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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18 - 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/22/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 1 - 17 in the reply filed on 04/22/2026 is acknowledged. Group 2, Claims 18 - 19 have been withdrawn. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no burden between Groups 1 and 2.
This is not found persuasive because the groupings are classified in distinct classes and would cause serious burden.
Further, Group 1 and Group 2 are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination Group 2 has separate utility such as it does not require: “an extending direction of the first spacing and an extending direction of the second spacing are respectively perpendicular to a radial direction of the base,” “positioning slot comprises a pair of extension slots disposed on two sides of the positioning slot,” “knife unit comprises a pair of extension portions disposed on two sides of the knife unit, and the pair of extension portions correspond to the pair of extension slots, respectively,” “at least one guide rail, wherein the guide rail is correspondingly fixed on a guide rail bottom slot at a bottom of the positioning slot,” “knife unit further comprises a guide rail top slot configured to slide on the guide rail,” and “knife unit comprises a knife holder, a knife and a knife cover, and the knife is placed between the knife holder and the knife cover.”
The restriction is made FINAL.
Prior art of Record
The prior art made of record in this office action shall be referred to as follows;
U.S. 8,192,112 Turcot et al. (‘Turcot hereafter), App 12/411686 Filed 03/26/2009
U.S. 2015/0113813 Jim Bagley (‘Bagley hereafter), App 14/062970 Filed 10/25/2013
The above references will be referred to hereafter by the names or numbers indicated above.
Claim status:
Claims 1 - 19 are currently being examined.
Claims 18 - 19 have been withdrawn.
Claims have been canceled.
Claims 6 – 11 & 15 are objected to for allowable subject matter.
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 “pair of side protruding portions disposed on two sides of the knife unit,” as recited in Claim 12,
“a pair of holding parts are disposed adjacent to two sides of the positioning slot,” as recited in claims 13, 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 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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The omitted elements of claim 12 are: the locations, connections and the structural elements associated with the “side protruding portions.”
The omitted elements of claim 13 are: the locations, connections and the structural elements associated with the “pair of holding parts.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 13, 16 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 8,192,112 Turcot et al. (‘Turcot hereafter).
Regarding Claim[s] 1, ‘Turcot discloses all the claim limitations including: A cutter module (‘Turcot, Figs 1 & 2, #10 (rotary cutter head), shows a cutter assembly), comprising:
a cutter plate (‘Turcot, Figs 1 & 2, #12 (cylindrical body/ cutter plate)) having a base (‘Turcot, Figs 1 & 2 (below)) and at least one positioning slot on the base (‘Turcot, Fig 3, #14 (seats/ positioning slots)),
the positioning slot being disposed along an edge of the base and sandwiched between two adjacent side walls (‘Turcot, Fig 6A (below), show two adjacent side walls),
each of the side walls protruding from the base (‘Turcot, Fig 6A (below) shows each side wall perpendicularly protruding from the base),
wherein the positioning slot has a first spacing and a second spacing (S2) (‘Turcot, Fig 6B (below) “A” (first spacing) & “B” (second spacing)),
the second spacing is nearer to the edge of the base than the first spacing (‘Turcot, Fig 6B (below) shows “B” is exposed to the edge of the base and is not obstructed by having any negative angle surfaces as shown with spacing “A”. Spacing “A” is also shown to be behind #38 (front abutting surface) as further shown in Fig 3), and
the first spacing is larger than the second spacing (‘Turcot, Fig 6B (below) “A” (first spacing) & “B” (second spacing) shows “A” is larger than “B”); and
at least one knife unit correspondingly disposed in the at least one positioning slot (‘Turcot, Fig 3, #16 (cutting inserts) and (#18 (clamping unit) are parts of the system of a knife unit, the knife unit is shown to be with #14(seat)),
wherein the knife unit has a first width (‘Turcot, Fig 6B (below) knife unit nearest to “A”) and a second width (‘Turcot, Fig 6B (below) knife unit nearest to “B”), and the first width is larger than the second width (‘Turcot, Fig 6B (below)).
Regarding Claim[s] 2, ‘Turcot discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein an extending direction of the first spacing and an extending direction of the second spacing are respectively perpendicular to a radial direction of the base (‘Turcot, Fig 3 (below), shows first and second spacings are perpendicular to the radial direction of the base).
Regarding Claim[s] 3, ‘Turcot discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the first width and the second width of the knife unit correspond to the first spacing and the second spacing of the positioning slot, respectively (‘Turcot, Figs 1 - 3, 6A & 6B (below)).
Regarding Claim[s] 4, ‘Turcot discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the positioning slot comprises a pair of extension slots disposed on two sides of the positioning slot (‘Turcot, Fig 2 (below) shows slots “C” & “D”. Slot “D” is the forward portion of a partial counter bore of #50 (threaded hole). Since the counter bore is not a full circle, it is a slot and not a hole).
Regarding Claim[s] 5, ‘Turcot discloses all the claim limitations including: knife unit comprises a pair of extension portions disposed on two sides of the knife unit, and the pair of extension portions correspond to the pair of extension slots, respectively (‘Turcot, Figs 8A & 8B (below), show extension portions on two sides of knife unit “E” & “F” and correspond to slots #30 and #32 that are shown not to be round and therefore are slots).
Regarding Claim[s] 13, ‘Turcot discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein a pair of holding parts are disposed adjacent to two sides of the positioning slot , (‘Turcot, Fig 3 (below), #52 (rocking fingers)), and
a pair of positioning portions are disposed on the pair of holding parts and configured to assist positioning of the knife unit after the knife unit slides into the positioning slot (‘Turcot, Fig 3 (below), #46 (springs)).
Regarding Claim[s] 16, ‘Turcot discloses all the claim limitations including: first width of the knife unit is less than or equal to the first spacing of the positioning slot (‘Turcot, Fig 6B (below) knife unit nearest to “A” fits inside the slot and Fig 6B shows a space between the knife and the slot), and
the second width of the knife unit is less than or equal to the second spacing of the positioning slot (‘Turcot, Fig 6B (below) knife unit nearest to “B” fits inside the slot and Fig 6B shows a space between the knife and the slot).
Regarding Claim[s] 17, ‘Turcot discloses all the claim limitations including:
first width of the knife unit is larger than the second spacing of the positioning slot (‘Turcot, Fig 6B (below)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, and further in view of U.S. 8,192,112 Turcot et al. (‘Turcot hereafter), and in view of U.S. 2015/0113813 Jim Bagley (‘Bagley hereafter).
Regarding Claim[s] 14, ‘Turcot discloses all the claim limitations except is silent regarding: wherein each of the at least one knife unit further comprises a pair of positioning marks disposed on two sides of the knife unit to assist positioning of the knife unit with the pair of positioning portions.
--- However, ‘Bagley does teach: Fig 1, #1 (cutter), #3 (cuter base), #39 (edge) Abst: A fabric circle cutter having a cutter base, a pivot pin assembly, and a blade assembly. The cutter base has a flat, smooth bottom surface with a turned up edge. The cutter base also has a raised base section which has a pivot point slide slot. The pivot pin assembly is slidably mounted on the raised base section and slidably mated with the pivot point slide slot which provides for selective positioning of the pivot pin assembly. The blade assembly has a rotary blade with a blade axis which is alined approximately horizontally with and approximately parallel to the center line of the pivot point slide.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Turcot with a means of positioning and positioning marks as taught by ‘Bagley in order to provide a way to position for the cuts (‘Turcot, Abst).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 6 with the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein "one guide rail, wherein the guide rail is correspondingly fixed on a guide rail bottom slot at a bottom of the positioning slot.”
The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Turcot & ‘Bagley).
‘Turcot & ‘Bagley does not teach a guide rail, and does not teach a guide rail bottom slot. Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. Furthermore, Examiner finds no motivation found to modify the prior art to include the specific limitations of dependent claim 7. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 8 with the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein "knife unit comprises a knife holder, a knife and a knife cover, and the knife is placed between the knife holder and the knife cover.”
The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Turcot & ‘Bagley).
‘Turcot & ‘Bagley does not teach a knife cover. Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. Furthermore, Examiner finds no motivation found to modify the prior art to include the specific limitations of dependent claims 9 & 15. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited.
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 10 with the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein "positioning slot further comprises a pair of side concave slots disposed on two sides of the positioning slot, the positioning slot has a bottom gap near a bottom of the positioning slot and a top gap away from the bottom of the positioning slot, and the bottom gap of the positioning slot is larger than the top gap.”
The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Turcot & ‘Bagley).
‘Turcot & ‘Bagley does not teach a concave slot where the bottom gap of the positioning slot is larger than the top gap.
Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. Furthermore, Examiner finds no motivation found to modify the prior art to include the specific limitations of dependent claim 11. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited.
[AltContent: textbox (Base)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
707
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
U.S. 8,192,112 Figure 1
[AltContent: textbox (Slot “D”)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Slot “C”)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Base)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
787
627
media_image2.png
Greyscale
U.S. 8,192,112 Figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
741
631
media_image3.png
Greyscale
U.S. 8,192,112 Figure 3
PNG
media_image4.png
853
652
media_image4.png
Greyscale
U.S. 8,192,112 Figures 4, 5A & 5B
[AltContent: textbox (Negative angle surface)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“B”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“A”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Wall)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Wall)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
813
1083
media_image5.png
Greyscale
U.S. 8,192,112 Figures 6A & 6B
[AltContent: textbox (“F”)][AltContent: textbox (“E”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image6.png
528
667
media_image6.png
Greyscale
U.S. 8,192,112 Figures 8A & 8B
Conclusion
Examiner encourages Applicant to fill out and submit form PTO-SB-439 to allow internet communications in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 (MPEP 02.03). Should the need arise to perfect applicant-proposed or examiner’s amendments, authorization for e-mail correspondence would have already been authorized and would save time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE AVERICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7565. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 3:00PM M- F ET.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/LAWRENCE AVERICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
05/20/2026
Prosecution Insights