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 May 15th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 and 18-23 remain pending in the application. Examiner withdraws the objections to the drawings previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 30th, 2026.
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 teach that the knife is disc-shaped, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the shape of the knife to be disc-shaped as it has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
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 5/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that any knife intended for cutting metal would be unsuitable for cutting any kind of fibrous based container based on photos of containers cut with a knife having “metal-shaped geometry” and a knife having “paper-shaped geometry”, with the intent to show that the metal-shaped geometry knife created a container having more fray at the cutting site. According to the applicant, this renders to knife of Caylor unable to teach the claimed limitations since the knife of Caylor must be unsuitable for cutting any kind of fiber based container. A cutting knife being designed for metal does not inherently make the knife unsuitable for cutting cardboard, as multipurpose cutting knives for cutting thin sheet materials of different materials (such as sheet metal and cardboard) are well known in the art. Further, the applicant does not define what is metal-shaped geometry and what is paper-shaped geometry, nor does the applicant highlight any structural differences between the two. Further, applicant does not provide any image or description of the knife used to make the “metal-shaped” cut in the fiber. Therefore, the use of an unknown and potentially unrelated knife does not show in any way that the knife of Caylor specifically would be unsuitable for cutting a fiber container.
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 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
Prosecution Insights