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 § 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)(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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsai (2015/0114197).
Regarding claim 20, Tsai teaches a blade support 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.
See Figs. 1A-C, 4, 6, and 6A.
B- Wittkopf is a primary reference
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)(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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wittkopf (5,117,718).
Regarding claim 20, Wittkopf teaches a blade support 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.
See Figs. 4 and 8.
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 1-4, 6-8 and 11-20 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 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 first side of the blade faces the blade support and the second side of the blade is opposite the first side of the blade, and
wherein the second dampener member is discontinuous along at least a portion of the longitudinal length of the blade.
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 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 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.
Regarding claim 2, the first damper member 63 and the second damper member 64 having a same width are best seen in Fig. 4 in Tsai.
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 discontinuous along at least a portion of the longitudinal length of the blade;
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.
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.
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.
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 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to Tsai, the Applicant argues that the damper of the invention wraps around the blade and the damper in Tsai does not wrap around the blade in the same manner as the damper of the invention. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 20 calls for “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.” It does not claim the damper wrapping around the blade at the blade ends. The damper portions (63, 64) in Tsai are provided on both sides of the blade 61 as shown in Fig. 4. Therefore, Tsai reads on the claim language.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with Wiffkopf, the term “damper” is broad. In the first interpretation, elements 79 and 83 are holding down the blade on its sides and thus reduces noise. Therefore, Wiffkopf reads on the claim language of the damper. In the second interpretation, the damper is considered a resilient member. The resilient damper is taught by Tsai.
Regarding the combination of Wiffkopf and Tsai, Tsai teaches a pair of dampers sandwiching a blade. Wiffkoffpf teaches multiple blades arranged on the roller. Each blade requires a pair of dampers as taught by Tsai. Since the pairs of dampers are segments of a long damper on the roller in Wiffkopf, they are discontinuous dampers on the roller. As to the reason for providing the dampers on the Wiffkopf, Tsai teaches the dampers help reducing noise and breaking blades during a cutting process . Therefore, the combination of Wiffkopf and Tsai is proper.
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