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 .
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 1-10, 12, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keon et al. (5,046,392), hereinafter Keon.
Regarding claim 1, Keon teaches a cutting apparatus, comprising:
a platen 44;
a stationary drive belt 62 oriented to extend across said platen;
a passive cutting wheel 92A configured to turn about its axis when transported across said platen 44; and
wherein said passive cutting wheel is turned about its axis via direct interaction between said drive belt and said axis of said passive cutting wheel.
See Figs. 1-3.
Regarding claim 2, the cutting wheel 92A extending below an upper surface of the platen 44 is best seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 3, a recess 50 is best seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claims 4 and 20, the height (lower position in solid lines and upper position in dashed lines) of the cutting wheel relative to the platen adjustable by adjustable mounting fasteners is best seen in Fig. 5.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Keon teaches the cutting wheel 92A supported by a wheel carriage 92. See Fig. 2.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, an insulation feeding station 18 is best seen in Fig. 1
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the feeding station can receive a flexible and rigid roll of insulation.
Regarding claim 10, the stationary drive belt with teeth is best seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 12, the belt in Keon can be replaced in the field.
Regarding claim 17, Dueck teaches method of cutting insulation comprising:
providing a platen 44;
orienting a stationary drive belt 62 to extend across said platen;
providing a passive cutting wheel 92A configured to turn about its axis when transported across said platen; and
effecting said turning of said passive cutting wheel about said axis via a direct interaction between said drive belt and said axis of said passive cutting wheel.
See Figs. 1-3.
Regarding claim 18, an insulation feeding station 18 is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 19, an operator can sense a position of the cutting wheel by looking at the cutting carriage.
Regarding claim 21, Keon teaches a cutting apparatus, comprising:
a platen 44 defining a surface for supporting a workpiece to be cut;
a toothed drive belt 62 mounted in stationary association with said platen;
a cutting wheel 92A having an axis about which said passive cutting wheel rotates when said axis is itself rotated, said axis interacting with said toothed drive belt; and
wherein driven motion of said cutting wheel causes rotation of said axis and thereby said passive cutting wheel.
See Figs. 1-3.
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.
Claim 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keon et al. (5,046,392), hereinafter Keon in view of Heinzl et al. (4,084,681), hereinafter Heinzl.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Keon teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for a stop being a spring spring-biased pressure sensor.
Heinzl teaches an apparatus having a stop being a spring spring-biased pressure sensor 9 at two ends of a guide (7, 8) for slowing down a carriage 6 when the carriage reaches one end of the guide and get ready for return to the other end. See Fig. 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate both ends of the frame in Keon a spring spring-biased pressure sensor as taught by Onishi for slowing down the carriage when the carriage reaches one end of the guide and get ready for return to the other end.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keon et al. (5,046,392), hereinafter Keon in view of Onishi et al. (6,076,446), hereinafter Onishi.
Keon teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for a roll automated feeder.
Onishi teaches a cutting apparatus with a roll automated feeder (cash register).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the cutting apparatus of Dueck an automated feeder for automatically feeding the roll of material to the cutting station.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Dueck have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Keon reference is introduced to teach the cutting wheel being rotated due to the contact between the stationary drive belt and its axis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights