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 6 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 are pending. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 5 January 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 8,662,659 B2 to Tsuji in view of US Pat. No. 6,202,527 B1 to Heller.
Regarding claim 6, Tsuji discloses a sheet cutting apparatus 100 (see Fig. 2 and col. 1, lines 35-38, the latter of which explicitly discloses cutting a sheet) comprising:
a conveyor 40 configured to convey a sheet S1 or S2 in a conveying direction (see Fig. 2 and col. 4, line 57 to col. 5, line 8; the conveying direction is from a respective one of the rolls R1 and R2 toward the support plate 43; note also that the ‘conveyor’ as disclosed at paragraph 18 of the present application is a roller-based conveying structure);
a cutter 60 including a first blade 61 configured to make contact with a first surface of the sheet conveyed by the conveyor 40 (see Figs. 2 and 3, relative to which the first blade 61 is configured to contact a lower surface of a sheet S1 or S2), a second blade 65 configured to make contact with a second surface, opposite to the first surface, of the sheet (see Figs. 2 and 3, relative to which the second blade 65 is configured to make contact with an upper surface of a sheet S1 or S2; see also col. 5, lines 28-30 disclosing the sheet being sheared “between” the cutting blades 61 and 65), and a shifter (the shifter including carriage 62 and motor 83 that drives the carriage 62; the carriage 62 and motor 83 drive the first blade 61 to move, and are thus within the broadest reasonable interpretation of a ‘shifter’) configured to move the first blade 61 in a cutting direction (see Fig. 3, relative to which the cutting direction is generally leftward; see also col. 5, lines 45-53 disclosing the cutting direction as perpendicular to the conveying direction of the sheet), the cutter 60 being configured to cut the sheet in the cutting direction by cooperation of the first blade 61 and the second blade 65 (see col. 5, lines 28-30);
a signal outputter (encoder 86 as disclosed at col. 7, lines 10-13; the present application at paragraph 37 likewise describes an encoder as being a ‘signal outputter’) configured to output a sign signal being a signal indicating a sign of running-on of the first blade 61 moved by the shifter to the second blade 65 (see Tsuji at col. 13, lines 54-62; note also that paragraph 49 of the present specification states, “Note that a signal which is outputted from the encoder 17 in a case that the moving speed of the rotary blade 52 is determined to be less than the first threshold value (namely, in a case that abnormality of the moving state of the rotary blade 52 is determined to exist) corresponds to a "sign signal" which is a signal indicating a sign that the rotary blade 52 runs onto the fixed blade 51 (a sign of running-on of the rotary blade 52 to the fixed blade 51).” – since the present application discloses that a ‘sign signal being a signal indicating a sign of running-on of the first blade’ can be a signal indicating that the moving speed of the rotary blade is less than some threshold value, and since Tsuji likewise discloses that the encoder outputs a signal that the moving speed of its rotary blade 61 carried on carriage 62 is less than a predetermined value, the signal outputter of Tsuji is ‘configured’ as recited even if Tsuji does not expressly contemplate that running-on of the first blade 61 may have occurred; still, Tsuji does disclose that the sign signal is indicative of an operation error per col. 13, lines 54-62); and
a controller 90 configured to execute a first stopping processing of stopping the first blade 61 in a case that the controller 90 detects the sign signal (see col. 10, lines 40-57; the ‘stopping’ of the first blade occurs when the forward speed of the carriage 62 stops prior to the carriage 62 being reversed, noting that there is necessarily at least a moment at which the speed of the carriage is zero in order for the carriage to change from a forward moving direction to a reverse moving direction), wherein
the controller 90 is further configured to execute:
a first cutting processing of moving the first blade 61 from a start position in the cutting direction to cut the sheet (see col. 10, lines 32-39 step S230 in Fig. 7), and
a first returning processing of moving the first blade 61 upstream in the cutting direction and stopping the blade at a returned position (see col. 10, lines 51-57 and step S250 in Fig. 7), after the first stopping processing (see Fig. 7 and col. 10, lines 32-57), the returned position being upstream in the cutting direction of a first stop position at which the first blade 61 is stopped in the first stopping processing (see col. 10, lines 32-57; the returned position is upstream in the cutting direction of the first stop position because the motor 83 drives in the negative direction to move the carriage 62 in the reverse direction, which is an upstream direction, to return the blade 61 to the returned position).
