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 Group II (Claims 1, 6 and 14-15) in the reply filed on 12-31-2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-5, 7-13 and 15-24 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12-31-2025.
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 14-15 are 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.
In re Claim 1, “said receiving hollow portion being configured so that, when said cap rolls on said cutting device,” is indefinite. This phrase appears to be missing the result of the cap rolling on the cutting device. The claim was interpreted as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 15, “when said cap rolls on said cutting device, a difference between half a diameter of said at least one abutting surface and half a diameter of said intermediate portion is more than double, or triple, of said third distance; in particular, said third distance is within a range from 0,02 mm to 0,20 mm,” is indefinite. It is unclear if the claim requires “more than double” or “more than triple,” or is the claim requiring a range of between “more than double” or more than triple. Additionally, “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0344944 to Maguire.
In re Claim 1, Maguire teaches a cutting apparatus for cutting a cap (see Figs. 1-6, Para. 0049), comprising:
- an advancement path travelable by said cap (see Fig. 5);
- a cutting zone arranged on said advancement path;
- a cutting device arranged in said cutting zone for cutting said cap, said cutting device comprising:
* at least one first blade (see Fig. 16, #296) which is horizontal and which is configured to make one or more circumferential cuts on said cap (see Fig. 16, #296);
* at least one second blade (see Fig. 16, #298) which is horizontal and which is configured to make one or more circumferential cuts on said cap, said at least one first blade and said at least one second blade being vertically spaced from each other (see e.g., Fig. 16);
* cutting arrangement (#297) with one or more vertical and/or oblique blades configured to make one or more vertical and/or oblique cuts on said cap, said cutting arrangement being arranged in a zone vertically comprised between said at least one first blade and said at least one second blade (see Fig. 16, #296-298);
- a spindle (see Fig. 16, #290/291/292/293) which is movable along said advancement path to feed said cap to said cutting zone and which is rotatable around a rotation axis (see Fig. 16), said spindle comprising an engaging portion which is rotatable around said rotation axis and which is configured to engage an inner portion of said cap, said cap rolling on said cutting device to make said cuts when said spindle reaches said cutting zone (see Para. 0050), said engaging portion comprising:
* at least one abutting surface which is circumferential and which is arranged for contacting an inner portion of a lateral wall of said cap (see annotated Fig. 16, below);
* a receiving hollow portion which is circumferential for receiving at least partially said at least one first blade(see annotated Fig. 16, below), said at least one second blade and said cutting arrangement, said receiving hollow portion being configured so that, when said cap rolls on said cutting device (see e.g., Figs. 4-6 and Fig. 16, - the claims were interpreted as best understood)
- said first blade is received keeping a first distance between a first external face of said receiving hollow portion and a cutting edge of said first blade so as to avoid a contact between said first external face and said cutting edge (see Fig. 16, showing #296 which enters groove #291);
- said second blade is received keeping a second distance between a second external face of said receiving hollow portion and a cutting edge of said second blade so as to avoid a contact between said second external face and said cutting edge (see Fig. 16, showing #298 which enters groove #293);
- said cutting arrangement is received keeping a third distance between an intermediate external face of said receiving hollow portion and said cutting arrangement so as to avoid a contact between said intermediate external face and said cutting arrangement, said intermediate external face being interposed between said first external face and said second external face (see Fig. 16, #297 which enters groove #292).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 6, Maguire teaches wherein a diameter of said receiving hollow portion is less than a diameter of said at least one abutting surface (see annotated Fig. 16, above).
In re Claim 14, Maguire teaches wherein a diameter of said intermediate portion is less than a diameter of said at least one abutting surface (see annotated Fig. 16, above).
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0344944 to Maguire in view of US 2003/0226431 to Motard.
In re Claim 15, Maguire teaches, as best understood, wherein, when said cap rolls on said cutting device (see e.g., Fig. 4-5), a difference between half a diameter of said at least one abutting surface and half a diameter of said intermediate portion (see annotated Fig. 16, above, showing the difference between the half diameter of the abutting surface and intermediate portion). Maguire is silent as to “is more than double, or triple, of said third distance; in particular, said third distance is within a range from 0,02 mm to 0,20 mm.”
However, Motard teaches in slitting devices that the gap between the anvil and the blade is exact. The user must balance the depth of the blade into the workpiece between too deep a cut will result in a break, and too shallow a cut will result in a final product rejection for insufficient perforation. As such, the measurement between the cutting blade and the anvil is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing, date to provide the distance of said abutting surface and the intermediate position, and the third distance is between 0.02 mm and 0.2 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum result of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724