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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “plurality of elastic elements” of claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“… an upper surface the top cover” in claim 1, line 5 of pg. 1, should be written as --… an upper surface of the top cover--.
“paper holding part configured to receive stacked to-be-shredded paper” in claim 1, line 7-8 of pg. 1, should be written as --paper holding part is configured to receive stacked to-be-shredded paper--
Applicant repeatedly forgets to include the words “wherein” and “is”. For example, in claim 1, lines 11 on pg. 1, “… said plate configured to open in a first rotational direction” should be written as --… wherein said plate is configured to open in a first rotational direction--. “wherein” is a typical word used to transition between limitations and “is” is needed because “configured” by itself is a past-tense verb that would indicates a step, not an adjective that would indicate structural limitations.
Likewise objected, this problem repeats in claim 1, line 13, 20, 21-22, and 28 of pg. 1 and claim 22, line 9 of pg. 6
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Paper pressing part” in claim 1. The specification defines the paper pressing part as comprising “a plurality of paper pressing part elements” where each element may be “triangular shape including a curved hypotenuse form that tapers as it moves away from the pivotal axis of the cover plate 4” (Pg. 10, Lines 14-21). For the purpose of examination, “paper pressing part” will be defined as described in the specification and equivalent structures.
“Collection device” in claim 1. The specification defines collection device as comprising “a bin rack 801 and a waste paper bin 802, wherein the waste paper bin 802 is arranged in the bin rack 801 and detachably connected to the bin rack 801” (Pg. 6, Lines 17-19). For the purposes of examination, “collection device” will be interpreted as defined in the specification and equivalents.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 7-8 of pg. 1, applicant claims “said paper holding part configured to receive stacked to-be-shredded paper fed through the automatic paper feed inlet”. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the paper holding part receives the stacked to-be-shredded paper before of after it is fed through the automatic paper feed inlet.
Claim 1, line 1-2 on pg. 2, uses the limitation “said paper pressing roller set corresponding to the paper pick-up roller set” (emphasis added). This phrase is indefinite because it is unclear in what way the two roller sets correspond with each other.
The term “accessible proximate” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1, line 3-4 on pg. 2, uses the limitation “the automatic paper feed inlet is accessible proximate to the paper holding plate” (emphasis added). The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what structural limitation is invoked by being accessible.
Claim 1, line 7-12 on pg. 2, uses the limitation “wherein after being picked up by the paper rolling set, a bottom piece of paper in the stacked to-be-shredded paper on the paper holding plate is conveyed towards the cutter shaft set for shredding; and wherein in the closed state, the staple removing plate rests on the upper surface of the cover plate, whereas in the open state, the staple removing plate rotates to abut against the stacked to-be-shredded paper on the paper holding plate” (emphasis added). The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear if the claim is directed to the product or directed to the process (MPEP 2173.05(p)).
Likewise claim 4 is rejected.
The term “corresponding relationship” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “corresponding relationship” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a first staple removing bracket” (emphasis added) in the second line of the claim. It is unclear if the “first staple removing bracket” in claim 4 is the same element as the “staple removing plate” in the independent claim. In the drawings, the same part is labelled as both the staple removing plate and the first staple removing bracket, where the center of the part is labelled as the staple removing plate and the edge of the part is labelled the first staple removing bracket (see Figs. 5, 6, and 8). In the specification, an embodiment is disclosed wherein the staple removing plate and first staple removing bracket are integral to each other (“first staple removing bracket 402 is affixed around the staple removing plate 401”) For the purposes of examination, the “first staple removing bracket” is interpreted as being the edge of the “staple removing bracket”
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second end of the cover plate" in first and second lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “corresponding position” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “corresponding position” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Likewise rejected, the issue repeats in claims 9, 10, 14-19.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the paper holding part is fixedly connected to or integrally formed on the lower surface of the cover plate”. As the cover plate is pivotally connected to the top cover, it is unclear how it can be fixedly connected to the paper holding part. As the paper holding part is arranged on the top cover, it is unclear how it can be formed on the lower surface of the cover plate.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “a second staple removing bracket” (emphasis added) in the second line of the claim. It is unclear if the “second staple removing bracket” in claim 22 is the same element as the “staple removing bracket” in the independent claim or if there is a relation between the first staple removing bracket of claim 4 and the second staple removing bracket of claim 22. For the purposes of examination, the “first staple removing bracket” is interpreted as being a different bracket than the “staple removing bracket”
All claims dependent on rejected claims are likewise rejected
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 11, 12, 20, 21, 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guoguang et al. (US2018/0008988), hereinafter referered to as “Guoguang” in view of Tsai (US2008/0197220), Tsai et al. (US2018/0008987), hereinafter referred to as Tso, and Yin (CN201012339).
Re Claim 1, Guoguang discloses an inclined automatic shredder (paper shredder 1), comprising
a top cover (see Fig. 6, illustrated below);
a bottom cover fixedly connected to the top cover (see Fig. 6, illustrated below);
an automatic paper feed inlet formed in an upper surface the top cover (automatic paper feeding opening 104);
a paper holding part arranged on an upper surface of the top cover (paper supporting area defined at least by the first, second, and third paper supporting boards 110, 206, and 207 and the lower surface of the top cover as shown in Fig. 6, illustrated below), said paper holding part comprising a base and an inner wall (see Fig. 6, illustrated below), and said paper holding part configured to receive stacked to-be-shredded paper fed through the automatic paper feed inlet ("a paper supporting area for receiving paper sheets to be shredded" [0037]);
a paper holding plate (first paper supporting board 110) pivotally connected to a first end of the top cover (“the lower portion of the first paper supporting board 110 is hinged to the chassis 10” [0046]), and configured to hold the stacked to-be-shredded paper when paper holding plate is in an open position (“at first the paper sheets to be destructed are placed on the first paper supporting board 110” [0049]), said paper holding plate configured to open in a first rotational direction (“the first paper supporting board 110 may be rotated to locate into the recess 101 horizontally” (emphasis added) [0046]);
a cover plate (comprising the cover plate pointed out by the arrow, see Fig. 6 illustrated below, and part of paper pickup mechanism within border, see Fig 2 illustrated below including the paper pick up rollers 203, but not the friction cushion 204);
a staple removing plate (paper separating board 120 comprising saw teeth 121) pivotally connected to an upper surface (Fig. 3 shows the paper separating board 120 connected to top cover at reference character 1204), said staple removing plate configured to be adjusted between an open state and a closed state (“board 120 is rotatable with respect to the chassis 10” [0045]), said staple removing plate configured to open in the first rotational direction (Fig. 3);
a cutter shaft set (paper shredding mechanism 300) arranged downstream of the paper holding part (Fig. 6 shows that the paper shredding mechanism is next to the paper pickup mechanism, which in turn is next to the paper separating mechanism. Fig 9 shows the direction of travel within the paper pickup mechanism starts at the paper separating mechanism and goes to the paper shredding mechanism. The paper supporting area is part of the paper separating mechanism), said cutter shaft set configured to shred the stacked to-be-shredded paper (the paper shredding mechanism 300 is configured to shred paper),
a collection device arranged below the bottom cover, fixedly connected to the bottom cover, and configured to collect shredded paper (see Fig. 6, illustrated below);
a paper pick-up roller set (paper pickup rollers 203), arranged upstream of cutter shaft set (Fig. 1); and
a paper pressing component (friction cushion 204); said paper pressing component corresponding to the paper pick-up roller set (Fig. 4);
wherein when the cover plate is in a closed state (The cover plate of Guoguang appears to be fixedly connected and is not disclosed to move. Therefore, it is always in a closed state), the automatic paper feed inlet is accessible proximate to the paper holding plate (Fig. 1), and staples on the stacked to-be-shredded paper are removed when the stacked to-be-shredded paper on the paper holding plate is fed through the automatic paper feed inlet (“When the paper sheets are attached to each other by staples or clips, the saw teeth 121 are able to effectively obstruct the staples and clips such that these attached paper sheets will be stopped to move ahead, thus realizing easy separation of paper sheets by the paper pickup rollers and shredding of paper sheets.” [0044]);
wherein after being picked up by the paper pick-up roller set, a piece of paper in the stacked to-be-shredded paper on the paper holding plate is conveyed towards the cutter shaft set for shredding (“When the paper sheets are attached with each other and attached area of the sheets is away from the automatic paper feeding opening, the paper pickup rollers drive the upmost paper sheet such that the same paper sheet travels towards the automatic paper feeding opening” [0051]); and
wherein in the closed state, the staple removing plate rests on the upper surface of the cover plate (“the board 120 may be rotated into a horizontal orientation and hidden into the recess” [0045]), whereas in the open state, the staple removing plate rotates to abut against the stacked to-be-shredded paper on the paper holding plate and is configured to remove the staples on the stacked to-be-shredded paper (Fig. 6 shows the open state of the staple removing plate).
PNG
media_image1.png
883
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Guoguang, illustrated
PNG
media_image2.png
600
567
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Guoguang, Illustrated
Guoguang does not disclose or does disclose but is not relied upon for this rejection:
said cover plate having a first end pivotally connected to a second end of the top cover; said cover plate configured to be adjusted between an open state and a closed state, wherein the cover plate is configured to open in a second rotational direction;
said paper pressing part arranged on a lower surface of the cover plate, said paper pressing part configured to press the stacked to-be-shredded paper on the paper holding part when the cover plate is in a closed state;
said staple removing plate pivotally connected to the cover plate
a driving motor electrically connected to the cutter shaft set, and configured to drive the cutter shaft set;
said paper pick-up roller set, in drive connection to cutter shaft set, said paper pick-up roller set partially protruding outwards from paper holding part; and
a paper pressing roller set arranged on the lower surface of cover plate; said paper pressing roller set corresponding to the paper pick-up roller set;
wherein after being picked up by the paper pick-up roller set, a bottom piece of paper in the stacked to-be-shredded paper on the paper holding plate is conveyed towards the cutter shaft set for shredding.
Tsai teaches an inclined automatic shredder (automatic paging paper shredder [0023]) comprising: a cover plate (cover 1) having a first end pivotally connected to a second end of the top cover (“the cover 1 is pivotally mounted on the opening via a shaft 10” [0029]); said cover plate configured to be adjusted between an open state and a closed state (Fig. 1 shows a closed state, Fig. 5 shows an open state), wherein the cover plate is configured to open in a second rotational direction (Fig. 5);
a paper pressing part arranged on a lower surface of the cover plate (the lower surface of the cover 1 is an equivalent of the paper pressing part. “The cover near the bottom of the paper supporting frame 2 is closed to the paper supporting frame 2, so that the paper entry channel 11 is become narrower at the bottom of the paper supporting frame 2” [0023]), said paper pressing part configured to press the stacked to-be-shredded paper on the paper holding part when the cover plate is in a closed state (Fig. 5);
a driving motor electrically connected to the cutter shaft set, and configured to drive the cutter shaft set (“a motor for driving the shredding knife shaft” [0024]);
a paper pick-up roller set (master capstan 4) arranged upstream of cutter shaft set (Fig. 1) and in drive connection thereto (“The master capstan 4 is driven by a driving unit coupled with a motor for driving the shredding knife shaft” [0024]), said paper pick-up roller set partially protruding outwards from paper holding part (Fig. 1); and
a paper pressing component (pressure plate 6); said paper pressing component corresponding to the paper pick-up roller set (Fig. 1);
wherein after being picked up by the paper pick-up roller set, a bottom piece of paper in the stacked to-be-shredded paper on the paper holding plate is conveyed towards the cutter shaft set for shredding (“Then the master capstan 4 rotates for transmit paper downwardly … only a part of papers on the bottom of the all papers can pass through the gap” [0026]); and
Guoguang contains an inclined automatic shredder that differs from the claimed shredder by not having a cover plate that can pivot relative to the top cover. The cover plate of Guoguang includes a paper pick up roller set. Tsai teaches automatic shredder that has a cover plate that can pivot relative to the top cover and that allowing the cover plate to pivot helps with maintenance (Tsai, “so that the cover can turn up, which is very useful, when the paper is stuck, or when the paper shredder needs checking or maintaining inside” [0029]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guoguang to incorporate the teachings of Tsai by substituting the cover plate of Guoguang with the cover plate of Tsai in order to check or maintain the inside of the shredder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this substitution as predictable. After modification, the paper pickup roller set would be attached to the paper holding part, and the paper pressing component would be attached to the cover plate, as taught by Tsai. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the master capstan of Tsai for the friction cushion of Guoguang for the purpose of transmitting the paper downwardly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found the results of this substitution to have been predictable.
Furthermore, Tsai teaches a motor a driving motor electrically connected to the cutter shaft set, and configured to drive the cutter shaft set and a paper pick-up roller set in drive connection thereto. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guoguang, in view of Tsai, to incorporate the motor of Tsai to drive the shredding mechanism. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there was a reasonable expectation of success.
Guoguang, in view of Tsai, does not disclose the staple removing plate connected to the cover plate (emphasis added); and a paper pressing roller set arranged on the lower surface of cover plate; said paper pressing roller set corresponding to the paper pick-up roller set.
Tso teaches a paper pressing roller set (pressing platen roller 118) arranged on the lower surface of cover plate (shredder cover 102); said paper pressing roller set corresponding (“Pressing platen roller 118 is disposed to approximate with engagement roller” [0039]) to the paper pick-up roller set (engagement roller 120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guoguang, in view of Tsai, to incorporate the pressing rod of Tso by substituting the pressure plate 6 of Tsai for the pressing platen roller of Tso to press the paper downwards (Tso, “Pressing platen roller 118 presses paper 146 in tray 140 against engagement roller wheels ” [0046]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when adding the pressing platen roller of Tso to the cover plate of Guoguang, in view of Tsai.
Guoguang, in view of Tsai, in further view of Tso, do not disclose a staple removing plate connected to the cover plate (emphasis added).
Yin teaches a staple removing plate (iron sheet 7) connected to the cover plate (cover plate 8).
Guoguang, in view of Tsai, in further view of Tso, and Yin teach each element claimed although not necessarily in a single reference with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the elements as claimed by putting the connection pieces of Guoguang (first sleeves 1204) on the cover plate and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re Claim 2, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin, discloses the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses that the paper pressing roller set (Tso, pressing platen roller 118) has a corresponding relationship with the paper pick-up roller set (Tsai, master capstan 4) configured to wedge two sides of the to-be-shredded paper between the paper pressing roller set and the paper pick-up roller set (Tsai, “The pressure plate 6 has a lower end leaning against the master capstan 4, such that when receiving paper, the pressure plate 6 is pushed up firstly, and hangs down with gravity so as to press the paper tightly” [0025] and the pressure plate 6 of Tsai being substituted for the pressing platen roller 118 of Tso), thereby causing the bottom piece of paper in the stacked to-be-shredded paper on the paper holding plate to be picked up for conveyance towards the cutter shaft set for shredding (Tsai, “ only a part of papers on the bottom of the all papers can pass through the gap” [0026]).
Re Claim 4, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin, discloses the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses that
After modification, a first staple removing bracket (saw teeth 121 of paper separating board 120) would be pivotally connected to the upper surface (Guoguang, Fig. 3) of the cover plate (Yin, cover plate 8), and the first staple removing bracket has a closed state and an open state (Guoguang, “the board 120 may be rotated into a horizontal orientation and hidden into the recess” [0045] being the closed state and Fig. 3 showing the open state);
wherein in the first closed state, the first staple removing bracket rests atop the upper surface of the cover plate (when the board 120 is in the recess, it is on top of the cover plate); and
wherein in the first open state, the first staple removing bracket is rotated to abut against the stacked to-be-shredded paper on the paper holding plate (Guoguang, Fig. 3), and is configured to remove the staples on stacked to-be-shredded paper (“When the paper sheets are attached to each other by staples or clips, the saw teeth 121 are able to effectively obstruct the staples and clips such that these attached paper sheets will be stopped to move ahead, thus realizing easy separation of paper sheets by the paper pickup rollers and shredding of paper sheets.” [0044]).
Re Claim 5, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin, discloses the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fail to discloses that the second end of the cover plate is detachably connected to the paper holding part.
Tso teaches that the second end of the cover plate (end of shredder cover that is not pivotally connected to the rest of shredder) is detachably connected to the paper holding part (see Fig. 2, illustrated below).
Tso teaches that the second end of the cover plate is detachably connected to the paper holding part by a buckle and groove (Tso, see Fig. 2, illustrated below) to securely close the cover plate (Tso, “when cover 102 is securely closed” [0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin to incorporate the teaching of Tso by adding the Buckle of Tso to the cover plate of Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin and by forming the groove of Tso in the inner wall of paper holding part of Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image3.png
659
867
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Tso, illustrated
Re Claim 6, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin, discloses the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), and further discloses that the second end of the cover plate is magnetically connected to and/or clamped on the paper holding part (the buckle and groove of Tso constitute a clamp).
Re Claim 11, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin, discloses the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the second end of the cover plate is clamped on the paper holding part, wherein
a buckle is arranged on the lower surface of the cover plate (see Fig. 2, illustrated above); and
a groove corresponding to the buckle is formed in the inner wall of the paper holding part (After modification, groove would be located in the inner wall of the paper holding part. see Fig. 2, illustrated above).
Re Claim 12, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin, discloses the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), and further discloses that
the second end of the cover plate is clamped on the paper holding part (After modification, groove would be located in the inner wall of the paper holding part. see Fig. 2, illustrated above),
Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin , fails to disclose that
a groove is formed in the lower surface of the cover plate (Tso discloses the groove in the paper holding part), and
a buckle corresponding to the groove is arranged on the inner wall of the paper holding part (Tso discloses the buckle in the cover plate).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin, in the claimed manner, since it has been held that merely rearranging features taught in the prior art is an obvious matter of design and/or engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection VI.C).
Re Claim 20, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin, discloses the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses the paper holding part further comprises a detached segment arranged downstream of the paper pick-up roller set, oriented coplanar to the paper holding part, and extending towards the cutter shaft set (In the rejection of claim 1, the master capstan 4 of Tsai was added to Guoguang in roughly the position that the friction cushion 204 of Guoguang occupies. Doing so divides the third paper supporting board of Guoguang into two, detached, pieces as the paper supporting frame 2 of Tsai is divided as shown in Fig.1 of Tsai. The lower of these two pieces of the third paper supporting boards of Guoguang is downstream of the master capstan of Tsai, co planar with the rest of the third supporting board of Guoguang, and extends towards the cutter shaft set).
Re Claim 21, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin, discloses inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the paper holding part is fixedly connected to or integrally formed on the lower surface of the cover plate (see Fig. 6 of Guoguang, illustrated above).
Re Claim 23, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, iand Yin, discloses inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses a manual paper feed inlet located above the cutter shaft set (Guoguang, manual paper feeding opening 102), wherein the manual paper feed inlet is formed in the top cover adjacent to the pivotal axis of the cover plate (Guohuang, Fig. 1).
Re Claim 24, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin, disclose the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 1, but fails to disclose a control circuit board, wherein the control circuit board is arranged in the top cover and is electrically connected to the driving motor and an external power supply.
Tso further teaches a control circuit board (“FIG. 25 illustrates floor plan with quadrants of circuits for schematic 2500” [0062]), wherein the control circuit board is arranged in the top cover (Control Circuit Board includes the Cover Open/Closed sensor 134. Cover Open/Closed Sensor is in the top cover in Fig. 3) and is electrically connected to the driving motor and an external power supply.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin to incorporate the further teachings of Tso by adding the control circuit with a Cover Open/Closed sensor of Tso in order to detect the whether the cover plate is in an open or closed state.
Re Claim 25, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin, disclose the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 24, wherein a safety switch (the safety switch is formed of two parts: the Cover Open/Closed sensor 134 and the buckle, see Fig. 2 of Tso, illustrated above. When the cover plate is closed, the sensor senses the buckle) is arranged on the cover plate (buckle in on the cover plate), wherein the safety switch is electrically connected to the control circuit board (Fig. 25), and is configured to power off the shredder when the cover plate is in an open position (Fig. 16).
Claim(s) 7-10 and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hashimoto et al. (US5,035,366), hereinafter referred to as “Hashimoto”.
Re Claim 7, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin, discloses the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), but fails to disclose that the second end of the cover plate is magnetically connected to the paper holding part, wherein a magnetic structure is arranged on one of: the cover plate and the paper holding part; and one of: a magnetic structure or a ferromagnetic metal structure is arranged on the other one of the cover plate and the paper holding part
Hashimoto teaches that that the second end of the cover plate is magnetically connected to the paper holding part (“A small quadrangular iron piece 17 is attached to the cover 15 near its edge and a magnet 18 is affixed correspondingly such that the attractive force of the magnet 18 to the iron piece 17 keeps the cover 15 in the closed position” Col 3, Lines 14-18), wherein
a magnetic structure (magnet 18) is arranged on one of: the cover plate and the paper holding part (housing 1); and
one of: a magnetic structure or a ferromagnetic (iron piece 17) metal structure is arranged on the other one of the cover plate (cover 15) and the paper holding part.
Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin, contains an inclined automatic shredder that differs from the claimed inclined automatic shredder by containing a buckle and groove instead of magnetic connections between the second end of the cover plate and the paper holding part. However, magnetic connections and their use in securing a cover plate in shredding devices was known in Hashimoto and was a known art recognized equivalent for connecting parts in a shredder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the buckle and groove of Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin, for the magnet and iron piece of Hashimoto and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this substitution as predictable.
Re Claim 8, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, Yin, and Hashimoto, discloses the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), but does not disclose that the ferromagnetic metal structure is arranged on the lower surface of the cover plate (Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, Yin, and Hashimoto discloses the ferromagnetic structure on the paper holding part), and the magnetic structure is arranged at a corresponding position on the paper holding part (Guoguang, Tsai, Tso, Yin, further in view of Hashimoto discloses the magnetic structure on lower surface of the cover plate).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, Yin, and Hashimoto in the claimed manner, since it has been held that merely rearranging features taught in the prior art is an obvious matter of design and/or engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection VI.C).
Re Claim 9, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, Yin, and Hashimoto (see rejection of claim 7 above), disclose the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 7, wherein the magnetic structure (Hashimoto, magnet 18) is arranged on the lower surface of the cover plate (Tsai, cover 1), and the ferromagnetic metal structure (Hashimoto, iron piece 17) is arranged at a corresponding position on the paper holding part (Guoguang, paper supporting area).
Re Claim 10, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, Yin, and Hashimoto, discloses the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the magnetic structures (Hasimoto, iron piece 17 and magnet 18) are arranged on the lower surface of the cover plate (Tsai, cover 1) and at a corresponding position of the paper holding part (Guoguang, paper supporting area).
Re Claim 13, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin discloses the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), and further discloses that second end of the cover plate is clamped on the paper holding part a buckle is arranged on one of the cover plate and the paper holding part, and a groove matching the buckle is formed in the other one of the cover plate and the paper holding part (Fig. 2 of Tso, illustrated above).
Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin, fails to disclose that the second end of the cover plate is magnetically connected to and clamped on the paper holding part; a magnetic structure is arranged on one of: the cover plate and the paper holding part, and one of a magnetic structure or a ferromagnetic metal structure is arranged on the other one of the cover plate and the paper holding part; and
Hashimoto teaches that that the second end of the cover plate is magnetically connected to the paper holding part (“A small quadrangular iron piece 17 is attached to the cover 15 near its edge and a magnet 18 is affixed correspondingly such that the attractive force of the magnet 18 to the iron piece 17 keeps the cover 15 in the closed position” Col 3, Lines 14-18), wherein
a magnetic structure (magnet 18) is arranged on one of: the cover plate and the paper holding part (housing 1); and
one of: a magnetic structure or a ferromagnetic (iron piece 17) metal structure is arranged on the other one of the cover plate (cover 15) and the paper holding part.
Hashimoto teaches a magnetic structure on the paper holding part and a ferromagnetic structure on the cover plate to keep the cover in the closed position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin, to incorporate the teachings of Hasimoto by adding the magnet of Hashimoto to the paper holding part of Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin, and by adding the iron piece of Hashimoto to the paper holding part of Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, and Yin. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that there was a reasonable expectation of success.
Re Claim 14, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, Yin, and Hashimoto, disclose the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), and further discloses that
the ferromagnetic metal structure (Hashimoto, iron piece 17) is arranged on the lower surface of the cover plate (Tsai, cover 1), and the magnetic structure (Hashimoto, magnet 18) is arranged at a corresponding position on the paper holding part (Guoguang, paper supporting part);
the buckle is arranged on the lower surface of the cover plate, and the groove corresponding to the buckle is formed in the inner wall of the paper holding part (see Fig. 2, illustrated below).
Re Claim 15, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, Yin, and Hashimoto, disclose the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), and further disclose that
the ferromagnetic metal structure (Hashimoto, iron piece 17) is arranged on the lower surface of the cover plate (Tsai, cover 1),
the magnetic structure (Hashimoto, magnet 18) is arranged at a corresponding position on the paper holding part (Guoguang, paper supporting part);
the groove is formed in the lower surface of the cover plate (Tso discloses the groove in the paper holding part), and the buckle corresponding to the groove is arranged on the inner wall of the paper holding part (Tso discloses the buckle in the cover plate).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, Yin, and Hashimoto, in the claimed manner, since it has been held that merely rearranging features taught in the prior art is an obvious matter of design and/or engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection VI.C).
Re Claim 16, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, Yin, and Hashimoto, disclose the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), and further discloses that
the buckle is arranged on the lower surface of the cover plate, and the groove corresponding to the buckle is formed in the inner wall of the paper holding part.
Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, Yin, and Hashimoto, fails to disclose that the magnetic structure is arranged on the lower surface of the cover plate (Hashimoto discloses the magnetic structure on the paper holding part), the ferromagnetic metal structure is arranged at a corresponding position on the paper holding part (Hashimoto discloses the ferromagnetic structure on the cover plate).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, Yin, and Hashimoto in the claimed manner, since it has been held that merely rearranging features taught in the prior art is an obvious matter of design and/or engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection VI.C).
Re Claim 17, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, Yin, and Hashimoto, disclose the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), but fails to disclose
the magnetic structure is arranged on the lower surface of the cover plate (Hashimoto discloses the magnetic structure on the paper holding part), and the ferromagnetic metal structure is arranged at a corresponding position on the paper holding part (Hashimoto discloses the ferromagnetic structure on the cover plate); and
the groove is formed in the lower surface of the cover plate (Tso discloses the groove in the paper holding part), and the buckle corresponding to the groove is arranged on the inner wall of the paper holding part (Tso discloses the buckle in the cover plate).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, Yin, and Hashimoto, in the claimed manner, since it has been held that merely rearranging features taught in the prior art is an obvious matter of design and/or engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection VI.C).
Re Claim 18, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, Yin, Tso, and Hashimoto, disclose the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), and further discloses that
the magnetic structures (Hashimoto, iron piece 17 and magnet 18) are arranged on the lower surface of the cover plate and on a corresponding position of the paper holding part (Hashimoto, “A small quadrangular iron piece 17 is attached to the cover 15 near its edge and a magnet 18 is affixed correspondingly such that the attractive force of the magnet 18 to the iron piece 17 keeps the cover 15 in the closed position” Col 3, Lines 14-18); and
the buckle is arranged on the lower surface of the cover plate, and the groove corresponding to the buckle is formed in the inner wall of the paper holding part (see Fig. 2, illustrated below).
Re Claim 19, Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, Yin, Tso, and Hashimoto, disclose the inclined automatic shredder according to Claim 13, wherein
the magnetic structures (Hashimoto, iron piece 17 and magnet 18) are arranged on the lower surface of the cover plate and on a corresponding position of the paper holding part (Hashimoto, “A small quadrangular iron piece 17 is attached to the cover 15 near its edge and a magnet 18 is affixed correspondingly such that the attractive force of the magnet 18 to the iron piece 17 keeps the cover 15 in the closed position” Col 3, Lines 14-18); and
Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, Yin, and Hashimoto, fails to disclose
the groove is formed in the lower surface of the cover plate (Tso discloses the groove in the paper holding part), and the buckle corresponding to the groove is arranged on the inner wall of the paper holding part (Tso discloses the buckle in the cover plate).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guoguang, in view of Tsai, Tso, Yin, Tso, and Hashimoto, in the claimed manner, since it has been held that merely rearranging features taught in the prior art is an obvious matter of design and/or engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection VI.C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re Claim 3, the prior art of record fails to disclose a plurality of elastic elements arranged at respective ends of a shaft of the paper pressing roller set, inter alia, in combination with the limitations of claim 1.
Re Claim 22, the prior art of record fails to disclose a second staple removing bracket pivotally connected to an outer perimeter of the paper holding plate, inter alia, in combination with the limitaitons of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stangenberg et al. (US 5,346,144) teaches a document shredder with elastic bearings at an end of a roller.
Kao (US2013/0214071) teaches a shredder comprising a paper pressing roller set connected to the cover plate via elastic elements, such that the paper pressing roller set is able to move relative to the cover plate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/W.D.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725