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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 9 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 9-14 and 16-20 are pending, of which claims 16-17 are withdrawn from consideration as explained in the Election/Restrictions section below. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 9 January 2026.
Moreover, the recitation of “a suction mechanism” as recited in claim 13 is no longer interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because claim 13 has been amended to require that the suction mechanism comprises a suction source arranged to generate an airflow directed toward the waste removing member, such that claim 13 recites sufficiently structure for performing a waste suctioning function.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 16 and 17 are directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: newly submitted claims 16 and 17 require that the waste removing device comprises “a claw mounted on the movable main body for scraping the waste from the upper or lower blade”. However, the invention originally claimed required a scraper portion that comprises a brush portion (see claim 10). Thus, the invention originally claimed was directed to an embodiment having a brush portion. Moreover, the invention originally claimed does not constitute a special technical feature (see the rejection of the invention originally claimed in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 9 January 2026).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification should be amended to provide an antecedent basis for newly added claim terminology including “a waste removing device” as recited in claim 9 and “a sweeper” as recited in claim 18.
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.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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:
“a waste removing member” as recited in claim 9 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means” per MPEP 2181; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “to remove waste from the upper or lower blade”, “for removal of the waste”, and also “waste removing” preceding the generic placeholder; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function of waste removal, since being “disposed downstream of the lower blade”, being “operably connected to the transmission mechanism”, and being “movable towards the upper and lower blades in accordance with the descent of the upper blade ... and away from the upper and lower blades in accordance with the elevation of the upper blade” are not sufficient structural recitation for performing the function of removing waste – e.g., a camera could be mounted in the manner of the waste removing member of claim 9 in order to obtain a close-up image of one of the blades following cutting, and the camera would still be incapable of performing the waste removing function).
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.
Note that “a transmission mechanism” as recited in claim 9 is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because a transmission is a known type of structure for transmitting motion.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 at line 6 recites, “an upper and a lower blade”. This recitation should read – an upper blade and a lower blade –.
Claim 18 at line 4 recites, “an upper and a lower blade”. This recitation should read – an upper blade and a lower blade –.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites that the airflow is “directed toward the waste removing member”. This recitation was not described in the present specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. First, this feature is newly added to claim 13 and was not present in the claims as originally filed. Second, the present specification fails to disclose the airflow being directed toward the waste removing member. The direction to which the airflow is directed is not explicitly disclosed, and paragraph 49 describes a downward airflow. However, downward is away from the waste removing member as can be seen in Fig. 6 of the present drawings. Finally, the drawings fail to illustrate any particular direction of the airflow, and thus fail to illustrate the airflow direction of claim 13. As such, claim 13 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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(s) 9-14 and 18-20 is/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.
Claim 9 at the preamble recites, “A bag making apparatus for making bags from a web”. This recitation is indefinite in view of Applicant’s Remarks filed 9 April 2026. The Applicant at the second paragraph of page 11 of the Remarks states, “here, the preamble should be considered limiting”. Considering the Applicant’s position to be correct, such that the preamble of claim 9 is interpreted as limiting, claim 9 is indefinite. If the preamble of claim 9 is limiting as asserted by the Applicant, features in addition to the features already required by the body of the claim are implicitly required by the preamble. Claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear which particular additional features are required by the claim in view of the preamble being limiting. Consider the annotated Fig. 2 of the present drawings below. The features required by the body of claim 9 are enclosed within a rectangular box, and these features only make up a small subset of the entire disclosed bag making apparatus. It is unclear whether claim 9 requires each and every additional feature illustrated in Fig. 2, beyond those which are already required by the body of claim 9. Alternatively, claim 9 arguably only requires some additional feature(s) illustrated in Fig. 2. However, in this latter situation, claim 9 it is unclear which additional feature(s) is/are required by the preamble. In summary, taking Applicant’s interpretation of claim 9 to be correct, which requires that the preamble of claim 9 further limits the claim, claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear which additional features disclosed in the present application are required by the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
598
925
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 18 includes the same preamble as claim 9, and the body of claim 18 recites the same three features (i.e., feed rollers, a crosscut device, and a waste removing device) required by claim 9. As such, Applicant’s assertion that the preamble of claim 9 further limits claim 9 likewise Applies to claim 18, such that the Applicant considers the preamble of claim 18 as being further limiting. As such, claim 18 is indefinite for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 9. In short, taking Applicant’s interpretation of the preamble as being controlling, it is unclear what additional structure(s) are implicitly required by the preamble of claim 18 in addition to the features explicitly required by the body of claim 18. The examiner advises the Applicant to explicitly recite in the body of the claim the feature(s) which the Applicant believes are required by the limiting nature of the preamble to overcome this rejection.
