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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must
show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the two guide cylinder rod set forth in claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
3. Claims 1-4, 6, 12-14, and 17-18 are 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the original disclosure does not disclose that “the upper blade holder is provided with one of a straight knife, an oblique knife, a concave knife, or a curved knife, and the upper blade holder is configured to replace a blade with the straight knife, the oblique knife, or the concave knife to achieve vertical-motion shearing, or with the curved knife to achieve rolling-motion shearing.” The specification merely states that blades of different shapes may be switched or replaced when shearing strips having different thicknesses and widths. For example, paragraphs [0016]-[0018] indicate that different blade shapes may be selected to accommodate different operating conditions and production requirements. However, these passages only suggest that a blade may be replaced by a user or operator with another blade as needed. They do not disclose that the upper blade holder itself is configured to replace the blade.
Moreover, the specification fails to describe any structure, mechanism, or arrangement that would enable the upper blade holder to perform the claimed blade-replacement function. As shown in Fig. 1, the upper blade holder (5) is merely depicted as a holder. The disclosure does not describe any quick-change mechanism, mounting structure, fastening arrangement, actuator, or other feature that would support the claimed functionality.
In addition, the recitation that “the upper blade holder is configured to replace a blade” is itself unsupported by the original disclosure. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a blade holder to be a component that supports, mounts, or retains a blade. The act of replacing a blade is ordinarily performed by an operator or by a dedicated blade-changing mechanism, not by the blade holder itself. The specification does not attribute any blade-replacement capability to the upper blade holder, nor does it disclose any structure that would permit the holder itself to carry out such a function. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of an upper blade holder having the claimed blade-replacement capability. Accordingly, while the original disclosure may support that blades of different shapes can be used or exchanged, it does not reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed an upper blade holder configured to replace a blade with a straight knife, oblique knife, concave knife, or curved knife as recited in claim 1. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 1 lacks written-description support in the original disclosure and constitutes new matter.
Claims 1-4, 6, 12-14, and 17-18 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.
It should be noted that the specification does not provide any description of a blade holder that itself performs blade replacement. Consequently, the meaning of the recited limitation cannot be reasonably ascertained from the claim language in light of the specification, further contributing to the indefiniteness of the claim.
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “the upper blade holder is configured to replace a blade with the straight knife, the oblique knife, or the concave knife to achieve vertical-motion shearing, or with the curved knife to achieve rolling-motion shearing.” It is unclear what is meant by the limitation that “the upper blade holder is configured to replace a blade.” A blade holder is generally understood to be a structure that supports, mounts, or retains a blade. The claim language appears to attribute the act of replacing a blade to the upper blade holder itself. However, it is unclear how the holder performs such replacement, whether replacement is performed automatically, manually by an operator, or by a separate blade-changing mechanism, and what structural features of the upper blade holder allegedly provide the recited capability. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim because it is unclear whether the claim is directed to (i) an upper blade holder capable of receiving different blades, (ii) a blade holder having a blade-changing mechanism, (iii) a system in which an operator replaces blades mounted on the holder, or (iv) some other arrangement. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 and 6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Baur et al. (WO 2011045072 A1), hereinafter Baur (same as
CN 102596466 A, cited in the IDS filled on 10/03/2023), as is evidenced in Fig. 5
of Ma et al. CN 107363317 A; and Soderberg (1,986,685), in view of Becker
(2,779,409). Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Baur teaches an intelligent shearing mechanism, comprising an upper blade holder (defined by the holder of the upper blade 1 which is connected to the drive device 4; Fig. 2) and a lower blade holder (defined by the holder that is connected to the lower blade 2; best shown in Fig. 1c) that are provided on a frame (defined by the frame of the shearing machine that accommodates the upper and lower blades, as is evidenced in Fig. 5 of Ma et al. CN 107363317 A; and Soderberg (1,986,685)) and arranged correspondingly in a vertical direction, wherein a left connecting rod 4 and a right connecting rod 4 that are arranged side by side are provided between the upper blade holder and the frame, a left eccentric shaft (defined by the eccentric shaft used on one end of the rod 4; second paragraph on page 2 of the English translation) is provided at a joint of the left connecting rod and the frame, a right eccentric shaft (defined by the eccentric shaft used on one end of the rod 4; second paragraph on page 2 of the English translation) is provided at a joint of the right connecting rod and the frame, and at least one guide cylinder rod 3 (defined by the variable lateral guide which comprises a hydraulic or a pneumatic piston-cylinder; the large paragraph in the middle of page 4 of the attached English translation) is hinged (defined by the pivot point connection of the end of the guide cylinder rod to the upper blade holder and to the frame; claim 9 and Fig. 2) between the upper blade holder and the frame (Fig. 2), wherein the upper blade holder is provided with a curved knife configured to achieve rolling-motion shearing (as evidenced by the curved upper blade 1 and the rolling shearing action described throughout the reference).
Baur does not explicitly teach that the upper blade holder is configured to replace the curved knife with a straight knife to achieve vertical-motion shearing. Becker teaches a blade holder or lever arm 13 carrying a straight knife blade 12 and further teaches replacing the straight knife blade with a curved knife blade 12a depending upon the cutting operation to be performed (col. 4, lines 61-66; Fig. 5). Therefore, Becker teaches that the same blade holder may selectively receive either a straight blade or a curved blade. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the upper blade holder of Baur to be configured to selectively receive either a straight knife or a curved knife as taught by Becker in order to permit different shearing operations and accommodate different cutting requirements while utilizing the same blade holder structure. Accordingly, the combination of Baur and Becker teaches or suggests wherein the upper blade holder is provided with one of a straight knife or a curved knife, and the upper blade holder is configured to replace a blade with the straight knife to achieve vertical-motion shearing, or with the curved knife to achieve rolling-motion shearing.
