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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Claim 1-5, 7-16 are pending. Claims 2-4, 10-11, 14-16 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 12-13 are pending and examined in this action.
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, 5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0255458 to Kawase in view of US 2014/0182431 to Hasegawa and US 2009/0211690 to Bartholomeusz.
In re Claim 1, Kawase teaches a processing device that performs processing on a target object by penetrating the target object using a processing tool (see Fig. 1, #1), the processing device comprising:
a mounting portion to which the processing tool is mountable (see Fig. 1, #11a/11b/ #21, etc.);
a holder including a first holding portion (see Fig. 1, #10), the first holding portion having a plate shape and being configured by an elastomer gel having self-adhesive properties (see Para. 0024 and 0026, #10 includes an adhesive layer 10v – see also Fig. 4), the first holding portion having a thickness (see Fig. 1, 310 having a thickness), and the first holding portion being able to hold the target object at a first surface of the first holding portion (see Para. 0024 and 0026, #10 includes an adhesive layer 10v – see also Fig. 4);
a first motor configured to move a mounting portion (see Fig. 1, #8 and #20; see also Para. 0031-32, teaching x-axis motor, #26), to which the processing tool is mounted, in a first direction, the first motor moving the processing tool in a direction toward the holder when the mounting portion has moved to one side in the first direction, and moving the processing tool in a direction separating from the holder when the mounting portion has moved to another side in the first direction (the second transfer unit #8 can move #20 across the span of the holding member regardless of where the holding member is located);
a second motor (see Figs. 3A-C, #5 and Par. 0034 teaching a structure for moving the carriage #20 up and down and Para. 0036 teaching Z-axis motor, #34) configured to move the mounting portion and the holding member relative to each other, in a second direction and a third direction orthogonal to the first direction and orthogonal to each other (see Para. 0034);
a processor configured to control the first motor and the second motor and move the mounting portion and the holder relative to each other (see Para. 0007; see also Fig. 6, showing a processor configured to control the first and second movers); and
a memory (see Fig. 6, #75) configured to store computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, instruct the processor to perform processes comprising:
acquiring processing data representing control conditions of the first motor and the second motor for causing the processing tool to penetrate the target object and perform processing on the target object (see e.g., Para. 0056).
Kawase is silent as to:
a second holding portion; and
wherein a depth of a cut formed on the first holding portion by a cutting blade when the cutting blade is the processing tool is set to be smaller than depth of a recess formed on the first holding portion by a needle when the needle is the processing tool; and
wherein the depth of the recess formed on the first holding portion by the needle when the needle is the processing tool is set to be smaller than the first thickness of the first holding portion; and
wherein the second holding portion is located below the first holding portion.
However, Hasegawa teaches that it is known in the art of cutting apparatus to provide a holder (see Hasegawa, Fig. 1, #51/52/53) which includes a first holding portion (see Hasegawa, Fig. 1, #53) and second holding portion (see Hasegawa, Fig. 1, #52), wherein the second holding portion is located below the first holding portion (see Hasegawa, Fig. 1, showing #52 below #53; see also Para. 0023-25).
In the same field of invention, cutting devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to either, 1) replace the holding device of Kawase with the holding device of Hasegawa; or 2) add the base #52 of Hasegawa with the holding device of Kawase. Either would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Doing so provides a machine that has different holding members #51 for different work products (see Hasegawa, Par. 0023-32). This allows the user to use the machine to cut different work products, such as paper and cloth, as discussed in Hasegawa Para. 0024)
Further, Bartholomeusz teaches that it is known in the cutting plotter art to provide a knife head that can have a plurality of interchangeable knife blades (see Bartholomeusz, Para. 0050, #34 and Figs. 3-5) as well as a needle (see Bartholomeusz, Para. 0045, #32 and Fig. 8). Additionally, Bartholomeusz teaches that the blade angle and depth determine the amount of uncut material between the blades leading edges (see Bartholomeusz, Para. 0043). Further, Bartholomeusz teaches that blade depth can be controlled by controlling the force of the blade on the film (see Bartholomeusz, Para. 0043). Additionally, Bartholomeusz teaches that the needle can determine the size of the hole by varying the depth (see Bartholomeusz, Para. 0045).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to replace the head of Kawase with the head of Bartholomeusz, that accommodates a number of different blades or cutting tools. Doing so would allow the user to have a single cutting plotter with the versatility of multiple different cutting tools, which allows the user to use the same cutting plotter to cut different shapes or features into the workpieces. This saves money and space as opposed to having a separate plotter for each blade.
Kawase teaches “The height of the cutter 4 is adjusted so that the blade 4b penetrates through the workpiece 6 and possibly into the underlying holding sheet 10 but does not reach the upper surface of the platen 3b when the cutter holder 5 is moved to the lowered position,” – see Kawase, Para. 0045. In other words, Kawase teaches that it is undesirable to cut completely through the thickness of holding sheet #10. One of ordinary skill in the art, applying that concept – not cutting through the thickness of holding sheet #10 – would have programed the plotter of modified Kawase such that the depth of the recess formed on the first holder by the needle when the needle is the processing tool is set to be smaller than the first thickness of the first holder to prevent contact with plate 3b.
Additionally, Bartholomeusz teaches the depth of cut of either the blade (see Bartholomeusz, Figs. 3-5, #34 and Para. 0050) or the depth of the needle (see Bartholomeusz, Fig. 8, #32 and Para. 0045) are result effective variables. The deeper the needle is inserted the size of the hole changes and the deeper the blade is inserted the less uncut material occurs. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to program these cutting tools such that a depth of a cut formed on the first holder by a cutting blade when the cutting blade is the processing tool is set to be smaller than depth of a recess formed on the first holder by a needle when the needle is the processing tool, since these are result effective variables and are standard functions of the machine. Using the features of the machine in the manner intended to be used would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add a second holder to the assembly of Bartholomeusz, as it has been held that the mere duplication of the essential working parts for a multiplied effect is obvious unless there is a synergistic effect. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis CO., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11 (7th Cir. 1977). Adding a second workpiece holder would allow the user to prepare the second workpiece holder with a workpiece while the machine was cutting the workpiece on the first workpiece holder, thereby saving time when cutting multiple workpieces.
In re Claim 5, modified Kawase, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the cutting blade as the processing tool is mountable to the mounting portion (see Kawase, Figs. 1-4, #4 and Bartholomeusz, Figs. 3-7, and 9 and Para. 0045/50), and
the computer-readable instructions further instruct the processor to perform processes comprising: acquiring, as the processing data, cutting data representing control conditions of the first motor and the second motor for cutting the target object using the cutting blade (see Kawase, Para. 0056), and controlling the first motor and the second motor, on the basis of the acquired cutting data, in a state in which the target object is held by the first holder, and cutting the target object (see Kawase, Para. 0056; see also Para. 0054-0092).
In re Claim 8, modified Kawase, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein
the computer-readable instructions further instruct the processor to perform processes comprising:
performing a first process of controlling the first motor and the second motor to process the target object using one of the needle and the cutting blade mounted to the mounting portion (see Kawase, Para. 0056), in a state in which the target object is held by the first holder, and
performing, after the first process, a second process of controlling the first motor and the second motor to process the target object using the other of the needle and the cutting blade mounted to the mounting portion, in the state in which the target object is held by the first holder (see Kawase, Para. 0056; see also Para. 0054-0092 and Bartholomeusz Para. 0045/50 and Figs. 3-9), and
the state of the target object being held by the first holder is maintained from a start of the first process to an end of the second process (see Kawase, Para. 0056; see also Para. 0054-0092).
In re Claim 9, modified Kawase, in re Claim 1, teaches
the computer-readable instructions further instruct the processor to perform processes comprising:
when the needle (see Bartholomeusz, Fig. 8 and Para. 0045) is mounted to the mounting portion and processing is to be performed to form the hole in the target object by the needle, setting a third position as a position of an end portion on the one side in the first direction of the needle, when the mounting portion mounted with the needle has been moved to the one side in the first direction by controlling the first motor (see Kawase, Para. 0054-0092 and Bartholomeusz, Fig. 8 and Para. 0045), and
when the cutting blade is mounted to the mounting portion and processing is to be performed to cut the target object by the cutting blade (see Kawase, Para. 0054-0092 and Bartholomeusz, Figs. 3-7 and 9and Para. 0050), setting a fourth position, which is further to the other side in the first direction than the third position, as a position of an end portion on the one side in the first direction of the cutting blade, when the mounting portion mounted with the cutting blade has been moved to the one side in the first direction by controlling the first motor (see Kawase, Para. 0054-0092).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0255458 to Kawase in view of US 2014/0182431 to Hasegawa and US 2009/0211690 to Bartholomeusz, and further in view of EP 1 839 825 A1.
In re Claim 7, modified Kawase, in re Claim 6, teaches a needle (see Bartholomeusz, Fig. 8); but does not teach the shape of the needle. As such, modified Kawase, in re Claim 6, does not teach wherein the needle includes a first portion having a contestant diameter in an axial direction, and a second portion positioned further to a tip end side than the first portion, and having a diameter that becomes smaller in the axial direction toward a tip end in the axial direction, and a thickness of the first holder is larger than a length, in the axial direction, of the second portion of the needle.
However, EP 1 839 825 A1 teaches that it is known in the punching/needle art to provide a punch/needle shape wherein the needle includes a first portion having a constant diameter in an axial direction (see EP 1 839 825 A1, Figs. 3-4, showing #16 having the same diameter in an axial direction), and a second portion positioned further to a tip end side than the first portion (see EP 1 839 825 A1, Figs. 3-4, conical portion #17 and tip #18), and having a diameter that becomes smaller in the axial direction toward a tip end in the axial direction (see EP 1 839 825 A1, Figs. 3-4, conical portion #17 and tip #18).