Claim 18 recites, “a sweeper”. This recitation is indefinite in view of the present specification, since the Applicant appears to be acting as his or her own lexicographer without providing an explicit definition of the term “sweeper". The term “sweeper” is not found in the present application as originally filed. The definition of ‘sweep’ includes to clean with or as if with a broom or a brush. However, in the present application, each of a scraper portion, a brush portion, and a claw (see paragraphs 41, 43, and paragraph 66, respectively) is described as performing a sweeping function. Only one of these three structures – the brush portion – satisfies the conventional meaning of performing a ‘sweep’ function. As such, the scope of ‘sweeper’ as used in claim 18 is indefinite. Does ‘sweeper’ encompass a structure that performs a scraping function? Does ‘sweeper’ encompass a structure that performs a grabbing function, such as a claw? The plain and ordinary meaning of ‘sweep’ would suggest the answer to both these questions is ‘no’. However, Applicant’s use of ‘sweep’ in the present specification suggests that the answer to both these questions may be ‘yes’. Thus, claim 18 is indefinite. For examination purposes, the examiner considers ‘sweeper’ as including a scraping portion, a brush or broom portion, a claw portion, or any other structure that removes waste from a blade regardless of whether or not the structure includes bristles like a broom or brush.
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2008023666 A to Dai Nippon Printing Co Ltd (hereinafter ‘DN’).
Regarding claim 9, DN discloses a bag making apparatus 1 for making bags from a web F (see the title and abstract), the apparatus 1 comprising:
feed rollers 10 for intermittently feeding the web F in a longitudinal direction of the web F (see Fig. 1 and page 6 of the English language translation of DN at the paragraph beginning ‘As shown in FIGS. 1, 3, and 5’);
a crosscut device comprising an upper and a lower blade 21 and 22, respectively, for crosscutting the web F while the web F is paused (see Fig. 1 and page 7 of the English language translation of DN at the paragraph beginning ‘The combination of the pair of cutting blades 21 and 22’); and
a waste removing device 30 for removing a waste K resulting from crosscutting the web F (see Figs. 1, 2, and 4 and page 7 of the English language translation of DN at the paragraph beginning ‘The doctor device 30 is installed’), the waste removing device 30 comprising:
a transmission mechanism 51 configured to transmit an elevation and a descent of the upper blade 21 (see Fig. 1 and page 8 of the English language translation of DN at the paragraph beginning ‘Specifically, a stock sensor 51’; this interpretation of a transmission mechanism is consistent with paragraph 66 of the present specification, which states that the transmission mechanism can comprise ‘a detect means’), and
a waste removing member 31 disposed downstream of the lower blade 22 (see Fig. 1, noting the movement arrow indicated the movement direction of the web F, such that the left side of the lower blade 22 relative to Fig. 1 is the downstream side) to remove the waste K from the upper or lower blade 21 and 22 (see Fig. 2) and operably connected to the transmission mechanism 51 (the ‘operably connected’ feature being via the control device 50, noting that ‘operably connected’ encompasses a connection via one or more intermediary components), wherein the waste removing member 31 is movable towards the upper and lower blades 21 and 22 (via actuation of telescopic member 32 as can be seen by a comparison of Figs. 2 and 2) in accordance with the descent of the upper blade 21 for removal of the waste K and away from the upper and lower blades 21 and 22 in accordance with the elevation of the upper blade 21 (see Fig. 2 and page 8 of the English language translation of DN at the paragraph beginning ‘Specifically, a stock sensor 51’; note that ‘in accordance with’ merely requires some relationship between the descent of the upper blade and the movement of the waste removing member, such that DN discloses the ‘in accordance with’ feature because the movement of the waste removing member 31 toward the blades 21 and 22 occurs when the upper blade 21 is lowered as can be seen in a comparison of Figs. 1 and 2, and because the retraction of the waste removing member 31 away from the blades 21 and 22 occurs prior to the ascent of the upper blade as can be seen in comparison of Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 18, DN discloses a bag making apparatus 1 for making bags from a web F (see the title and abstract), the apparatus 1 comprising:
feed rollers 10 for intermittently feeding the web F in a longitudinal direction of the web F (see Fig. 1 and page 6 of the English language translation of DN at the paragraph beginning ‘As shown in FIGS. 1, 3, and 5’);
a crosscut device comprising an upper and a lower blade 21 and 22, respectively, for crosscutting the web F while the web F is paused (see Fig. 1 and page 7 of the English language translation of DN at the paragraph beginning ‘The combination of the pair of cutting blades 21 and 22’); and
a waste removing device 30 for removing a waste K resulting from crosscutting the web F (see Figs. 1, 2, and 4 and page 7 of the English language translation of DN at the paragraph beginning ‘The doctor device 30 is installed’), the waste removing device 30 comprising:
a transmission mechanism 51 configured to transmit an elevation and a descent of the upper blade 21 (see Fig. 1 and page 8 of the English language translation of DN at the paragraph beginning ‘Specifically, a stock sensor 51’; this interpretation of a transmission mechanism is consistent with paragraph 66 of the present specification, which states that the transmission mechanism can comprise ‘a detect means’), and
a sweeper 31 disposed downstream of the lower blade 22 (see Fig. 1, noting the movement arrow indicated the movement direction of the web F, such that the left side of the lower blade 22 relative to Fig. 1 is the downstream side) to sweep the waste K from the upper or lower blade 21 and 22 (see Fig. 2) and operably connected to the transmission mechanism 51 (the ‘operably connected’ feature being via the control device 50, noting that ‘operably connected’ encompasses a connection via one or more intermediary components), wherein the sweeper 31 is movable towards the upper and lower blades 21 and 22 (via actuation of telescopic member 32 as can be seen by a comparison of Figs. 2 and 2) in accordance with the descent of the upper blade 21 for removal of the waste K and away from the upper and lower blades 21 and 22 in accordance with the elevation of the upper blade 21 (see Fig. 2 and page 8 of the English language translation of DN at the paragraph beginning ‘Specifically, a stock sensor 51’; note that ‘in accordance with’ merely requires some relationship between the descent of the upper blade and the movement of the sweeper, such that DN discloses the ‘in accordance with’ feature because the movement of the sweeper 31 toward the blades 21 and 22 occurs when the upper blade 21 is lowered as can be seen in a comparison of Figs. 1 and 2, and because the retraction of the sweeper 31 away from the blades 21 and 22 occurs prior to the ascent of the upper blade as can be seen in comparison of Figs. 2 and 4).
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(s) 9, 13-14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-176641 A to Totani Mikio (hereinafter ‘TM’) in view of US Pub. No. 2012/0090441 A1 to Abe, as evidenced by JP 2008023666 A to Dai Nippon Printing Co Ltd (hereinafter ‘DN’).
Regarding claim 9, TM discloses a bag making apparatus for making bags from a web 1 (see the title and Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising:
feed rollers 2 for intermittently feeding the web 1 in a longitudinal direction X of the web 1 (see Fig. 1 and the final paragraph of page 2 of the English language translation of TM);
a crosscut device comprising an upper and a lower blade 5 and 6, respectively, for crosscutting the web 1 while the web 1 is paused (see Fig. 2 and the first paragraph of page 2 of the English language translation of TM); and
a waste removing device (including the suction mechanism discussed below with respect to claim 13) for removing a waste resulting from crosscutting the web (see Fig. 2 and the penultimate paragraph of page 3 of the English language translation of TM).
Regarding claim 13, TM discloses that the waste removing device comprises a suction mechanism (the suction mechanism including cover portion 18 and the source of air flow 17 described at the penultimate paragraph of page 3 of the English language translation of TM) for suctioning the waste removed from the upper or lower blade 5 or 6 (see Fig. 2 and the penultimate paragraph of page 3 of the English language translation of Totani Mikio), the suction mechanism comprising a suction source (described at the penultimate paragraph of page 3 of the English language translation of TM) arranged to generate an airflow 17 directed downward (see the arrow of the airflow in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, TM discloses that the suction mechanism comprises a cover 18 in contact with the lower blade 6 (see Fig. 2, where a left wall of the cover portion 18 is in contact with the lower blade 6).
Regarding claim 18, TM discloses a bag making apparatus for making bags from a web 1 (see the title and Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising:
feed rollers 2 for intermittently feeding the web 1 in a longitudinal direction X of the web 1 (see Fig. 1 and the final paragraph of page 2 of the English language translation of TM);
a crosscut device comprising an upper and a lower blade 5 and 6, respectively, for crosscutting the web 1 while the web 1 is paused (see Fig. 2 and the first paragraph of page 2 of the English language translation of TM); and
a waste removing device (including the suction mechanism discussed below with respect to claim 13) for removing a waste resulting from crosscutting the web (see Fig. 2 and the penultimate paragraph of page 3 of the English language translation of TM).
TM fails to disclose the waste removing device comprising: a transmission mechanism configured to transmit an elevation and a descent of the upper blade, and a waste removing member disposed downstream of the lower blade to remove the waste from the upper or lower blade and operably connected to the transmission mechanism, wherein the waste removing member is movable towards the upper and lower blades in accordance with the descent of the upper blade for removal of the waste and away from the upper and lower blades in accordance with the elevation of the upper blade, as required by claim 9. TM also fails to disclose: that the airflow is directed toward the waste removing member as required by claim 13, and that the cover covers the waste removing member as required by claim 14. TM also fails to disclose that the waste removing device comprising: a transmission mechanism configured to transmit an elevation and a descent of the upper blade, and a sweeper disposed downstream of the lower blade to sweep the waste from the upper or lower blade and operably connected to the transmission mechanism, wherein the sweeper is movable towards the upper and lower blades in accordance with the descent of the upper blade and away from the upper and lower blades in accordance with the elevation of the upper blade as required by claim 18.
In general, Abe teaches a waste removing device 691 usable in conjunction with a crosscut device (the crosscut device includes blades 633 and 634; see Figs. 14-20). Turning to claimed features, Abe teaches that the waste removing device 691 comprises a transmission mechanism (see Fig. 15; the transmission mechanism includes shaft 6803, plate 6730, arm 6740, abutting surface 6741, and spring 675) configured to transmit an elevation and a descent of the upper blade 633 (see Figs. 17A-17B and 18A-18B, illustrating that elevation and descent of the upper blade 633 is transmitted to vertical movement of the waste removing member 692 via the transmission mechanism; see also paragraphs 117-120 describing this transmission), and a waste removing member 692 disposed on a side of the upper blade 633 opposite the lower blade 634 (see Fig. 19) to remove waste from the upper or lower blade 633 or 634 (see paragraph 119) and operably connected to the transmission mechanism (see paragraphs 117-120), wherein the waste removing member 692 is movable towards the upper and lower blades 633 and 634 in accordance with the descent of the upper blade 633 for removal of the waste and away from the upper and lower blades 633 and 634 in accordance with the elevation of the upper blade (see the movement of the waste removing member 692 to be close to a bottom, cutting edge of the upper blade 633 from the position shown in Fig. 22A to a range of positions extending from the position of the waste removing member 692 shown in Fig. 23A to the position of the waste removing member 692 shown in Fig. 23B, where the waste removing member 692 abuts the upper blade 633 in the immediate vicinity of the edge of the upper blade when moving between the positions shown in Figs. 23A and 23B – this movement is due to the descent of the upper blade 633 since the descent of the upper blade 633 drives the waste removing member 692 to move downward to the position shown in Fig. 23B in accordance with paragraphs 118 and 119; the waste removing member 692 is away from the edge of the upper blade 633 when the upper blade 633 elevates back to the position shown in Fig. 22A; paragraphs 117-120 describe the movement of the waste removing member 692 as being produced by the transmission mechanism as the movement of the upper blade 633 drives the transmission mechanism) [claim 9]. Abe also teaches the features of the waste removing device required by claim 18 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to Abe’s teachings related to claim 9 – the only difference being that the element 692 of Abe is considered as a sweeper that sweeps waste (see Figs. 23A-23B) for the purposes of claim 18 [claim 18]. Abe teaches that providing the waste removing device with the transmission mechanism and the waste removing member (also referred to as a sweeper) is advantageous in order to remove waste that may be adhered to the upper blade (see paragraph 9), which can prevent emergency stops and can prevent deterioration of the cut products (see paragraph 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the waste removing device of TM with a transmission member and a waste removing member (also referred to as a sweeper) as taught by Abe in order to further aid in the removal of waste from the crosscut device of TM. That is, prior to this modification, TM relies only on suction to remove waste. This modification enhances the ability to remove waste from the crosscut device by supplementing the waste removing device of TM (which relies only on suction) with a waste removing member that actively pushes waste off of the crosscut device. This modification thus enhances the ability to remove waste from the crosscut device by providing another means for removing waste from the crosscut device, beyond the suction already disclosed by TM. For example, if waste is sufficiently attached to the crosscut device of TM that suction alone fails to remove the waste, this modification results in such waste being physically urged off of the crosscut device. This modification reduces the likelihood of emergency stops and prevents the deterioration of cut products to a greater degree than TM, prior to modification. This modification is further obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. TM and Abe together disclose each claimed element. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (such as by providing the bag making apparatus of TM with the transmission member and waste removing member of Abe by connecting the transmission member to the upper, moving blade of TM in the same manner disclosed by Abe), and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately (no function of the bag making apparatus of TM is changed, although waste removal is improved; similarly, the transmission mechanism and waste removing member of Abe continue to remove waste from a crosscut device). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination were predictable, since no function of the bag making apparatus or of the waste removing device is changed – instead, the waste removing device of TM is merely supplemented to reduce the likelihood of waste being adhered to the crosscut member.
Further, in carrying out this modification, since TM teaches that the upper blade is downstream of the lower blade, and since Abe teaches that the waste removing member is disposed on a side of the upper blade opposite the lower blade, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the waste removing member downstream of the lower blade [claims 9 and 18] in view of the combined teachings of the references. This positioning of the waste removing member of Abe, when provided to TM, allows the waste removing member to move along the upper blade without interference from the lower blade. Consider Fig. 2 of TM – if the waste removing member were provided upstream of the upper blade 5, then the waste removing member would not be positioned to dislodge waste from the upper blade. As further evidence of the obviousness of positioning the waste removing member on the downstream side of the lower blade, DN teaches this positioning of the waste removing member. DN is thus evidence of the obviousness of position the waste removing member of Abe, when applied to a bag making apparatus as taught by TM, on the downstream side of the lower blade such that the waste removing member is able to slide along the side of the upper blade to which waste is attached in order to remove the waste.
TM, as modified, thus discloses that the airflow is directed toward the waste removing member [claim 13] because TM, as modified, discloses that the waste removing member is above the lower blade (at least in a raised position of the waste removing member) and that the airflow is directed in a downward direction, which is the exact same configuration as disclosed in the present application in order for the airflow to be directed toward the waste removing member. That is, TM, as modified, discloses this the airflow being directed relative to the waste removing member in the same manner as disclosed in the present application.
Also in carrying out the modification of TM to include the transmission member and waste removing member of Abe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the cover of the suction mechanism cover the waste removing member [claim 14], at least in the lowest position of the waste removing member, in view of the combined teachings of references. That is, Abe teaches that the waste removing member 692 is movable downward to scrap waste from the lower blade 634 (see Fig. 23B of Abe), whereas TM teaches that the cover portion is configured to extend to a top of the lower blade 6 (see Fig. 2) and to oppose the upper blade (see the penultimate paragraph at page 3 of the English language translation of TM). Thus, upon modifying TM to include the waste removing member of Abe, the cover of the suction mechanism is configured to cover the waste removing member at least when the waste removing member is at its lowest position in contact with the lower blade.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-176641 A to TM as modified by US Pub. No. 2012/0090441 A1 to Abe as applied to claims 9 and 18 above, and further in view of JP 6247674 B2 to Rohm Co Ltd.
Regarding claim 10, TM, as modified, discloses that the waste removing member comprises: a movable main body (see the annotated Fig. 23A of Abe below; movement of the main body is illustrated in Figs. 23A and 23B of Abe), and a blade-contacting portion mounted on the movable main body (see the annotated Fig. 23A of Abe below) for sweeping the waste from the upper or lower blade (compare Figs. 23A and 23B of Abe, showing the blade-contacting portion sweeping the waste G).
PNG
media_image2.png
656
896
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, TM, as modified, discloses that the sweeper comprises: a movable main body (see the annotated Fig. 23A of Abe above; movement of the main body is illustrated in Figs. 23A and 23B of Abe), and a blade-contacting portion mounted on the movable main body (see the annotated Fig. 23A of Abe above) for sweeping the waste from the upper or lower blade (compare Figs. 23A and 23B of Abe, showing the blade-contacting portion sweeping the waste G).
TM, as modified, fails to disclose that the blade-contact portion includes bristles as required by claims 10 and 19.
Rohm, however, teaches that providing a blade-contact portion as felt or a brush (see page 6 of the English language translation of Rohm provided by the Applicant on 25 July 2023). A brush is known to those of ordinary skill in the art as being a device having bristles (e.g., Merriam Webster defines a brush as a device composed of bristles typically set into a handle and used especially for sweeping, smoothing, scrubbing, or painting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the blade-contacting portion of the waste removing member of TM, as modified, in the form of a brush that includes bristles in view of the teachings of Rohm. This modification is advantageous because a brush has elasticity that allows the brush to conform to the blade being cleaned, thus better sweeping material off of the blade compared to a blade-contact portion that does not conform to the blade being cleaned.
Claims Not Subject to Prior Art Rejection
Claims 11, 12, and 20 are not subject to any prior art rejection under 35 USC 102 and/or 35 USC 103. However, no determination of allowability can be made for these claims in view of the issues raised above under 35 USC 112. TM, as modified by Abe, fails to teach or suggest that the waste removing member comprises a rotational shaft extending in a width direction of the web, a main body configured to be rotatable around the rotational shaft, and that the transmission mechanism is configured to rotate the main body around the rotational shaft in accordance with the elevation and the descent of the upper blade as required by claims 11 and 20, at least in conjunction with the remainder of features required by claims 11 and 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 April 2026 have been considered but they are not fully persuasive. Initially, the Applicant argues that “waste removing member” should not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because the claim recites a location of the member and a connection of the member. This argument is not persuasive because it remains the case that claim 9 does not recite sufficient structure of the member for performing a waste removing function. Being “disposed downstream of the lower blade” is insufficient structure for performing a waste removing function – any structure can be located downstream of the lower blade, but this location is insufficient structure for removing waste. Moreover, being “operably connected to the transmission mechanism” is likewise insufficient structure for removing waste. A camera, as one example, can be connected to a transmission member, but a camera does not perform the function of removing waste. As such, “waste removing member” is properly interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Applicant’s argument that “sweeper” as recited in claim 18 should not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) is moot in view of the term “sweeper” not being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
With respect to the rejection of claim 9 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Abe, the Applicant’s argument that the waste removing member of Abe is not “downstream of the lower blade” is persuasive. The examiner agrees that the waste removing member of Abe is disposed upstream of the lower blade. Claim 9 is no longer rejected as being anticipated by Abe.
The Applicant further argues that Abe is not analogous art. This argument is not persuasive at least because Abe is pertinent to the problem faced by the present inventor, in particular to the problem of removing waste from a crosscut device (see the ‘Background’ section of the present specification discussing the problem of waste on a crosscut device). Moreover, in view of the fact that bags are makable from paper, and that it is unclear what additional structure(s) are required by the preambles of claims 9 and 18 beyond the structures recited in the respective bodies of the claims in view of the Applicant’s assertion that the preambles of claims 9 and 18 are limited, Abe is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention because Abe is in the field of endeavor of cutting device that crosscut a web of material.
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 EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights