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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification (25 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
For an example, the specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claim 5 requires to have the anvil blade 21 is stationary with respect to the support structure 17, however, looking at Figure 1, the anvil drum 22 is rotated relative to the support structure 17 (it is unclear how the rotating blades 19 contact the anvil blade) and reading the Para. 40 of specification, the anvil blade 21 is movement or reciprocating translation movement. Therefore, the language “stationary” in claim 5 is not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 12-15, 17,19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8, the language “so” should be deleted since it is not provided any further meaning. Claims 8, 12, 14, 19 have the same issue of “so”.
Claims 1, 14, 17, the language “reciprocal” used throughout the claim is an unnecessary language and should be deleted because during contacting of the rotating blade and the anvil blade, both blades are inherently matched and contact each other, therefore, adding the language “reciprocal” makes it even more confusing.
Claim 1, line 11 “the point” should read –a point--. Claims 14-15 has the same issue “the point”.
Claim 13, line 1 “seat” should read –the seat--.
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 1-21 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 recites “comprising: …one or more rotating blades…each rotating blade…a first end of the rotating blade …” is unclear whether these rotating blades refer to the rotating blades of the preamble or additional rotating blades. If the rotating blades are the same, it should be amended “the rotating blades” and “each of the rotating blades”.
Claim 5, the language “stationary” in the claim is unclear. Looking at Figure 1, the anvil drum 22 is rotated relative to the support structure 17 (it is unclear how the rotating blades 19 contact the anvil blade if the anvil blade 21 is stationary, not movement) and reading the Para. 40 of specification, the anvil blade 21 is rotated or stationary rotated with reciprocating translation movement. Therefore, the language “stationary” in claim 5 is unclear what the boundaries of the language “stationary” might be.
Claim 6 recites “a plurality of rotating blades” that is unclear whether these rotating blades refer to the rotating blades of the preamble of claim 1 or the one or more rotating blades in claim 1 or additional rotating blades.
Claim 14 recites “at least one rotating blade” that could be one rotating blade, however, later line 10, the language of “each” in the “each rotating blade” is unclear. The “each” is used to refer to every one of rotating blades, not one rotating blade. Claim 17 has the same issue.
Claim 17, line 4 “a of rotating blade arrangement” is unclear what the “a” refers to.
Claim 17, line 8 “a scissors-like cut” is unclear as written as the meets and bounds of the “-like” cannot be readily ascertained.
Claim 17, the last 2 sentences “the group of rotating blades…group of rotating blades” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether these group of rotating blades refer to the one or more rotating blades or additional rotating blades. Claim 18 has the same issue.
Please note that if the limitations are used the same throughout the claims, Applicant is required to use the same terminologies throughout the claims.
Claim 4 recites “vice versa” that is unclear where the rotating blade-holder is connected to.
Claim 7, the phrase recites “substantially helical line”. Applicant has provided no guidance to help the reader determine the scope of “substantially” in this situation. Is it a helical line or a straight line since it is substantially?
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claims 1, 14, 17 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 claims, respectively.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I.
Claim 15 limitation “processing members for processing the web material” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Because it uses a generic placeholder “members” coupled with functional languages “for processing the web material” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. See MPEP. 2181. Section A.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 15 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and or 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 § 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 1-3, 5-12, 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manfred (DE 102007058819 and translation) in view Markus (DE 4336955 and translation).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Manfred shows a device (Figure 1) with rotating blades (2 blades 8) for processing a web material (Para. 2), comprising:
a support structure (where the reference “6” is in Figure 1);
a rotating blade-holder (4), which rotates around a rotation axis and on which a rotating blade arrangement comprising the “one or more” rotating blades are arranged (Figure 1);
an anvil blade (12) mounted in a seat of a beam (a drum or a cutting salt 2) supported by said support structure and adapted to co-act with said rotating blade arrangement (Figure 1); wherein each of the rotating blades and the anvil blade are configured that, during rotation of the rotating blade-holder, each of the rotating blades and the anvil blade contact at a first end of the rotating blade and at a second end of the rotating blade (Figure 1);
a sensor (20-22) adapted to detect a parameter indicative of a mutual interaction between the rotating blade arrangement and the anvil blade generating a signal of mutual interaction between blades and anvil blade, said signal lasting for the time frame of interaction between the rotating blade and the anvil blade during the movement of the point of the contact from said first end to said second end (Paras. 8 and 23);
wherein said sensor comprises at least one load sensor arranged under the anvil blade, between the anvil blade and said seat of the beam (see Para. 9 “the sensor device…the forces acting between the cutting element and the cutting strip” and Figures 3-4 show the sensor 20 is under the anvil blade 12).
However, Manfred silently discusses that each of the rotating blades is spiral or helical or curved such that the point of contact between each of the rotating blades and the anvil blade gradually moving from the first end to the second end of the rotating blade.
Markus shows a similar device (Figures 2-3) that includes a helical blade (curved blade 3) such that the point of contact between the spiral blade and an anvil blade (5) gradually moving from the first end to the second end of the spiral blade.
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 each of the rotating blades of Manfred to be a helical blade, as taught by Markus, in order to allow the interact forces or cutting forces between the rotating blades and the anvil blade to be reduced and also reduce wear on the blades.
Regarding claims 2-3, the modified device of Manfred shows the load sensor comprises a matrix of load cells (there are at least 3 sensors 20-22 on the anvil drum, Figure 2) or a sensor adapted to detect an electrical parameter associated with each rotating blade and with the anvil blade (one of the at least three sensors).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified device of Manfred shows all of the limitations as stated above except that the anvil blade is stationary with respect to the support structure.
Markus shows two embodiments of the cutting devices; Figures 1-2 shows the anvil blade (5) is not rotated (as discussed issue above) and Figure 3 shows the anvil blade (5) is rotated.
Based on the teachings of two embodiments above, 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 anvil blade of Manfred to be stationary (as discussed above), as taught by Markus, in order to reduce a manufacture cost (use only one anvil blade).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the modified device of Manfred shows that the rotating blade arrangement comprises the rotating blades arranged at constant angular pitch around the rotation axis (see Figure 1 of Manfred).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the modified device of Manfred shows that each of the rotating blade arranged on the rotating blade-holder with a cutting edge thereof developing according to a “substantially” helical line and the anvil blade has a rectilinear edge (Figures 1-3 of Manfred and see the modification of claim 1 above for a helical rotating blade).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the modified device of Manfred shows that each of the rotating blades and the anvil blade are arranged that for each angle of rotation of the rotating blade-holder there is only one point of contact between only one rotating blade and the anvil blade (this is inherently limitation since the rotating blade is helical as seen in the modification above; the helical blade is only contacted the anvil blade at a time).
Regarding claims 9-11, the modified device of Manfred shows a control unit configured to analyze a signal given by the sensor (Para. 25 of Manfred), wherein the control unit is adapted to adjust automatically the mutual interaction between the rotating blade arrangement and the anvil blade (Para. 25 of Manfred “a control device…control the adjustment device depending on signals…sensor devices…”), where the automatic adjustment of the mutual interaction between the rotating blade arrangement and the anvil blade (see Para. 25 of Manfred).
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Manfred shows that the rotating blade arrangement and the anvil blade are configured to generate cutting lines along the web material and to cut the web material into sheets (Para. 1 “for cutting labels” and Figure 1 of Manfred).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Manfred shows a machine (the device as stated in claim 1) for processing a web material comprising a feed path of a web material (the feed path is inherently limitation because the web has to feed between the drums 4 and 2, Figure 1 of Manfred for cutting into individual labels), along which the web cutting device is arranged; wherein the device (see claim 1 above) comprises:
a support structure;
a rotating blade-holder, which rotates around a rotation axis and on which a rotating blade arrangement is arranged;
said rotating blade arrangement comprising the plurality of rotating blades (as discussed above);
an anvil blade mounted in a seat of a beam supported by said support structure and adapted to co-act with said rotating blade arrangement, wherein each of the rotating blades and the anvil blade are configured that, during rotation of the rotating blade-holder, each rotating blade and the anvil blade start reciprocal contact at a first end of the rotating blade, and terminate the reciprocal contact at a second end of the rotating blade (see the modification in claim 1 above for a helical rotating blade), the point of reciprocal contact between each rotating blade and the anvil blade gradually moving from the first end to the second end of the rotating blade (see the discussion in claim 1 above);
a sensor adapted to detect a parameter indicative of a mutual interaction between the rotating blade arrangement and the anvil blade generating a signal of mutual interaction between blades and anvil blade, said signal lasting for the time frame of interaction between the rotating blade and the anvil blade during the movement of the point of contact from said first end to said second end (see the modification in claim 1 above);
wherein said sensor comprises at least one load sensor arranged under the anvil blade, between the anvil blade and said seat of the beam (see the discussion in claim 1 above); and
wherein the feed path of the web material extends between the rotating blade- holder and the anvil blade (this limitation is inherently, in order to allow the web to be fed between the cutting drum and the anvil drum to be cut).
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Manfred shows processing members for processing the web material downstream of the cutting device (as it is written, it is unclear what processing members are and their functions, thus, Para. 1 of Manfred recites “continuous strips of labels are provided and then cut by a cutting device in order to finally be applied to the container in the cut form” that means there are many processing devices for applying labels on the containers, for examples, a label handling device, an aligning device for aligning label on the container and an applying label device for applying labels on the containers).
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Manfred shows that said machine is a rewinder (Para. 2 of Manfred).
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Manfred teaches a method for processing a continuous web material (see claims 1 and 16 above) comprising the steps of:
feeding the continuous web material along a feed path between a blade-holder comprising a of rotating blade arrangement comprising a plurality of rotating blades and an anvil blade supported in a seat of a beam whereon the anvil blade is mounted (see the discussion in claim 1 above);
acting on the web material through co-action between the rotating blade arrangement and the anvil blade (see the discussions of all claims above for cutting labels); wherein the rotating blade arrangement and the anvil blade act on the web material with a scissors-like cut (Figure 1 of Manfred), so that each rotating blade and the anvil blade co-act with each other in a point that translates, during rotation of the rotating blade, from a first end of the rotating blade to a second end of the rotating blade (see the modification in claim 1 above);
detecting at least one parameter indicative of a mutual interaction between the rotating blade arrangement and the anvil blade, through a sensor generating a signal of mutual interaction between the rotating blade arrangement blades and the anvil blade, said signal lasting for the time frame of interaction between the at least one rotating blade and the anvil blade during the movement of the point of contact from said first end to said second end (see the modification in claim 1 above);
wherein said sensor comprises at least one load sensor arranged under the anvil blade, between the anvil blade and said seat of the beam (see Figures 1-3 of Manfred); and wherein said at least one parameter is a reaction force generated on the anvil blade and caused by the interaction between the rotating blades and anvil blade (see the discussion in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 18, the modified device of Manfred teaches the step of detecting a further parameter, said further parameter comprising: an electrical parameter associated with the anvil blade and with the rotating blades (see the discussion in claim 1 above for the an electric sensor for detecting cutting forces between the rotating blade and the anvil blade).
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of Manfred teaches that the rotating blade arrangement comprises a plurality of rotating blades arranged at constant angular pitch, and wherein the rotating blades and the anvil blade are so arranged that during the rotation of the blade-holder only one rotating blade is in contact with the anvil blade (see the helical blade of the modified cutting device as stated in claim 1 above; the helical blade is allowed only one point contact between the anvil blade and the rotating blade at a time).
Regarding claim 20, the modified device of Manfred teaches that automatically adjusting the mutual interaction between the rotating blade arrangement and the anvil blade (see the discussion in claims 10-11 above).
Regarding claim 21, the modified device of Manfred teaches that acting on the web material through the co-action of the rotating blade arrangement and the anvil blade comprises a cutting the web material into individual sheets (see claim 12 above for “cutting device”).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manfred (DE 102007058819 and translation) in view Markus (DE 4336955 and translation) and Formon (WO 01/85407).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the modified device of Manfred shows all of the limitations as stated above including that the electrical parameter is a voltage applied between the anvil blade and the rotating blade arrangement (see the discussion in claim 3 for electrical parameter) and the modified device of Manfred does not discuss that a reference voltage is applied to the anvil blade and the rotating blade-holder is connected to a ground potential.
Formon shows that a reference voltage is applied to an anvil blade and a rotating blade-holder is connected to a ground potential (the last paragraph of page 18 “ the current could be provided to the rotating perforating blades 21 by positioning electrical brushes in contact with the shaft 20 and the anvil blades 45 could be grounded”).
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 Manfred to have a reference voltage is applied to an anvil blade and a rotating blade-holder is connected to a ground potential, as taught by Formon, in order to provide a feedback if a broken or dull blade, or an out of position anvil blade, the circuit will open (see the last paragraph of page 18 of Formon).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, the modified device of Manfred shows all of the limitations as stated above including the seat for the anvil blade comprises a stepped surface (Figure 4 of Manfred) with a first surface portion (24) and a second surface portion (18), the first surface portion being recessed with respect to the second surface portion (Figure 4 of Manfred) and wherein the load sensor (20) is arranged between the anvil blade and the first surface portion of the seat, however, Manfred does not discuss how the anvil blade is locked between the second surface portion and a locking bar.
Formon shows that a bar or a shoe 55 for locking an anvil blade 45 in place of an anvil drum (see the discussion of the shoe 55 in the middle specification “the shoe 55… for securing the anvil blade 45 within the groove 44”).
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 Manfred to have a bar for securing the anvil blade within the groove or seat, as taught by Formon, in order to allow the anvil blade to be secured with the seat.
Conclusion
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 on (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 11/13/2025