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 use the punch shape of EP 1 839 825 A1 to form holes in a sheet. Doing so is the use of a known punch structure to improve a known device in the same manner (see MPEP 2143, I, C). Here adding an additional punch with a constant diameter would allow the user to provide a constant diameter hole throughout the workpiece. The punch shape of Fig. 8 of Bartholomeusz produces a tapered hole. Both types of holes are desirable for different reasons, and having known punches/ needles for producing different shapes in the workpiece would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0255458 to Kawase in view of US 2014/0182431 to Hasegawa and US 2009/0211690 to Bartholomeusz, and further in view of US 2014/0182431 to Hasegawa.
In re Claim 12, modified Kawase, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein an adhesive force of the first holder is from 0.5 N/25 mm to 6.0 N/25 mm when at 200C. However, Hasegawa teaches that it is known in the art to provide an adhesive with an adhesive force that can both reliably hold the workpiece unremovably during the cutting operation while allowing the workpiece to peel relatively easily after the cutting operation (see Hasegawa, Para. 0024). In other words, the adhesive force 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 an adhesive with an adhesive force of the first holder is from 0.5 N/25 mm to 6.0 N/25 mm when at 200C, 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, discovering the balance between reliably holding the workpiece unremovably during the cutting operation while allowing the workpiece to peel relatively easily after the cutting operation (see Hasegawa, Para. 0024) would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Claim 13, modified Kawase, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein an adhesive force of the first holder is from 0.75 N/25 mm to 4.0 N/25 mm when at 200C. However, Hasegawa teaches that it is known in the art to provide an adhesive with an adhesive force that can both reliably hold the workpiece unremovably during the cutting operation while allowing the workpiece to peel relatively easily after the cutting operation (see Hasegawa, Para. 0024). In other words, the adhesive force 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 an adhesive with an adhesive force of the first holder is from 0.75 N/25 mm to 4.0 N/25 mm when at 200C, 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, discovering the balance between reliably holding the workpiece unremovably during the cutting operation while allowing the workpiece to peel relatively easily after the cutting operation (see Hasegawa, Para. 0024) would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. cut
Response to Arguments
In re Claim 1, Applicant argues that the cut and the depth of the cut using a blade and the depth of cut or puncture taught in Bartholomeusz are not formed on the holding material, but on the workpiece. According to Applicant, “Claim 1 is directed to cutting the holding material and not the workpiece” (emphasis in original). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 is directed to cutting “a target object.” – see Claim 1 preamble and Claim 1, ll. 20-22. In other words, the claim requires the processor configured to cut the workpiece as well as the holders.
The Examiner notes that in order to cut through the workpiece, some portion of the cutting tool, whether it is the needle or the blade enters the holder. Otherwise, the user risks not cutting completely through the workpiece and having an incomplete cut. This is taught by Kawase.
Kawase teaches “The height of the cutter 4 is adjusted so that the blade 4b penetrates through the workpiece 6 and possibly into the underlying holding sheet 10 but does not reach the upper surface of the platen 3b when the cutter holder 5 is moved to the lowered position,” – see Kawase, Para. 0045 (emphasis added). In other words, Kawase teaches that it is undesirable to cut completely through the thickness of holding sheet #10. Kawase teaches that cutting through the workpiece into the holding material.
Applicant’s claim directed to different depths of cut into the holder is a result effective variable in view of Bartholomeusz Fig. 8, tapered needle #32. The larger the hole required by the workpiece, the deeper the needle needs to be inserted. The deeper the needle needs to be inserted the farther the needle enters a holder.
Applicant argues that Bartholomeusz “teaches away from the claimed element of restricting the depth of a cut or penetration by a needle to a depth that is less than the depth of a cut created by the blade.” The Examiner disagrees. Bartholomeusz does not criticize the depth of cut by the needle as compared to the depth of cut by the blade. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004), which stated “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….”. To teach away, a prior art reference must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”.
Applicant argues that the cutting of holding material vs workpieces, and the differences between using a needle and a blade. The Examiner notes that the claims are apparatus claims and not method claims. As such, the claims are directed to the structure of the tool and not the method of use. Further, Bartholomeusz teaches that it is known in the art to use the same structure for a needle and a blade to cut a workpiece (see Bartholomeusz, Fig. 8, vs. Fig. 3/5).
Applicant acknowledges that when cutting a holding material with a needle the force is simply in the direction of movement of the needle. Applicant argues that when cutting through a layer of holding material with a blade there is more frictional forces which may cause the blade to shift. And therefore it is important to restrict depth of a cut made by the blade. However, Kawase teaches “The height of the cutter 4 is adjusted so that the blade 4b penetrates through the workpiece 6 and possibly into the underlying holding sheet 10 but does not reach the upper surface of the platen 3b when the cutter holder 5 is moved to the lowered position,” – see Kawase, Para. 0045 (emphasis added). See also Kawase, Fig. 4 and Para. 0062 teaching the blade cutting the workpiece. As such, Kawase teaches that it is desirable to “possibility” penetrate the holding sheet, which teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art to enter the holding sheet with as little depth as possible. As such, Kawase teaches restricting the depth of the blade when entering the holding portion.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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