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 4-7-2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 were amended. Claims 3-6 were cancelled. Claims 1-3 and 7 are pending and examined in this action.
Applicant’s claim amendments to Claim 1 has obviated the prior Specification Objection.
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,097,373 to Mochizuki in view of US 6,113,293 to Shanke and US 2005/0207818 to Tsuchiya, and US 2007/028739 to Kawaguchi.
In re Claim 1, Mochizuki teaches a sheet cutter (see Figs. 1-7) comprising:
a fixed blade (see Figs. 1-7, #5), comprising a fixed blade edge (blade edge #5a), and provided on a separation side of the sheet cutter in a cutting direction (see position of #5 in Figs. 1-7);
a movable blade (see Figs. 1-7, #4) comprising:
a movable blade edge (see Figs. 1-7, #4f) opposed to the fixed blade edge in the cutting direction (see Figs. 4-5, “Y”), the cutting direction crossing a conveying direction; and
a sliding surface on a conveyance source side of the movable blade in the conveying direction, the movable blade causing the sliding surface to slide on the fixed lade edge (see Figs. 1-7, showing blade #4 sliding along blade #5);and
a rack holder for reciprocating the movable blade along the cutting direction (see Figs. 1-7, movable blade unit #4), the rack holder including:
a movable blade holder (see Figs. 1-7, movable blade unit #4 supports movable blade #4a); and
an urging member comprising at least one pressurizing spring (see Figs. 1-7, movable blade pressing spring 4b) for urging the movable blade to the conveyance source side,
wherein the separation side is a side toward which the movable blade is moved away from the fixed blade in the cutting direction (see Figs. 4-7, separation side is in the direction Y towards the top of the paper); and
wherein the movable blade edge is formed into an inverted V shape extending from both ends toward a center portion of the movable blade edge (see Figs. 4-7, #4f, showing the movable blade edge is formed into an inverted V shape extending from both ends toward a center portion of the movable blade edge).
Mochizuki is silent as to the pressurizing spring at a center portion of the movable blade; and
wherein the movable blade holder comprises a plurality of grooves that are formed in a front end surface of the movable blade holder on a conveyance destination side of the movable blade, each of the plurality of grooves having an opening facing towards the conveyance destination side; and
the rack holder further comprises a sliding plate provided on the conveyance destination side having a sliding surface and a plurality of guide holes elongated in the cutting direction, and
the movable blade holder further comprises a plurality of guide protruding portions that engage the plurality of guide holes.
However, Shanke teaches that it is known in the art of sliding blade to provide a spring at the center portion of the movable blade (see Shanke, Fig. 5, #70). In the same field of invention, sliding blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide the spring in at the center of the blade, as taught by Shanke. Doing so is the substitution of one known spring arrangement for another known spring arrangement to bias the blade (see MPEP 2143, I, B). here, the force exerted on the blade by the spring ensures consistent pressure on the blade thus allowing looser "fit" manufacturing tolerances for the cutter mechanism (see Shanke, Col. 4, ll. 50-56).
Additionally, Shanke teaches a the rack holder (see Shanke, Fig. 5, #44) further comprises a sliding plate provided on the conveyance destination side having a sliding surface (see Shanke, Fig. 4, #7-19, which states : the cutting mechanism 40 is slidably mounted on a base 44. ) and a guide hole elongated in the cutting direction (see Shanke, Fig. 5, #52), and
the movable blade holder further comprises a guide protruding portion (see Shanke, Fig. 5, #64; see also Col. 4, ll. 42-56) that engage the guide hole.
In the same field of invention, sliding blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide a sliding surface with an aperture and a protruding structure on the movable blade, as taught by Shanke. Such a construction allows for looser “fit” manufacturing tolerances (see Shanke, Col. 4, ll. 50-56).
The Examiner notes that Shanke teaches a single aperture and a single protrusion. It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add a second or third aperture and corresponding protrusion since 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).
Additionally, Tsuchiya teaches that it is known in the art of sliding blades to provide the movable blade holder with a plurality of grooves (see Tsuchiya, Fig. 5, #86 and Para. 0051/0059) that are formed in a front end surface of the movable blade holder (see Tsuchiya, Fig. 5, #86 and Para. 0051/0059), each of the plurality of grooves having an opening (see Tsuchiya, Fig. 5, #86 and Para. 0051/0059).
In the same field of invention, sliding blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, replace the moving structure of modified Mochizuki, in re Claim 1, with the rack system of Tsuchiya. Doing so is the substitution of one known driving structure for another known driving structure to cause the movable blade to move (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Doing so allows the movable blade to move (see Tsuchiya, Fig. 5, #86 and Para. 0051/0059).
The plurality of grooves in Tsuchiya face away from Z1 direction, the conveyance destination side of the blade, as opposed to facing the conveying direction.
Kawaguchi teaches that structure used to move the blade can be placed on the conveyance destination side of the blade (see Kawaguchi, Fig. 1, showing the spring #16 is located on the conveyance destination side of the blade). In the same field of invention, structures for moving blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to place the structure used to move the blade on either side (the examiner notes that there are only two sides a person of ordinary skill in the art can choose), since it has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Here placing the rack/grooves on the side of the blade where the workpieces is heading, as opposed to where the workpiece is coming from, is within the level of ordinary skill in the art and does not change the function of the structure. Namely, whether the rack attached to one side or the other side of the movable blade, the function remains the same, moving the blade
In re Claim 2, modified Mochizuki, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the urging member comprises: a first end abutting the movable blade holder (see Shanke, Fig. 5, #70); and a second end abutting a conveyance destination side of the movable blade in the conveying direction (opposite side of #70).
In re Claim 7, modified Mochizuki, in re Claim 1, teaches a printer (see abstract), comprising:
a recording sheet to be advanced toward a forward side in an advancing direction (see Figs. 1-7, #10); and
a cutter according to claim 1 (see discussion above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that none of the cited prior art teaches a sliding surface with apertures and a blade holder with a protruding portion. The Examiner disagrees. As noted above US 6,113,293 to Shanke teaches that it is known to provide a sliding surface with an aperture and a corresponding protrusion (see Shanke, Fig. 5, #44/52/64).
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 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
Prosecution Insights