DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 8/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/03/2026 has been entered.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sighinolfi (US 20180361621 A1) in view of Buttrick (US 6467385 B1) and Boyl-Davis (US 6843328 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Sighinolfi teaches a guiding device (using the embodiment of Figure 7 for detail, while using the overall view in Figure 1) of a large-format manual cutters, cutter for cutting a large format part, comprising:
a longitudinal extruded aluminium guide (paragraph 0150) comprising: a top surface (top surface of 23’, see Figure 7), a bottom surface (top surface of 24’, see Figure 7), and hollow chambers (26’) located between the top surface and the bottom surface and separated by reinforcing ribs (21’ and 22’, see Figure 7);
wherein an intermediate recessed portion (space between 231’, see Figure 7) of the top surface covers the entire length of the longitudinal extruded aluminium guide and is delimited by a base (23’ see Figure 7) and by facing lateral surfaces (the two 231’ with potion of 20’) which form longitudinal rails (see Figure 7) for movement of rollers of a cutter provided with a cutting tool connected to the longitudinal extruded aluminium guide (see Figure 7);
wherein a first lateral portion and a second lateral portion (left and right portion 20’, see Figure 7) are located on either side of the intermediate recessed portion (see Figure 7);
wherein the bottom surface of the longitudinal extruded aluminum guide has a first vertical support on the large format part to be cut in only a first side (right in Figure 7), a first vertical support (25’ on the right, see Figure 7), on a second side of the bottom surface, a distance from a marking aera of the cutting tool, a longitudinal recess is provided (recess for 22’, See Figure 7),
wherein the longitudinal recess is arranged below the second lateral portion (see Figure 7) and the first vertical support is arranged below the first lateral portion (see Figure 7),
wherein lever suction cups are received in the longitudinal recess to provide a second vertical support for supporting and securing together with only the first vertical support the longitudinal extruded aluminium guide on the large format part to be cut (as claim 1 uses comprising, and “a large format part” is not part of the device, additional support can be in the device and still meets the limitation, see Figure 7),
wherein a first longitudinal rail of the longitudinal rails is arranged in the first lateral portion and a second longitudinal rail of the longitudinal rails is arranged opposite the first longitudinal rail and adjacent to the second longitudinal portion (see Figure 7);
wherein the lever suction cups protrude outwards from the second lateral portion of the longitudinal extruded aluminium guide (at least outwards from the bottom portion).
Sighinolfi fails to teach a second side of the bottom surface, furthest from a marking aera of the cutting tool, “wherein lever suction cups are received in the longitudinal recess to provide a second vertical support for supporting and securing together with only the first vertical support the longitudinal extruded aluminium guide on the large format part to be cut” (if this limitation is intended to claim only a first support on the first lateral side and a second support on a second lateral side with no other support in the middle, then Sighinolfi would not teach such limitation, furthermore in Figure 2 of the application, it appears that there is two vertical supports on the left).
Buttrick teaches a guiding device including a second side of the bottom surface, furthest from a marking aera of the cutting tool (see Figure 3), wherein the second side has a row of suction cup, wherein the longitudinal rail is arranged between the first vertical support (54) and the longitudinal recess receiving the lever suction cups (44 on the right in Figure 3), wherein the longitudinal recess is adjacent to one side of the intermediate recess portion (recess for rail 32, see Figure 3), a longitudinal recess (mount recess for 44) adjacent to the intermediate recess portion (see Figure 3);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Sighinolfi to change the location of the support and suction cup arrangement, as taught by Buttrick. Since the courts have held that a rearrangement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) MEPE 2144.04 VI. C.
Boyl-Davis teaches a guiding device with only a first support on the first lateral side and a second support on a second lateral side with no other support in the middle (see Figure 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Sighinolfi to change the number of supports on the guide, as taught by Boyl-Davis, in order to provide desired number support wanted by the end user (see Figure 2 of Boyl-Davis).
Regarding claim 2, modified Sighinolfi further teaches the guiding device further comprises slots on the second side of the guide (slot for 43’, see Figure 7 of Sighinolfi), that are longitudinally aligned and in correspondence with the vertical median plane of the longitudinal recess for receiving the lever suction cups (see Figures 1 and 7), in which rods are housed and configure to move (see Figure 1 and 7), coupled to levers (42’), for driving and locking the lever suction cups, arranged above the guide (see Figure 7 of Sighinolfi).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sighinolfi further teaches the first support means of the guide on the part to be cut comprise at least one bottom appendage (242’) provided with a longitudinal lip (25’/241’), made of elastomer or non-slip material, for securing the lever suction cups (paragraph 0025, see Figure 8 of Sighinolfi).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sighinolfi (US 20180361621 A1) in view of Buttrick (US 6467385 B1) and Boyl-Davis (US 6843328 B2) and in further view of Malacheski (US 4224854) and Schuman (US 3396713).
Regarding claim 4, Sighinolfi further teaches the body of the guide is made up of one piece (see Figure 1 of Sighinolfi).
Sighinolfi fails to teach the body of the guide is made up of removable guide segments which comprise at their opposite ends: respective longitudinal holes, adjacent to the first side and to the second side, in which coupling pins are housed; and elements for securing the removable guide segments in a coupling position.
Malacheski teaches a guide device including the body of the guide is made up of removable guide segments (25a, b, see Figure 5), securing means in a coupling position (70 and 71, see Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Sighinolfi to add additional removable guide segments to the one piece guide of Sighinolfi, as taught by Malacheski, in order to increase the guide length of the cutting tool if desired by the end user (col. 3 lines 29-39 of Malacheski).
Schuman teaches segments connected, which comprise at their opposite ends: respective longitudinal holes (holes for pin 37), close to the first side and to the second side, in which coupling pins are housed (pin 37, see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Sighinolfi to add the pins and holes system into the guide segments (as modified by Malacheski), as taught by Schuman, in order to better align the guide segments (col. 3 lines 57- col. 4 line 14 of Schuman).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sighinolfi (US 20180361621 A1) in view of Buttrick (US 6467385 B1) and Boyl-Davis (US 6843328 B2) and in further view of Malacheski (US 4224854) and Schuman (US 3396713) and in further view of Marston (US 935608).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sighinolfi teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 4 above.
Modified Sighinolfi fails to teach the elements for securing the removable guide segments comprise a hook and a lever lock, couplable to the hook, secured on the base of the intermediate recessed portion (111) of the top surface of the longitudinal extruded aluminium guide.
Marston teaches segments connected by securing means (assembly in Figure 3), wherein the securing means comprise a hook (16) and a lever lock (lever on 17), couplable to said hook (See Figures 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Sighinolfi to change the fastener system (70 and 71, as modified by Malacheski) into the hook and lever system, as taught by Marston. As one of ordinary skill in the art understand that the hook and lever system is better for faster connect and disconnect of the segments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 PM.
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, Ashley Boyer can be reached on 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 9/17/2026
