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
Applicant’s amendment of 6-11-2026 was received. Claims 1, 6, 15 were amended. Claims 11-13 and 23-24 were cancelled. New Claims 25-29 were presented.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 25-29 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention elected in the 12-21-2025 Response to Restriction, without traverse, for the following reasons:
The new claims do not include the subject matter of Group II, namely: a cutting apparatus wherein a diameter of a receiving hollow portion is less than a diameter of an abutting surface, and 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 a third distance within a range of 0.02mm - 0.20mm. Claim 25 requires each of said first and second distance is greater than said third distance. Claim 26 requires a cutting device stop mechanism. Claim 27 requires a difference between half a diameter of said at least one abutting surface and half a diameter of said intermediate portion is more than triple of said third distance. Claim 28 requires wherein said third distance is within a range from 0.02 mm to 0.20 mm. Since applicant elected the subject matter of Group II, this invention has been elected. Accordingly, claims 25-28 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Claim 29 includes the subject matter of Group II and was examined in this action.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 6, “a diameter of an outermost surface of a portion of said spindle is arranged between said at least one first blade and said at least one second blade when each penetrate through said cap inner surface,” is indefinite. As best understood a diameter of an outermost surface of a portion of said spindle is arranged between said at least one first blade and said at least one second blade when each penetrate through said cap inner surface is referring to receiving hollow portions (see Applicant’s Fig. 2, #23/#24), as these are the only surfaces “between” the blades other than surface #25 in Applicant’s Fig. 2. These surfaces are already labeled “receiving hollow portions” in the claims. Is applicant renaming these surfaces or introducing different surfaces. The claims are indefinite as applicant appears to be referring to the same structure with different limitations. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 having a first external face, a second external face and an intermediate external face (see annotated Fig. 16, below), the intermediate external face having at least a portion arranged parallel to the rotation axis (see annotated Fig. 16, below);
wherein when the cap is arranged on said spindle and said spindle is moved along said advancement path (the examiner notes that these are method steps or intended use steps and the claim is directed to the structure of the device and not the use of the device – the structure of Maguire reads on the claims):
- said first blade penetrates through said cap inner surface and extends into said receiving hollow portion without contacting a surface therefore to define distance between said first external face of said receiving hollow portion and a cutting edge of said first blade (see Fig. 16, showing #296 which enters groove #291 – during operation, in the middle of the path of the blade’s movement there is a distance between the first external face and the cutting edge of the blade);
- said second blade penetrates through said cap inner surfaces and extends into said receiving hollow portion without contacting a surface thereof to define a second distance between said 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 – during operation, in the middle of the path of the blade’s movement there is a distance between the first external face and the cutting edge of the blade);
- said cutting arrangement penetrates through said cap inner surface and extends into said receiving hollow portion without contacting a surface thereof to define a third distance between 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
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The embodiment of Fig 16 in Maguire does not illustrate the first and second external face as parallel to the rotation axis.
However, Maguire, embodiments of Figs. 14-15 teach that it is known in the art to provide first and second external faces a parallel to the rotation axis (see Fig. 14, #202/203 and Fig. 15 #193/192) for the blade shape of #196 in Fig. 15. In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the blade edge shape of Fig. 16, #296/298 with the blade edge shape of Fig. 15 #196 and to provide the corresponding first and second external faces of Figs. 14-15, #202/203 or #193/192). Doing so is the substation of one known blade edge shape and corresponding groove shape for another known blade shape and corresponding groove shape to achieve the result of cutting a bottle cap (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
In re Claim 6, modified Maguire teaches wherein a diameter of an outermost surface of a portion of said spindle is arranged between said at least one first blade and said at least one second blade when each penetrate through said cap inner surface is less than a diameter of said at least one abutting surface (see annotated Fig. 15, as best understood #193/192 have a diameter that is less than the protrusion between #194 and #195 – the claim was examined as best understood.).
In re Claim 14, modified 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 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.”
The Examiner notes that half a diameter is a radius.
However, Motard teaches in slitting devices that the gap between the anvil and the blade is exact (see Motard, translation, Para. 0004). 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 (see Motard, translation, Para. 0004). 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).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0344944 to Maguire in view of US 2017/0066164 to Luzzato.
In re Claim 29, Maguire teaches a method for cutting a cap, comprising:
- engaging a cap with a spindle wherein an inner portion of the cap contacts and engages with an abutting surface of the spindle (see Figs. 5-7);
- advancing the cap along an advancement path in a cutting zone and rotating the cap about a rotation axis via the spindle (see e.g., Fig. 7 arrows);
- making a least one horizontal cut through a sidewall of the cap via at least one first blade (see Fig. 16, #296; see also Para. 0050), wherein when the at least one first blade cuts through a sidewall of the cap to make the at least one horizontal cut (see Fig. 16, #296), the at least one first blade extends into a receiving hollow portion of the spindle (see Figs. 16 and Para. 0050)
- making at least one horizontal cut through the sidewall of the cap via at least one second blade (see Fig. 16, #298; see also para. 0050), wherein when the at least one second blade cuts through the sidewall of the cap to make the at least one horizontal cut (see Fig. 16, #298), the second blade extends into the receiving hollow portion of the spindle without contacting a surface thereof, the at least one cuts of the at least one first and second blades being vertically spaced (see Fig. 16); and
- making at least one vertical or oblique cut through the sidewall of the cap via a cutting arrangement (see Fig. 16, #297), wherein when the cutting arrangement cuts through the sidewall of the cap to make the at least one vertical or oblique cut (see Fig. 16, #297; see also Para. 0050), the cutting arrangement extends into the receiving hollow portion of the spindle, the at least one vertical or oblique cut being made between the at least one cuts of the at least one first and second blades (see Fig. 16, and Para. 0050).
Maguire does not teach the at least one first blade, second blade, and the cutting arrangement extends into a receiving hollow portion of the spindle without contacting a surface thereof.
However, Luzzato teaches that it is known in the art of cutting slits into caps to provide a gap between the end of the blade and the aperture in the spindle (see Luzzato, Figs. 4-5, #116/108). In the same field of invention, cutting slots for caps, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide a gap between the end of the blades and the aperture in the spindle, as taught by Luzzato. Doing so provides a gap such that the sharp edge of the blade does not hit the spindle causing damage of the edge. Doing so prevents the edge from being damaged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that US 2019/0344944 to Maguire does not teach a hollow portion having external faces with portions that are parallel to the spindle. The Examiner disagrees. The Embodiments of Figs. 14-15 of Maguire teach such surfaces. Additionally, in view of US 2017/0066164 to Luzzato teach such surfaces (see Luzzato Fig. 5, #116).
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 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
Prosecution Insights