Regarding claim 7, Tsuji discloses that the signal outputter (encoder 86) is configured to output the sign signal based on a moving speed of the first blade 61 (see col. 13, lines 54-57) or a load of the shifter in the first cutting processing (this feature is optional due to the recitation ‘or’).
Regarding claim 8, Tsuji discloses that the controller 90 is configured to execute a second cutting processing of moving the first blade 61 downstream in the cutting direction from the returned position (see step S270 in Fig. 7 and col. 10, line 63 to col. 11, line 1), after the first returning processing (see Fig. 7, where step S270 is after step S250).
Tsuji fails to disclose that the controller if configured to execute the first returning processing where the returned position is downstream in the cutting direction of the start position as required by claim 6.
Heller, though, teaches configuring a controller 20 to execute a first returning processing (the first returning processing being a processing where knife roller 5 is moved to position S2 as shown in Figs. 2 and 3; see also col. 2, lines 65-67), where a returned position S2 is downstream in a cutting direction (i.e., in a left-to-right direction along the plane of the page relative to Fig. 3) of a start position S1. [Claim 6] Heller teaches that its controller is configured to execute multiple different returning processings, depending on the width of a sheet to be processed (see col. 2, lines 27-44 and see also col. 2, lines 65-67). Heller teaches that providing multiple returned positions, including a returned position S2 that is downstream in a cutting direction of a start position S1, is advantageous for time savings purposes. That is, Heller teaches that if a blade always moves between two positions (a single start position and a single stop position) that accommodate a wide sheet, there is wasted time when cutting a narrower sheet (see col. 1, lines 12-22). To solve this problem, Heller teaches providing multiple starting positions to which the blade is returned following a cut (e.g., two such starting positions including S1 and S2), which achieves time savings (see col. 1, lines 25-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller of Tsuji to execute first returning processing including returning the blade to a returned position that is downstream in the cutting direction of the start position in view of the teachings of Heller. This modification is advantageous to achieve time savings, in particular when cutting narrow workpieces, since the blade is positioned nearer to the workpiece when the cutting operation is started and time savings can be achieved because the blade is not always returned to a single start position regardless of the workpiece width. Tsuji, as modified, thus teaches that the controller is configured to execute: a first cutting processing of moving the first blade from a start position in the cutting direction to cut the sheet (here, the starting position can be a starting position already disclosed by Tsuji, which corresponds to position S1 of Heller, where the starting position is used when cutting a maximum width workpiece) and a first returning processing of moving the first blade upstream in the cutting direction and stopping the first blade at a returned position (the returned position corresponding to position S2 as disclosed by Heller, such that the returned position is a returned position used when cutting a narrow workpiece), the returned position being upstream in the cutting direction of the first stop position at which the first blade is stopped in the first stopping processing (since the returned position is a waiting position for cutting narrow material, such that the returned position is outside the width of the workpiece, and since the first stop position can be a mid-point position along the width of the workpiece) and downstream in the cutting direction of the start position (since returned position S2 of Heller is downstream of starting position S1). Moreover, the first returned processing of Heller as modified occurs after the first stopping processing when the first stopping process occurs when cutting a narrow workpiece. Alternatively, claim 1 is sufficiently broad that the cutting device can operate to cut wide workpiece repeatedly, and then operate to cut a narrower workpiece, where the first returning processing occurs after the first stopping processing when an error occurs during at least one cutting performance of the wide workpiece. Put another way, claim 6 makes no requirement that the first returning processing occurs in response to the sign signal, and instead includes the much broader requirement that the controller is configured to execute the first returning process at any time “after the first stopping processing”, which is not limited to immediately after the first stopping processing. As such, the controller of Tsuji, as modified, is configured in the manner required by claim 6.
