DETAILED ACTION
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 . 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 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the sensing mechanism and sensor of claim 27 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
-Regarding claim 27, the phrase “a sensing mechanism configured to detect a presence of the workpiece, wherein the sensing mechanism comprises a rocker arm and a sensor, wherein the rocker arm is disposed adjacent to the upper wall of the one guide of the second pair of material guides” lacks written description. Examiner notes that while all of the structural components appear to have antecedent basis within the specification (See Paragraphs 106-0109) it is unclear how the components work to perform the function of detecting of the workpiece. Paragraph 106 and 109 appear to detail that the sensing mechanism may include the rocker arm and sensor, but do not appear to detail how the function works. It is noted the rocker arm 44 is shown as element 44, but the sensor to detect the workpiece is not shown. How does the sensor work in combination with the rocker arm to detect the workpiece has been fed into the cutting machine? The specification also does not appear to describe what type of sensor this may be, nor does the sensor work in combination with any other electrical components, such as a controller, to relay that the workpiece is detected. If the sensor detects the workpiece, how is that information sent, and to what other components? Is the sensor a single component, or part of a detection system? The specification appears to detail that the rocker arm second end portion 50 must interface or interact with the sensor, however, it is unclear if the rocker arm is merely detected by the sensor, or if a physical connection must take place between the two components for the sensor to detect the rocker arm.
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.
Claim 27 is 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.
-Regarding claim 27, the phrase “a sensing mechanism configured to detect a presence of the workpiece, wherein the sensing mechanism comprises a rocker arm and a sensor, wherein the rocker arm is disposed adjacent to the upper wall of the one guide of the second pair of material guides” is unclear. Examiner notes it is unclear how the sensing mechanism works to perform the function of detecting of the workpiece. Paragraph 106 and 109 appear to detail that the sensing mechanism may include the rocker arm and sensor, but do not appear to detail how the function works. It is noted the rocker arm is shown as element 44, but the sensor to detect the workpiece is not shown. How does the sensor work in combination with the rocker arm to detect the workpiece has been fed into the cutting machine? The specification also does not appear to describe what type of sensor this may be, nor does the sensor work in combination with any other electrical components, such as a controller, to relay that the workpiece is detected. If the sensor detects the workpiece, how is that information sent, and to what other components? Is the sensor a single component, or part of a detection system? The specification appears to detail that the rocker arm second end portion 50 must interface or interact with the sensor, however, it is unclear if the rocker arm is merely detected by the sensor, or if a physical connection must take place between the two components for the sensor to detect the rocker arm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujihara (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0150618) in view of Peterson (U.S. Patent No. 2009/0000442) in view of Block (US 8,381,623)
Regarding claim 1, Fujihara teaches an electronic cutting machine (1)(Figure 1), comprising: a working surface (3) configured to support a workpiece (Figure 1; Paragraph 0035);
a roller system (12, 13) configured to move the workpiece forward and backwards across the working surface along a y-direction (Figure 1; Paragraphs 0036-0039)
a door movable (2b) between an open position and a closed position and having an upper surface configured to support the workpiece in the open position (Figure 1), the upper surface disposed substantially parallel to the working surface (Figure 1; Paragraph 0032);
a second pair of material guides (X1; Side portions guiding the workpiece out of the device) extending from the working surface, wherein the second pair of material guides is forward, in the y-direction, of the roller system, and wherein one guide of the second pair of material guides comprises an upper wall extending horizontally along an x- direction (See annotated Figure 1 below; Note the side portion has dimensions extending in both the X and Y direction, and the upper surface wall extends in the x-direction).
Fujihara does not provide a first pair of material guides extending from the upper surface when the door is in the open position; or a third pair of material guides extending from the working surface, wherein the third pair of material guides is rearward, in the y-direction, of the roller system.
Peterson teaches it is known in the art of compact paper cutting to incorporate a cutting device (2) with a door movable (8) between an open position and a closed position (Figures 1-2); Paragraph 0023) and having an upper surface configured to support the workpiece in the open position (Figures 1-2), the upper surface disposed
substantially parallel to the working surface and a first material guide (40) extending from the upper surface when the door is in the open position (Figure 2; Paragraph
0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Fujihara to incorporate the teachings of Peterson to provide a material guide extending from an upper surface then the movable door is in the open position. In doing so, it allows for proper alignment and orientation of the workpiece.
Block teaches it is known in the art of paper cutting to provide a first pair of material guides guide extending from the upper surface of a pivotable member (24) (Via hinge 25 See Figures 3A and 3B),a second pair of material guides (G2) extending from a working surface (23), wherein the second pair of material guides is forward, in the y-direction, of a cutting tool system (5), and wherein one guide of the second pair of material guides comprises an upper wall extending horizontally along an x- direction (Figure 2); and a third pair of material guides (28) extending from the working surface, wherein the third pair of material guides is rearward, in the y-direction, of the cutting tool system (Figures 2, 3A and 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Fujihara to incorporate the teachings of Block to provide multiple material guide pairs in multiple locations. In doing so, it allows for proper alignment and orientation of the workpiece throughout the working device.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Fujihara teaches the electronic cutting machine of claim 1, further comprising: and a tool (5)( Fujihara Figure 1 and Paragraph 0031) coupled to the electronic cutting machine and disposed between the first pair of material guides and the second pair of material guides (Block Figure 1 and Fujihara Figure 1 noting the cutting head 5 extends into the x-direction, thus being between the pairs of first and second material guides).
PNG
media_image1.png
920
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Fujihara teaches the electronic cutting machine of claim 1, wherein the first pair of material guides and the second pair of material guides collectively define a total length in a Y-direction (Fujihara Figure 1 above and Block Figure 1) and the third pair of material guides are spaced from the first pair of material guides or the second pair of material guides by a distance in an X-direction, wherein the total length is at least 30% of the distance (Fujihara Figure 1 noting the second material guide, and Block Figure 1 noting either end of the upper surface defining the “spaced distance” in an x direction).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Fujihara teaches the electronic cutting machine of claim 4, wherein the total length is at least 40% of the distance (Fujihara Figure 1 and Block Figure 1).
Regarding claim 26, the modified device of Fujihara teaches the electronic cutting machine of claim 1, and wherein the first pair of material guides are vertically extending bumpers that do not have an upper wall portion extending parallel to the working surface ((Fujihara Figure 1 and Block Figure 1).
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujihara (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0150618) in view of Peterson (U.S. Patent No. 2009/000042) in view of Block (US 8,381,623) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tse (US 2010/0319507).
Regarding claim 24, the modified device of Fujihara teaches the electronic cutting machine of claim 1, but does not provide further comprising a rib extending downward from a lower surface of the upper wall in the x-direction.
Tse teaches it is known in the art of electronic cutting machines to provide a guide (H1) with an upper wall and a rib (R1) extending downward from a lower surface of the upper wall in the x-direction (See annotated Figure 2 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Fujihara to incorporate the teachings of Tse to provide a material guide with a rib extending downward. In doing so, it allows for proper alignment and orientation of the workpiece.
PNG
media_image2.png
800
744
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, the modified device of Fujihara teaches the electronic cutting machine of claim 1, but does not provide wherein the third pair of material guides comprise: a vertical bumper portion; and a second upper wall portion extending from a top edge of the vertical bumper portion parallel to the working surface.
Tse teaches it is known in the art of electronic cutting machines to provide a pair of guides (H1) with a vertical bumper portion and a second upper wall portion extending from a top edge of the vertical bumper portion parallel to the working surface. (See annotated Figure 2 above noting the guide extending over the workpiece (P) such that there are two upper wall portions (top and bottom of guide H1) that extend parallel to the working surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Fujihara to incorporate the teachings of Tse to provide a material guide with a rib extending downward. In doing so, it allows for proper alignment and orientation of the workpiece.
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references A-K on page 1 establish the state of the art with a variety of different cutting devices with different cutting elements/blades using a variety of driving mechanisms.
Claimed Subject Matter
It is to be noted that claim 27 has not been rejected over prior art. However, indication of allowable subject matter is withheld, as it is not clear how the claims will be amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 04/27/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights