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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, encompassing claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 12/31/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is fewer than 50 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2: it is not explicitly clear which structure is being referred to in the limitation “… which extends in a direction crossing a transport direction of the recording medium transported”; it is presumed to be intended that the structure being referred to is the to-be-pressed section, and has been treated as such for purposes of examination
Claims 5 and 6: it appears that the terms “pulling direction” and “transport direction” refer to the same direction; therefore, “pulling direction” should read “transport direction” to improve clarity
Claim 7: “recording material” should be amended to read “recording medium”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
• “pressing unit” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “pressing”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “pressing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
• “cutting unit” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “cutting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “cutting” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
• “transport unit” as recited in at least claim 7 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “transport”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “transport” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
• “urging member” as recited in at least claim 14 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “urging”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “urging” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the member)
• “crease formation member” as recited in at least claim 15 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “crease formation”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “crease formation” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the member)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “the inclined surface”, and the claim also recites “a plurality of inclined surfaces” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 10 recites “a plurality of inclined surfaces each of which is the inclined surface”. It is unclear how a plurality of inclined surfaces can be the inclined surface; in other words, how can a plurality of structures each be a single structure? It is presumed to be intended that this limitation is requiring a plurality of inclined surfaces which are each identical in structure and configuration to that of the inclined surface as described in claim 9, and has been treated as such for purposes of examination.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of its dependence on claim 10.
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, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson (EP 0474466).
Regarding claim 1, Wilson discloses a recording medium processing apparatus comprising: a pressing unit (rollers 58, 62 and upper slitting roller 70; see fig. 1) that presses one surface of a transported recording medium against a to-be-pressed section (the top surface of sheet 12 is pressed against tensioning device 68 as it is moved towards slitting rollers 70, 72; see paragraph [0026] and fig. 1); and a cutting unit (slitting rollers 70, 72; see figs. 3a and 3b) that cuts the recording medium pressed against the to-be-pressed section (upper and lower slitting blades 74, 76 of slitting rollers 70, 72 cut sheet 12 while it is pressed against tensioning device 68; see paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 4, Wilson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wilson further discloses wherein the pressing unit pulls one end side of the recording medium in a flexed state in a direction away from the other end side (upper slitting roller 70 pulls sheet 12 away from rollers 58, 62 as it rotates in a transport direction; see figs. 1 and 3a) so as to press the one surface of the recording medium against the to-be-pressed section located at an opposed position of the one surface (the top surface of sheet 12 is pressed against tensioning device 68, which is located at a position that opposes the top surface; see paragraph [0026] and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Wilson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wilson further discloses wherein in a transport direction of the recording medium transported, the to-be-pressed section is disposed upstream of the cutting unit (tensioning device 68 is positioned upstream of slitting rollers 70, 72, such that sheet 12 contacts tensioning device 68 before reaching slitting rollers 70, 72; see fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (EP 0474466) in view of Yi (CN 108818643).
Regarding claim 2, Wilson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wilson further discloses wherein the pressing unit presses the one surface of the recording medium against the to-be-pressed section (the top surface of sheet 12 is pressed against tensioning device 68 as it is moved towards slitting rollers 70, 72; see paragraph [0026] and fig. 1).
Wilson does not explicitly disclose that the to-be-pressed section extends in a direction crossing a transport direction of the recording medium transported.
Yi discloses that the to-be-pressed section extends in a direction crossing a transport direction of the recording medium transported (tensioning module 2 comprises tensioning roller 23, which is formed as a cylinder that extends across the transport direction; see paragraph [0044] and fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wilson in view of Yi to make the to-be-pressed section extend in a direction crossing a transport direction. As shown in fig. 4, Yi discloses a to-be-pressed section (tensioning roller 23) which extends across the medium (leather 100) prior to cutting. Yi further discloses that the inclusion of the tensioning roller prevents the medium from loosening during operation (see paragraph [0040]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the tensioning roller prevents the medium from being loosened by evenly supplying tension across the entire width of the medium. Therefore, such a modification would be obvious in order to ensure accurate cutting and prevent any bunching or loosening of material due to uneven tension.
Regarding claim 3, Wilson as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Yi further discloses wherein the to-be-pressed section is formed in a cylindrical shape or a column shape (tensioning roller 23 is formed with a cylindrical, columnar shape; see figs. 1 and 4), and is provided rotatably around a rotational shaft (tensioning roller 23 is rotatably fitted on tensioning shaft 22; see paragraph [0044] and fig. 4) which extends in the crossing direction (tensioning shaft 22 extends in the same crossing direction as tensioning roller 23; see figs. 1 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wilson in view of Yi to provide the to-be-pressed section rotatably around a rotational shaft. Positioning the tensioning roller on a rotatable shaft allows the tensioning roller to rotate during operation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that not only does this help move the material downstream, but making the roller static would likely increase friction and static build-up, which could potentially damage the material or cause safety hazards.
Regarding claim 5, Wilson discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Wilson does not explicitly disclose wherein the to-be-pressed section is disposed to extend along a direction crossing a pulling direction of the recording medium.
Yi discloses wherein the to-be-pressed section is disposed to extend along a direction crossing a pulling direction of the recording medium (tensioning roller 23 extends across the transport direction, which is understood to be the pulling direction; see figs. 1 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wilson in view of Yi to make the to-be-pressed section extend in a direction crossing a pulling direction. As shown in fig. 4, Yi discloses a to-be-pressed section (tensioning roller 23) which extends across the medium (leather 100) prior to cutting. Yi further discloses that the inclusion of the tensioning roller prevents the medium from loosening during operation (see paragraph [0040]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the tensioning roller prevents the medium from being loosened by evenly supplying tension across the entire width of the medium. Therefore, such a modification would be obvious in order to ensure accurate cutting and prevent any bunching or loosening of material due to uneven tension.
Regarding claim 6, Wilson as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Wilson as modified further discloses wherein the cutting unit cuts the recording medium along the pulling direction of the recording medium (sheet 12 is pulled along a transport direction towards slitting rollers 70, 72, so that excess material on either side of the blisters is removed during cutting; see paragraph [0026] and figs. 3a, 3b).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (EP 0474466) in view of Zuckerman (US 2094033).
Regarding claim 7, Wilson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wilson further discloses a plurality of transport units (rollers 58, 62, and upper slitting roller 70; see fig. 1) that transport a recording medium (at least rollers 58, 62, and upper slitting roller 70 help advance sheet 12 forward in a transport direction; see figs. 1 and 3a), the plurality of transport units being disposed at positions displaced from each other in a transport direction of the recording medium (rollers 58, 62, and upper slitting roller 70 are displaced from one another in a transport direction; see fig. 1), and one surface of the recording medium is pressed against the to-be-pressed section located at an opposed position of the one surface (the top surface of sheet 12 is pressed against tensioning device 68, which is located at a position that opposes the top surface; see paragraph [0026] and fig. 1).
Wilson does not explicitly disclose wherein a transport speed of a recording medium achieved by one of the plurality of transport units is surpassed by a transport speed of a recording material achieved by the other transport unit located downstream of the one transport unit so that a recording medium in a flexed state is pulled.
Zuckerman discloses wherein a transport speed of a recording medium achieved by one of the plurality of transport units is surpassed by a transport speed of a recording material achieved by the other transport unit located downstream of the one transport unit so that a recording medium in a flexed state is pulled (rollers 19, 21 move at a higher speed than feed rollers 15-15 so that rollers 19, 21 pull the web taut; see pg. 2, right column, lines 45-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wilson in view of Zuckerman to make the transport speed of the downstream transport unit higher so that the recording medium is pulled. Zuckerman discloses a system in which the downstream transport unit (rollers 19, 21) rotates faster than the upstream transport unit (feed rollers 15-15). As a result, the web is effectively pulled by rollers 19, 21 so that the web is placed under tension. Zuckerman discloses that this is beneficial because the web is easily severed when it is engaged by the cutting cylinders (see pg. 2, right column, lines 45-51). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this teaching into the device of Wilson in order to similarly improve ease of the cutting operation.
Regarding claim 8, Wilson as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Wilson as modified further discloses wherein between one region and the other region opposed to each other across a straight line connecting the one transport unit and the other transport unit (rollers 58, 62 are opposite upper slitting roller 70 when the two are connected via a straight line; see annotated portion of fig. 1 below), the recording medium in a flexed state is positioned in the one region (tensioning device 68 causes sheet 12 to be in a flexed state at least partially within the one region located below the line; see annotated portion of fig. 1 below), and at least part of the to-be-pressed section is disposed in the one region (tensioning device 68 is located within the one region located below the line; see annotated portion of fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
154
215
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (EP 0474466) in view of Maruyama (US 20200307934).
Regarding claim 9, Wilson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wilson does not explicitly disclose wherein the to-be-pressed section is an inclined surface that is disposed laterally of a transport path of a recording medium, and inclined to a movement direction of the recording medium, and the pressing unit transports the recording medium to the inclined surface, and presses one surface of the recording medium against the inclined surface that is the to-be-pressed section.
Maruyama discloses wherein the to-be-pressed section is an inclined surface that is disposed laterally of a transport path of a recording medium (curved guide wall 72 is positioned laterally along conveying direction Vs; see fig. 6), and inclined to a movement direction of the recording medium (at least a portion of curved guide wall 72 is inclined in conveying direction Vs; see fig. 6), and the pressing unit transports the recording medium to the inclined surface (as modified to include an inclined surface, the pressing unit as described above transports the sheet to curved guide wall 72; see paragraph [0045]), and presses one surface of the recording medium against the inclined surface that is the to-be-pressed section (at least a portion of sheet S is pressed against curved guide wall 72; see fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wilson in view of Maruyama to form the to-be-pressed section as an inclined surface. Maruyama discloses that the inclined surface (curved guide wall 72), in conjunction with guide 51, is capable of correcting the tilt of sheet S (see paragraphs [0084-0085]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefits this system imparts, including improved cutting accuracy due to sheets being more accurately aligned. Improved cutting accuracy can further reduce waste and save money, since fewer defective products will be produced. Therefore, in order to provide these same benefits to the device of Wilson, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Wilson as modified discloses the limitations of claim 9 as described in the rejection above.
Wilson as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a plurality of inclined surfaces, each of which is the inclined surface, are provided, and disposed at different positions in a transport direction of a recording medium, and when a recording medium is cut by the cutting unit, the recording medium is in a state of being pressed against the plurality of inclined surfaces.
As further modified to include a plurality of inclined surfaces, Maruyama discloses wherein a plurality of inclined surfaces (curved guide wall 72 and a second curved guide wall 72 which would replace linear guide wall 71; see figs. 6 and 7), each of which is the inclined surface, are provided, and disposed at different positions in a transport direction of a recording medium (as modified, curved guide wall 72 is located above sheet S, and another curved guide wall 72 would be located below sheet S; see figs. 6 and 7), and when a recording medium is cut by the cutting unit, the recording medium is in a state of being pressed against the plurality of inclined surfaces (as modified, sheet S would be in contact with both curved guide walls 72 during a cutting operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wilson in view of Maruyama since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). In the instant case, it does not appear that including a plurality of inclined surfaces (curved guide wall 72), wherein one is located on each side of the recording medium, would impede operation of the device. That is, making linear guide wall 71 into a second curved guide wall 72 would still allow for tilt correction of sheet S as described above, especially since it appears that sheet S already maintains a curved shape along curved guide wall 72 during this process (see figs. 6 and 7). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this modification would provide inclined surfaces which more closely align with the curvature of sheet S, and thus would likely reduce the chance of sheet S bunching or otherwise undergoing deformation during the tilt correction process (since there is less unused space between the guide walls).
Regarding claim 11, Wilson as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Maruyama further discloses wherein one of the plurality of inclined surfaces provided is disposed on one surface of a recording medium transported (curved guide wall 72 is located above sheet S, so that the top surface of sheet S is contacted; see figs. 6 and 7), other inclined surfaces are disposed on the other surface of the recording medium (curved guide wall 72 (replacing linear guide wall 71) would be located below sheet S so that it contacts a bottom surface of sheet S; see figs. 7 and 8), and when a recording medium is cut by the cutting unit, one surface of the recording medium is in a state of being pressed against the one inclined surface (as modified, sheet S would be in contact with curved guide wall 72 during a cutting operation), and the other surface of the recording medium is in a state of being pressed against the other inclined surfaces (as modified to replace linear guide 71 with a second curved guide wall 72, sheet S would be in contact with lower curved guide wall 72 during a cutting operation; see figs. 7 and 8).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (EP 0474466).
Regarding claim 13, Wilson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wilson does not explicitly disclose wherein in a transport direction of the recording medium transported, the to-be-pressed section is disposed downstream of the cutting unit.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wilson to make the to-be-pressed section disposed downstream of the cutting unit since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). In the instant case, the to-be-pressed section (tensioning device 68) is located upstream of the cutting unit (slitting rollers 70, 72); however, it does not appear that relocating the tensioning device to be downstream of slitting rollers 70, 72 would impede operation of the device. That is, the tensioning device would still be capable of providing sufficient tension to sheet 12 if it were moved to a downstream position relative to slitting rollers 70, 72.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (EP 0474466) in view of Sakuma (US 20180009615).
Regarding claim 14, Wilson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wilson further discloses wherein the cutting unit includes: a rotary blade configured to rotate (upper slitting blades 74 are positioned on upper slitting roller 70 such that upper slitting blades 74 are rotated during operation; see paragraph [0026] and fig. 3a); an opposed blade (lower slitting blades 76; see figs. 1 and 3a) disposed at a position different from a position of the rotary blade in an axial direction of the rotary blade (lower slitting blades 76 are positioned on a different axis than upper slitting blades 74; see figs. 1 and 3a), disposed at a position different from a position of the rotary blade in a radial direction of the rotary blade (lower slitting blades 76 are located at a different radial position to upper slitting blades 74; see fig. 3b), and disposed at an opposed position of one surface of the rotary blade in part (lower slitting blades 76 and upper slitting blades 74 are opposed to each other; see fig. 3b), the opposed blade being configured to rotate (lower slitting blades 76 are positioned on lower slitting roller 72 such that lower slitting blades 76 are rotated during operation; see paragraph [0026] and fig. 3a).
Wilson does not explicitly disclose an urging member that urges the recording medium to be cut against an outer peripheral surface of the opposed blade.
Sakuma discloses an urging member (pressing member 83; see fig. 3A) that urges the recording medium to be cut against an outer peripheral surface of the opposed blade (pressing member 83 is urged against rotary cutter 82 by a spring so that the two parts mesh together – as a result, sheet P is pinched between them; see paragraph [0064] and fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wilson in view of Sakuma to include an urging member that urges the medium against the blades. Sakuma discloses a configuration which results in the medium (sheet P) being pressed against the rotary blade (rotary cutter 82). By sandwiching the medium between the rotary blade and an opposing structure, the medium is held securely during a cutting operation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of such a construction being that the material is prevented from shifting during cutting, which could cause inaccurate cuts and damage to the product. Therefore, it would be obvious to include an urging member into the device of Wilson in order to improve cutting accuracy.
Regarding claim 15, Wilson as modified discloses the limitations of claim 14 as described in the rejection above.
Wilson as modified further discloses wherein the cutting unit further includes a crease formation member (crimping teeth 78; see figs. 3a and 3b) that is disposed coaxially with the opposed blade (crimping teeth 78 are formed coaxially with lower slitting blades 76; see fig. 3b), and forms a crease along one direction on a cut piece which is moved in the one direction (crimping teeth 78 cooperate with crimping cavities 80 to form crimped portions 84 along the transport direction; see paragraph [0026] and figs. 3a, 3b), the cut piece being produced by cutting a recording medium by the cutting unit (crimped portions 84 are cut by upper and lower slitting blades 74, 76 after formation; see paragraph [0026]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 4459888 to Frye, drawn to a non-contacting slitter; and US 20020149866 to Kato, drawn to a process for producing magnetic tape.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724