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 13th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4-18 remain pending in the application.
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, 4-5, 7, 9-12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Lennart Axelsson (US 20020182945 A1 – hereinafter Axelsson) in view
of Robert N. Taylor (DE 102007016968 A1 – hereinafter Taylor) and Kurt Hill et al. (US 7231857 B2 – hereinafter Hill).
Regarding claim 1, Axelsson teaches a cutting device for cutting an initial product,
including an insulator (Fig. 1, Carrier Strip 12) and a plurality of groups of terminals (Fig. 1,
Terminals 10) fixed on the insulator, into a plurality of products, comprising: a base (Fig. 1,
platform on which Die 14 sits), defining: a slot (Fig. 1, the slot in which Die 14 sits); and a first
positioning slot (Fig. 1, back half of the rightmost notch on top of Die 14) adapted to position
one of the terminals of the initial product; a cutter seat (Fig. 1, Die 14) inserted into one of the
plurality of slots and defining a blade slit (Fig. 1, leftmost slit on the top of Die 14); and a cutter
(Fig. 1, Cutting Implement 32), the cutter seat having an insulator positioning notch formed
(Fig. 1, front half of the rightmost notch on top of Die 14) on a top of the cutter seat (Fig. 1, Die
14) and adapted to position the insulator of the initial product to be cut.
Axelsson fails to teach that there is a plurality of slots, that the first positioning slot is
located in an inner sidewall of each of these slots, and the cutter adapted to be inserted into the blade slit to cut the insulator of the initial product to form the product.
However, Taylor teaches a machine used to cut insulation wherein the base (Fig. 13B,
First Insulation Displacement Connection 1310) has a plurality of slots (Fig. 13B, slots in Rail
Fittings 1320-1323), and there is a first positioning slot (Fig. 13B larger triangular slots at the
base of slots 1318a and 1318b) located in an inner sidewall of each of the plurality of slots.
Taylor also teaches a second positioning slot (Fig. 13B, slots 1338a and 1338b) corresponding to
the first positioning slot formed on an outer sidewall of a cutter seat, the second positioning slot
cooperating with the corresponding first positioning slot to position a portion of the initial
product to be cut between the based and the cutter seat (Fig. 13B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the cutting device to have a plurality of slots as taught by Taylor.
Doing so is beneficial as it allows multiple workpieces to be secured and processed (Taylor, Page
14 para 1). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the first positioning slot to be located in an inner sidewall of each of the
plurality of slots as 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).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the combination of Axelsson and Taylor to include a second
positioning slot corresponding to the first positioning slot formed on an outer sidewall of the
cutter seat, the second positioning slot cooperating with the corresponding first positioning slot
to position a portion of the initial product to be cut. Doing so is beneficial as the second
positioning slot helps to control the size of the opening between the first positioning slot and the
second positioning slot (Taylor, Page 13 para 6).
Hill teaches a cutter adapted to be inserted into a blade slit to cut a portion of the initial product to form the product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the cutter of the cutting device of Axelsson and Taylor to extend to a further location during cutting such that it is inserted into the blade slit to cut the initial product as taught by Hill as 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 4, Axelsson further teaches the cutting device according to claim 3,
wherein the slot (Fig. 1, the slot in which Die 14 sits) and the blade slit (Fig. 1, leftmost slit on
the top of Die 14) extend in a vertical direction and a first horizontal direction, the first
positioning slot (Fig. 1, back half of the rightmost notch on top of Die 14) extends in the vertical
direction, and the insulator positioning notch (Fig. 1, front half of the rightmost notch on top of
Die 14) penetrates through the cutter seat (Fig. 1, Die 14) in a second horizontal direction
perpendicular to the first horizontal direction (see modified Fig. 1 below for a visual of the three
directions).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Axelsson further teaches the cutting device according to claim 4,
wherein the base comprises a first end and a second end opposite each other in the second
horizontal direction.
The existing combination of Axelsson, Taylor, and Hill already teaches that the plurality of slots are arranged side by side between the first end and the second end along the second horizontal direction (It can be seen in Taylor that the plurality of slots (Fig. 13B, slots in Rail
Fittings 1320-1323) are arranged side by side between the first end (Fig. 13B, leftmost end of
First Insulation Displacement Connection 1310) and the second end (Fig. 13B, rightmost end of
First Insulation Displacement Connection 1310) along a second horizontal direction (Fig. 13B,
direction defined between the first end and the second end)).
Regarding claim 7, Axelsson further teaches the cutting device according to claim 5, wherein when the insulator of the initial product to be cut is positioned in the insulator positioning notch, two inner sides of the insulator positioning notch are adapted to abut against two respective outer sides of the insulator (referring to the left and right halves of the inner surface of the insulator positioning notch and the left and right outer halves of the outer surface of the insulator).
Regarding claim 9, Axelsson further teaches the cutting device according to claim 2,
wherein a group of positioning structures (Fig. 1, group consisting of the back half of the
rightmost notch on top of Die 14, the slot in which Die 14 sits, and front half of the rightmost
notch on top of Die 14) corresponding to a plurality of initial products are formed on the base
(Fig. 1, Fig. 1, platform on which Die 14 sits) and the cutter seat (Die 14).
The existing combination of Axelsson, Taylor, and Hill fails to teach that there is a plurality of the groups of positioning structures.
However, Taylor teaches a plurality of groups of positioning structures (Fig. 13B, the
group consisting of the slots in Rail Fittings 1320-1323 and the larger triangular slots at the base
of slots 1318a and 1318b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the cutting device of the combination of Axelsson, Taylor, and Hill such that there is a plurality of groups of positioning structure. Doing so would create provisions for allowing multiple products to be cut off from the initial product, and it is well known in the art that increasing the number of items produced in the same motion would increase the efficiency of the cutting device.
Regarding claim 10, Axelsson further teaches the cutting device according to claim 9,
wherein each group of positioning structures (Fig. 1, group consisting of the back half of the
rightmost notch on top of Die 14, the slot in which Die 14 sits, and front half of the rightmost
notch on top of Die 14) includes the first positioning slot (back half of the rightmost notch on top
of Die 14) and the insulator positioning notch (front half of the rightmost notch on top of Die
14).
Regarding claim 11, Axelsson further teaches the cutting device according to claim 10,
the cutter seat unit (Fig. 1, Die 14) including: a fixing part (Fig. 1, portion of Die 14 below the
front ledge); and a seat part (Fig. 1, portion of Die 14 above the front ledge) connected to the top
of the fixing part, the seat part protruding a predetermined height from a top side of the base
(examiner interprets that since the seat part is designed to remain in place and is not adjustable in
the vertical direction, it protrudes at a predetermined height).
The existing combination of Axelsson, Taylor, and Hill fails to teach that the cutter seat
comprises a plurality of cutter seat units arranged side by side, and that the seat part is inserted
into the slot from a bottom side of the base.
However, Taylor teaches wherein the cutter seat comprises a plurality of cutter seat units
(Fig. 13B, left and right half of Plate 1330) arranged side by side, and that the seat part (Fig.
13B, the rectangular portions sticking off of the sides of Plate) is capable of being inserted into
the slot (Fig. 13B, slots in Rail Fittings 1320-1323) from a bottom side of the base (examiner
interprets that while not shown in a position of being inserted from the bottom side of the base,
the seat part of Taylor is entirely capable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the cutting device of the combination of Axelsson, Taylor, and Hill such that there is a plurality of cutter seat units. Doing so would create provisions for allowing multiple products to be cut off from the initial product, and it is well known in the art that increasing the number of items produced in the same motion would increase the efficiency of the cutting device. It would also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cutting device of the combination of Axelsson, Taylor, and Hill such that the seat part is inserted into the slot from a bottom side location of the base as 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, Axelsson further teaches the cutting device according to claim 11,
wherein each seat part (Fig. 1, portion of Die 14 above the front ledge) is formed with the blade
slit (Fig. 1, leftmost slit on the top of Die 14) and the insulator positioning notch (Fig. 1, front
half of the rightmost notch on top of Die 14).
Regarding claim 17, Axelsson further teaches the cutting device according to claim 1,
wherein the cutter (Fig. 1, Cutting Implement 32) has a notch (Fig. 1, Arc-shaped cut out at the
top of Cutting Implement 32), the edge of the notch defining a cutting edge (Fig. 1, the left
bottom-most edge of Cutting Implement 32) adapted to cut the initial product.
Regarding claim 18, Axelsson further teaches the cutting device according to claim 17,
wherein the notch is arc-shaped or V-shaped (Fig. 1, Arc-shaped cut out at the top of Cutting
Implement 32) and adapted to position the initial product to be cut (Fig. 6B).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennart
Axelsson (US 20020182945 A1 – hereinafter Axelsson) in view of Robert N. Taylor (DE
102007016968 A1 – hereinafter Taylor) and Kurt Hill et al. (US 7231857 B2 – hereinafter Hill) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Franz Czeschka (US 4391482 A – hereinafter Czeschka).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Axelsson, Taylor, and Hill fails to teach the cutting device according to claim 5, wherein a terminal positioning hole is formed in the first end of the base and is adapted to position the terminal located at an end of the initial product.
However, Czeschka teaches wherein a terminal positioning hole (Fig. 2, Bore 8) is
formed in the first end of a base (Fig. 2, Boards 9) and is adapted to position the terminal (Fig. 2,
Wrapping Post 3) located at an end of the initial product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the cutting device of the combination of Axelsson, Taylor, and Hill to include a terminal positioning hole formed in the first end of the base and adapted to
position the terminal located at the end of the initial product as taught by Czeschka as it is well known in the art that having additional positioning features is beneficial as it helps to tighten machining tolerance.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennart
Axelsson (US 20020182945 A1 – hereinafter Axelsson) in view of Robert N. Taylor (DE
102007016968 A1 – hereinafter Taylor) and Kurt Hill et al. (US 7231857 B2 – hereinafter Hill) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Andre Klein (US 4961895 A– hereinafter Klein).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Axelsson, Taylor, and Hill fails to teach the cutting device according to claim 5, wherein a bottom surface of the insulator positioning notch is flush with a top surface of the base.
However, Klein teaches wherein a bottom surface of an insulator positioning notch (Fig.
8, Cavity 334) is flush with a top surface of a base (Fig. 8, Base 332).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the insulator positioning notch of the combination of Axelsson,
Taylor, and Hill such that a bottom surfaces is flush with a top surface of the base as taught by Klein as 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 Lennart
Axelsson (US 20020182945 A1 – hereinafter Axelsson) in view of Robert N. Taylor (DE
102007016968 A1 – hereinafter Taylor) and Kurt Hill et al. (US 7231857 B2 – hereinafter Hill) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of D. Patrick Carr et al. (US 5438740 A– hereinafter Carr).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Axelsson, Taylor, and Hill fails to teach the cutting device according to claim 12, further comprising a fixed base on which a first installation slot is formed, the fixing parts of the plurality of cutter seat units are inserted into the first installation slot of the fixed base.
However, Carr teaches a fixed base (Fig. 2, Platform 8) on which a first installation slot
(Fig. 2, Holes 10) is formed, the fixing parts of the plurality of cutter seat units (Fig. 1, Tooling
100’) are inserted into the first installation slot of the fixed base.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the cutting device of the combination of Axelsson, Taylor, and Hill to further comprise a fixed base on which a first installation slot is formed, the fixing parts of the plurality of cutter seat units are inserted into the first installation slot of the fixed base. Doing so is beneficial as it allows the position of the cutter seats to be reconfigurable to support a variety of workpieces (Carr; Col 2, lines 66-68 and Col 3, lines 1-4).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennart
Axelsson (US 20020182945 A1 – hereinafter Axelsson) in view of Robert N. Taylor (DE
102007016968 A1 – hereinafter Taylor), Kurt Hill et al. (US 7231857 B2 – hereinafter Hill), and D. Patrick Carr et al. (US 5438740 A– hereinafter Carr) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of 진민지 (KR 101695919 B1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Axelsson, Taylor, Hill, and Carr fails to teach the cutting device according to claim 13, wherein the cutter comprises a plurality of cutter units
arranged side by side.
However, 진민지 teaches, wherein a cutter (Fig. 1, Cutter Assembly 110) comprises a
plurality of cutter units (Fig. 2, Blade Member 111b) arranged side by side.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the cutter of the combination of Axelsson, Taylor, Hill, and Carr to comprise a plurality of cutter units arranged side by side as taught by 진민지. Doing so would
create provisions for allowing multiple products to be cut off from the initial product, and it is
well known in the art that increasing the number of items produced in the same motion would
increase the efficiency of the cutting device.
Regarding claim 15, Axelsson further teaches the cutting device according to claim 14,
wherein each cutter unit (Fig. 1, Cutting Implement 32) comprises: a cutter body (Fig. 1, portion
of Cutting Implement 32 above the notch in 32); and a cutter blade (Fig. 1, leftmost prong of
Cutting Implement 32) connected to the cutter body, the cutter blade is adapted to be inserted
into the blade slit (Fig. 1, leftmost slit on the top of Die 14) to cut off the insulator of the initial
product.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Axelsson, Taylor, and Carr fails to teach the
cutting device according to claim 15, further comprising a cutter holder on which a second
installation slot is formed, the cutter bodies of the plurality of cutter units are inserted into the
second installation slot of the cutter holder.
However, 진민지 teaches a cutter holder (Fig. 2, Support Block 111a) on which a second
installation slot (Fig. 2, Blade Receiving Hole 111d) is formed, the cutter bodies of the plurality
of cutter units (Fig. 2, Blade Member 111b) are inserted into the second installation slot of the
cutter holder.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the cutting device of the combination of Axelsson, Taylor, and
Carr to comprise a cutter holder on which a second installation slot is formed, the cutter bodies
of the plurality of cutter units being inserted into the second installation slot of the cutter holder
as taught by 진민지 . Doing so is beneficial as it allows for easy removal of worn blades and replacement with new blades (진민지; Page 4, second to last paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant asserts that the terminal of Axelsson is not positioned between the cutter seat and the base. Applicant’s arguments with respect to this limitation 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. Taylor is brought in to the rejection of claim 1 above to teach that the workpiece is positioned between the cutter seat and the base (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Applicant additionally asserts that the cutter of Axelsson is not adapted to be inserted into the blade slit. Applicant’s arguments with respect to this limitation 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. Hill is brought in to the rejection of claim 1 above to teach the blade entering the blade slit when cutting the workpiece (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Applicant argues that Taylor is unrelated to Axelsson and therefore there would be no motivation to combine the two. In response to applicant's argument that Taylor is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the reference is analogous art as it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of positioning an electrical element during a manufacturing process. Positioning being the relevant issue, not necessarily restricted to the specific workpiece or manufacturing process taking place.
Applicant contends that Taylor does not teach positioning slots on a cutter and a base to position a workpiece between the cutter and base. However, Taylor is shown in the rejection of claim 1 to teach these limitations (base (Fig. 13B, First Insulation Displacement Connection 1310) has a plurality of slots (Fig. 13B, slots in Rail Fittings 1320-1323), and there is a first positioning slot (Fig. 13B larger triangular slots at the base of slots 1318a and 1318b) located in an inner sidewall of each of the plurality of slots. Taylor also teaches a second positioning slot (Fig. 13B, slots 1338a and 1338b) corresponding to the first positioning slot formed on an outer sidewall of a cutter seat, the second positioning slot cooperating with the corresponding first positioning slot to position a portion of the initial product to be cut between the based and the cutter seat (Fig. 13B)).
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
Prosecution Insights