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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-6 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokumo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0370061).
Regarding claim 1: Tokumo discloses a slotter head comprising:
a fixed slotter knife base that has a disk shape and is rotatably supported, see for example (Fig. 2; via rotating slotter head 35);
a first cutting blade that is mounted on an outer peripheral portion of the fixed slotter knife base (Fig. 2; via slotter knife 113 mounted on head 35);
a moving slotter knife base that is movably supported by the fixed slotter knife base in a circumferential direction (via base of slotter knife 112 mounted on head 35);
a second cutting blade that is mounted on an outer peripheral portion of the moving slotter knife base (via knife 112);
a first drive device that rotationally drives the fixed slotter knife base; a second drive device that rotationally drives the moving slotter knife base; and a control device that drives and controls the first drive device and the second drive device, see for example (Fig. 7; via the shown different motors and controlling device 241 of the operation);
wherein the control device adjusts a relative rotation speed between the fixed slotter knife base and the moving slotter knife base at a start of rotation of the fixed slotter knife base and the moving slotter knife base, so that relative positions of the first cutting blade and the second cutting blade in a circumferential direction are adjusted, see for example (Figs. 6-9; via control device 241 and abstract, “The control device controls the drive device or the movement device when an adjustment mode in which each of the slotter knives is positioned at a predetermined position set”), and
a first drive force transmission system that transmits a driving force of the first drive device to the fixed slotter knife base and a second drive force transmission system that transmits a driving force of the second drive device to the moving slotter knife base are independent and do not intersect each other, see for example (Figs. 3 & 7; via the shown each pair of rollers/shafts carrying different slotter heads with their bases are driven separately by different transmission system via motors 121-123 & 233-234).
Tokumo does not disclose the amended claim filed on 07/11/2025 referring to the control device controls the rotation speed of the first cutting blade with the first drive device and controls the rotation speed of the second cutting blade with the second drive device, the first cutting blade and the second cutting blade are rotated at a speed corresponding to a constant operating speed (using multiple and different drive devices to control different blades).
However, Tokumo suggests the use of multiple blades to be controlled and adjusted using different motors, see for example (Fig. 18; via S21, S3, S5, and S6; different controlled movements of different blade heads along with the use of multiple drive devices as shown in Fig. 7, multiple motors M). The use of single or multiple drive devices to be linked with the control device for specific jobs to control a specific elements would be only a matter of design choice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Tokumo’s controlling mechanism to control the speed and operation of the cutting blades using more than one drive device for each specific job (cutting blades), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2: wherein a first rotary shaft is fixed to a center of the fixed slotter knife base (Fig. 2; via shaft 105), the moving slotter knife base is rotatably supported concentrically with the fixed slotter knife base (Figs. 2-3 & 6), an internal gear is provided on an inner peripheral portion of the moving slotter knife base, an external gear of a second rotary shaft meshes with the internal gear, the first drive device is configured to rotate the first rotary shaft, and the second drive device is configured to rotate the second rotary shaft, see for example (Figs. 2-6 and paragraph 0130; “slotter shafts 105 and 106 are drivingly connected to each other by gears (not shown)”.
Regarding claim 3: wherein the second rotary shaft is disposed in parallel adjacent to the first rotary shaft and penetrates the fixed slotter knife base (Figs. 2-3; via the shown parallel shafts 105-110), and each end portion thereof in an axial direction is rotatably supported by a support member of the first rotary shaft (paragraph 0098; “slotter shafts (rotating shafts) 105 and 106, each end portion is rotatably supported by the frame”.
Regarding claim 4: Tokumo does not exactly provide an exact location of the driven gear to be fixed to an end portion of the second rotary shaft in an axial direction, a geared hollow shaft is rotatably supported concentrically with the first rotary shaft, a drive gear provided on an inner peripheral portion of the geared hollow shaft meshes with the driven gear, and the second drive device is configured to rotate the geared hollow shaft. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Tokumo’s gear position to be at the end portion of the second rotary shaft as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 5: Tokumo does not disclose the exact location of the first rotary shaft to be fixed to a center of the fixed slotter knife base, the moving slotter knife base is rotatably supported concentrically with the fixed slotter knife base, an external gear is provided on an outer peripheral portion of the moving slotter knife base, an external gear of a second rotary shaft meshes with the external gear, the first drive device is configured to rotate the first rotary shaft, and the second drive device is configured to rotate the second rotary shaft. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Tokumo’s gear position to be fixed to a center of the fixed slotter knife base as claimed above, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 6: Tokumo does not disclose an overload protection device that is provided in a driving force transmission system that transmits a driving force of the second drive device to the moving slotter knife base. However, the Office takes an official notice that such claimed use of an “overload protection device” is old and well known in the art to detect any “overload” work of any given machine’s elements to control or stop the operation of that given module, for example the known “overload” switches.
Regarding claim 8: wherein the control device adjusts a relative rotation speed between the fixed slotter knife base and the moving slotter knife base when controlling the fixed slotter knife base and the moving slotter knife base at the same constant rotation speed, so that relative positions of the first cutting blade and the second cutting blade in a circumferential direction are adjusted, see for example (Figs. 4-8 & 18; via paragraph 0134; “detecting a rotation speed or a rotational phase” and abstract “when an adjustment mode in which each of the slotter knives is positioned at a predetermined position set”).
Regarding claim 9: wherein the control device adjusts a relative rotation speed between the fixed slotter knife base and the moving slotter knife base when rotation of the fixed slotter knife base and the moving slotter knife base is stopped, so that relative positions of the first cutting blade and the second cutting blade in a circumferential direction are adjusted, see for example (Figs. 4-8 & 18; via paragraph 0134; “detecting a rotation speed or a rotational phase” and abstract “when an adjustment mode in which each of the slotter knives is positioned at a predetermined position set”).
Regarding claim 10: wherein the second cutting blade has a slotter knife blade having an arc shape and a tip provided at an end portion of the slotter knife blade in a circumferential direction (Figs. 2-5; via the shown tip portions of knife 112), and the control device adjusts a rotation speed of the moving slotter knife, so that at least a rotation speed when the tip separates from a sheet is lower than a rotation speed when the slotter knife blade comes into contact with the sheet, see for example (Figs. 4-8 & 18; via paragraph 0134; “detecting a rotation speed or a rotational phase” and abstract “when an adjustment mode in which each of the slotter knives is positioned at a predetermined position set”).
Regarding claim 11: wherein the control device drives and controls the first drive device and the second drive device based on relative position information of the first cutting blade and the second cutting blade in the circumferential direction input from a production control device, see for example (Figs. 7-8; via control device 241; controlling and driving different devices).
Regarding claim 12: wherein the control device drives and controls the first drive device and the second drive device based on relative position information of the first cutting blade and the second cutting blade in the circumferential direction input from an operation device operated by an operator, see for example (Figs. 7-8; via control device 241; controlling and driving different devices).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 8-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection adjusted to address the newly added limitations.
In light of the conducted interview on 06/12/2025 and the latest filed amendments and argument filed on 07/11/2025, the Office as set forth above believes that the applied art of Tokumo ‘061 uses a control device to control multiple drive devices assigned for different jobs, but not necessarily as claimed using the control device to specifically control first and second drive devices while having each drive device controlling different cutting blade on the same rotating base. However, since the applied art ‘061 discloses the claimed elements, but in different arrangements; such matter would be nothing more than a design choice to be made. It has been noted that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Shelle Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights