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 3 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-20 are pending. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 3 September 2025.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at the paragraph beginning “a plurality of co-axial annular blades” twice recites, “the outer edge”. In view of the claim introducing multiple outer edges (since each of the blades has an outer edge), the claim should avoid referring to “the outer edge” in the singular. The examiner suggests reciting – the respective outer edge –.
Claim 8 at the paragraph beginning “a plurality of co-axial annular blades” twice recites, “the outer edge”. In view of the claim introducing multiple outer edges (since each of the blades has an outer edge), the claim should avoid referring to “the outer edge” in the singular. The examiner suggests reciting – the respective outer edge –.
Claim 15 at the paragraph beginning “a plurality of co-axial annular blades” twice recites, “the outer edge”. In view of the claim introducing multiple outer edges (since each of the blades has an outer edge), the claim should avoid referring to “the outer edge” in the singular. The examiner suggests reciting – the respective outer edge –.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, 8-9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 6,743,326 B2 to Bogrett et al. in view of EP 1 060 849 A2 to Jaeger, US Pub. No. 2006/0144207 A1 to Nortmann et al., US Pub. No. 2014/0121085 A1 to Kwarta et al., and US Pub. No. 2003/0183055 A1 to Allwein, and as evidenced by US Pat. No. 6,551,677 B2 to Weinstein et al.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Bogrett discloses a textile material 26 (see Figs. 6-8) having a plurality of parallel perforated cuts 34 (the cuts 34 forming lines 38, 40, and 42; see Fig. 6), wherein a first length of each of the cuts 34 and a width between each row of cuts 34 are greater than a second length of each of a plurality of connectors 36 (see Figs. 6-7 and col. 10, lines 20-31).
Bogrett, though, does not disclose details of any perforating device to form the textile material. Bogrett fails to disclose a perforating device as recited by any of claims 1-4, 8-9, and 14.
Regarding claim 1, Jaeger teaches a perforating device (see Figs. 1 and 5) for making a plurality of parallel perforated cuts 2 in a textile material (see Fig. 3, where workpiece 1 can be provided as a textile material), the device comprising:
a cylindrical anvil 5 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 12 of the English language translation of Jaeger, noting that all future paragraph citations are to the English language translation);
a blade assembly 4 (see Figs. 1 and 5), comprising:
a shaft 3;
a plurality of co-axial annular blades 11 (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 15), each of the annular blades 11 coupled to the shaft 3 such that rotation of the shaft 3 rotates the plurality of annular blades 11 (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 12 and 14), each of the plurality of annular blades 11 having an outer edge comprising a plurality of alternating teeth 9 and gaps (see Fig. 4; see also the shape of the perforation cuts 2 in Fig. 3), each of the plurality of teeth 9 having a first length as measured along the outer edge and each of the plurality of gaps having a second length as measured along the outer edge (see Fig. 4 – each of the teeth 9 and each of the gaps has a respective length as measured in a circumferential direction of the blade 11);
a plurality of spacers 12 coupled to the shaft 3 such that each of the plurality of annular blades 11 is separated from another of the plurality of annular blades 11 by at least one of the plurality of spacers 12 (see Fig. 5), each of the plurality of spacers 12 having a width measured in an axial direction along the shaft 3 (see Fig. 5);
the shaft 3 rotated by some undisclosed structure in a first direction (see the rotational arrow 6 in Fig. 1 indicating the first direction; see also paragraph 14),
wherein an outer surface of the anvil 5 and the outer edges of the annular blades 11 are in contact at a location corresponding to a bottom edge of the workpiece 1 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 14),
wherein the first length of each of the plurality of teeth 9 determines a length of each cut 2 (see Figs. 1 and 2), a width of each of the plurality of spacers 12 relates to a spacing between lines of cuts 2 (see Figs. 3 and 5), and a length of connectors between cuts 2 is determined by a length of each of the gaps (see Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 2, Jaeger also teaches that the anvil 5 is configured to rotate in a second direction 7 opposite the first direction 6 (see Fig. 1, where the direction 7 in which the anvil rotates is opposite the direction 6 in which the annular blades 11 rotate; see also paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 3, Jaeger also teaches that some undisclosed structure is configured to rotate the anvil 5 (see the rotation arrow 7 in Fig. 1 and also paragraphs 12 and 14).
Regarding claim 4, Jaeger teaches that an axis of rotation of the shaft 3 and an axis of rotation of the anvil 5 are substantially parallel (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 8, Jaeger discloses a device for making a plurality of perforated cuts in textiles (see Fig. 1; see also the perforations 2 formed in the workpiece 1 in Fig. 3; the workpiece 1 can be provided in the form of a textile, and the particular type of workpiece is merely an intended use of the recited device), the device comprising:
a blade assembly 4 (see Figs. 1 and 5), comprising:
a shaft 3;
a plurality of co-axial annular blades 11 (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 15), each of the annular blades 11 coupled to the shaft 3 such that rotation of the shaft 3 rotates the plurality of annular blades 11 (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 12 and 14), each of the plurality of annular blades 11 having an outer edge comprising a plurality of alternating teeth 9 and gaps (see Fig. 4), each of the plurality of teeth 9 having a first length as measured along the outer edge and each of the plurality of gaps having a second length as measured along the outer edge (see Fig. 4 – each of the teeth 9 and each of the gaps has a respective length as measured in a circumferential direction of the blade 11);
a plurality of spacers 12 coupled to the shaft 3 such that each of the plurality of annular blades 11 is separated from another of the plurality of annular blades 11 by at least one of the plurality of spacers 12 (see Fig. 5), each of the plurality of spacers 12 having a width measured in an axial direction along the shaft 3 (see Fig. 5);
the shaft 3 rotated by some undisclosed structure in a first direction (see the rotational arrow 6 in Fig. 1 indicating the first direction; see also paragraph 14),
wherein the outer edges of the annular blades 11 have a point of tangency located proximate to a bottom surface of the workpiece 1 (see Fig. 1),
wherein the first length of each of the plurality of teeth 9 determines a length of each cut 2 (see Figs. 1 and 2), a width of each of the plurality of spacers 12 relates to a spacing between lines of cuts 2 (see Figs. 3 and 5), and a length of connectors between cuts 2 is determined by a length of each of the gaps (see Figs. 3 and 4).
Jaeger teaches a perforating device that is configured to simultaneously produce parallel lines of perforations in a sheet-shaped workpiece.
Since Bogrett does not explicitly disclose details of a device that produces the perforations in the textile material of Bogrett, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the perforating device of Jaeger to produce the perforations in the textile material of Bogrett. This modification is advantageous because it provides a device for producing the perforations desired by Bogrett. This modification is further obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Bogrett teaches a textile material in which are produced parallel rows of perforations, and Jaeger teaches a device for producing parallel rows of perforations. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (the methods including configuring the device of Jaeger to produce the perforations desired by Bogrett), and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately – Bogrett continues to provide perforated textile material, and the device of Jaeger continues to produce parallel rows of perforations in a material. One of ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, since the device of Jaeger is usable to cut perforations into various workpieces, and merely by reconfiguring the tooth and gap sizes in the blades of Jaeger and the width of the spacers, the device of Jaeger is usable to produce a range of perforations. As further evidence of the predictability of this combination, it is known in the art to use a plurality of blades having alternating teeth and gaps to produce rows of parallel perforations in a textile material of the type disclosed by Bogrett (see Allwein at Figs. 4-5, showing a series of blades 38 having alternating teeth and gaps that produce rows of perforations in a fibrous insulation textile material 18; see also Weinstein at Figs. 16 and 18, showing a series of blades 520 having alternating teeth and gaps that produce parallel rows of cuts 24 in a fibrous textile material 20).
This modification includes configuring the blades of Jaeger to produce the sizes and spacings of the cuts and connectors disclosed by Bogrett. As such, in Bogrett following this modification, the first length of the teeth and the lengths of the gaps corresponds to the lengths of cuts and the lengths of the connectors, respectively, as disclosed by Bogrett at col. 10, lines 26-28. Furthermore, this modification includes configuring the spacers to provide the spacing between the rows of perforations disclosed by Bogrett. As such, Bogrett, as modified, discloses that the first length of each of the plurality of teeth and the width of each of the plurality of spacers are greater than the second length of each of the plurality of gaps in order to produce the geometry of perforations disclosed by Bogrett. [Claims 1 and 8]
Still, Bogrett, as modified, is silent as to what structure supports the workpiece during the perforating operation, and Bogrett, as modified, is also silent regarding what structure drives the shaft to rotate. As a result, Bogrett, as modified, also fails to disclose: a support surface for supporting the textile material, the support surface comprising an aperture; one or more motors configured to rotate the shaft; that the outer surface of the anvil and the outer edges of the annular blades are in contact above, below, or within the aperture of the support surface; and that a width of each of the plurality of annular blades is greater than the second length of each of the plurality of gaps, as required by claim 1. Bogrett, as modified, further fails to disclose that the one or more motors is configured to rotate the anvil as required by claim 3. Similarly to as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, Bogrett, as modified, fails to disclose: a support surface for supporting a textile material; that one or more motors are configured to rotate the shaft; that the point of tangency of the outer edges is located proximate to the support surface; and that a width of each of the plurality of annular blades is greater than the second length of each of the plurality of gaps as required by claim 8. Bogrett, as modified, further fails to disclose: a guard surface extending above and perpendicular to the support surface as required by claim 9, and that a rotational speed of the shaft is adjustable as required by claim 14.
Regarding the support, Nortmann teaches a support surface 62 for supporting a material being cut (see Fig. 1, where the support surface 62 is an upper surface of the table 60), the support surface 62 comprising an aperture 61 for receiving a cutting tool 22. [Claims 1 and 8] Nortmann further teaches a guard 63 extending above and perpendicular to the support surface 62 (see Fig. 5). [Claim 9] The support surface of Nortmann is advantageous to support a workpiece as the workpiece is being cut (see paragraph 20), and Nortmann teaches that the support surface is usable with a range of tools, including any tool that makes contact with and alters a workpiece, including a band saw, a drill press, a scroll saw, and others, and Nortmann expressly states that other types of work tools are also contemplated (see paragraph 18). Nortmann further teaches that the guard is advantageous for maintaining the workpiece in a desired orientation for a precise cut (see paragraph 20).
Therefore, in particular in view of the fact that Bogrett, as modified, fails to disclose any structure for supporting the textile material while the material is being perforated, and in view of the fact that Nortmann teaches that its support surface having the aperture for receiving a tool is usable with a variety of different tools, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Bogrett, as modified, with a support surface for supporting the textile material, the support surface comprising an aperture for receiving the tool, in view of the teachings of Nortmann. This modification is advantageous to support the workpiece being processed. (The examiner further notes that a support surface having an aperture for receiving a tool, where the support surface supports a material being operated on by the tool, is widely known in the cutting arts, including in band saws, scroll saws, and table saws. The examiner is able to provide evidence of this fact is requested.) In carrying out this modification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of the references to arrange the outer surface of the anvil and the outer edges of the annular blades to be in contact within the aperture of the support surface, such that the point of tangency of the outer edges is located proximate to the support surface. This arrangement is obvious because the support surface of Nortmann defines a bottom plane of the workpiece (see Fig. 1 of Nortmann, the workpiece is positioned with its bottom surface on the support surface 62), and because Bogrett, as modified, teaches that the outer surface of the anvil and the outer edges of the blades are in contact at a point aligned with the bottom surface of the workpiece (see Jaeger at Fig. 1). As such, this arrangement is advantageous to properly align the workpiece with respect to the blades and anvil so that the workpiece is received at the position designed by Bogrett, as modified. As further evidence that this arrangement is obvious, see Allwein at Fig. 5 illustrating that a support surface is aligned with respect to a perforating blade and anvil so that a plane of the support surface aligns tangentially with the blade and anvil.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Bogrett, as modified, with a guard surface that extends perpendicular to the support surface as taught by Nortmann, as this modification allows for maintaining the workpiece in a pre-determined orientation during a cut so that the cut is precise along a desired line.
Regarding a motor, Kwarta teaches a device including blades 212 coupled to a shaft 232, and also an anvil 214 positioned underneath the blades 212 (see Figs. 4A and 4B). Kwarta teaches that the device includes one or more motors 231 and 233 configured to rotate the shaft 232 (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 67; motor 231 rotates the shaft 232). [Claims 1 and 8] Kwarta further teaches that the one or more motors 231 and 233 is configured to rotate the anvil 214 (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 67; motor 233 rotates the anvil 214). [Claim 3] Kwarta further teaches that a rotational speed of the shaft is adjustable (since the controller 299 controls the operation of the motors; see paragraph 67). [Claim 14] Kwarta teaches that providing the one or more motors is advantageous to drive rotation of the blade assembly and the anvil (see paragraph 67).
Therefore, noting that Bogrett, as modified, discloses that the shaft and anvil are rotationally driven in order to produce movement of the workpiece (see paragraph 14 of Jaeger), but that Bogrett, as modified, is silent regarding the particular structure that produces this rotation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Bogrett, as modified, with one or more motors that that rotate the shaft and that rotate the anvil, where a controller is provided to control operation of the motors, in view of the teachings of Kwarta. This modification is advantageous because it provides a source of motive power for the shaft and anvil. Moreover, this modification is obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Bogrett, as modified, and Kwarta together disclose each claimed element, as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (the methods including providing the device of Bogrett, as modified, with motors to rotate the shaft and anvil by the method disclosed by Kwarta), and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. That is, the shaft and anvil of Bogrett, as modified, continue to perform identical functions as prior to this modification (i.e., rotating to cut a workpiece), and the motors of Kwarta continue to rotate a shaft to which are coupled blades and to rotate an anvil support. One of ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, since Bogrett, as modified, already teaches that its shaft and anvil are rotationally drive, albeit by some undisclosed structure(s), and since Kwarta merely discloses motors to rotate a shaft and anvil.
Regarding a width of the blade, Allwein discloses that a width of a perforating blade 38 (which width includes the widths of the shoulders 66 of the blade 38) is greater than a second length NL of each of a plurality of gaps 62 of the perforating blade 38 (see paragraph 39). Allwein teaches that providing the blade with shoulders is advantageous to prevent damage to the separable connectors in the workpiece (see paragraph 39). Moreover, the second length is known to be a result effective variable that balances holding the workpiece together during handling (favoring a long second length to produce long and thus strong connectors) while still being sufficiently easy to separate (favoring a short second length to produce short, easily separated connectors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide each of the annular blades of Bogrett, as modified, with shoulders such that the blade has a width greater than the second length of each of the plurality of gaps. This modification is advantageous because the width of the blades resulting from the shoulders helps prevent damage to the separable connectors in the workpiece, and the small size of the second length of the gaps provides a balance of sufficiently strong connectors to hold the workpiece together with ease of tearing of the workpiece, which is the goal of the lines of perforations of Bogrett, as modified.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogrett et al. in view of Jaeger, Nortmann, Kwarta, and Allwein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GB 2475715 A to Harris.
Bogrett, as modified, fails to disclose that the annular blades comprise a first material and the anvil comprises a second material, the first material having a greater hardness than the second material as required by claim 5.
Harris, though, teaches an annular blades 32 (see Fig. 3) that comprises a first material and an anvil 36 that comprises a second material, the first material having a greater hardness than the second material (see page 6, lines 10-14). Harris teaches that providing the anvil with a softer material that a material of the annular blade is advantageous because the anvil will wear faster than the blade, and the anvil can be axially adjusted after a period of wear so that normal cutting is able to resume (see page 6, lines 10-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the annular blade of Bogrett, as modified, with a material that is harder than a material of the anvil in view of the teachings of Harris, and optionally to also make the anvil axially adjustable. This modification is advantageous in order to cause the anvil to wear faster than the blade, which prolongs the blade life. Moreover, this modification is further advantageous when accompanied by making the anvil axially adjustable, since these modifications allow for re-positioning the anvil once a sufficient degree of anvil wear is reached in order to provide a new anvil surface and resume normal cutting operation without having to replace any component.
Claim(s) 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogrett et al. in view of Jaeger, Nortmann, Kwarta, and Allwein as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of KR 10-2007-0114492 to Bang.
Bogrett, as modified, fails to disclose that each of the plurality of spacers is integral with at least one of the plurality of annular blades as required by claims 7 and 13.
Bang, though, teaches annular perforating blades 101 and spacers (see the annotated Fig. 3 below), where each spacer is integral with a blade 101 (see the annotated Fig. 3 below, noting the continuous cross-section hatching markings on the spacer and blade).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make each of the spacers of Bogrett, as modified, integral with one of the annular blades in view of the teachings of Bang. This modification is advantageous because it simplifies installation of the blades and spacers onto the shaft. That is, instead of having to perform two installations when separately installing each of a blade and a spacer onto the shaft, by integrating the blade and at least one spacer only a single installation procedure needs to be performed for each blade and spacer combination. Moreover, this modification is advantageous because it ensures consistent spacing of the blades – e.g., a user cannot accidentally forget to install a spacer, since the spacer is integral with the blade. As such, the modification simplifies achieving proper spacing of the blades since an installer need not be attentive to the spacer configuration.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogrett et al. in view of Jaeger, Nortmann, Kwarta, and Allwein as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2022/0162035 A1 to Tamano et al.
Bogrett, as modified, fails to disclose that a height of the blade assembly with respect to a height of the support surface is adjustable as required by claim 10.
However, Tamano discloses making a height of a blade assembly (on roller 10; see Figs. 2 and 3A) adjustable toward and away from an anvil 20 (see Fig. 3A, where the adjustment is via adjustment screws; see also paragraph 39). Tamano teaches that making the height of the blade assembly adjustable is advantageous to adjust the position of the blade assembly for materials having different thicknesses (see paragraph 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the height of the blade assembly of Bogrett, as modified, adjustable with respect to the height of the anvil, and thus also adjustable with respect to the height of the support surface, in view of the teachings of Tamano. This modification is advantageous because it allows for adjusting the position of the blade assembly for different thickness of materials as taught by Tamano. Moreover, this modification is further advantageous because it allows for selectively perforating materials along an assembly line that includes multiple cutting devices – i.e., if no perforations are desired, the blade assembly can be adjusted sufficiently high to avoid performing a perforating operation so that the workpiece passes unaffected between the blade assembly and anvil. Further still, this modification is advantageous when the workpiece is provided as a continuous web, since the modification enables adjusting the blade assembly away from the anvil in order to initially insert the web between the blade assembly and the anvil prior to operation of the device, so that the modification facilitates feeding the workpiece between the blade assembly and anvil.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogrett et al. in view of Jaeger, Nortmann, Kwarta, and Allwein as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2002/0005102 A1 Takemura and US Pub. No. 2011/0036219 A1 to Finnell.
Bogrett, as modified, fails to disclose that the annular blades comprise a first material and the support surface comprises a second material, the first material having a greater hardness than the second material as required by claim 11.
First, Takemura teaches a blade 72 that comprises a first material that is a high hardness material such as cemented carbide, high-speed steel, or alloy tool steel (see paragraph 36). Using a high hardness material for a cutting blade is known to be advantageous in order to provide wear resistance to the blade.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the annular blades of Bogrett, as modified, as modified comprise a high hardness material such as cemented carbide, high-speed steep, or alloy tool steel in view of the teachings of Takemura. This modification is advantageous in order to provide a blade with high wear resistance (e.g., the blade will be harder than most materials contacted by the blade, so the other material, rather than the blade, wears). This modification further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is merely a selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the material as a cutting blade as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. High hardness materials are known to be suitable for forming cutting blades in view of Takemura.
Second, Finnell teaches that a support surface 12 for a cutting device can be made of aluminum or engineered plastic (see paragraph 27). Aluminum and plastic are relatively inexpensive materials that are widely available.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select aluminum or plastic as a material for the support surface of Bogrett, as modified, in view of the teachings of Finnell. This modification is advantageous because aluminum and plastic are relatively inexpensive, widely available materials. This modification further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is merely a selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the material as a support surface as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Aluminum and engineered plastics are both known to be suitable materials for a support surface in a cutting device in view of the teachings of Finnell.
Thus, Bogrett, as modified, as set forth above includes the first material of the annular blades being harder than the second material of the support surface (cemented carbide, high-speed steep, or alloy tool steel have a higher hardness than aluminum and engineered plastics).
Claim(s) 15, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 6,743,326 B2 to Bogrett et al. in view of EP 1 060 849 A2 to Jaeger, US Pub. No. 2006/0144207 A1 to Nortmann et al., and US Pub. No. 2003/0183055 A1 to Allwein, and as evidenced by US Pat. No. 6,551,677 B2 to Weinstein et al.
Regarding claims 15, Bogrett discloses a method for making a plurality of parallel perforating cuts 34 in a textile material 26 (the cuts 34 forming lines 38, 40, and 42; see Fig. 6), where each of the perforating cuts comprising alternating cuts 34 in, and ties 36 of, the textile material 26 (see Fig. 6). Bogrett discloses that a first length of each of the cuts 34 and a width between each row of cuts 34 are greater than a second length of each of a plurality of ties 36 (see Figs. 6-7 and col. 10, lines 20-31).
Bogrett, though, only discloses the end-state of the textile material having already been formed with perforations, such that Bogrett does not disclose details of a perforating device or of a perforating process used to form the perforations. Bogrett thus fails to disclose all structures of the perforating device and all steps of forming the perforations as recited in claims 15, 16, and 18.
Regarding claim 15, Jaeger teaches a method for making a plurality of parallel perforating cuts 2 in a material 1 (see Fig. 3), comprising
positioning the material 1 in a horizontal configuration (see Fig. 1);
feeding at least a portion of a first edge of the material 1 between a cylindrical anvil 5 and a blade assembly 4 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 14; since the entire material 1 is fed between the anvil 5 and blade assembly 4, an edge of the material 1 is included in this feeding), the blade assembly 4 comprising:
a shaft 3;
a plurality of co-axial annular blades 11 (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 15), each of the annular blades 11 coupled to the shaft 3 such that rotation of the shaft 3 rotates the plurality of annular blades 11 (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 12 and 14), each of the plurality of annular blades 11 having an outer edge comprising a plurality of alternating teeth 9 and gaps (see Fig. 4), each of the plurality of teeth 9 having a first length as measured along the outer edge and each of the plurality of gaps having a second length as measured along the outer edge (see Fig. 4 – each of the teeth 9 and each of the gaps has a respective length as measured in a circumferential direction of the blade 11);
a plurality of spacers 12 coupled to the shaft 3 such that each of the plurality of annular blades 11 is separated from another of the plurality of annular blades 11 by at least one of the plurality of spacers 12 (see Fig. 5), each of the plurality of spacers 12 having a width measured in an axial direction along the shaft 3 (see Fig. 5);
passing a length of the material 1 between the blade assembly 4 and the anvil 5 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 14) such that the blade assembly 4 makes a plurality of parallel perforating cuts 2 in the material 1 (see Fig. 3), each of the perforating cuts comprising alternating cuts in, and ties of, the material 1 (see annotated Fig. 3 below),
wherein the first length of each of the plurality of teeth 9 determines a length of each cut 2 (see Figs. 1 and 2), a width of each of the plurality of spacers 12 relates to a spacing between lines of cuts 2 (see Figs. 3 and 5), and a length of ties between cuts 2 is determined by a length of each of the gaps (see Figs. 3 and 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
332
269
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Jaeger discloses rotating the shaft 3 of the blade assembly 4 in a first direction 6 and rotating the anvil 5 in a second direction 7 opposite the first direction 6 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 18, Jaeger discloses that an axis of rotation of the shaft 3 and an axis of rotation of the anvil 5 are substantially parallel (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 12).
Jaeger teaches a perforating method that is configured to simultaneously produce parallel lines of perforations in a sheet-shaped workpiece.
Since Bogrett does not explicitly disclose details of a method that produces the perforations in the textile material of Bogrett, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the perforating method of Jaeger, where material is fed between annular blades and an anvil, to produce the perforations in the textile material of Bogrett. This modification is advantageous because it provides a method for producing the perforations desired by Bogrett. This modification is further obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Bogrett teaches a textile material in which are produced parallel rows of perforations, and Jaeger teaches a method for producing parallel rows of perforations. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (the methods including configuring the device of Jaeger to produce the perforations desired by Bogrett), and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately – Bogrett continues to provide perforated textile material, and the method of Jaeger continues to produce parallel rows of perforations in a material. One of ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, since the device of Jaeger is usable to cut perforations into various workpieces, and merely by reconfiguring the tooth and gap sizes in the blades of Jaeger and the width of the spacers, the device of Jaeger is usable to produce a range of perforations. As further evidence of the predictability of this combination, it is known in the art to use a plurality of blades having alternating teeth and gaps to produce rows of parallel perforations in a textile material of the type disclosed by Bogrett (see Allwein at Figs. 4-5, showing a series of blades 38 having alternating teeth and gaps that produce rows of perforations in a fibrous insulation textile material 18; see also Weinstein at Figs. 16 and 18, showing a series of blades 520 having alternating teeth and gaps that produce parallel rows of cuts 24 in a fibrous textile material 20).
This modification includes configuring the blades of Jaeger to produce the sizes and spacings of the cuts and ties disclosed by Bogrett. As such, in Bogrett following this modification, the first length of the teeth and the lengths of the gaps corresponds to the lengths of cuts and the lengths of the ties, respectively, as disclosed by Bogrett at col. 10, lines 26-28. Furthermore, this modification includes configuring the spacers to provide the spacing between the rows of perforations disclosed by Bogrett. As such, Bogrett, as modified, discloses that the first length of each of the plurality of teeth and the width of each of the plurality of spacers are greater than the second length of each of the plurality of gaps in order to produce the geometry of perforations disclosed by Bogrett. [Claim 15]
Still, Bogrett, as modified, fails to disclose the material is positioned on a support surface, the support surface having an aperture, feeding at least the portion of the first edge of the material across the aperture, and passing the length of the material across the support surface, and that a width of each of the plurality of annular blades is greater than the second length of each of the plurality of gaps, as required by claim 15.
Regarding the support, Nortmann teaches positioning a material on a support surface 62 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 20), the support surface 62 comprising an aperture 61 for receiving a cutting tool 22, feeding at least a portion of a first edge of the material across the aperture 61 (when performing a cutting operation as described at paragraph 20, noting the position of the tool 22 at a central portion of the support surface 62), and passing a length of the material across the support surface (when performing a cutting operation as described at paragraph 20, noting the position of the tool 22 at a central portion of the support surface 62). [Claim 15] The support surface of Nortmann is advantageous to support a workpiece as the workpiece is being cut (see paragraph 20), and Nortmann teaches that the support surface is usable with a range of tools, including any tool that makes contact with and alters a workpiece, including a band saw, a drill press, a scroll saw, and others, and Nortmann expressly states that other types of work tools are also contemplated (see paragraph 18).
Therefore, in particular in view of the fact that Bogrett, as modified, fails to disclose any structure for supporting the textile material while the material is being perforated, and in view of the fact that Nortmann teaches that its support surface having the aperture for receiving a tool is usable with a variety of different tools, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Bogrett, as modified, with steps including positioning the material on a support surface, the support surface having an aperture, feeding at least the portion of the first edge of the material across the aperture, and passing the length of the material across the support surface, in view of the teachings of Nortmann. This modification is advantageous to support the workpiece as the workpiece is being processed to align the workpiece at a desired position with respect to the cutting tool. (The examiner further notes that a support surface having an aperture for receiving a tool, where the support surface supports a material being operated on by the tool, is widely known in the cutting arts, including in band saws, scroll saws, and table saws. The examiner is able to provide evidence of this fact is requested.)
Regarding a width of the blade, Allwein discloses that a width of a perforating blade 38 (which width includes the widths of the shoulders 66 of the blade 38) is greater than a second length NL of each of a plurality of gaps 62 of the perforating blade 38 (see paragraph 39). Allwein teaches that providing the blade with shoulders is advantageous to prevent damage to the separable connectors in the workpiece (see paragraph 39). Moreover, the second length is known to be a result effective variable that balances holding the workpiece together during handling (favoring a long second length to produce long and thus strong connectors) while still being sufficiently easy to separate (favoring a short second length to produce short, easily separated connectors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide each of the annular blades of Bogrett, as modified, with shoulders such that the blade has a width greater than the second length of each of the plurality of gaps. This modification is advantageous because the width of the blades resulting from the shoulders helps prevent damage to the separable connectors in the workpiece, and the small size of the second length of the gaps provides a balance of sufficiently strong connectors to hold the workpiece together with ease of tearing of the workpiece, which is the goal of the lines of perforations of Bogrett, as modified.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogrett in view of Jaeger, Nortmann, and Allwein as applied to claims 16 and 15 above, respectively, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2014/0121085 A1 to Kwarta et al.
Although Bogrett, as modified, requires some structure to drive the blade assembly and the anvil in order to advance the workpiece (see Jaeger at paragraph 14), Bogrett, as modified, is silent regarding what particular structure(s) perform this function. As such, Bogrett, as modified, fails to disclose one or more motors that is configured to rotate the shaft of the blade assembly and the anvil as required by claim 17. Bogrett, as modified, also fails to disclose that a rotational speed of the shaft of the blade assembly is approximately equal to a rotational speed of the anvil as required by claim 19.
Kwarta, in general, teaches a device including blades 212 coupled to a shaft 232, and also an anvil 214 positioned underneath the blades 212 (see Figs. 4A and 4B). Kwarta teaches that the device includes one or more motors 231 and 233 configured to rotate the shaft 232 and the anvil 214 (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 67; motor 231 rotates the shaft 232 and motor 233 rotates the anvil 214). [Claim 17] Kwarta further teaches that a rotational speed of a shaft of a blade assembly is approximately equal to a rotational speed of an anvil (see paragraph 105; the rotational speeds, measured in rotations per time period, are approximately equal in order to produce equal circumferential speeds). [Claim 19] Kwarta teaches that providing the one or more motors is advantageous to drive rotation of the blade assembly and the anvil (see paragraph 67).
Therefore, noting that Bogrett, as modified, discloses that the shaft and anvil are rotationally driven in order to produce movement of the workpiece (see paragraph 14 of Jaeger), but that Bogrett, as modified, is silent regarding the particular structure that produces this rotation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Jaeger, as modified, with one or more motors that that rotate the shaft and that rotate the anvil in view of the teachings of Kwarta. This modification is advantageous because it provides a source of motive power for the shaft and anvil. Moreover, this modification is obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Bogrett, as modified, and Kwarta together disclose each claimed element, as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (the methods including providing the device of Bogrett, as modified, with motors to rotate the shaft and anvil by the method disclosed by Kwarta), and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. That is, the shaft and anvil of Bogrett, as modified, continue to perform identical functions as prior to this modification (i.e., rotating to cut a workpiece), and the motors of Kwarta continue to rotate a shaft to which are coupled blades and to rotate an anvil support. One of ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, since Bogrett, as modified, already teaches that its shaft and anvil are rotationally drive, albeit by some undisclosed structure(s), and since Kwarta merely discloses motors to rotate a shaft and anvil.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the rotational speed of the shaft of the blade assembly of Bogrett, as modified, to be approximately equal to the rotational speed of the anvil in view of the teachings of Kwarta in order to produce a same circumferential speed between the blade assembly and the anvil. This modification is advantageous because the blade assembly and anvil of Bogrett, as modified, cooperate to pull the workpiece through the cutting device, and having an equal speed operating on both top and bottom sides of the workpiece aids in smoothly guiding the workpiece through the cutting device (consider if a speed of the blade assembly is different from a speed of the anvil – the tops and bottoms of the workpiece would be urged at two different speeds so that some combination of slippage and warping of the workpiece would occur).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogrett in view of Jaeger, Nortmann, and Allwein as applied to claim 15 above, respectively, and further in view of GB 2475715 A to Harris.
Bogrett, as modified, fails to disclose that the annular blades comprise a first material and the anvil comprises a second material, the first material having a greater hardness than the second material as required by claim 20.
Harris, though, teaches an annular blades 32 (see Fig. 3) that comprises a first material and an anvil 36 that comprises a second material, the first material having a greater hardness than the second material (see page 6, lines 10-14). Harris teaches that providing the anvil with a softer material that a material of the annular blade is advantageous because the anvil will wear faster than the blade, and the anvil can be axially adjusted after a period of wear so that normal cutting is able to resume (see page 6, lines 10-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the annular blade of Bogrett, as modified, with a material that is harder than a material of the anvil in view of the teachings of Harris, and optionally to also make the anvil axially adjustable. This modification is advantageous in order to cause the anvil to wear faster than the blade, which prolongs the blade life. Moreover, this modification is further advantageous when accompanied by making the anvil axially adjustable, since these modifications allow for re-positioning the anvil once a sufficient degree of anvil wear is reached in order to provide a new anvil surface and resume normal cutting operation without having to replace any component.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In particular, the grounds of rejection set forth above rely on Bogrett for teaching a textile material having parallel lines of perforations, and Bogrett is modified to include a perforating device having features disclosed by Jaeger.
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