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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12-4-2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-3 were amended. Claims 4-6 were cancelled. Claims 1-3 and 7 are pending and examined in this action.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: a pressurizing member lacks antecedent basis in the specification.
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.
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: a pressurizing member in claim 1.
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
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 1-3 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 for urging the movable blade to the conveyance source side in the advancing direction (see Figs. 1-7, movable blade pressing spring #4b),
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 urging member 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.
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).
However, 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 3, modified Mochizuki, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the urging member is a pressurizing spring (see Shanke, Fig. 5, spring #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’s amendments replacing “urging” and “pressurizing” resulted in an interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). The three prong test is satisfied. The claims uses the generic place holder term “member” (Prong A) for performing the functional language of urging (Prong B), and the generic placeholder (member) is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. “Pressurizing” is additional functional language and is not a structural limitation.
Applicant amended Claim 1 to claim the plurality of grooves having an opening facing towards the conveyance destination side. In other words, the “opposite” side of Tsuchiya. The Examiner notes that there are only two sides that the grooves can be located: on the conveyance destination side or on the conveyance origin side. Such a choice, rearranging the parts of an invention, involves only routine skill in the art. Changing the location of the grooves from one side to another does not change the function of the structure in moving the blade one way and then another way. 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.
Conclusion
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