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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
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.
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.
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:
The “pair of cleaning members” in claims 1-4, 6 invokes 112F because the "members" is a generic substitute for “means”; second, the "members" is modified by functional language including “configured to come into contact with and clean a cutting section of the continuous body”; and third, the "members" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "cleaning" preceding members describes the function, not the structure of the members.
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. 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gherardi (US 4593589 A) in view of Powell (US 2006/0042439).
Regarding Claim 1, Gherardi shows a cutting device (Figures 1-7) comprising:
a first cutting blade and a second cutting blade (both blades 30, Figures 3, 4 ) both configured to be moved toward and away from a continuous body of electrode plates or separators (continuous web) so as to cut the continuous body (the web, see the abstract);
a first pair of cleaning members (circular brushes 32, Figure 1) configured to be moved toward and away from the continuous body together with the first and second cutting blades (Figure 1), and configured to come into contact with and clean a cutting section of the continuous body (as seen Figure 2, the brushes 32 are closely to sizes of the cutting blades 30 and configured to contact the web, for example, if the web is thick); and
a holder body (blade-carrying lever 28, Figure 2) configured to support the first cutting blade, the second cutting blade, and the first pair of cleaning members member and configured to be moved toward and away from the continuous body,
wherein the holder body has a first arm and a second arm (see arms 27, Figure 1) divided by a slit (between the arms 27) extending in a direction of movement of the first and second cutting blades and is disposed such that the continuous body enters the slit as the holder body is moved toward the continuous body,
wherein each of the first arm and the second arm supports the first cutting blade and one cleaning member of the first pair of cleaning members arranged in the direction of movement of the first and second cutting blades while the second arm supports the second cutting blade and another cleaning member of the first pair of cleaning members arranged in the direction of movement of the first and second cutting blades (see both brushes and blades supported on the arms 27, Figure 1),
wherein the holder body (28, Figure 2) moves in parallel with the continuous body, wherein the first arm, the second arm, the first and second cutting blades, and the first pair of cleaning members advance toward and recede from the continuous body during conveyance in a direction intersecting a conveying direction of the continuous body (see Figure 2),
wherein, as the first cutting blade and the second cutting blade advance toward or recede from the continuous body, a cutting section extending in a width direction of the continuous body is formed (see the abstract), and
wherein the first pair of cleaning members pass through the cutting section of the continuous body while coming into contact with a surface of the continuous body, thereby cleaning the cutting section (see the abstract and see Figure 2, the blade 30 cuts the web N).
However, if one argues that brushes 32 do not come into contact with and clean a cutting section of the continuous body, then see Powell’s reference.
Powell shows a brush (152, Figures 2-3) around a circular blade (42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified each of the blade of Gherardi to have a brush (4 section brushes) around a circular blade, as taught by Powell, in order to allow sweeping a dust seal between a shroud and a work piece or a workpiece supporter (the last few lines of Para. 30 of Powell).
Regarding Claim 2, the modified cutting device of Gherardi shows that the first pair of cleaning member is disposed so as to sandwich the continuous body when viewed from the direction of movement of the first and second cutting blades (after the modification, there are 2 sets of brushes on each cutting mechanism and the web being cut sandwiches between them).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified cutting device of Gherardi shows that a second pair of cleaning members, wherein the first pair of cleaning member is disposed on a side farther from the continuous body than the first and second cutting blades and the second pair of cleaning member is disposed on a side closer to the continuous body than the first and second cutting blades, when the first and second cutting blades is in a receding position from the continuous body (please note that each circular blade is modified to have the brush 152. See Powell’s Figures 2-3, the brushes 152 including front, back, and two lateral sides around the circular blade; the second pair of cleaning members are front sides of the brushes 152 that are performed the claim limitation).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified cutting device of Gherardi shows that the first pair of cleaning member is a brush with multiple bristles bundled together (see Powell’s brush 152).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified cutting device of Gherardi shows that the first cutting blade and the second cutting blade are each constituted by a circular blade (see Gherardi’s Figure 1), the first cutting blade being supported by the first arm such that the circular blade is parallel to an advancing or receding direction of the first cutting blade, and the second cutting blade being supported by the second arm such that the circular blade is parallel to an advancing or receding direction of the second cutting blade (see Gherardi’s Figure 1), and
wherein the first pair of cleaning members are arranged at positions in the first arm and the second arm that do not come into contact with the first cutting blade and the second cutting blade (see Powell’s Figures 2-3, the brushes are not contacted to the blade and see the modification in claim 1 above, each circular blade includes a brush).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 4 is free prior art because the prior art does not teach or suggest to have a dimension of the second pair of cleaning member in an extension direction of the continuous body is larger than a dimension of the first pair of cleaning member in the extension direction of the continuous body (another word, the front brushes are thicker or greater sizes than the back brushes).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liang (CN 206287200) shows a circular saw blade and a brush for cleaning the blade.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 9/17/2026
Prosecution Insights