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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 09/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/24/2025
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 3, line 23, “molded support” should be –printed support--.
Page 4, line 7, “flaps 14” should be –fins 14--.
On page 4, line 27, recites, “wedge-shaped opening 15”. Did the Applicant mean -- wedge shaped guide 15--?
On page 5, line 23, “molded support portion 11” should be – printed support portion 11--.
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: Claim 4 recites, “a wedge-shaped guide (15)”. However, the specification details a “wedge-shaped opening 15”. It is not clear if 15 is a guide or an opening.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the wedge-shaped guide on the cutting unit must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because it is not clear how the cutting unit 5 is engaging the substrate 1. Figures 3B, 4B, 5B, and 6B show a profile view of the cutting apparatus in which planes 1 and 2 are parallel to each other and the cutting unit, although not numbered appears to be in between 1 and 2. Figures 1, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, and 6A all show the cutting units 5 parallel to the planes 1 and 2. If the printed substate is riding on top of the planes 1 and 2 then how is the cutting unit, which is also positioned parallel to the planes 1 and 2 engaging the printed substrate? Are Figures 1, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, and 6A misdrawn as to the orientation of the cutters 5? If 1, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, and 6A are drawn correctly, then how is the cutter 5 engaging the printed substrate?
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5, the use of the pronoun “it” should be replaced with the proper name.
Claim 1, line 16 and line 21, the use of the pronoun “they” should be replaced with the proper name.
Claim 1, line 18, “said array” should be -- said array of fins--.
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.
Claims 1-4 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 1 recites, “a transversal cutting area having a main dimension along a transverse axis”. It is not clear what the metes and bounds of the limitation “main” are to impart. Does “main” impart a largest dimension or is the limitation “main” just an identifier for the dimension?
Claim 2 recites, “wherein the fins have a main dimension”. It is not clear what the metes and bounds of the limitation “main” are to impart. Does “main” impart a largest dimension or is the limitation “main” just an identifier for the dimension?
Claim 3 recites, “said at least two cutting units comprises a wedge-shaped guide”. Claim 1 recites, that the “at least two cutting units configured to be able to move along the transverse axis.” It is noted that the specification does not disclose a wedge-shaped guide, but rather a wedge-shaped opening. However, in either regard, it is not clear if the guide/opening 15 is part of the cutting unit 5, then it should also be movable along the transverse axis, but this relationship is not established by the drawings or specification. It is not clear how the cutting unit 5 and guide operate together, as in none of the drawings show the relationship between the cutting unit 5 and the guide 15 shown such that it is not understood how the “wedge shaped guide facilitates an elastic deformation of the fins” and also “directs a scrap below the second sliding plane” per Figure 4. Rather it appears that the cutting units 5 have a beveled or wedge shape that facilitates an elastic deformation of the fins and that there is a separate structure that might direct the scrap below the second sliding plane?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the cutting assembly" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites, “wherein the cutting assembly is configured to cut the printed support according to two directions parallel to said feeding direction.” It is not clear what other two directions are parallel to the feeding direction? Did the Applicant mean that each of two cutting units makes a cut line parallel to the feeding direction?
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinomiya et al. (U.S. Patent 4,506,577), herein referred to as Shinomiya in view of Ima et al. (U.S. Patent 5,761,980) herein referred to as Ima.
In regards to claim 1, Shinomiya discloses an automatic cutting device for printed supports (sheet member 1) comprising: - a feeding direction (right-left per Fig. 2) of a printed support ;- a first sliding plane surface (annotated below) in the feeding direction of the printed support to be cut; a second sliding plane surface (annotated below) in said feeding direction of said printed support after it has been cut, wherein said second sliding plane surface is placed at a distance from said first sliding plane surface along said feeding direction and defines together with the first sliding plane surface;
PNG
media_image1.png
817
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a transversal cutting area (inside 12) having a main dimension (along the left/right of the multiple pairs of slitters in Figure 1) along a transverse axis (as shown in Figure 1 across the multiple pairs of slitters), perpendicular to the feeding direction (direction of S); - at least two cutting units (3/3) configured to be able to move along the transverse axis (Figure 1) within the transversal cutting area so as to intercept and cut the printed support (1); and - an electronic control unit (driving mean(s) 17/18) configured to control the movement of the at least two cutting units (23/23); wherein the automatic cutting device further comprises an array of fins (4) arranged in a comb cantilever supported at said second sliding plane surface, and elastically constrained in said array so that they can be elastically flexed along the transverse axis in which said array (4): - is configured to move, controlled by the electronic control unit, from a closed configuration (when cutter 4 engages cutter 3), in which all the fins protrude from said second sliding plane surface towards the first sliding plane surface and occupy the transversal cutting area to an open configuration in which they leave free said transversal cutting area so as to allow undisturbed movement along the transverse axis of the at least two cutting units (“In the foregoing example, an apparatus has been explained wherein only the upper rotary cutter 3 is swingable through the supporting arm 13. However, the apparatus may be modified into a type wherein the lower rotary cutter 4 is also swingable.” Col. 4, lines 15-20)
Shinomiya discloses the claimed invention except for the highlighted recitations in which the lower cutter comprises a ray of fins in a comb, cantilever supported the second sliding plane surface. Attention is further directed to the Ima slitter. Ima discloses a sheet slitting device with a disk like blade 23 and a guiding member 52 that engages the disk blade. The guiding member comprises a plurality of blade guides 50/150 that can displace axially therefore avoiding blade fracture when the repositioning of the upper blade during order changing. As both Shinomiya and Ima relate to the slitting of sheets utilizing overlapping cutters, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been similarly motivated to have replaced the lower cutter of Shinomiya for the Ima guiding member to improve the life of the upper cutters such that they were less prone to breaking during repositioning. Thereby the modified device of Shinomiya discloses 18) configured to control the movement of the at least two cutting units (23/23); wherein the automatic cutting device further comprises an array of fins an array of fins (e.g.Ima disks 50 or rings 150; Figs. 11 or 12a) arranged in a comb (circular comb), cantilever (projecting radially from roller 48 Ima) supported at said second sliding plane surface, and elastically constrained in said array so that they can be elastically flexed along the transverse axis (“As shown in FIG. 12(a), plural rings 150 which are arranged contacting each other and each of which can elastically deforms with the intrusion of the blade 23 may be used instead of flexible disks 50” col. 8. lines 30-38 Ima).
In regards to claim 2, the modified device of Shinomiya discloses wherein the fins (50/150 Ima) have a main dimension (the fins extend radially from the shaft 48 Ima) according to a direction parallel to said feeding direction (left/right per Figure 2) and are configured to resist deformation according to a vertical axis (Z) perpendicular to the second sliding plane surface (annotated above).
In regards to claim 3, the modified device of Shinomiya discloses wherein said at least two cutting units (3/3) comprise a wedge-shaped guide (edge of 3 is beveled; see Fig. 3) facing the second sliding plane surface configured to facilitate an elastic deformation of the fins (50/150 Ima as modified) directing them towards the outside of the transversal cutting area (see Ima Figure 4)
In regards to claim 4, as best understood, the modified device of Shinomiya discloses wherein the cutting assembly (3) is configured to cut the printed support (1) according to two directions (a cutting line per cutting knife) parallel to said feeding direction (left/right Fig. 2), and the wedge-shaped guide (bevel of 3) is configured to direct a scrap below the second sliding plane surface (2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724