Regarding claim 6, Baur teaches everything noted above including that a special-shaped structure of each of the upper blade holder and the lower blade holder on a horizontal projection thereof is in one of a triangular shape, an arc shape, a rectangular shape, or an oblique shape. See Fig. 2 in Baur.
7. Claims 2, 4, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur in view of Becker and in further view of Ishii et al. (4,079,649), hereinafter Ishii. Regarding claim 2, Baur teaches that guide cylinder 3 and a hinge point between the guide cylinder rod and the upper blade holder is located at a middle of a side in a length direction, or a top-end surface of the upper blade holder, or is located between the middle of the side and the top-end surface. See Fig. 2 in Baur. Baur does not explicitly teach two guide cylinders. However, Ishii teaches an intelligent shearing mechanism including a guide cylinder 17 (similar to the guide cylinder 3 of Baur) connected to an upper blade holder 16 and another guide cylinder 24 also connected to the upper blade holder 16. See Figs. 4-5 in Ishii. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Baur’s intelligent shearing mechanism, as modified by Becker, with another guide cylinder, as taught by Ishii, in order to adjust the gap between the upper and lower blades.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Baur does not explicitly teach that the upper blade holder is provided with at least one sliding plate and roller configured to be in slide cooperation with the frame in the vertical direction. However, Ishii teaches an intelligent shearing mechanism including an upper blade holder 15 is provided with at least one sliding plate 19 and roller 20 configured to be in slide cooperation with a frame 2 in a vertical direction. See Fig. 4 in Ishii. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Baur’s intelligent shearing mechanism with the sliding plate and roller, as taught by Ishii, in order to facilitate vertical sliding of the upper blade holder.
Regarding claim 17, Baur teaches everything noted above including that a special-shaped structure of each of the upper blade holder and the lower blade holder on a horizontal projection thereof is in one of a triangular shape, an arc shape, a rectangular shape, or an oblique shape. See Fig. 2 in Baur.
8. Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur in view of Becker and in further view of Thomas (DE 102007019963A1) or Ma et al. (CN 107363317 A), hereinafter Ma. Regarding claim 3, Baur does not explicitly teach that the left connecting rod and the right connecting rod are each in a cylinder rod structure. However, Thomas also teaches a shearing apparatus including a left connecting rod 8 and a right connecting rod 8 are each in a cylinder rod structure 21 (Fig. 4). Thomas teaches a left eccentric shaft 10 I provided at a joint of the left connecting rod 8 and a frame (of the shearing apparatus, not shown), and a right eccentric shaft 11 is provided at a joint of the right connecting rod 9 and the frame. Ma also teaches a shearing apparatus including a left connecting rod 1 and a right connecting rod 2 are each in a cylinder rod structure. See Fig. 1 in Ma. It would have been obvious in a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the left and right connecting rods of Baur’s intelligent shearing mechanism, as modified by Becker, with a cylinder rod structure, as taught by Thomas or Ma, in order to adjust the vertical position of the upper blade and provide yet another addition movement for the upper blade and enhance versatility of the shearing apparatus.
Regarding claim 18, Baur teaches everything noted above including that a special-shaped structure of each of the upper blade holder and the lower blade holder on a horizontal projection thereof is in one of a triangular shape, an arc shape, a rectangular shape, or an oblique shape. See Fig. 2 in Baur.
9. Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur in view of Becker and Ishii and in further view of Thomas or Ma. Regarding claim 12, Baur does not explicitly teach that the left connecting rod and the right connecting rod are each in a cylinder rod structure. However, Thomas also teaches a shearing apparatus including a left connecting rod 8 and a right connecting rod 8 are each in a cylinder rod structure 21 (Fig. 4). Thomas teaches a left eccentric shaft 10 I provided at a joint of the left connecting rod 8 and a frame (of the shearing apparatus, not shown), and a right eccentric shaft 11 is provided at a joint of the right connecting rod 9 and the frame. Ma also teaches a shearing apparatus including a left connecting rod 1 and a right connecting rod 2 are each in a cylinder rod structure. See Fig. 1 in Ma. It would have been obvious in a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide left and right connecting rods of Baur’s intelligent shearing mechanism, as modified above, with a cylinder rod structure, as taught by Thomas or Ma, in order to adjust the vertical position of the upper blade and provide yet another addition movement for the upper blade and enhance versatility of the shearing apparatus.
10. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur in view Becker and Thomas or Ma, and in further view of Ishii. Regarding claim 14, Baur does not explicitly teach that the upper blade holder is provided with at least one sliding plate and roller configured to be in slide cooperation with the frame in the vertical direction. However, Ishii teaches an intelligent shearing mechanism including an upper blade holder 15 is provided with at least one sliding plate 19 and roller 20 configured to be in slide cooperation with a frame 2 in a vertical direction. See Fig. 4 in Ishii. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Baur’s intelligent shearing mechanism, as modified above, with the sliding plate and roller, as taught by Ishii, in order to facilitate vertical sliding of the upper blade holder.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant argument that Figs. 1 and 16 show two guide cylinder rod (6) is not persuasive. Figs. 1 and 16 merely show a single guide cylinder rod. Therefore, the objection to the drawings are maintained.
Applicant’s argument that Baur does not teach the amended limitations set forth in claim 1 is not persuasive. First, amended limitation introduces new matter. Second, as shown above Baur in combination with other reference teach the subject matter of claim 1.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Scherbakov et al. (CN 1042677 A), Holton et al. (1,459,889), and Soderberg (1,986,685) teach an intelligent shearing mechanism.
13. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
June 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights