Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-10 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.
Claim 1, the last sentence, the language “runs” in the phrase “wherein a pendulum axis of the one and only one pendulum joint runs transversely to a longitudinal axis of the punching beams” is unclear how one axis ca run. Is it “extends”, right?
Claim 6 appears depending claim 5, however, as it currently written, the scope is unclear what and where the at least three shell elements are coming from. Also, the language “its” is unclear what the “its” refers to. claim 7 has the same issue.
Claim 8 “the shell element” is unclear what it refers to one the at least 3 shell elements or an additional shell element.
All claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Streitenberger (US 2014/0230618).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Streitenberger shows a device (4-5, Figures 1-3) for separating at least one conveyed surface element (8) into individual components, the device comprising:
a framework (see Figure 3 below);
a punching tool (a lower parts including a knife 39 and a support 41), which has at least one punching beam (39) that is configured to operate against an anvil (40) and is held in place by the framework (Figure 3); and
one and only one pendulum joint (see figure 3, only one pendulum joint or axle or axis 34 that connects to the knife and the frame) connecting the punching beam and the framework (see Figure 3 all parts connect as a unit),
wherein the pendulum axis of the one and only one pendulum joint “runs” or extends transversely to a longitudinal axis of the punching beam (see the axis 34 is extending transversely to a longitudinal axis of the support 34 and the knife 39).
PNG
media_image1.png
680
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Streitenberger shows that the punching beam is suspended from the one and only one pendulum joint (Figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 3, Streitenberger shows that the framework (32, Figure 4) has a receptacle (32, Figure 4) for the one and only one pendulum joint.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streitenberger (US 2014/0230618) in view of Clark et al (US 2022/0055244).
Regarding claim 4, Streitenberger shows all of the limitations as stated above including the receptacle (32, Figure 4) is a transverse support, which is arranged transversely to a conveying direction of the surface element, however, it is not above the surface element.
It is well-known in the art; the punch mechanism is above a workpiece, for an example,
Clark shows a device (10, Figure 1) having a receptacle (11, Figure 3) is a transverse support, which is arranged transversely to a conveying direction of the workpiece and above the workpiece.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Stretenberger to have the punching mechanism above the workpiece, as taught by Clark, since this is known alternative way to have the punch above workpiece for separating the workpiece into individual pieces.
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Stretenberger shows the transverse support is formed from at least 3 shell elements (front and back stands 31, elements 42, 35, Figure 5 of Stretenberger) including two outer shell elements (31, 42) and a central shell element (35), wherein the outer shell elements are connected to the framework (Figure 5 of Stretenberger), and wherein the central shell element (35) supports the punching beam and is suspended from the one and only one pendulum joint (Figure 4 of Stretenberger).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had at least 3 shell elements to Stretenberger’s punching mechanism, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8., in order to allow to add reinforcing or strengthening to the stands or supports.
Regarding claims 6-7, as best understood, the modified device of Stretenberger shows the at least three shell elements are accommodated in the framework such that a height of the punching tool can be varied (see Figures 2-5 of Stretenberger),
wherein the at least three shell elements are shell element is accommodated in one and only one the pendulum joint (see Figures 2-5 of Stretenberger),
wherein the one and only one pendulum joint is rotatably accommodated in the outer shell elements (see Figures 2-5 of Stretenberger), and
wherein the one and only one pendulum joint has an eccentrically formed section (62, Figure 7 of Stretenberger) in its extension.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the modified device of Stretenberger shows that the eccentric section is associated with at least one fixing element (61) for fixing a height position of the shell element (see Para. 51 “Via a lever 61 and the eccentric 62, the rotation of the axis 34 of the motor 33 may be converted into a relative motion of the frame 32 with respect to the stand 31. The greater the eccentricity E, which is a radial distance of the axis 34 of the motor 33 to the receiving axis of the lever 61 at the eccentric 62, is selected, the larger is the lifting motion (see the upper arrow and the lower short arrow) the counter knife 40 performs”, Figure 7).
Regarding claims 9-10, the modified device of Stretenberger shows that the at least three shell elements are accommodated in the framework such that their height can be varied (Figures 2-5 of Stretenberger, all parts, 31, 42, 45 are varied height), and
wherein the one and only one pendulum joint is accommodated in at least one wedge-shaped frame (62, Figure 7 of Stretenberger) and the wedge-shaped frame is associated with at least one spindle drive (a motor 33, Figure 7 and Para. 51 of Stretenberger).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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. See the rejections with further explanations above.
Since claim 1 is amended to have “one and only one pendulum joint connecting the punching beam and the framework” and later claims “at least three shell elements”, the scope of claim 1 changes and the argument is invalid. Therefore, the reference, Stretenberger’ device can be read on the claimed invention. See the rejections above.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
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 NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 3/13/2026