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 .
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN209273602 to Yu et al. in view of WO 2008038837 to Kanie et al. and in further view of CN 110919755 to Ll et al.
In re claim 1, Yu teaches a punching device, comprising:
a die (2) configured to support a paper sheet, a punch unit (3, 4, 5, 6) configured to punch the paper sheet, wherein
the punch unit includes
a pressing section (10) configured to press the sheet in cooperation with the die,
a punch (5) that has a conical shaped tip end section and that is configured to move up and down, and
a punch guide hole (as shown in at least Figure 1, the punch is disposed in the guide hole) configured to accommodate the punch and to guide the punch in up and down movement, and
the die (2) includes
a hole section (9) provided in a portion facing the punch and through which the punch is (capable of being) passable,
and after the sheet is pressed by the die and the pressing section, the punch is lowered bringing the tip end section into contact with the paper (Pg. 3, lines 13-24).
Examiner’s note, the preamble is directed to an apparatus of a punching device. Yu teaches the structure of the punching device and the device merely has to be capable of pressing the sheet and the punch is capable of being lowered bringing the tip section into contact with the paper (to punch the sheet), in which it is.
PNG
media_image1.png
465
667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches manually inserting the paper, but does not teach a transport section including a roller pair configured to transport the paper onto a support surface of the die and to transport the sheet out after the punching.
Ll teaches in the art of punching a transport section having a roller pair (3,8,9) configured to transport a material to a support surface of a die and transport the material out after punching.
Examiner’s note, the roller pair of Ll merely has to be capable of transporting the material to a support surface and out after punching, in which it is.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Yu with an automated transport section as taught by Ll which is advantageous for improving efficiency, accuracy, synchronizing roller speed, and reducing material handling. The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches a punching device, but does not teach a die blade provided at an upper end periphery of the hole section and configured to cut the sheet in cooperation with the punch.
Kanie teaches a die (8) having a die blade (18) provided at an upper end periphery of the hole section and configured to cut the sheet in cooperation with the punch (1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the die of Yu with a die blade as taught by Kanie which is advantageous for providing a smooth and clean cut and consistent punching results.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. in view of Kanie et al., and in further view of Ll, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of CN 209718757 to Li, and in further view of US Patent No. 6,220,138 to Sakamoto and in further view of CN 109702953 to Cai.
In re claim 2, modified Yu teaches a punching device, but does not teach further comprising: a liquid supply mechanism configured to supply a liquid capable of permeating the sheet to the punch guide hole.
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches a punch having a punch arrangement including a water tube (203), which supplies water to the punch, a tank, and a heater (103). The water aids in wetting the paper for ease of cutting when the blade is not sharp. This avoids having to frequently change the blade. The heating wire aides in quickly drying the paper which is convenient for additional processing (Pg. 3, lines 22-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to build Yu (from the ground up) to have a punch arrangement as taught by Li to quickly dry the paper which is convenient for additional processing (Pg. 3, lines 22-30).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yu teaches providing a punch arrangement with a water pipe, tank, and valve arrangement, but does not teach the liquid supply mechanism having a pump (per the 112, sixth paragraph requirement).
Cai provides a teaching in the art of punches and liquid supply mechanisms, a punch (9) having a liquid supply mechanism pump (3) which works in conjunction with a tank (2) to supply fluid to the punch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide modified Yu with a pump to work in conjunction with the tank as taught by Cai which is advantageous for consistent water flow by controlling the flow rate.
Regarding claim 2, modified Yu teaches providing a punch arrangement with a water pipe, tank, and valve arrangement, but does not teach the liquid supply mechanism having a flexible tube (per the 112, sixth paragraph requirement).
Sakamoto teaches a punch having a flexible tube (47a) for carrying fluid from the fluid source (46) to the punch (as shown in at least Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide modified Yu with a flexible tube for carrying the fluid from the tank as taught by Sakamoto which is advantageous for simplifying installation due to the reduced number of angle fittings while providing a tube which can be maneuvered around objects.
In re claim 3, modified Yu teaches 3 the liquid supply mechanism includes a tube configured to bend (47a, Sakomoto) and a pump (3, Cai) configured to supply the liquid to the punch guide hole via the tube.
In re claim 4, modified Sakomoto teaches wherein the liquid supply mechanism is configured to adjust a supply amount (204, Li) of the liquid.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN209273602 to Yu et al. in view of WO 2008038837 to Kanie et al. and in further view CN 110919755 to Ll et al. and in further view of CN 209718757 to Li and in further view of US Patent No. 6,220,138 to Sakamoto and in further view of CN 109702953 to Cai.
In re claim 8, Yu teaches a punching device, comprising:
a die (2) configured to support a paper sheet and a punch unit (3, 4, 5, 6) configured to perform a punch process on the supported sheet, wherein
the punch unit includes
a pressing section (10) configured to press the sheet in cooperation with the die,
a punch (5) configured to move up and down, and
a punch guide hole (as shown in at least Figure 1, the punch is disposed in the guide hole) configured to accommodate the punch and to guide the punch in up and down movement, and
the die (2) includes
a hole section (9) provided in a portion facing the punch and through which the punch is (capable of being) passable,
and after the sheet is pressed by the die and the pressing section, the punch that has a conical shaped tip (as shown in at least Figure 1) end section process is performed by lowering the punch (via 3) and bringing the tip end section into contact with the paper.
Regarding claim 8, Yu teaches manually inserting the paper, but does not teach a transport section including a roller pair configured to transport the paper onto a support surface of the die and to transport the sheet out after the punching.
Ll teaches in the art of punching a transport section having a roller pair (3,8,9) configured to transport a material to a support surface of a die and transport the material out after punching.
Examiner’s note, the roller pair of Ll merely has to be capable of transporting the material to a support surface and out after punching, in which it is.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Yu with an automated transport section as taught by Ll which is advantageous for improving efficiency, accuracy, synchronizing roller speed, and reducing material handling. The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Regarding claim 8, Yu teaches a punching device, but does not teach further comprising: a liquid supply mechanism configured to supply a liquid capable of permeating the sheet to the punch guide hole.
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches a punch having a punch arrangement including a water tube (203), which supplies water to the punch, a tank, and a heater (103). The water aids in wetting the paper for ease of cutting when the blade is not sharp. This avoids having to frequently change the blade. The heating wire aides in quickly drying the paper which is convenient for additional processing (Pg. 3, lines 22-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to build Yu (from the ground up) to have a punch arrangement as taught by Li to quickly dry the paper which is convenient for additional processing (Pg. 3, lines 22-30).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yu teaches providing a punch arrangement with a water pipe, tank, and valve arrangement, but does not teach the liquid supply mechanism having a pump (per the 112, sixth paragraph requirement).
Cai provides a teaching in the art of punches and liquid supply mechanisms, a punch (9) having a liquid supply mechanism pump (3) which works in conjunction with a tank (2) to supply fluid to the punch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide modified Yu with a pump to work in conjunction with the tank as taught by Cai which is advantageous for consistent water flow by controlling the flow rate.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yu teaches providing a punch arrangement with a water pipe, tank, and valve arrangement, but does not teach the liquid supply mechanism having a flexible tube (per the 112, sixth paragraph requirement).
Sakamoto teaches a punch having a flexible tube (47a) for carrying fluid from the fluid source (46) to the punch (as shown in at least Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide modified Yu with a flexible tube for carrying the fluid from the tank as taught by Sakamoto which is advantageous for simplifying installation due to the reduced number of angle fittings while providing a tube which can be maneuvered around objects.
Regarding claim 8, Yu teaches a punching device, but does not teach a die blade provided at an upper end periphery of the hole section and configured to cut the sheet in cooperation with the punch.
Kanie teaches a die (8) having a die blade (18) provided at an upper end periphery of the hole section and configured to cut the sheet in cooperation with the punch (1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the die of Yu with a die blade as taught by Kanie which is advantageous for providing a smooth and clean cut and consistent punching results.
Response to Arguments
The claim objections in the Office Action mailed January 5, 2026 have been obviated by the amendments filed March 23, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724