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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 04/5/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the thin film-like object in the claim set 04/15/2026 is new matter since the original specification does not support it. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 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 “a thin film-like object” is unclear and confusing what the metes and bounds of the thin film-like object be and make structures of the cutting system capable of cutting the object or not. Applicant’s specification states that “a laminate film”. What is the thin film-like object? Any thin sheet or object is considered as a thin film-like object, right?
Claim 1, lines 5-6, the language “to be cut” in the phrase “a cutter unit configured to cut a thin film-like object to be cut” (emphasis added) is confusing and redundant. It is clearly stated that “a cutter unit configured to cut a thin film-like object”. The language “to be cut” is unnecessary and makes it confusing whether the thin film-like object to be cut by other cutter unit or the cutter unit.
Claim 1, line 13 “wherein the case and the guiding part define, between opposing surfaces thereof, a space forming a flow path through” is unclear what the opposing surfaces thereof refer to.
Claim 2 “opposing surfaces of the case and the guiding part” is confusing whether the opposing surfaces refer new surfaces or the inherent opposing surfaces in claim 1.
Claim 6 “an end portion thereof” is unclear whether it refers to the part of the cutter unit, the space, the opening, or other parts of the cutter unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strong (US 9126349).
Regarding claim 1, Strong shows a cutting system (Figures 1-5) comprising:
a cutting device (10, Figure 5) including:
a cutter unit (a cutting head that includes at least one blade assembly 110) configured to cut a thin film-line object (as it is written, it is unclear what metes and bounds of the “thin film-like object” are; Applicant’s specification does not discuss the “thin film-like object”, therefore, the workpiece sheet 340 is thin and meets this limitation), the cutter unit including:
a case (150, 312, 40, Figure 2) configured to house an upper portion of a single rotary blade (110); and
a guiding part (22) connected to the case (via a part 180, Figure 2) and the guiding part having a groove (281, Figures 2 and 5) configured to receive another portion (a lower portion) of the single rotary blade and
wherein the case and the guiding part define, between surfaces of the case and the guiding part, a space (between the cover 310 and the forward portion 253, Figure 3) forming a flow path through which the object to be cut passes, and in which the single rotary blade cuts the object to be cut; and
a body (150 or 30, Figure 6) having a motor (215, Figure 1) that rotates the single rotary blade (110) installed in the cutter unit; and
a transport device (as it is written, it is loosely claimed without providing a further structure, therefore, the handle 234 or rollers 265/302 that are for moving the tool during cutting that meets this limitation) that moves the cutting device relative with the object to be cut,
wherein the single rotary blade (Figure 3) is partially exposed in the space in which the single rotary blade cuts the object to be cut (Figure 3), and the cutter unit is detachably mounted to the body together with the rotary blade (Figures 5-6), and the cutter unit of the cutting device is attachable to and detachable from the body (see Figure 6, all parts are detachably mounted together), and behind the single rotary blade, is disposed a coupling plate (180) that connects the case and the guiding part,
the coupling plate having a thickness smaller than a thickness of the case and smaller than a thickness of the guiding part (see Figure 5, a thickness of the plate 180 is thinner than a thickness of the housing 40, a thickness of the housing 150, a thickness of the lower feeding assembly 22).
Regarding claim 2, Strong shows an opening width of an opening of the space (between the opposing surfaces) increases in a direction toward an opened end (Figure 2 shows the space between the cover 310 and the lower feeding assembly 22 is increased in a direction toward the forward portion 253 since it tapered down that makes the opening of the space between the between the cover 310 and the lower feeding assembly 22 increases).
Regarding claim 3, Strong shows that a part of the cutter unit on a side opposite to an opening of the space is thinner than another part of the cutter unit (see the discussion of the plate 180 in claim 1 above and see claim 2 for the opening).
Regarding claim 4, Strong shows that a part of the cutter unit on a side opposite to an opening of the space in which the single rotary blade cuts the object to be cut becomes thicker in a direction away from the space in which the single rotary blade cuts the object to be cut (Figure 5 shows a bottom portion of the plate 180 thicker in a direction away from the space).
Regarding claim 5, Strong shows that a part of the cutter unit on a side opposite to an opening of the space in which the single rotary blade cuts the object to be cut is spaced apart from the rotary blade (Figures 2 and 4, the plates 180, 150 are spaced from the blade), and
the second space (between the case 150 and the guiding part 22), in which no member is present, is formed along a direction in which the object moves after having been cut (as it is written, it is unclear what “no member” refers to, therefore, see a lateral space or “a space of a lateral side of the plate 180” between the housing 150 and the lower feeding assembly 22 is flat and empty; no member is interfered or obstructed the object movement).
Regarding claim 6, Strong shows that a part of the cutter unit on a side opposite to an opening of the space in which the single rotary blade cuts the object to be cut has, in a portion adjacent to the rotary blade, the second space where no member is present (see the discussion in claim 5 above), the second space being formed along a direction in which the object moves after having been cut (Figure 3), and
an end portion of the part (the plate 180) is bent along a bending line (an arcuate forward edge 184, Figure 4. See https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bend that is to become curved, crooked, or bent) that lies in a plane in which the single rotary blade is arranged and is orthogonal to a direction in which the space in which the single rotary blade cuts the object to be cut extends (the edge 184, Figure 4, is curved or bent upwardly and see the sheet cut extends orthogonal to a direction of the blade plane and the space plane).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Strong shows all of the limitations as stated in claims 1-6 above.
Regarding Claim 12, strong shows the thickness of the coupling plate (180) is set such that the coupling plate does not cause a tearing action on the object to be cut when the object to be cut moves past the coupling plate during the cutting operation (see the discussion in claim 1 above since this plate 180 is thin and having an edge 184 that prevents further tearing after cutting), and
in the cutting operation, the object to be cut moves within the second space defined between the case and the guiding part (see the discussion in claim 1 above) which is located downstream of the single rotary blade in a direction of movement of the object to be cut (see Figure 4).
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.
Claims 1-6, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strong in view of Ishikawa (US 2017/0008102).
Regarding claims 1-6, 12 as best understood, these are alternative rejections if one argues that the handle or rollers 265/302 of Strong is NOT a transport device, therefore, Ishikawa shows a transport device (an arm of a robot, figure 1) for transporting a saw (cutting unit 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had a transport device, as taught by Ishikawa to transport the cutter system of Strong, in order to reduce a labor cost and allow the workpiece can be accurately cut.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to “the guide plate 180…”, this argument is not clear what Applicant is trying to argue. See the plate 180 in the rejections above. Examiner notes that Strong haven’t discussed any tearing after cutting and Strong does not want any tearing after cutting, therefore, it is not clear what Applicant is trying to argue about tearing after cutting.
With regards to “a thin film-like member”, the argument is acknowledged, but it is persuasive. Applicant has not defined what the thin film-like member or object is (please note that it is possible a new matter). Reading at Applicant’s specification, para. 2 states “a laminate film…made of a resin” without providing any structure or its property, therefore, it is unclear what the thin film-like object be and how strength of the object be.
With regards to the groove of the guiding part, see the groove or slot 281 in the rejection in claim 1 above.
With regards to “a space …extends linearly from the upstream side to the downstream side” in page 4, Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a space …extends linearly from the upstream side to the downstream side) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, an opening of the space is increased. How is the space considered to extend linearly.
See Space - definition of space by The Free Dictionary that is an empty area or a blank area, therefore, claim states a space and a second space can be interpreted as an empty region or area.
With regards to “the opening of the space increases toward the opening end”, see the discussion in claim 1 above. Please note as the claim is written, it requires the opening of the space increases toward the opening end, therefore, the opening end is increased because the front portion 253 is tapered down (no need the cover 310 is tapered upwardly).
Applicant states that “…if the object to be cut exhibits unstable movement in vertical direction….Strong also fails to disclose or suggest the features in claim 2” in page 5 that is Applicant’s assumption and opinion to have this conclusion. What is claimed structures that Strong’s device does not include?
With regards to claim 4, the further discussion in claim 4 above.
With regards to claim 5, the further discussion in claim 5 above.
With regards to claim 6, the further discussion in claim 6 above and see the definition of space above.
Please note that the plate 180 is a GUIDE plate, not for tearing the workpiece after cutting. Moreover, as the claim is written, it is unclear what material of the object is cut, for examples, if the object is very strong and resistant composition or resilient material as discussed in the background of the invention of Strong which is not easily to further tear. Please note that there is NO discussion of tearing by the guide plate 180 in Strong’s specification).
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
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 on (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 4/22/2026
Prosecution Insights