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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the amendment of claim 1 “wherein only the first axle, among the first and second axles, is directly supported by the frame” should be read -- wherein only the first axle, among the first and second axles, is indirectly supported by the frame—since the left portion of the frame 20 is directly supported the bearing 70 to the first axle as seen in Figure 1A. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 22, 24-25, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuji et al (US 2017/0239832) hereinafter Tsuji.
Regarding claim 1, Tsuji shows a rotary cutting unit (Figure 1), comprising:
a frame (301);
a rotary cutter (as a whole roll 101, Figure 1) comprising:
a rotary cutting drum (Para. 75 “a cutter roll 101”, Figure 1) having a rotary cutting surface with at least one knife member located thereon (a cutting blade 116, Figure 2A) and
a first axis of rotation (the axle near the reference “112a” in Figure 7C), which is located coincident to the first axis of rotation (112a), a first load bearing structure (a left guide ring 114, Figure 2A) located on only a first end of the rotary cutting drum (see Figure 2A, only one left guide ring 114 is on the left end of the roll 101), and
an anvil (201, Figure 2B) comprising:
an anvil portion having an anvil surface configured to directly contact
the at least one knife member (see Figure 7C) and a second axis of rotation (212A, Figure 2B),
a second axle ( 212, Figure 2B) located coincident to the second axis of rotation, and a second load bearing structure (210cb, Figure 7C) located on only a first end of the anvil portion (see Figure 7C, only one left guide ring contacts a portion 210cb is on the left end of the anvil);
a first plurality of bearings (left and right bearings 152, Figure 7A) supporting the first axle for rotation about the first axis of rotation; and
a second plurality of bearings (left and right bearings 252, Figure 7B) supporting the second axle for rotation about the second axis of rotation, wherein a surface of the first load bearing structure contacts a surface of the second load bearing structure (see Figure 7C), and
wherein only the first axle, among the first and second axles, is “directly” supported by the frame (see Applicant’s Figure 1A, the axle 38 is supported by a left portion of the frame 20 via a bearing 70, therefore, see Figure 7c, it is clearly only the left axle that is supported by a left portion of the frame 301 via a left bearing 152 and meets this amendment).
Regarding claim 2, Tsuji shows that along the first axis of rotation a first portion of the first axle (a left portion of the shaft 112, Figure 7C) is on one side of the rotary cutting drum and a second portion of the first axle (a right portion of the shaft 112, Figure 7C) is on a second side of the rotary cutting drum.
Regarding claim 3, Tsuji shows that the first plurality of bearings comprises two rotary cutter bearings (the left and right bearings 152, Figure 7C) including:
a first rotary cutter bearing (the left bearing 152) configured to support the first portion of the first axle for rotation about the first axis of rotation and a second rotary cutter bearing (the right bearing 152) configured to support the second portion of the first
axle for rotation about the first axis of rotation.
Regarding claim 22, Tsuji shows that the rotary cutter is horizontally above the anvil (see Figure 1).
Regarding claims 24-25, Tsuji shows that the first load bearing structure (the left guide ring 114, Figure 2A) is located at a side of the rotary cutting drum (Figures 2A and 7C) and the first load bearing structure (the left guide ring 114, Figure 2A) is off-center of the rotary cutting drum (because the left guide ring 114 is at one end of the cutting drum).
Regarding claim 27, Tsuji shows that a bending effect (401, Figure 7C) is applied to the anvil.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji in view of Welch (US 2004/0003699).
Regarding claim 7, Tsuji shows all of the limitations as stated above including a motor (Para. 101 “a motor is transmitted to the shaft 112 via gears and belts”) to be driven in rotation about the first axis of rotation, however, it is not clear whether the rotary cutter is coupled to the motor or not (since there are belts).
Welch shows a rotary unit (100, Figure 2) including cutting and anvil rollers (102, 104, Figure 2), wherein the cutting roller is coupled to a motor (134, Figure 2 and Para. 13 “a suitable motor 134” or a motor 221, figures 9-10) via an axle or a shaft of the cutting roller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cutting unit of Tsuji to have a motor coupled to the cutting roller (rotary cutter) via a shaft or an axle of the cutting roller, as taught by Welch, in order to allow the cutting unit to run more efficiency, compact, non-slip, and long-lasting performance (compared to belts that are prone to slippage and wear).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons below.
In the remarks, page 10, Applicant stated that “”…as claim 8 has not been rejected as being anticipated by Tsuji”, Examiner agrees with Applicant since the original claim 8 depends on claim 7 which has been rejected under the 103, Tsuji in view of Welch.
With regards to claim 8 (original claim), “wherein only the first axle, among the first and second axles, is directly supported by the frame”, see the rejection above. As amendment is written “only the first axle, among the first and second axles, is directly supported by the frame” which has been interpreted “only the first axle, among the first and second axles, is directly supported by a left portion of the frame and meets the amendment (because the right side axle of the cutter has not been defined or further claimed).
Examiner also looks at the elected Figure 1A, it appears that both left and right axles of the cutter drum 30 are supported by the frame 20 via bearings 70; therefore, it is unclear what Applicant is trying to claim “only the first axle, among the first and second axles, is directly supported by the frame”.
In the remarks, Applicant keeps saying that “only one…”, for an example, the last paragraph of page 13 “a first loading bearing structure is located on only one of first end or a second end of a rotary cutting drum…” is inherent because see Figures 7B, C, there is only one loading bearing (the left bearing 114) on one end of a rotary cutting drum (101), not two bearings on the same end of the cutting drum, thus, the argument is not persuasive.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 5/12/2026
Prosecution Insights