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
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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. Paragraph 38 expressly acknowledges that the vacuum generator “112” being connected to the through hole “121” is not shown in the present drawings. Therefore, the feature of the through hole being “connected to the vacuum generating device” as recited in claim 1 (see lines 9-10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. None of the “pressing channel”, the “first pressing surface” of the pressing channel, and the “second pressing surface” of the pressing channel as recited in claim 2 is indicated with a reference character in the present drawings. Therefore, it is not clear that the present drawings illustrate these features. If these features are illustrated, then the features should be provided with respective reference characters. If these features are not illustrated, then the features must be shown or the features 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the present specification at paragraph 5 recites, “the first pressing mechanism and the support platform are movable up and down respectively to form a height difference between a first strip section located on the first pressing mechanism and a second strip section located on the support platform for cutting” and at paragraph 35 recites, “The first pressing mechanism 13 and the support platform 12 are movable up and down respectively to create a height difference between a first strip section on the first pressing mechanism 13 and a second strip section on the support platform 12 for cutting”. To the extent that Applicant amendments claim 1 to resolve indefiniteness issues related to the recitation “the first pressing mechanism and the support platform are movable up and down respectively to form a height different between a first strip section located on the first pressing mechanism and a second strip section located on the support platform for cutting” in claim 1, the specification should be amended accordingly. That is, the specification should be amended to avoid using “respectively” in a manner that suggests that the first pressing mechanism moves up and the support platform moves down to form the height difference for cutting, when the inventive structure does not include upward movement of the first pressing mechanism and downward movement of the support platform to form the height difference for cutting. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 1 recites, “Cutting equipment for a metal strip, comprising”. This recitation should read – Cutting equipment for a metal strip, the cutting equipment comprising”.
Claim 1 at line 4 recites, “configured to providing”. This recitation should read – configured to provide – in order to be grammatically proper.
Claim 1 at line 4 recites, “a strip”. This strip is already introduced as the metal strip in line 1 of the claim. As such, line 4 should refer to – the strip –.
Claim 1 at line 10 recites, “which is connected”. This recitation should make clear that the through hole, rather than the support platform, is the structure being referred to by “which”. The examiner suggests replacing “which” in the phrase “which is connected” with language such ‘wherein the through hole’, such that as amended the claim reads -- , wherein the through hole is connected –.
Claim 3 at the penultimate line recites that the pressing member moves “close or away from”. This recitation should read – toward or away from – or – closer to or away from – to more clearly state that ‘close’ is being reciting in a manner meaning the opposite of ‘away from’, rather than requiring some particular small spacing between the pressing member and the second pressing module.
Claim 5 at the final two lines recites that the second pressing mechanism slides “to close or move away from”. This recitation should read that the second pressing mechanism slides – toward or away from – or – closer to or away from – to more clearly state that ‘close’ is being reciting in a manner meaning the opposite of ‘away from’, rather than requiring some particular small spacing.
Claim 8 recites, “a first cam, a second cam and a third cam” at line 3. This recitation should read – the first cam, the second cam and the third cam – in view of claims 5, 6, and 7, respectively, previously introducing the cams.
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.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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:
“a feeding device” as recited in claim 1 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “feeding” and “configured to providing [sic] a strip”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “feeding” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device);
“a fetching device” as recited in claim 1 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “fetching” and “configured to press the strip pulled from the feeding device and convey the strip to the cutting device”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “fetching” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device);
“a first pressing mechanism” as recited in claim 1 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “pressing” and “configured to press the strip”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “pressing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism);
“a vacuum generating device” as recited in claim 1 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “vacuum generating” and “configured to extract air in the through hole”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “vacuum generating” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device);
“a first moving mechanism” as recited in claim 2 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “moving” and “configured to drive the second pressing mechanism to move the strip pressed to the cutting device”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
“a second pressing module” as recited in claim 3 (first, “module” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “pressing”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – in this case, the name of the “module” merely describes the function of the module);
“a first supporting module” as recited in claim 3 (first, “module” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “supporting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
“a pressing member” as recited in claim 3 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “moving” and “configured to drive the second pressing mechanism to move the strip pressed to the cutting device”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
“a second moving mechanism” as recited in claim 3 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “moving” and “configured to drive the first supporting member to move up and down”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
“a second supporting member” as recited in claim 4 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “supporting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
“a third moving mechanism” as recited in claim 4 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “moving” and “configured to drive the second supporting member to move up and down”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
“a third pressing module” as recited in claim 4 (first, “module” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “pressing”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
“a fourth pressing module” as recited in claim 4 (first, “module” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “pressing”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
“a fixing member” as recited in claim 9 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “fixing” – i.e., in order for a member to be considered as a ‘fixing member’, the member must perform a fixing function; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function); and
“a braking member” as recited in claim 10 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “braking” – i.e., in order for a member to be considered as a ‘braking member’, the member must perform a braking function; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function).
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/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 at lines 5-6 recites, “the strip pulled from the feeding device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for a strip that is “pulled from the feeding device” in the claim. While claim 1 previously introduces “a metal strip”, and while claim 1 previously describes that the feeding device “is configured to providing [sic] a strip”, claim 1 does not previously introduce “a strip pulled from the feeding device”. As such, the recitation at lines 5-6 is indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether the recitation “the strip pulled from the feeding device” merely refers to the strip that is provided by the feeding device, such that no ‘pulling’ action is required. However, if no ‘pulling’ action is required, then the effect of the recitation “pulled from the feeding device” is unclear. Should “pulled from the feeding device” be ignored? This interpretation is problematic because no claim language should be interpreted as unnecessary. Alternatively, should the recitation “the strip pulled from the feeding device” be interpreted as requiring some pulling action be performed on the previously introduced strip? For example, does the Applicant intend to require that the fetching device pulls the strip from the feeding device? The lack of antecedent basis for “the strip pulled from the feeding device” thus renders claim 1 indefinite. The examiner suggests reciting, “the fetching device is configured to pull the strip from the feeding device and convey the strip to the cutting device” to resolve this issue.
Claim 1 at lines 13-16 recites, “the first pressing mechanism and the support platform are movable up and down respectively to form a height different between a first strip section located on the first pressing mechanism and a second strip section located on the support platform for cutting”. This recitation is indefinite in view of the present specification because it is unclear how to interpret this recitation in a manner consistent with the present application. The definition of ‘respectively’ is in the order given or individually and in the order mentioned. Applying this definition of ‘respectively’ to the above quoted recitation of lines 13-16, the recitation appears to require that the first pressing mechanism is movable up and the support platform is movable down to form a height different between a first strip section located on the first pressing mechanism and a second strip section located on the support platform for cutting. However, this interpretation is inconsistent with the present application. Each of paragraphs 39, 43, and 44 of the present specification discloses moving the support platform up, rather than down, to achieve the height different between strip sections for cutting. (In particular, paragraph 39 states, “Preferably, the height different may be formed when the support platform 12 is higher than the first pressing mechanism 13”; paragraph 43 states, “Under the driving of the second supporting member 14, the strip section positioned by the through hole 121 and the vacuum generating device 11 on the support platform 12 continues to be lifted for cutting”; and paragraph 44 states, “By setting the first elastic member 144 between the bottom of the second supporting member 14 and the fourth pressing module 132, when the second supporting member 14 drives the fourth pressing module 132 to rise and press the strip against the third feeding module 131, the second supporting member 14 can still continue to rise by compressing the first elastic member 144 to drive the support platform 12 to rise and exceed the height of the first pressing mechanism 13, thus causing a height difference between the strip section located on the first pressing mechanism 13 and the strip section located on the support platform 12 for cutting.”) No other embodiment is disclosed that describes the support platform as moving down to achieve the height different for cutting. Since the above quoted recitation of lines 13-16 is inconsistent with the present specification, it is unclear how to interpretation the recitation. Does the recitation inadvertently recited “up and down” in the wrong order, where Applicant instead intends to recite – down and up –? Does the Applicant intend the term ‘respectively’ to have some different meaning from its plain and ordinary definition, such as ‘respectively’ meaning separately? (Such an alternative interpretation may raise other issues; e.g., as disclosed, a single drive device ‘6’ drives movement of both the first pressing mechanism and the support platform through a cam arrangement shown in Fig. 10, such that the movement of the first pressing mechanism and support platform is arguably not separate.) Further muddying interpretation of the recitation, it does not appear from the present specification that the first pressing mechanism is movable up or down to form a height difference for cutting. The first pressing mechanism as disclosed includes a third pressing module 131 and a fourth pressing module 132, where the fourth pressing module 132 is raised to press a strip between the third pressing module 131 and the fourth pressing module 132. The third pressing module 131, though, appears to maintain a fixed height throughout a cutting operation. Since the third pressing module 131 of the first pressing mechanism does not appear to move up or down, the first pressing mechanism as disclosed does not appear to move up or down to form a height difference for cutting – instead, as best understood, only movement of the support platform forms the height different for cutting. As such, it unclear how to interpret the above quoted recitation at lines 13-16 in a manner that is consistent with the present specification. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the recitation as requiring that the support platform is movable upward with respect to the first pressing mechanism in order to form a height difference between a first strip section located on the first pressing mechanism and a second strip section located on the support platform for cutting (in view of uncertainty regarding the intended interpretation of the limitation at issue, the examiner is not currently subjecting the claim to a rejection under 35 USC 112(a) or objecting to the drawings for failing to illustrate all claims features).
Claim 2 at the final line recites, “the strip pressed to the cutting device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for a strip that is “pressed to the cutting device” in the claim. Claim 2 recites pressing the strip in the pressing channel. It is unclear whether the final line of claim 2 is referring to the stripping as the strip is pressed in the pressing channel, or whether claim 2 at the final line refers to some other pressing of the strip. Should pressing the strip in the pressing channel be considered as providing the strip that is “pressed to the cutting device”, or is some other pressing action required to be “pressed to the cutting device”? As such, claim 2 is indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “a strip section” and “another strip section”. Claim 4 is indefinite because the relationship between the strip sections introduced in claim 4 and the strip sections already introduced in claim 1 is unclear. In particular, it is unclear whether claim 4 is introducing two new strip sections, or whether one or both of the strip sections introduced in claim 4 can be interpreted as being the same as one of the strip sections already introduced in claim 1. The use of the article “a” in claim 4 suggests that two new strip sections are being introduced. However, one of the strip sections of claim 4 is pressing by the first pressing mechanism, suggesting that this strip section may be the same as the ‘first strip section’ already introduced in claim 1. Similarly, the ‘another strip section’ of claim 4 is being lifted for cutting and is on the support platform, suggesting that the ‘another strip section’ of claim 4 may be the same as the ‘second strip section already introduced in claim 1.
Claims Not Subject to Prior Art Rejection
Claims 1-10 are not subject to any prior art rejection under 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103; however, no determination of allowability can be made for these claims in view of the issues raised above under 35 USC 112. Claim 1 requires a feeding device, a fetching device, and a first pressing mechanism, and each of these recitations is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as noted above. Moreover, claim 1 requires that the cutting device comprises a support platform having a through hole connected to a vacuum generating device, and claim 1 requirements movement of the support platform having the through hole relative to the first pressing mechanism in order to achieve a height different between a first strip section located on the first pressing mechanism and a second strip section located on the support platform for cutting. No known reference or combination of references teaches or suggests this combination of features.
CH 564987 to Beyeler et al. discloses a cutting device for metal sheets. The cutting device includes a gantry 12 for feeding sheets and a movable crossbar 5 for urging the sheets into a cutting position. The cutting device includes a cutting device having a work table 3 and a knife 2. The work table 3 includes a through hole (of suction cup 100) for connection with a vacuum generating device. Beyeler, though, teaches that its cutting device includes downward movement of the knife 2 relative to the work table 3 – the work table 3 does not move during cutting. As such, Beyeler fails to disclose the combination of features “the support platform is provided with a through hole which is connected to the vacuum generating device” and “the first pressing mechanism and the support platform are movable up and down respectively to form a height difference between a first strip section located on the first pressing mechanism and a second strip section located on the support platform for cutting” as required by present claim 1. In Beyeler, the support platform that is connected to the vacuum generated device does not move for cutting. Thus, although Beyeler teaches a support platform with a through hole forming part of a cutting device, Beyeler still fails to disclose at least the cutting device as recited in claim 1.
CN-106115328-A to Zhang et al. discloses cutting equipment having two feeding reels (holding materials 24 and 27, respectively, as shown in Fig. 1) and a cutting device (see Fig. 1, where the cutting device includes cutter 15 and also includes seats 9 and 14). The cutting device has a support platform 9 with a vacuum hole (see Fig. 2; see also page 4 of the English language translation of Zhang at the second to last paragraph). Still, Zhang fails to disclose a first pressing mechanism that is configured to press the strip as recited in claim 1, since the corresponding structure of a pressing mechanism as disclosed in the present application includes third and fourth pressing modules arranged opposite to each other, where the fourth pressing module is movably close to or away from the third pressing module so as to press or release the strip between the third and fourth modules. In Zhang, the element 12, for example, does not include third and fourth pressing modules in the manner of the first pressing mechanism as disclosed in the present application. Moreover, Zhang fails to disclose that the support platform 9 is movable with respect to the first pressing mechanism to form a height difference between a first strip section located on the first pressing mechanism and a second strip section located on the second mechanism. Instead, in Zhang, the materials are cut by cutter 15 without producing the required height difference. As such, claim 1 distinguishes over Zhang.
DE 3729862 to Kirsch discloses cutting equipment for a metal sheet (see Fig. 1) having a carriage 14 which fetches sheets and deliver a sheet toward a cutting device (including knives 4). However, Kirsch fails to disclose at least the features of the cutting device required by claim 1. Kirsch fails to disclose a first pressing mechanism, since the corresponding structure of a pressing mechanism as disclosed in the present application includes third and fourth pressing modules arranged opposite to each other, where the fourth pressing module is movably close to or away from the third pressing module so as to press or release the strip between the third and fourth modules. The hold-down 5 of Kirsch does not correspond to the first pressing mechanism as disclosed in the present application, since the first pressing mechanism of the present application is movable relative to the support platform in order to affect a cutting operation. Not only that, but Kirsch also fails to disclose a support platform having a through hole that is connected to a vacuum generated device, where the support platform is movable with respect to the first pressing mechanism to form a heigh difference between a first strip section located on the first pressing mechanism and a second strip section located on the support platform for cutting.
US Pub. No. 2018/0170702 A1 to Wada et al. teaches a cutting equipment having a movable suction member 16 that draws a strip of material 12 from a roll body 14 in a conveying direction X (see Fig. 1). However, Wada fails to disclose at least the features of the cutting device required by claim 1, including “the support platform is provided with a through hole which is connected to the vacuum generating device; when the through hole is covered by the strip, the vacuum generating device is configured to extract air in the through hole so as to position the strip on the support platform, the first pressing mechanism and the support platform are movable up and down respectively to form a height difference between a first strip section located on the first pressing mechanism and a second strip section located on the support platform for cutting”. Instead, Wada discloses cutting by interaction of a rotary cutter 42 and a pedestal 46.
KR-20190050962-A to Kim discloses cutting equipment having a transfer section 61 that is movable to provide a strip (see Fig. 1). However, Kim discloses that the transfer section 61 is downstream of a cutting device 20, rather than between a feeding device and a cutting device as is required of the fetching device of claim 1. Moreover, although the cutting device 20 of Kim includes a support platform 10 connected to a vacuum generating device 12 (see Fig. 1), Kim discloses that cutting occurs due to movement of a perforating roller 21 that is provided with perforations means 22. Kim does not disclose that the support platform is movable with respect to a first pressing mechanism to form a heigh difference between a first strip section on the first pressing mechanism and a second strip section located on the support platform for cutting.
Additional relevant cutting equipment references that also fail to disclose at least the features of the cutting device required by claim 1 include:
US Pub. No. 2006/0112801 A1 to Ganci
US Pub. No. 2024/0165757 A1 to Yan et al.
US Pat. No. 4,813,321 to Landsman
US Pat. No. 4,576,469 to Shiga et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights