the same field of invention, rotating cylinders, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use any type of heater, including a fluid heater, as taught by either Kubick or Hamilton. Doing so is the substation of one known type of heating system for another known type of heating system used in the art, to heat structures (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0366695 to Kien in view of US 4,527,473 to Littleton, and further in view of US 5,282,409 to Rojas.
In re Claim 40, modified Kien, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the support member is rotatably fixed about the first axis during intermittent contact between the first cutting surface and the second cutting surface (see Kien, Para. 0092 teaching support #18 fixed).
Modified Kien, in re Claim 1, does not teach and wherein the dampener is configured to abate noise or vibration caused by the intermittent contact between the first and second cutting surfaces.
However, Rojas teaches that it is known in the rotating blade art to provide dampening member positioned between the support member and the blade (see Rojas, Fig. 7, # 107 and Col. 4, ll. 60 – Col. 5, ll. 2, teaching reducing of noise and vibration).
In the same field of invention, the attachment of blades to structures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a dampening structure of the device of Rojas in the device of modified Kien. Doing so absorbs the movements of the assembly produced by any inadvertent impacts of the blade by the anvil of the machine, thus damping both the shock and the noise produced (see Rojas, Col. 4, ll. 60 – Col. 5, ll. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended the independent Claims (1, 37, 41) to include functional limitations. The Examiner notes that the claims are apparatus claims. As such, the claims are claiming the structure of the device and not the use of the device. The heaters bending the support member to bow or flex the blade, or the heat capable of inducing a non-uniform thermal expansion along the length of the support member and capable of bowing or flexing the blade in a direction approximately perpendicular to the first axis, are the result of thermal expansion. Additionally, resulting in bowing or flexing of the blade is also the result of thermal expansion. Littleton teaches that when an object is heated thermal expansion occurs (see Littleton, Col. 8, ll. 20-26). The Examiner notes that thermal expansion is a thermodynamic characteristic where matter increases in size with increasing in temperature. The heaters of Littleton create thermal expansion. As such, the heaters read on the functional limitations of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 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, Boyer Ashley 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights