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, 2, 7-9, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dueck (6,092,450).
Regarding claim 1, Finnell teaches a cutting apparatus, comprising:
a platen 16;
a drive belt 38 oriented to extend across said platen;
a passive cutting wheel 30 configured to turn about its axis when transported across said platen 16; 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 Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 2, the cutting wheel 30 extending below an upper surface 44 of the platen is best seen in Fig. 1.
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 17, Dueck teaches method of cutting insulation comprising:
providing a platen 16;
orienting a drive belt 38 to extend across said platen;
providing a passive cutting wheel 30 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 Fig. 1.
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.
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 3-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dueck (6,092,450) in view of Finnell (2011/0036219).
Regarding claim 3, Dueck teaches the platen 16 having a recess for receiving the cutting wheel. Dueck does not teach the platen in form of a cut bar with a recess.
Finnell teaches a cutting apparatus including a platen in form of a cut bar 15 with a recess for receiving a cutting wheel. See Fig. 1.
The platens in Dueck and Finnell are art equivalents known in the art for supporting a roll material for cutting.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a platen in form of a cut bar as taught by Finnell in the cutting apparatus of Dueck since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Dueck teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the height of the cutting wheel relative to the platen adjustable by adjustable mounting fasteners.
Finnell teaches a cutting apparatus wherein the height of the cutting wheel 35 relative to the platen 12 adjustable by adjustable mounting fasteners 29. See Fig. 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the cutting wheel in Dueck adjustable in height by adjustable mounting fasteners as taught by Finnell so that an operator could adjust the heights of the cutting wheel to accommodating workpieces having different thicknesses or to provide a clearance for replacing the cutting wheel.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Dueck teaches the cutting wheel 92 supported by a wheel carriage 26. See Fig. 2.
However, Dueck does not teach the wheel carriage being positioned above the platen.
Finnell teaches a cutting apparatus having a wheel carriage 25 being positioned above the platen. See Fig. 1.
To position the wheel carriage above or below the platen is art equivalent know in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to position the wheel carriage in Dueck above the platen since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Claims 10, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dueck (6,092,450) in view of Baba et al. (2015/0174778), hereinafter Baba.
Regarding claim 10, Dueck teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the drive belt having teeth.
Baba teaches a drive belt 15 having teeth. See Fig. 2. The teeth on the belt and the axis of rotation of the cutting wheel provides better friction between them and thus prevents the belt slipping on the axis of rotation of the cutting wheel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a belt with teeth as taught by Baba in the cutting apparatus of Dueck to provide better friction between them and thus prevents the belt slipping on the axis of rotation of the cutting wheel.
Regarding claim 12, the belt in Dueck can be replaced in the field.
Regarding claim 21, Dueck teaches a cutting apparatus substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts, comprising:
a platen 16 defining a surface for supporting a workpiece to be cut;
a toothed drive belt 38 mounted in operative association with said platen;
a passive cutting wheel 30 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 toothed drive belt causes rotation of said axis and thereby said passive cutting wheel.
See Fig. 1.
Dueck teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the drive belt having teeth.
Baba teaches a drive belt 15 having teeth. See Fig. 2. The teeth on the belt and the axis of rotation of the cutting wheel provides better friction between them and thus prevents the belt slipping on the axis of rotation of the cutting wheel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a belt with teeth as taught by Baba in the cutting apparatus of Dueck to provide better friction between them and thus prevents the belt slipping on the axis of rotation of the cutting wheel.
Claim 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dueck (6,092,450) in view of Baba et al. (2015/0174778), hereinafter Baba as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Onishi et al. (6,076,446), hereinafter Onishi.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the modified cutting apparatus of Dueck teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for a stop being a spring spring-biased pressure sensor.
Onishi teaches a cutting apparatus having a stop being a spring spring-biased pressure sensor 16 for eliminating looseness of a belt. 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 Dueck a spring spring-biased pressure sensor as taught by Onishi for eliminating looseness of the belt.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dueck (6,092,450) in view of Onishi et al. (6,076,446), hereinafter Onishi.
Dueck 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 Finnell, Baba, and Onishi 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. Dueck reference is introduced to teach the cutting wheel being rotated due to the contact between the drive belt and its axis.
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 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