DETAILED ACTION
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
The amendment filed 12/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-16 and 18-23 remain pending in the application. Examiner withdraws the claim objections set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 10/9/2025.
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 1-12, 14-16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunnar Caylor et al. (US 9878365 B2 - hereinafter Caylor) in view of William Reynolds et al. (US 7938049 B2 - hereinafter Reynolds) and Robert Strange et al. (US 5690007 A – hereinafter Strange).
Regarding claim 1, Caylor teaches a cutting device for fabricating a fiber-based shell
(Fig. 2, Can 36; examiner interprets that the device is capable of fabricating a fiber-based shell
even if the shell demonstrated is not fiber based), wherein the cutting device has a first mandrel
(Fig. 4, leftmost Spindle 30) which is rotatable about an axis of rotation and onto which the
fiber-based shell is arrangeable, and has a knife (Fig. 7A, Upper Cutter 54), wherein the axis of
rotation of the first mandrel and the axis of the knife are adjacent to each other (Fig. 7, the axes
of the first mandrel and the knife are parallel and adjacent).
Caylor does not explicitly teach that the knife is rotatable about an axis of rotation, that the fiber-based shell is arrangeable by insertion of the mandrel into the fiber-based shell, and that the knife and the mandrel roll on each other to reduce tearing out of fibers.
However, Reynolds teaches a similar cutting device where the knife (Fig. 4, TC101) is
rotatable about an axis of rotation (Col 5, lines 40-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the knife of Caylor such that it is rotatable about its axis as taught
by Reynolds. Doing so is beneficial as it allows knife to have a variable rotational speed suitable
for different types of cans (Reynolds; Col 6, lines 36-42).
Additionally, Strange teaches a similar cutting device where the shell (Fig. 1, Container 14; Col 4, lines 25-40) is arrangeable by insertion of the mandrel (Fig. 5, Mandrel 30) into the shell, and the mandrel rotates while in contact with the knife (Fig. 1, Cutting Knife 40A; Col. 2 lines 30-46). In combination with the existing combination of Reynolds in Caylor, where the knife also rotates, the knife and mandrel would roll against each other. Reducing tearing out of fibers is interpreted by the examiner to be a recitation of intended use, and finds that the rotating both the mandrel and knife is sufficient structure to carry out a reduction in tearing out of fibers, and reducing tearing out of fibers therefore need not be explicitly taught.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the knife of the combination of Caylor and Reynolds to include the limitations of claim 1 above as taught by Strange. Doing so is beneficial as the container is supported from the inside during cutting (Strange; Col. 2 lines 30-46).
Regarding claim 2, Caylor further teaches the cutting device according to Claim 1,
wherein the first mandrel has a drive device (Fig. 5, Can Rotation Assembly 28 has a drive
mechanism involving gears attached to Spindle 30).
Regarding claim 3, the existing combination of Caylor, Reynolds, and Strange fails to teach the attributes of claim 3.
However, Strange teaches a cutting device, wherein the knife (Fig. 1, Cutting Knife 40A)
is mounted so as to be freely rotatable (Fig. 1; Col 4, lines 25-40) and is drivable by contact with
the mandrel or a shell (Fig. 1, Container 14; Col 4, lines 25-40) arranged on the mandrel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the knife of the combination of Caylor, Reynolds, and Strange to be freely rotatable and drivable by contact with the shell as taught by Strange. Doing so is beneficial as it allows the knife to engage the container in a way that promotes uniform cutting (Col 4, lines 25 - 40).
Regarding claim 4, the existing combination of Caylor, Reynolds, and Strange fails to teach the attributes in claim 4.
However, Reynolds further teaches the cutting device according to Claim 1, wherein the
knife (TC101) has a drive device (Fig. 9A, VHD Motor 400; Col 6, lines 36-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the knife of Caylor, Reynolds, and Strange to have a drive device as taught by Reynolds. It is well known that using a drive device to move machine parts is beneficial because it replaces an operator completing the task of moving the parts, thereby circumventing potential safety issues involved with closely handling heavy machinery with sharp edges.
Regarding claim 5, Caylor further teaches the cutting device according to any one of
claim 1, wherein the rotatable knife is arranged displaceably relative to the first mandrel such
that a distance between the axis of rotation of the first mandrel and the axis of rotation of the
knife is adjustable (Fig. 1, as the Spindles 30 revolve around the Central Axis A, the distance
between the axis of rotation of the first mandrel and the axis of rotation of the knife is adjusted).
Regarding claim 6, the existing combination of Caylor, Reynolds, and Strange fails to teach the attributes of claim 6.
However, Strange teaches a cutting device, wherein the knife (Fig. 1, Cutting Knife 40A)
is arranged on a carriage or is arranged on a pivotable bracket (Fig. 1, Arm 110; Col 4, lines 25 -
40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the knife of the combination of Caylor and Reynolds to arranged
on a pivotable bracket as taught by Strange. Doing so is beneficial as it allows the knife to
engage the container in a way that promotes uniform cutting (Col 4, lines 25-40).
Regarding claim 7, Caylor further teaches the cutting device according to Claim 1, wherein the cutting device has a second mandrel (Fig. 4, rightmost Spindle 30) which is rotatable
about an axis of rotation and on which a further fiber-based shell (Fig. 4, Can 36 on the rightmost
spindle) is arrangeable, wherein the axis of rotation of the second mandrel and the axis of rotation of the knife are adjacent to each other, in particular at an angle of less than 10 degrees relative to each other (Fig. 7, the axes of the first mandrel and the knife are parallel and adjacent).
Regarding claim 8, Caylor further teaches the cutting device according to Claim 7,
wherein the second mandrel has a drive device (Fig. 5, Can Rotation Assembly 28 has a drive
mechanism involving gears attached to Spindle 30).
Regarding claim 9, examiner interprets that the limitation “wherein the knife is arranged
on a rotary plate for centering between the first mandrel and the second mandrel” is intended use
of the knife, with no positively recited structure. Examiner finds that the knife of Caylor is
capable of being arranged on a rotary plate and being centered between the two mandrels at least
manually.
Regarding claim 10, Caylor further teaches the cutting device according to Claim 1,
wherein a diameter of the first mandrel is than an inner diameter of the fiber- based shell (Fig. 1,
the outer diameter spindle is greater than the outer diameter of the fiber-based shell, so therefore
it must also be greater than the inner diameter of the shell).
Regarding claim 11, Caylor further teaches the cutting device according to Claim 1,
wherein a stripping device (Fig. 7A, Stripper Plate 50) is arranged in a receiving direction after
the knife. Caylor does not state that the stripping device is located on the first mandrel, however
the stripping device operates the same despite being located on Pins 52 rather than the Spindle
30, and it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as an obvious
matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In
re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ
7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 12, Caylor further teaches the cutting device according to Claim 1,
wherein a fan nozzle (Fig. 5, Vacuum Chuck 46 – examiner interprets that vacuum devices inherently employ fans to create the vacuum) for the mandrel is arranged in a receiving direction
before the knife.
Regarding claim 14, the existing combination of Caylor, Reynolds, and Strange fails to teach the attributes of claim 14.
However, Strange teaches a cutting device, wherein the mandrel (Fig. 5, Mandrel 30
including Spacer 64) has a groove (Fig. 5, Groove 115A) which is shaped corresponding to the
cutting edge of the knife (Col 4, lines 25-40) so that a knife (Fig. 4, Knife 44A) projects beyond
the wall thickness of the fiber-based shell to be cut.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the mandrel of the combination Caylor, Reynolds, and Strange to have a groove corresponding to the edge of the knife as taught by Strange. Doing so is beneficial as annular grooves can assist in maintaining the axial position of the mandrel (Strange; Col 1, lines 55-63).
Regarding claim 15, Caylor further teaches a fabricating table for fabricating fiber-based
shells comprising a cutting device according to claim 1 for fabricating a fiber-based shell,
wherein the fabricating table has a first conveying device (Fig. 5, Can Infeed 22) for feeding
non-fabricated fiber-based shells and has a second conveying device (Fig. 5, Can Discharge 48)
for conveying away fabricated fiber-based shells.
Regarding claim 16, the existing combination of Caylor, Reynolds, and Strange fails to explicitly teach the attributes in claim 16.
However, Reynolds further teaches the fabricating table according to Claim 15, wherein a
rotary plate (Fig. 13A, Starwheel 104) for conveying the fiber-based shells to the cutting device
is arranged on the fabricating table (Fig. 13A, Bed Member 981).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the fabricating table of the combination of Caylor, Reynolds, and Strange to include a rotary plate for conveying the fiber-based shells as taught by Reynolds. Doing so is beneficial as it holds the can in a suitable position for trimming (Reynolds; Col 8, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 18, Caylor further teaches the cutting device according to claim 1,
wherein the axis of rotation of the first mandrel and the axis of rotation of the knife are at an
angle of less than 10 degrees relative to each other (Fig. 7, the axes of the first mandrel and the
knife are parallel and adjacent).
Regarding claim 19, Caylor further teaches the cutting device according to claim 18,
wherein the axis of rotation of the first mandrel and the axis of rotation of the knife are at an
angle of less than 5 degrees relative to each other (Fig. 7, the axes of the first mandrel and the knife are parallel and adjacent).
Regarding claim 20, Caylor further teaches the cutting device according to claim 18,
wherein the axis of rotation of the first mandrel and the axis of rotation of the knife are parallel
to each other (Fig. 7, the axes of the first mandrel and the knife are parallel and adjacent).
Regarding claim 21, Caylor further teaches the cutting device according to claim 1, the
fiber based shell being a fiber-based container (Fig. 2, Can 36 – Can 36 is seen to be a container.
examiner interprets that the device is capable of fabricating a fiber-based container
even if the container demonstrated is not fiber based, and Caylor is not required to teach a
specific material of the container as "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a
structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937,
136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Regarding claim 22, Caylor further teaches the cutting device according to claim 7,
wherein a diameter of the second mandrel is greater than an inner diameter of the fiber-based
shell (Fig. 1, the outer diameter spindle is greater than the outer diameter of the fiber-based shell,
so therefore it must also be greater than the inner diameter of the shell).
Regarding claim 23, Caylor further teaches the cutting device according to claim 7,
wherein a stripping device (Fig. 7A, Stripper Plate 50) is arranged in a receiving direction after
the knife. Caylor does not state that the stripping device is located on the first mandrel, however
the stripping device operates the same despite being located on Pins 52 rather than the Spindle
30, and it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as an obvious
matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In
re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ
7 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunnar Caylor
et al. (US 9878365 B2 - hereinafter Caylor) in view of William Reynolds et al. (US 7938049
B2 - hereinafter Reynolds) and Robert Strange et al. (US 5690007 A – hereinafter Strange)
applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Vernon Phelps et al. (US 3545321 A – hereinafter Phelps) and Jean-pierre Douche (FR 3071183 A1 – hereinafter Douche).
Regarding claim 13, the existing combination of Caylor, Reynolds, and Strange fails to teach the attributes of claim 13.
However, Phelps teaches the cutting device according to Claim 1, wherein the mandrel
(Fig. 7, Mandrel 25) has a coating (Fig. 7, Rubber Coating 25a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the mandrel of the combination of Caylor and Reynolds to have a
resilient coating as taught by Phelps. Doing so is beneficial as the coating ensures a snug fit of the container on the mandrel (Phelps; Col 3, lines 70-75).
The combination of Caylor, Reynolds, Strange, and Phelps still does not teach that the coating is cut-resistant.
However, Douche teaches a cutting machine which uses a polyurethane coating (Fig. 2,
Coating 90; Page 10 Para 9 - polyurethane is known to be cut-resistant).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the coating of the combination of Caylor, Reynolds, and Phelps to
be cut-resistant as taught by Douche. Doing so it prevents premature wear of the machinery
(Douche; Page 10 Para 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Caylor does not teach a mandrel onto which a fiber-based shell is arrangeable. It is demonstrated in the rejection of claim 1 above that there is a shell which is arrangeable on a mandrel which is disclosed in Caylor. The shell being fiber-based does not need to be explicitly taught by Caylor as the inclusion of the material or article being worked upon by a structure does not impart patentability to the claims In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see MPEP 2115. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Caylor discloses sufficient structure to perform the claimed work on a shell that is fiber-based.
Applicant additionally argues that Caylor does not teach a device which is able to reduce tearing out of fibers. Claim 1 has been amended to state “such that the knife and the mandrel roll on each other to reduce tearing out of fibers”, and therefore examiner interprets that any structure which includes a knife and a mandrel rolling on one another is sufficient for the purposes of reducing tearing out fibers. Applicant alleges that certain features such as high forces and cutting geometry in Caylor and Reynolds make them unsuited for cutting fiber-based shells in a way which reduces tearing out of fibers, however there is not disclosure or suggestion in Caylor and Reynolds that their structure would be unsuited for processing a fiber-based material, and no supporting evidence provided by the applicant that the structure of Caylor and Reynolds would fail to process a shell composed of a fiber-based material. Strange has been brought in to the rejection of claim 1 to teach the limitations missing from Caylor and Reynolds and which result in a structure capable of reducing tearing out of fibers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724