DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
A- Tsai is a primary reference
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (2015/0114197).
Regarding claim 20, Tsai teaches a blade support substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprising:
a blade support assembly 43, the blade support assembly comprising:
a clamp 44 coupled to the blade support;
a blade 61; and
a dampener member comprising a first portion 63 positioned on a first side of the blade and a second portion 64 positioned on a second side of the blade, wherein the first side of the blade faces the blade support and the second side of the blade is opposite the first side of the blade, wherein the dampener member has a thickness of about 0.5 mm to about 1.0 mm.
See Figs. 1A-C, 4, 6, and 6A.
Tsai teaches invention substantially as claimed except for the dimension of the dampener member. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the dampener member having a thickness of about 0.5 mm to about 1.0 mm for providing a desired damping force to the cutters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
B- Wittkopf is a primary reference
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittkopf (5,117,718).
Regarding claim 20, Wittkopf teaches a blade support substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprising:
a blade support assembly 61, the blade support assembly comprising:
a clamp 87 coupled to the blade support;
a blade 85; and
a dampener member comprising a first portion 79 positioned on a first side of the blade and a second portion 83 positioned on a second side of the blade, wherein the first side of the blade faces the blade support and the second side of the blade is opposite the first side of the blade, wherein the dampener member has a thickness of about 0.5 mm to about 1.0 mm.
See Figs. 4 and 8.
Wittkopf teaches invention substantially as claimed except for the dimension of the dampener member. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the dampener member having a thickness of about 0.5 mm to about 1.0 mm for providing a desired damping force to the cutters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittkopf (5,117,718) in view of Tsai (2015/0114197).
Regarding claim 1, Wittkopf teaches a perforating apparatus substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprising:
a blade support comprising a blade support assembly, wherein the blade support assembly comprises:
a clamp 83 coupled to the blade support;
a blade 85 positioned between the clamp and an outer surface of the blade support; and
a plurality of dampener members extending along at least a portion of a longitudinal length of the blade, wherein the plurality of dampener members are comprised of polymer fibers, natural fibers, or mixtures thereof, wherein a first dampener member is positioned on a first side of the blade, wherein a second dampener member is positioned on a second side of the blade, and wherein the second side of the blade is opposite the first side of the blade, wherein the second dampener member is at least partially superimposed relative to the first dampener member, and
wherein the first dampener member has a first width W1, wherein the second dampener has a second width W2, and wherein the first width W1 is greater than the second width W2.
See Fig. 4.
Wittkopf does not teach “a plurality of dampener members extending along at least a portion of a longitudinal length of the blade, wherein a first dampener member is positioned on a first side of the blade, wherein a second dampener member is positioned on a second side of the blade, and wherein the second side of the blade is opposite the first side of the blade.”
Tsai teaches a cutting apparatus having “a plurality of dampener members extending along at least a portion of a longitudinal length of the blade 61, wherein a first dampener member 63 is positioned on a first side of the blade, wherein a second dampener member 64 is positioned on a second side of the blade, and wherein the first side of the blade faces the blade support and the second side of the blade is opposite the first side of the blade.” The dampers help reducing noise during a cutting process. See Fig. 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the perforating apparatus of Wittkopf a pair of damper members as taught by Tsai for reducing noise during a cutting process.
Wittkopf does not teach the second dampener member being discontinuous along at least a portion of the longitudinal length of the blade. Wittkopf teaches the blade 85 having multiple sections. Therefore, when the teaching of Tsai is applied to Wittkopf, a plurality pairs of damper members are provided to the blades. The plurality pairs of damper members form discontinuous sections along blade length.
As to the limitation “wherein the second dampener member is at least partially superimposed relative to the first dampener member”, Tsai teaches the dampener dampers being overlapped in Figs. 1B-C.
As to the limitation “wherein the first dampener member has a first width W1, wherein the second dampener has a second width W2, and wherein the first width W1 is greater than the second width W2”, Tsai teaches the dampener members (121, 122) having different widths in Figs. 1B-C.
As to the material of the dampener members, to select a well-known material such as polymer fibers or natural fibers would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 2, the modified perforating device of Wittkopf teaches invention substantially as claimed except for the dimension of the dampener member. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the dampener member having a width less than 8 mm for providing a desired damping force to the cutters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 3, the first damper member 63 and the second damper member 64 having a same thickness are best seen in Fig. 4 in Tsai.
Regarding claim 4, the first damper member 63 and the second damper member having 64 a length the same as or less than a length of the blade 61 are best seen in Fig. 6 in Tsai.
Regarding claim 6, Tsai does not express the need for different types of material for the upper damper member and the lower damper member. Therefore, the Examiner considers that the damper members made from the same material.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Tsai teaches a third damper member 123. The third damper member 123 is different from the first damper member 121 and the second damper member 122. Tsai does not teach the modulus of elasticity and the compressibility of the third damper member relative to the first damper member and the second damper member. To find a desire modulus of elasticity and compressibility of the third damper member relative to the first damper member and the second damper member is within the knowledge of one skilled in the art since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. In re Swain et al., 33 CCPA 1250.
Regarding claim 11, Wittkopf teaches the device including a frame 5, a housing 9, and an anvil roll 7. See Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 12, Wittkopf teaches the clamp having an extension (inclined surface).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the extension being tapered to a distal edge of the clamp is best seen in Fig. 4 in Tsai and Wittkopf.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, a compression member 87 is best seen in Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 17, Wittkopf teaches a method for forming a line of weakness in a substrate substantially as claimed except for the limitation in the bolded texts, the method comprising:
providing a blade support, wherein the blade support comprises a blade support assembly 61, the blade support assembly comprising a blade 85;
positioning a first dampener member on a first side of the blade;
positioning a second dampener member on a second side of the blade, wherein the second dampener member is at least partially superimposed relative to the first dampener member, wherein at least one of a first proximal edge and a first distal edge of the second dampener are not aligned with a second proximal edge and a second distal edge of the first dampener, respectively, and wherein the first and second dampener members are comprised of polymer fibers, natural fibers, or mixtures thereof;
applying, by a clamp coupled to the blade support, a pressure to the blade;
providing an anvil roll 7, wherein the anvil roll comprises an anvil support assembly, the anvil support assembly comprising at least one anvil;
positioning the anvil roll adjacent to the blade support such that the anvil support assembly interacts with the blade support assembly; and
feeding a web between the blade support assembly and the anvil support assembly such that the blade cooperates with the anvil to perforate the web and form the line of weakness,
wherein the blade flexes in a direction of the first side of the blade when the blade support assembly and the anvil support assembly interact, and
wherein the blade rebounds in a direction of the second side of the blade when the blade support assembly loses contact with the anvil support assembly.
See Fig. 4.
Wittkopf does not teach “positioning a first dampener member on a first side of the blade; positioning a second dampener member on a second side of the blade.”
Tsai teaches a cutting apparatus having a first dampener member 63 is positioned on a first side of the blade, and a second dampener member 64 is positioned on a second side of the blade. The dampers help reducing noise during a cutting process. See Fig. 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the perforating apparatus of Wittkopf a pair of damper members as taught by Tsai for reducing noise during a cutting process.
Wittkopf does not teach the second dampener member being discontinuous along at least a portion of the longitudinal length of the blade. Wittkopf teaches the blade 85 having multiple sections. Therefore, when the teaching of Tsai is applied to Wittkopf, a plurality pairs of damper members are provided to the blades. The plurality pairs of damper members form discontinuous sections along blade length.
As to the limitation “wherein the second dampener member is at least partially superimposed relative to the first dampener member, wherein at least one of a first proximal edge and a first distal edge of the second dampener are not aligned with a second proximal edge and a second distal edge of the first dampener, respectively”, Tsai teaches the dampener dampers being overlapped in Figs. 1B-C.
As to the material of the dampener members, to select a well-known material such as polymer fibers or natural fibers would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, an adjusting pressure component 87 is best seen in Fig. 4 in Wittkopf.
Regarding claim 20, Wittkopf teaches a blade support substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprising:
a blade support assembly 61, the blade support assembly comprising:
a clamp 83 coupled to the blade support;
a blade 85; and
a dampener member comprising a first portion positioned on a first side of the blade and a second portion positioned on a second side of the blade, wherein the first side of the blade faces the blade support and the second side of the blade is opposite the first side of the blade, wherein the dampener member has a thickness of about 0.5 mm to about 1.0 mm.
See Fig.4.
Wittkopf does not teach “a dampener member comprising a first portion positioned on a first side of the blade and a second portion positioned on a second side of the blade, wherein the first side of the blade faces the blade support and the second side of the blade is opposite the first side of the blade.”
Tsai teaches a cutting apparatus having “a dampener member comprising a first portion 63 positioned on a first side of the blade and a second portion 64 positioned on a second side of the blade, wherein the first side of the blade faces the blade support and the second side of the blade is opposite the first side of the blade.” The dampers help reducing noise during a cutting process. See Fig. 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the perforating apparatus of Wittkopf a pair of damper members as taught by Tsai for reducing noise during a cutting process.
Regarding claim 21, Wittkopf teaches the blade 85 having multiple sections. Therefore, when the teaching of Tsai is applied to Wittkopf, a plurality pairs of damper members are provided to the blades. The plurality pairs of damper members form discontinuous sections along blade length.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittkopf (5,117,718) in view of Tsai (2015/0114197) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ebert (2014/0141703).
The modified apparatus of Wittkopf teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the second damper member having a circular cross-section.
Ebert teaches a damper member 66 having a circular cross-section. See Fig. 1.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art to provide to use a damper member having circular cross-section in the modified apparatus of Wittkopf because the Applicant has not disclosed that such particular shape of the damper member provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the damper having a rectangular cross-section because they both absorb the vibration from the blades.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a damper member having a circular cross-section to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittkopf (5,117,718) in view of Tsai (2015/0114197) and Ebert (2014/011419) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Punater et al. (4,475,425), hereinafter Punater.
Regarding claim 10, the modified apparatus of Wittkopf teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the clamp having recess for receiving the damper members.
Punater teaches a perforating apparatus including a blade 12 and a clamp 20 having a recess 56 for receiving a damper member 60. See Fig. 1. The recess 56 limits an expansion of the damper members in a lateral direction and guides the expansion of the damper members in a direction toward the knife to increase clamping force.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a clamp having a recess as taught by Punater in the modified apparatus of Wittkopf for guiding the expansion of the damper members in a direction toward the knife to increase clamping force.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to Wittkopf and Tsai, the specification and the claims do not provide any specific structure of the dampers for reducing cracks. The resilient dampers of Tsai helps reducing noise. The resilient members also help reducing the impact between the two blades which reduces crack on the blades happening. Therefore, the combination of Wittkopf and Tsai meets the claim language of two dampers provided on both sides of a blade and the intended use in the Specification of the dampers such as reducing noise and impact between two blades.
Regarding Appicant’s argument with respect to the dimension of the dampers, to provide a proper dimension for a device or a part is within the knowledge of one skilled in the art. For example, a knife basically comprises a handle and a blade portion. However, the knives have different sizes depending on how a user uses. For example, a butcher knife is big and heavy for chopping bones or big chunks of meat while a bread knife or a dining is small and light. Therefore, it is within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to provide a desire dimension for the dampers to meet their intended uses.
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 PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights