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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 14 July 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 31-69 are pending, of which claims 35-38, 41-44, 46-49, 51-53, 58-59, 63, 65-66, and 68-69 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Note that claims 39 and 40 are no longer withdrawn as discussed in the Rejoinder section below.
Rejoinder
Although neither of claims 31 and 54 constitutes a special technical feature in view of these claims being rejected under 35 USC 103 below, and although claims 39 and 40 are directed to different technical features than those of the elected invention of Group J (see Applicant’s election in the reply of 21 April 2025), the examiner has nonetheless withdrawn the restriction requirement with respect to claims 39 and 40. The examiner has determined that maintaining the restriction requirement with respect to claims 39 and 40 would not be reasonable in view of the minimal search effort required to examine these claims. The remainders of the restriction requirements of 17 March 2025 and 22 May 2026 remain in force.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“members for feeding the products” as recited in claim 31 at lines 6-7 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for feeding the products”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
“a sharpening unit adapted to sharpen the at least one cutting blade” as recited in claim 31 at lines 12-13 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “adapted to sharpen the at least one cutting blade”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “sharpening” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit);
“an adjustment system” as recited in claim 31 at line 14 (first, “system” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language at lines 15-19 of the claim; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “adjustment” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the system);
“at least one image acquisition device” as recited in claim 39 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for acquiring images of the articles”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the name “image acquisition” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device);
“a contact force detection device” as recited in claim 45 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for detecting contact force between the at least one cutting blade and the sharpening unit”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the name “contact force detection” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device);
“lateral retaining elements” as recited in claim 50 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “retaining” – i.e., in order for an element to be considered as a ‘retaining element’, the element must perform a retaining function; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “lateral” preceding the generic placeholder describes the location, not the structure, of the elements, and a structure can be located laterally of the products without performing the function of retaining the products);
“members for feeding the products” as recited in claim 54 at line 5 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for feeding the products”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
“a sharpening unit adapted to sharpen the at least one cutting blade” as recited in claim 54 at lines 9-10 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “adapted to sharpen the at least one cutting blade”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “sharpening” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit); and
“an adjustment system” as recited in claim 54 at line 10 (first, “system” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language at lines 20-23 of the claim; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “adjustment” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the system); and
“lateral retaining elements” as recited in claim 61 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “retaining” – i.e., in order for an element to be considered as a ‘retaining element’, the element must perform a retaining function; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “lateral” preceding the generic placeholder describes the location, not the structure, of the elements, and a structure can be located laterally of the products without performing the function of retaining the products).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 39 at the final line recites, “a shape of the articles”. This recitation should refer to “the” or “said” shape of the articles in view of claim 31 at the final paragraph already introducing the same shape.
Claim 64 recites, “the at least one piece of information”. This recitation should read – the at least one first piece of information – for consistency with claim 31.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 32, 34, 55, 57, and 60-62 is/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.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the parameter correlated to the mechanical or acoustic vibrations generated by cutting the products" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 32 indefinite. For example, it is unclear if the Applicant inadvertently failed to delete the parameter option at lines 9-10 of claim 32 in the same manner that the Applicant deleted ‘a parameter correlated to mechanical or acoustic vibrations generated by cutting the products’ from claim 31 (see the deletions at lines 24-25). Does the Applicant intend to permit the second piece of information to include the parameter at lines 9-10 in claim 32, or did Applicant merely inadvertently fail to delete the parameter at lines 9-10 in claim 32? If claim 32 includes the parameter at lines 9-10, then it is unclear what particular ‘mechanical or acoustic vibrations’ are encompassed by “the mechanical or acoustic vibrations”. Does “the mechanical or acoustic vibrations” encompass all potential mechanical or acoustic vibrations, or only some? If the former, why are the vibrations referred to as “the” vibrations? If the latter, which particular vibrations are being referred to? As such, the lack of antecedent basis renders claim 32 indefinite.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the drive motor" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 32 indefinite. It is unclear whether some new drive motor is being introduced, or whether the recitation intends to refer to some previously introduced structure. Further, it is unclear whether the limitation implicitly limits the cutting machine to having a single drive motor. It is known in the art for cutting machines to have two drive motors, such as a first drive motor to drive spinning action of the cutting blade and a second drive motor to drive an orbital motion of the cutting blade. Does claim 32 implicitly limit the cutting machine to one that has a single drive motor? If not, which of the multiple drive motors is referred to by “the drive motor”?