The examiner acknowledges that the present application discloses a different controller configuration than that of Tsuji, even as modified. However, the examiner notes that claim 6 does not require the controller executes the first cutting processing, and that, in response to the controller receiving the sign signal from the signal outputter, the controller is configured to execute both the first stopping processing and the first returning processing. Put another way, there is no requirement in claim 6 that the controller is configured to execute the first stopping processing and the first returning processing in response to the sign signal. Claim 6 encompasses the first returning processing taking place an any time, such that the first returning processing need not be in response to the sign signal.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 8,662,659 B2 to Tsuji as modified by US Pat. No. 6,202,527 B1 to Heller as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of WO 2021/021167 A1 to Domingo Reguant et al. (hereinafter ‘Domingo’ for brevity).
Regarding claim 9, Tsuji, as modified, discloses that the shifter includes an actuator (motor 83 of Tsuji) configured to apply a power for moving the first blade 61 (see col. 6, lines 65-67 of Tsuji).
Tsuji, as modified, fails to expressly disclose that a power value of the actuator in the second cutting processing is greater than a power values of the actuator in the first cutting processing as required by claim 9.
Similar to Tsuji, Domingo teaches a sheet cutting apparatus 1 including a first blade 31 carried by a carriage 50 (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 21). Domingo teaches that the carriage 50 is moved in a cutting direction by a shifter (see paragraph 23, where the shifter includes the motor). Furthermore, Domingo teaches that it is advantageous for a controller to control the carriage 50 to move at a constant speed in order to help achieve a uniform cut (see paragraph 27). In order to move the carriage 50 at a constant speed, Domingo teaches that the controller monitors a power of an actuator of the shifter (the actuator of the shifter corresponding to the motor that moves the carriage 50) so that the controller can increase the power provided to the actuator of the shifter, if needed, in order to maintain a constant speed of the carriage (see paragraph 28). Domingo also teaches that obstacles to cutting (such as bumps, jamming, belt slippage, deflects of a guiding element) cause the controller to increase the power provided to the actuator of the shifter in order to maintain the carriage at the desired constant speed (see paragraph 28). Finally, Domingo teaches that, in addition to the monitoring the power provided to the actuator of the shifter, the controller monitors the speed of the carriage 50 (see paragraph 29), such that the controller can determine that an increase in power is required to maintain the carriage at the constant speed (per paragraph 28). Domingo teaches that the controller is thus configured to increase the power provided to the actuator of the shifter, up to a point, when performing a cutting operation that successfully traverses an obstacle (see the graph of Fig. 7 along with paragraphs 39-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller of Tsuji, as modified, to monitor the power provided to the actuator and to monitor the speed of the carriage, as well as to configure the controller of Tsuji, as modified, to maintain the movement of the carriage carrying the first blade at a constant speed, in view of the teachings of Domingo. This modification is advantageous because performing a cut while the carriage carrying the blade moves at a constant speed produces more uniform, and thus higher quality, cut. Furthermore, as a result of this modification, the controller of Tsuji, as thus modified, is configured to provide the second power value during the second cutting processing (the second cutting processing being a processing during which the sheet is successfully cut) to be greater than the first power value during the first cutting processing (the first cutting processing being a processing during which the sheet is not successfully cut). Tsuji discloses that increasing a pressing force of a sheeting hold down device enables the second cutting processing to be successful even where the first cutting processing was not successful (see Fig. 7 and col. 10, line 58 to col. 11, line 3). Thus, in Tsuji, as modified, since the second cutting processing is successful, and since the second cutting processing includes overcoming a cutting obstacle that produces an increase in the power value provided to the actuator of the shifter in accordance with the teachings of Domingo, Tsuji, as modified, discloses that the controller is configured for the second power value to be greater than the first power value. The examiner further notes that the recitations of the controller “setting a power value of the actuator to be a first power value” during the first cutting processing and the controller “setting the power value of the actuator to be a second power value” during the second cutting processing encompass the controller setting the first and second power values for at least some moment during the respective first or second cutting processing. Put another way, claim 9 is not interpreted as requiring that the controller sets the power value to be constant at the magnitude of the first power value during the first cutting processing or constant at the magnitude of the second power value during the second cutting processing. As such, even if the controller only temporarily sets the power value to be the first power value during the first cutting processing, and if the controller only temporarily sets the power value to be the second power value during the second cutting processing, the power value features of claim 9 are satisfied. In view of this interpretation, the ability for the controller of Tsuji, as modified, to increase the power value applied to the actuator of the shifter during the second cutting processing causes the controller of Tsuji, as modified, to be configured in the manner required by claim 9. For example, the controller of Tsuji, as modified, when the second cutting processing is successful, is configured to increase the power value applied to the actuator in a manner similar to illustrated in the graph of Fig. 7 of Domingo. As another example, the controller of Tsuji, as modified, is configured to provide the second cutting processing with a high power value at a moment in the second cutting processing when the blade overcomes a high-resistance obstacle, and this second power value is higher than a first power value during a first cutting processing, where the first power value is a power value provided to the actuator during normal, non-high-resistance cutting. Again, claim 9 is satisfied when any single power value obtained during the second cutting processing (such as a maximum power value during the second cutting processing) is greater than any single power value obtained during the first cutting processing (such as a minimum power value during the first cutting processing).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 8,662,659 B2 to Tsuji in view of US Pat. No. 6,202,527 B1 to Heller and WO 2021/021167 A1 to Domingo Reguant et al. (hereinafter ‘Domingo’ for brevity).
Regarding claim 10, Tsuji discloses a sheet cutting apparatus 100 (see Fig. 2 and col. 1, lines 35-38, the latter of which explicitly discloses cutting a sheet) comprising:
a conveyor 40 configured to convey a sheet S1 or S2 in a conveying direction (see Fig. 2 and col. 4, line 57 to col. 5, line 8; the conveying direction is from a respective one of the rolls R1 and R2 toward the support plate 43; note also that the ‘conveyor’ as disclosed at paragraph 18 of the present application is a roller-based conveying structure);
a cutter 60 including a first blade 61 configured to make contact with a first surface of the sheet conveyed by the conveyor 40 (see Figs. 2 and 3, relative to which the first blade 61 is configured to contact a lower surface of a sheet S1 or S2), a second blade 65 configured to make contact with a second surface, opposite to the first surface, of the sheet (see Figs. 2 and 3, relative to which the second blade 65 is configured to make contact with an upper surface of a sheet S1 or S2; see also col. 5, lines 28-30 disclosing the sheet being sheared “between” the cutting blades 61 and 65), and a shifter (the shifter including carriage 62 and motor 83 that drives the carriage 62; the carriage 62 and motor 83 drive the first blade 61 to move, and are thus within the broadest reasonable interpretation of a ‘shifter’) configured to move the first blade 61 in a cutting direction (see Fig. 3, relative to which the cutting direction is generally leftward; see also col. 5, lines 45-53 disclosing the cutting direction as perpendicular to the conveying direction of the sheet), the cutter 60 being configured to cut the sheet in the cutting direction by cooperation of the first blade 61 and the second blade 65 (see col. 5, lines 28-30);
a signal outputter (encoder 86 as disclosed at col. 7, lines 10-13; the present application at paragraph 37 likewise describes an encoder as being a ‘signal outputter’) configured to output a signal depending on a moving state of the first blade 61 moved by the shifter (see Tsuji at col. 13, lines 54-62); and
a controller 90,
wherein the shifter includes an actuator 83 configured to apply a power for moving the first blade 61 (see the discussion of the shifter above and see also col. 6, lines 54-67; the power is a forward cutting direction power); and
the controller 90 is configured to execute:
a first cutting processing of moving the first blade 61 in the cutting direction toward a first target position (the first target position being an end position of the cutting operation step S230 in Fig. 7 and col. 10, lines 32-39), by setting a power value of the actuator 83 to be a first power value (see col. 10, lines 32-39 – by controlling the actuator 83, the controller 90 provides power to the actuator 83, which power includes some first power value), the first target position being a position at which the first blade 61 is stopped in a case where the first blade 61 reaches the first target position in the first cutting processing (as noted above, the first target position is an end position of the cutting operation);
a first determining processing of determining whether an abnormality in the moving state of the first blade 61 exists or not, based on the signal outputted from the signal outputter, during executing of the first cutting processing (see step S240 in Fig. 7 and col. 10, lines 40-46);
a first stopping processing of stopping the first blade 61 at a first stop position upstream in the cutting direction of the first target position by stopping the power of the actuator, in a case that the abnormality in the moving state of the first blade 61 is determined to exist in the first determining processing (the first stopping processing takes place in carrying out step S250 in Fig. 7 and as described at col. 10, lines 40-57, with the first stop position being whichever position the first blade 61 occupies when the error is detected; the first stop position is whichever position the first blade 61 is in when the operation error is detected, and since cutting has not completed the first stop position is upstream of the first target position; the forward power to the actuator is stopped when the controller 90 reverses rotation of the actuator 83 per col. 10, lines 51-57; alternatively, all power is at least momentarily stopped in a change from forward to reverse rotation of the actuator 83);
a first returning processing of moving the first blade 61 upstream in the cutting direction, after the first stopping processing (see step S250 in Fig. 7 and col. 10, lines 51-57); and
a second cutting processing of moving the first blade 61 in the cutting direction from a position upstream in the cutting direction of the first stop position toward the first target position (see step S270 in Fig. 7 and col. 10, line 58 to col. 11, line 1), after the first returning processing (see the flowchart of Fig. 7, where the first returning processing is at step S250), the first target position being a position at which the first blade 61 is stopped in a case where the first blade 61 reaches the first target position in the second cutting processing (i.e., the blade 61 is stopped when cutting is complete, just as in the first cutting processing), the first target position being a position downstream in the cutting direction of the first stop position (the first target position is downstream of where the error was detected, which is why the second cutting processing is provided; see Fig. 7 at step S270).
Tsuji fails to disclose that the second cutting processing that the controller is configured to execute includes moving the blade toward a second target position (interpreted as having to be a different position than the first target position; if the two positions were the same, there would not be a second target position) by setting the power value of the actuator to be a second power value greater than the first value, the second target position being a position at which the first blade is stopped in a case where the first blade reaches the second target position in the second cutting processing, the second target position being a position upstream in the cutting direction of the first target position and downstream in the cutting direction of the first stop position, as required by claim 10.
Heller, though, teaches configuring a controller 20 to execute both a first cutting processing (when cutting a wide material, in which case the knife roller 5 moves between positions S1 and S4) and a second cutting processing (when cutting a narrow material, in which case the knife roller 5 is movable between positions S2 and S3 per col. 2, lines 65-67). Heller teaches that the second cutting processing that the controller 20 is configured to execute includes moving the knife roller 5 toward a second target position S3 (see col. 2, lines 65-67), the second target position S3 being a position at which the knife roller 5 is stopped in a case where the knife roller 5 reaches the second target position in the second cutting processing (see Figs. 2 and 3 and col. 2, lines 65-67), the second target position S3 being a position upstream in the cutting direction of a first target position S4 of the first cutting processing (see Figs. 2 and 3; also compare col. 2, lines 27-43 with col. 2, lines 65-67) [claim 10]. Heller teaches that its controller is configured to execute multiple different cutting processings, depending on the width of a sheet to be processed (see col. 2, lines 27-44 and see also col. 2, lines 65-67). Heller teaches that providing multiple target positions, including a second target position that is upstream in the cutting direction of a first target position, is advantageous for time savings purposes. That is, Heller teaches that if a blade always moves between two positions (a single start position and a single stop position) that accommodate a wide sheet, there is wasted time when cutting a narrower sheet (see col. 1, lines 12-22). To solve this problem, Heller teaches providing multiple options for cutting starting and ending (i.e., target) positions, which achieves time savings (see col. 1, lines 25-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller of Tsuji to be able to additionally execute different cutting processings having different starting and target positions depending on the width of a workpiece to be processed in view of the teachings of Heller. This modification is advantageous to achieve time savings, in particular when cutting narrow workpieces, since the blade is positioned nearer to the workpiece when the cutting operation is started and time savings can be achieved because the blade is not always returned to a single start position regardless of the workpiece width. Tsuji, as modified, thus teaches that the controller is configured to execute: a first cutting processing of moving the first blade toward a first target position (here, the first target position can be a cut-ending position already disclosed by Tsuji, which corresponds to position S4 of Heller, where the first target position is used when cutting a maximum width workpiece) and a second cutting processing of moving the first blade toward a second target position at which the first blade is stopped in a case where the first blade reaches the second target position in the second cutting processing, the second target position being downstream in the cutting direction of the first stop position (the second target position corresponding to position S3 as disclosed by Heller, such that the second target position is a target position used when cutting a narrow workpiece). Moreover, in Tsuji, as modified, the second target position is downstream in the cutting direction of the first stop position, at least when the first stop position is a position at which an error occurs at certain locations during the first cutting processing (in other words, if an error when cutting a workpiece takes place between positions S2 and S3 of Heller, then this feature is satisfied – since the controller of Tsuji, as modified, is configured to position the first stop position at any location during cutting that an error occurs, the controller of Tsuji, as modified, is configured for the second target position to be downstream of the first stop position). Moreover, the controller of Tsuji, as modified, is configured to execute the second cutting processing after the first returning processing, so long as a narrow workpiece is cut following an earlier cutting of a wider workpiece during which an error occurs. The controller of Tsuji, as modified, is configured to execute the first and second cutting processing interchangeably, depending on the wide of workpiece being processed, and the controller of Tsuji, as modified, is configured to re-attempt cutting following an error during all processings. Put another way, claim 10 makes no requirement that the second cutting processing occurs in response to the signal output by the signal outputter, and instead includes the much broader requirement that the controller is configured to execute the second cutting processing at any time “after the first returning processing”, which is not limited to immediately after the first return processing. As such, the controller of Tsuji, as modified, is configured in the manner required by claim 10 (with the exception of the power feature discussed below). Note also that the controller of Tsuji, as modified, is configured for the second target position to be downstream in the cutting direction of the first stop position, since the first stop position is any location during cutting that an error is detected. The controller of Tsuji, as modified, is therefore configured for the first stop position to be a position upstream of the second target position, so long as a cutting error occurs at such a location.
The examiner acknowledges that the present application discloses a different controller configuration than that of Tsuji, even as modified. However, the examiner notes that claim 10 does not require the controller executes the first cutting processing, and that, in response to the controller receiving a signal indicating an error from the signal outputter, the controller is configured to execute each of the first stopping processing, the first returning processing, and the second cutting processing. Put another way, there is no requirement in claim 10 that the controller is configured to execute the second cutting processing in response to the signal from the signal outputter. Claim 10 encompasses the second cutting processing taking place an any time (so long as the controller is configured to perform a first returning processing previously, which is satisfied by Tsuji, as modified, because the first returning processing can be in response to an error during an earlier cutting operation), such that the second cutting processing need not be in response to the signal from the signal outputter.
Still, Tsuji, as modified, fails to disclose that the controller is configured to execute the second cutting processing by setting a second power value of the actuator to be greater than the first power value as required by claim 10.
Similar to Tsuji, Domingo teaches a sheet cutting apparatus 1 including a first blade 31 carried by a carriage 50 (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 21). Domingo teaches that the carriage 50 is moved in a cutting direction by a shifter (see paragraph 23, where the shifter includes the motor). Furthermore, Domingo teaches that it is advantageous for a controller to control the carriage 50 to move at a constant speed in order to help achieve a uniform cut (see paragraph 27). In order to move the carriage 50 at a constant speed, Domingo teaches that the controller monitors a power of an actuator of the shifter (the actuator of the shifter corresponding to the motor that moves the carriage 50) so that the controller can increase the power provided to the actuator of the shifter, if needed, in order to maintain a constant speed of the carriage (see paragraph 28). Domingo also teaches that obstacles to cutting (such as bumps, jamming, belt slippage, deflects of a guiding element) cause the controller to increase the power provided to the actuator of the shifter in order to maintain the carriage at the desired constant speed (see paragraph 28). Finally, Domingo teaches that, in addition to the monitoring the power provided to the actuator of the shifter, the controller monitors the speed of the carriage 50 (see paragraph 29), such that the controller can determine that an increase in power is required to maintain the carriage at the constant speed (per paragraph 28). Domingo teaches that the controller is thus configured to increase the power provided to the actuator of the shifter, up to a point, when performing a cutting operation that successfully traverses an obstacle (see the graph of Fig. 7 along with paragraphs 39-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller of Tsuji, as modified, to monitor the power provided to the actuator and to monitor the speed of the carriage, as well as to configure the controller of Tsuji, as modified, to maintain the movement of the carriage carrying the first blade at a constant speed, in view of the teachings of Domingo. This modification is advantageous because performing a cut while the carriage carrying the blade moves at a constant speed produces more uniform, and thus higher quality, cut. Furthermore, as a result of this modification, the controller of Tsuji, as thus modified, is configured to provide the second power value during the second cutting processing to be greater than the first power value during the first cutting processing because the controller is configured to increase the power value when required, such that the controller is configured to increase the power value during the second cutting processing even if no such power increase was required during the first cutting processing. For example, in Tsuji, as modified, if a lower resistance wide sheet is cut during the first cutting processing, and then an irregular narrow sheet having at least one high-resistance, thick section is cut during the second cutting processing, then the controller of Tsuji, as modified, will cut the provide a lower power during the first cutting processing than the second cutting processing because the first cutting processing does not process a sheet having a high-resistance section. The examiner further notes that the recitations of the controller “setting the power value of the actuator to be a second power value greater than the first power value” encompass the controller setting the first and second power values for at least some moment during the respective first or second cutting processing. Put another way, claim 10 is not interpreted as requiring that the controller sets the power value to be constant at the magnitude of the first power value during the first cutting processing or constant at the magnitude of the second power value during the second cutting processing. As such, even if the controller only temporarily sets the power value to be the first power value during the first cutting processing, and if the controller only temporarily sets the power value to be the second power value during the second cutting processing, where the second power value is greater than the first power value, the power value features of claim 10 are satisfied. In view of this interpretation, the ability for the controller of Tsuji, as modified, to increase the power value applied to the actuator of the shifter during the second cutting processing causes the controller of Tsuji, as modified, to be configured in the manner required by claim 10. Again, claim 10 is satisfied when any single power value obtained during the second cutting processing (such as a maximum power value during the second cutting processing) is greater than any single power value obtained during the first cutting processing (such as a minimum power value during the first cutting processing).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 requires that the controller executes the first cutting processing “by setting a maximum power value of the actuator to be a first predetermined power value” and that the controller executes the second cutting processing “by setting the maximum power value of the actuator to be a second predetermined power value greater than the first predetermined power value”. This feature, in conjunction with the remainder of features required by claim 1, overcomes the best known prior art. Considering the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 5 January 2026, Tsuji as modified by Domingo Reguant includes the controller being configured to increase the power of the actuator if necessary in order to achieve a constant speed of the blade. Thus, the controller does not set the maximum power values during the first and second cutting processing at predetermined power values, where the second predetermined power value is greater than the first predetermined power value as required by claim 1. Instead, Tsuji, as modified, determines the power values to be provided to the actuator on the fly in response to a sensed blade speed, with the goal of achieving a constant blade speed. If there is some ‘maximum’ power value at which the controller of Tsuji, as modified, is programmed to apply (such as to avoid damage to the actuator), there is no teaching that this value is greater during the second cutting processing than the first cutting processing. Thus, even if the controller of Tsuji, as modified, applies a higher power value during the second cutting processing than during the first cutting processing, this is insufficient to disclose that the maximum power value of the actuator is set to a second predetermined power value that is greater than the predetermined maximum power value set during the first cutting processing. Thus, claim 1 distinguishes over the best known prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Tsuji, Applicant’s amendments to claim 6 have overcome the anticipatory rejection. However, a new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments under 35 USC 103 is set forth above.
Next, in view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 resulting in claim 1 being allowable, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim1 under 35 USC 103 are moot.
To overcome the prior art rejections set forth above, the examiner suggests more particularly claimed which processing the controller is configured to execute in response to the signal of the signal outputter. For example, as claim 6 currently reads, the first returning processing is not required to be performed in response to the sign signal, but is instead only required to for the controller to be configured to perform the first returning processing “after the first stopping processing”, even if the first returning processing is during a later cutting of a narrower workpiece.
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