Claim 55 recites the limitation "the parameter correlated to the mechanical or acoustic vibrations generated by cutting the products" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 55 indefinite. For example, it is unclear if the Applicant inadvertently failed to delete the parameter option at lines 9-10 of claim 55 in the same manner that the Applicant deleted ‘a parameter correlated to mechanical or acoustic vibrations generated by cutting the products’ from claim 54 (see the deletions at lines 28-29). Does the Applicant intend to permit the second piece of information to include the parameter at lines 9-10 in claim 55, or did Applicant merely inadvertently fail to delete the parameter at lines 9-10 in claim 55? If claim 55 includes the parameter at lines 9-10, then it is unclear what particular ‘mechanical or acoustic vibrations’ are encompassed by “the mechanical or acoustic vibrations”. Does “the mechanical or acoustic vibrations” encompass all potential mechanical or acoustic vibrations, or only some? If the former, why are the vibrations referred to as “the” vibrations? If the latter, which particular vibrations are being referred to? As such, the lack of antecedent basis renders claim 55 indefinite.
Claim 55 recites the limitation "the drive motor" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 55 indefinite. It is unclear whether some new drive motor is being introduced, or whether the recitation intends to refer to some previously introduced structure. Further, it is unclear whether the limitation implicitly limits the cutting machine to having a single drive motor. It is known in the art for cutting machines to have two drive motors, such as a first drive motor to drive spinning action of the cutting blade and a second drive motor to drive an orbital motion of the cutting blade. Does claim 55 implicitly limit the cutting machine to one that has a single drive motor? If not, which of the multiple drive motors is referred to by “the drive motor”?
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.
Claim(s) 31-34, 39-40, 45, 50, 54-57, and 60-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/016667 to Mario Gioni Chiocchetti et al. (hereinafter, “Chiocchetti”) in view of US Pub. No. 2009/0255387 A1 to Pelletier, US Pub. No. 2021/0394386 A1 to Acciari, and US Pat. No. 4,976,179 to Lacrouts-Cazenave.
Regarding claim 31, Chiocchetti discloses a cutting machine 1 for cutting products 3 made of cellulose material into articles 5 made of cellulose material of smaller longitudinal dimension (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 30), [the cutting machine] comprising:
- at least one feed channel 9 of the products 3 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 32);
- members 11 (including pushing members 13) for feeding the product 3 along the at least one feed channel 9 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 32);
- at least one cutting blade 17 adapted to cut the products 3 into the articles 5 according to cutting planes orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the products 3 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 33; the cutting planes are visible between articles 5 and extend vertically along the plane of the page and into and out of the page relative to Fig. 1, whereas the longitudinal direction of the products is a left-right direction along the plane of the page relative to Fig. 1);
- a sharpening unit 29 adapted to sharpen the at least one cutting blade 17 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 36); and
- an adjustment system 39;
wherein the adjustment system 39 is adapted to: receive in input at least one second piece of information on an operation of the cutting machine 1 (the second piece of information being from the load cell, which is ‘on an operation of the cutting machine’ because the sharpening unit 29 is part of the cutting machine 1; see paragraphs 7, 21, and 38); and to provide, in response to said at least one second piece of information, at least one adjustment command of the cutting machine 1 (the command to control the actuator per paragraph 21; see also paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 32, Chiocchetti discloses that the adjustment system 39 is adapted to: receive in input the at least one second piece of information on the operation of the cutting machine 1, the second piece of information being a parameter concerning an exchange of force between the at least one cutting blade 17 and the sharpening unit 29 (see paragraphs 21 and 57).
Regarding claims 33 and 34, Chiocchetti discloses that the least one adjustment command is automatically transmitted by the adjustment system 39 to a member of the cutting machine 1 (see paragraphs 21, 51, and 57; the adjustment system 39 automatically transmits the adjustment command based on the signal of the load cell 63).
Regarding claim 45, Chiocchetti discloses a contact force detection device 63 for detecting contact force between the at least one cutting blade and the sharpening unit (see Fig. 3 and paragraphs 5-6 and 55-56).
Regarding claim 50, Chiocchetti discloses that said at least one adjustment command is an operation to replace the at least one cutting blade (see paragraphs 62-23).
Regarding claim 54, Chiocchetti discloses a method for cutting longitudinally extending products 3 made of web material (see paragraph 30), into a plurality of articles 5 of smaller longitudinal dimensions (see Fig. 1), by a cutting machine 1 comprising: at least one feed channel 9 of the products 3 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 32); members 11 (including pushing members 13) for feeding the products 3 along the at least one feed channel 9 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 32); at least one cutting blade 17 adapted to cut the products 3 into the articles 5 according to cutting planes orthogonal to a longitudinal extension of the products 3 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 33; the cutting planes are visible between articles 5 and extend vertically along the plane of the page and into and out of the page relative to Fig. 1, whereas the longitudinal extension of the products is a left-right direction along the plane of the page relative to Fig. 1); a sharpening unit 29 adapted to sharpen the at least one cutting blade 17 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 36); and an adjustment system 39; wherein the method comprises steps of:
feeding the products 3 along the at least one feed channel 9 (see Fig. 1 showing feed direction ‘f3’);
moving the at least one cutting blade 17 cyclically with respect to the product 3 (the cyclic movement including rotation about axis B-B per paragraph 33), said at least one cutting blade 17 having a forward movement and a cutting movement with respect to the products 3 (see paragraph 33; the two movements are a forward movement of the plate 19 about axis B-B and a cutting movement of the blade 17 including rotation about axis A-A; alternatively, the ‘forward movement’ can include a movement of the product 3, since the claim requires ‘relative’ movement);
acquiring at least one second piece of information on an operation of the cutting machine 1 (the second piece of information being from the load cell, which is ‘on an operation of the cutting machine’ because the sharpening unit 29 is part of the cutting machine 1; see paragraphs 7, 21, and 38);
the adjustment system 39 automatically generating an adjustment command for the cutting machine 1 as a function of said at least one second piece of information on the operation of the cutting machine 1 (see paragraphs 21 and 38; the adjustment command including a control of the actuator 37; moreover, Chiocchetti discloses additional adjustment commands that are a function of the second piece of information, including a command to request replacement of the at least one cutting blade per paragraphs 62-63).
Regarding claim 55, Chiocchetti discloses acquiring the at least one second piece of information on the operation of the cutting machine 1 (see paragraphs 21 and 57), and wherein said at least one second piece of information comprises a parameter concerning an exchange of force between the at least one cutting blade 17 and the sharpening unit 29 (see paragraphs 21 and 57).
Regarding claims 56 and 57, Chiocchetti discloses that the least one adjustment command is automatically transmitted by the adjustment system 39 to the cutting machine 1 (see paragraphs 21, 51, and 57; the adjustment system 39 automatically transmits the adjustment command based on the signal of the load cell 63).
Regarding claim 60, Chiocchetti discloses that the adjustment command acts on an operation of the sharpening unit 29 (see paragraph 57; the adjustment command is an adjustment command of the actuator 37 of the sharpening unit 29).
Regarding claim 61, Chiocchetti discloses that the adjustment command is an adjustment command for the sharpening unit 29 (see paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 62, Chiocchetti discloses that the adjustment command is the adjustment command for the sharpening unit 29 (see paragraph 57). Chiocchetti also discloses that the adjustment command of the sharpening unit 29 can be a command to request replacement of the cutting blade 17 (see paragraphs 62-64).
Chiocchetti fails to disclose that the adjustment system is adapted to receive at least one first piece of information on an operation of the cutting machine, that at least one adjustment command of the cutting machine is provided in response to said at least one first piece of information, and wherein the at least one first piece of information comprises a parameter concerning a shape of the articles produced by cutting the products as required by claim 31. Chiocchetti also fails to disclose that the second piece of information is different from the at least one first piece of information as required by claim 32 (since Chiocchetti fails to disclose the at least one first piece of information). Chiocchetti also fails to disclose: at least one image acquisition device for acquiring images of the articles obtained from cutting the products, and wherein said at least one first piece of information on the operation of the cutting machine comprises information on a shape of the articles as required by claim 39 and wherein the information on the shape of the articles comprises information on a profile of the articles at least in a side view or in a front view as required by claim 40. Chiocchetti also fails to disclose that the piece of information that is acquired is at least one first piece of information, that the adjustment command is a function of said at least one first piece of information, and that said at least one first piece of information comprises a parameter concerning a shape of the articles produced by cutting the products as required by claim 54. Chiocchetti fails to disclose that the second piece of information is different from the at least one first piece of information as required by claim 55 (since Chiocchetti fails to disclose the at least one first piece of information).
In general, it is widely known in the field of endeavor of cutting to perform quality control by taking an image of a cut article (the image being a first piece of information) and providing the image to an adjustment system so that the adjustment system can provide an adjustment command in response to the image. The examiner provides three example references as evidence of this point.
Pelletier teaches a cutting machine 202 for cutting products (see paragraph 27), where the cutting machine 202 includes an adjustment system (see, as one option, the functionality of the computer system 100 and the PLC 220 being integrated into one computer system per paragraph 31) that is adapted to receive a first piece of information on an operation of the cutting machine 202 (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 29, where the first piece of information is information obtained by the camera of the monitoring system 204), where the adjustment system provides an adjustment command of the cutting machine 202 in response to said at least first piece of information (see paragraphs 32 and 35, where the adjustment command re-positions a component of the cutting machine in response to said at least first piece of information), and where the first piece of information comprises a parameter concerning a shape of the articles produced by the cutting machine (consistent with the present specification, information from a camera is a first piece of information that comprises a parameter concerning a shape of articles produced). Pelletier teaches at least one image acquisition device for acquiring images of the articles (see the camera of paragraph 28 and Fig. 2), and wherein said at least one first piece of information on the operation of the cutting machine 202 comprises information of a shape of the articles (consistent with the present specification, information from a camera that images cut articles includes information of a shape of the articles). Pelletier teaches that the information on the shape of the articles comprises information on a profile of the articles in a side view (see Fig. 2, showing that the camera 216 takes images of a profile of the articles in a top side view, just as camera 55 in Fig. 1 of the present drawings obtains information on a profile in a side view). Pelletier teaches that providing the adjustment system with the first piece of information provides quality control data (see paragraphs 28 and 36), where the adjustment system is able to correct defects generated by the cutting machine (see paragraph 32) or where the adjustment system is able to provide an alarm that a product is defective (see paragraph 38).
Acciari teaches a cutting machine 1 for cutting products (see paragraph 80), where the cutting machine 1 includes an adjustment system 71 that is adapted to receive a first piece of information on an operation of the cutting machine 1 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 97, where the first piece of information is information obtained by cameras 51 and 53), where the adjustment system 71 provides an adjustment command of the cutting machine 1 in response to said at least first piece of information (see paragraph 37), and where the first piece of information comprises a parameter concerning a shape of the articles produced by the cutting machine (consistent with the present specification, information from a camera is a first piece of information that comprises a parameter concerning a shape of articles produced). Acciari teaches at least one image acquisition device 51 and/or 53 for acquiring images of the articles (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 138), and wherein said at least one first piece of information on the operation of the cutting machine 1 comprises information of a shape of the articles (consistent with the present specification, information from a camera that images cut articles includes information of a shape of the articles). Acciari teaches that the information on the shape of the articles comprises information on a profile of the articles in a side view (see Fig. 1, showing that the cameras 51 and 53 takes images of a profile of the articles in a side view, just as camera 55 in Fig. 1 of the present drawings obtains information on a profile in a side view). Acciari teaches that providing the adjustment system with the first piece of information provides quality control data, in particular data related to the quality of the cutting edges to determine wear of blades of the cutting machine (see paragraph 105).
Lacrouts-Cazenave teaches a cutting machine for cutting products 2 (shown in Fig. 3, where tool 15 cuts products 2), where the cutting machine includes an adjustment system 24 that is adapted to receive a first piece of information on an operation of the cutting machine (see Fig. 3 and col. 6, lines 54-59, where the first piece of information is information obtained by camera 18), where the adjustment system 24 provides an adjustment command of the cutting machine in response to said at least first piece of information (see col. 3, lines 34-36), and where the first piece of information comprises a parameter concerning a shape of the articles produced by the cutting machine (consistent with the present specification, information from a camera is a first piece of information that comprises a parameter concerning a shape of articles produced). Lacrouts-Cazenave teaches at least one image acquisition device 18 for acquiring images of the articles (see Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 15-22), and wherein said at least one first piece of information on the operation of the cutting machine comprises information of a shape of the articles (consistent with the present specification, information from a camera that images cut articles includes information of a shape of the articles). Lacrouts-Cazenave teaches that the information on the shape of the articles comprises information on a profile of the articles in a side view (see Fig. 3, showing that the camera 18 takes images of a profile of the articles in a top side view, just as camera 55 in Fig. 1 of the present drawings obtains information on a profile in a top side view). Lacrouts-Cazenave teaches that providing the adjustment system with the first piece of information allows for continuous quality control of the cut articles (see col. 6, lines 54-55), including indicating which articles are defective (see col. 3, lines 15-19).
Thus, as the three example references cited above demonstrate, it is widely known in the cutting arts to arrange a camera to image a cut article in order to provide a first piece of information concerning a shape of the cut article to an adjustment system so that the adjustment system can provide an adjustment command in response to information from the image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutting machine of Chiocchetti with a camera that takes images of cut articles and provides information from the images (and thus information concerning a shape of the articles) to the adjustment system of Chiocchetti so that the adjustment system of Chiocchetti can provide at least one adjustment command in response to the information from the camera. As evidenced by Pelletier, Acciari, and Lacrouts-Cazenave, taking images of cut articles and providing information from the images to an adjustment system is widely known in the art to be advantageous for quality control purposes. The adjustment system is able to use the information from the images of the cut articles in order to provide an adjustment command to adjust a position of a cutting blade or issue an alarm that a product is defective (see the discussion of Pelletier above), to provide quality control data including whether a blade of the cutting machine is worn (see the discussion of Acciari above), or to mark which articles are defective (see the discussion of Lacrouts-Cazenave above).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutting machine of Chiocchetti with a camera that takes images of cut articles and provides information from the images (and thus information concerning a shape of the articles) to the adjustment system of Chiocchetti so that the adjustment system of Chiocchetti can provide at least one adjustment command in response to the information from the camera under KSR Rationale C – use of known technique to improve similar devices (or methods) in the same way. The prior art contains the base device of Chiocchetti upon which the claimed invention is an improvement via the provision of an image acquisition device that provides information from images of cut articles to the adjustment system. The prior art contains comparable cutting machines that are improved in the same way as the claimed invention – i.e., each of Pelletier, Acciari, and Lacrouts-Cazenave teaches a cutting machine that has a camera that images a cut article and provides information from the image to an adjustment system for purposes of improving quality control. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement of providing a camera that provides information from images of cut articles to the adjustment system of Chiocchetti in the manner disclosed by Pelletier, Acciari, and/or Lacrouts-Cazenave, and the results of this modification would have been predictable because Pelletier, Acciari, and Lacrouts-Cazenave provide evidence that a camera can be provided to various types of cutting machines for the purpose of improving quality control.
Chiocchetti, as modified, thus discloses that the adjustment system is adapted to receive at least one first piece of information on an operation of the cutting machine (in particular, an image of a cut article), that at least one adjustment command of the cutting machine is provided in response to said at least one first piece of information (the adjustment command comprising at least one of a command to adjust a blade position, a command to issue an alarm that a defective article has been cut, a command that the blade is worn and thus requires sharpening, or a command to indicate that an article is defective), and wherein the at least one first piece of information comprises a parameter concerning a shape of the articles produced by cutting the products (the image of the article comprises a parameter concerning a shape of the article). Chiocchetti, as modified, also discloses that the second piece of information is different from the at least one first piece of information (since the first piece of information includes an image of a cut article and the second piece of information is related to a force in a sharpening unit).
Claim(s) 64 and 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiocchetti as modified by Pelletier, Acciari, and Lacrouts-Cazenave as applied to claims 31 and 54 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2005/0284277 A1 to Casella et al.
Chiocchetti, as modified, fails to disclose that the at least one first piece of information further comprises a parameter correlated to a temperature of the at least one cutting blade as required by claims 64 and 67.
Casella teaches an adjustment system (including actuator 20) that is adapted to receive in input at least one first piece of information on an operation of a cutting machine (see Fig. 1 showing a portion of the cutting machine and see Fig. 3 showing that the adjustment system receives a first piece of information from sensor 15; the first piece of information includes a deformation of a blade 1 of the cutting machine per paragraph 29, which is ‘information on an operation’ of the cutting machine because the blade 1 deforms due to operation of the cutting machine per paragraphs 36 and 37), and the first piece of information is a parameter correlated to a temperature of the cutting blade 1 (see paragraphs 36 and 37; the blade 1 deforms to a greater degree as the blade 1 heats up, and the blade 1 lessens in deformation as the blade 1 cools down, such that the degree of deformation of the blade 1 is “correlated to” the temperature of the blade; see also paragraphs 3 and 4 disclosing the correlation). Casella teaches that providing an adjustment system with a first piece of information on an operation of a cutting machine, where the first piece of information comprises a parameter correlated to a temperature of a cutting blade of the cutting machine, is advantageous in order to avoid damage to the blade, while also avoiding unnecessarily long stoppages of cutting that permit the blade to cool-down (see paragraph 4). That is, Casella teaches that the cutting blade can become damaged or even break if the blade becomes too hot (see paragraph 4). Casella further teaches that one manner of avoiding overheating of the blade is to lower production by stopping cutting, so that the blade has time to cool (see paragraph 4). Conventionally, when cutting is stopped, Casella notes that the stoppage may be longer than necessary, thus hindering production efficiency (see paragraph 4). However, Casella teaches that by providing the adjustment system with the first piece of information that is a parameter correlated to a temperature of the blade, the blade can avoid overheating while also only being cooled the minimum amount of time necessary (see paragraphs 11 and 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the adjustment system of Chiocchetti, as modified, with an additional first piece of information on the operation of the cutting machine that comprises a parameter correlated to a temperature of the blade, in view of the teachings of Casella. This modification is advantageous because the first piece of information, being correlated to the temperature of the cutting blade, provides the adjustment system of Chiocchetti, as modified, with information related to the temperature of the blade, allowing the adjustment system of Chiocchetti, as modified, to stop cutting of the products when the blade is at risk of becoming damaged or breaking due to overheating, and also allowing the adjustment system of Chiocchetti, as modified, to resume cutting as soon as the blade has cooled sufficiently. This modification is thus advantageous to avoid blade damage, and also to increase cutting efficiency by avoiding longer than necessary stoppages.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 11 May 2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 31 and 54 under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights