DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to ArgumentsApplicant’s arguments and remarks, see (Pgs. 8 – 10), filed on (2 – 18 – 2026_, with respect to the amended feature(s) of claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mitsuhiro et al. (JP 2000263535 A, hereinafter Mitsuhiro) in view of Hommochi et al. (US 20080310935 A1, hereainafter Hommochi US20080310935A1) and in further view of Kurt et al. (The Effects of Blade Angle on Blade Stresses During Cutting of Different Kinds of Paper Materials, 2009) or Atsuo et al. (JP 2003045738 A, hereinafter Atsuo) in view of Hommochi and in further view of Kurt
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 – 9 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(s) 1 recites the limitation "the edge" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Highlighting, applicant does have sufficient antecedent basis for “linear edge”, for the purpose of examination it will be understood to be the same “linear edge”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
A.) Claim(s) 1 – 2, 4 & 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhiro et al. (JP 2000263535 A, hereinafter Mitsuhiro) in view of Hommochi et al. (US 20080310935 A1, hereainafter Hommochi) and in further view of Kurt et al. (The Effects of Blade Angle on Blade Stresses During Cutting of Different Kinds of Paper Materials, 2009)Regarding claim 1,
A method for cutting a multilayer base, the method comprising:
placing the multilayer base on a support,
the multilayer base including ceramic green sheets and
electrode layers stacked alternately; and
cutting the multilayer base by moving a cutting blade through the multilayer base in a direction parallel to a surface of the support on which the multilayer base is placed,
the cutting blade including a linear edge having a tip,
the cutting blade being moved such that the edge is inclined with respect to a moving direction of the cutting blade by an inclination angle of 15° to 80°,
wherein the tip has an angle of 30° to 75° as viewed from a lateral direction.
Mitsuhiro teaches the following:
([0024]) teaches as illustrated in (Fig. 1), a green sheet (laminate block) 2 is placed on a table 1, and the green sheet 2 is held on the table 1 by vacuum suction.
([0041]) teaches that an example has been described in which a laminated block (green sheet) formed by stacking and pressing ceramic green sheets.
([0036]) teaches the green sheet (not shown) having internal electrodes arranged thereon, it is possible to cut the sheet so that the cut surface is vertical, thereby making it possible to prevent the internal electrodes from being exposed from the cut surface.
([0028]) teaches that the cutting blade 4 is lowered to cut the green sheet 2 while preventing the green sheet 2 from being deformed. As illustrated in (Fig. 3) the cutting blade 4 comprises an edge that is linear through the multilayer base in a direction parallel to a surface of the support on which the multilayer base is placed.
PNG
media_image1.png
478
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
& f.) As illustrated in (Fig. 3) and recreated here, the cutting blade 4 is found to have an arrow showing the vertical movement of the blade through the green sheet 2 on the table 1. Additionally, cutting blade is how to include a linear edge having a tip. As detailed in the recreated image, the blade is found to have an edge(s) inclined at less than 90 ° along the side of the blade, these edges are found to be linear through the multilayer base in a direction parallel to a surface of the support, thus the blade being moved vertically is found to have an edge inclined with respect to the vertical moving direction of the cutting blade 4.
Regarding Claim 1, Mitsuhiro is silent on details regarding the cutting blade being moved such that the edge is inclined with respect to a moving direction of the cutting blade by an inclination angle of 15° to 80°. In analogous art for an apparatus utilized for cutting a multilayer bundle, (Abstract), Hommochi suggests details regarding the cutting blade being moved such that the edge is inclined with respect to a moving direction of the cutting blade by an inclination angle of 15° to 80, and in this regard, Hommochi teaches the following:
([0062]) teaches that right cams C1 a and C1 b and the left cams C2 a and C2 b incline the cutting blade 120 a in the opposite directions, respectively. The inclination angles on the right and left sides to the sheets are equal and are set to a proper angle such as 30° or the like based on experiments. ([0061]) notes that That since the cutting blade is inclined toward the cutting direction and gradually cuts the sheet bundle, the cutting load is minimized, and the miniaturization and light weight of the apparatus are accomplished. Highlighting, that an inclination angle of 30° (which is optimized based on experiments) is understood to be disclosed which falls within applications range of an inclination angle of 15° to 80°. Furthermore, it has been noted that the inclination angle is optimized through routine experimentation. Accordingly, the case law for optimization within prior art conditions and routine experimentation may be recited. Where, the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for cutting a green sheet, and more specifically, a method for cutting a green sheet by holding the green sheet on a table and inserting a cutting blade into the green sheet of Mitsuhiro. By modifying the cutting apparatus to comprise a cutting blade being moved such that the edge is inclined with an inclination angle of an angle such as 30° or the like based on experiments, as taught by Hommochi . Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a cutting blade being moved such that the edge is inclined with an inclination angle such as 30° or the like based on experiments as it provides for the cutting load on the blade to be minimized, ([0061]). Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 1, Mitsuhiro as modified by Hommochi is silent on details regarding the cutting blade having a tip with an angle of 30° to 75° as viewed from a lateral direction. In analogous art for cutting a surface with a blade, (¶1), Kurt suggests details regarding the cutting blade having a tip with an angle of 30° to 75° as viewed from a lateral direction, and in this regard, Kurt teaches the following:
(Pg. 633, Abstract) teaches that in the analyses, according to changes to blade angles of 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 30°, changes have been observed in maximum principal stress, S1, minimum principal stress, S3 and von Mises stresses, SEQV. In conclusion; since Von Mises stresses and especially max. compressive stresses (min. principal stress, S3) occurred at the lowest level for paper pulp I, paper pulp II, coated paper and Bristol papers, it has been observed that for increased durability of the knife the critical blade angle in terms of abrasion/breakage of the blade should be 28° rather than the more widely used angle of 24°. A blade angle below 22° is not advised. (Pg. 633, Introduction, ¶2) teaches that main reason for this is that hard cutting materials display great resistance during cutting. Blade angles also have an important place in cutting jobs. Blades with small angles require less cutting strength compared to blades with larger angles. Blades with small angles cannot remain strong in hard and flexible cutting materials; they will bend or eventually wear out. For example, a blade with a small angle is not forced with soft and high stowing but it is forced with hard stowing and so it is quickly worn out. As such, the blades angle is understood to impact several characteristics of the blade when used for cutting, including the cutting strength, quickly wears out and impacts both the hardness and flexibility of the blade when used with hard cutting materials, eventually being and wear out. (Pg. 634, Fig. 3) shows the load distributions on the blade and the blade angle (α). (Pg. 638 – Pg. 639) comprises (Fig. 11) which shows different models formed with angles of 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 30° for type of blade to have been used to investigate stresses on the blade angle (α). Highlighting, as shown in (Fig. 3) the blade angle (α) comprises the tip having an angle of as viewed from a lateral direction. Highlighting, that the disclosed range of the blade angle (α) from 20 to 30° is understood to overlap with applicant’s range of 30° to 75° (as viewed from a lateral direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for cutting a green sheet, and more specifically, a method for cutting a green sheet by holding the green sheet on a table and inserting a cutting blade into the green sheet of Mitsuhiro as modified by Hommochi. By further modifying the cutting apparatus to comprise a cutting blade that comprises an optimizing having a tip with a blade angle of 20° to 30°, as taught by Kurt. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a cutting blade that comprises a tip with a blade angle of 20° to 30° and optimizing the blade angle due to tailoring and impacting several characteristics of the blade when used for cutting, including the cutting strength, quickly wears out and impacts both the hardness and flexibility of the blade when used with hard cutting materials, eventually being and wear out, (Pg. 633, Introduction, ¶2). Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the cutting is performed with an uncut portion of the multilayer base held between the support and a holding plate.
PNG
media_image2.png
450
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mitsuhiro teaches the following:
([0031]) teaches as illustrated in (Fig. 3), an L-shaped contact portion 13a of a pressing means 13 is brought into contact with the vicinity of the ridge portion consisting of the upper surface 22 and the side surface 23 of the green sheet 2 (2a) on the side to be cut out.
PNG
media_image3.png
560
433
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the tip is a pointed tip.
Mitsuhiro teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Fig. 3) (and provided within), the blade is found to have a pointed tip, that is highlighted by the circle.
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the cutting blade includes vertical ends fixed to fixing members, and
the fixing members move in synchronization.
Mitsuhiro teaches that following:
& b.) ([0003]) teaches as illustrated in (Fig. 8) fixing of the green sheet 52 is done by a method such as suction or adhesion, and this is followed by the lowering of the cutting blade 54 held by a holder 53 to cut the green sheet 52 by inserting the cutting blade 54 into the green sheet 52 as shown in (Fig. 9). Highlighting, while only a single blade / fixing member is shown the entirety of the blade including the fixing member is found to move with synchronization. Accordingly, the duplication of parts may be recited regarding implementing a plurality of a holders / blades. Where, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.
B.) Claim(s) 1 – 2 & 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsuo et al. (JP 2003045738 A, hereinafter Atsuo) in view of Hommochi and in further view of Kurt
Regarding claim 1,
A method for cutting a multilayer base, the method comprising:
placing the multilayer base on a support,
the multilayer base including ceramic green sheets and
electrode layers stacked alternately; and
cutting the multilayer base by moving a cutting blade through the multilayer base in a direction parallel to a surface of the support on which the multilayer base is placed,
the cutting blade including a linear edge having a tip,
the cutting blade being moved such that the edge is inclined with respect to a moving direction of the cutting blade by an inclination angle of 15° to 80°,
wherein the tip has an angle of 30° to 75° as viewed from a lateral direction.
Atsuo teaches the following:
([0017]) teaches that a laminate block 11 is fixed on a base 10 having a horizontal upper surface, and the laminate block 11 is cut with a blade 12.
& c.) ([0018]) teaches that (Fig. 4) is a partially cutaway oblique view of a multilayer ceramic capacitor in one embodiment, in which external electrodes 23 are formed on both end faces where the conductive layers 22 of a laminate in which dielectric layers 21 and conductive layers 22 are alternately stacked are exposed.
As illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 3), cutting of the laminate block 11 is done by moving a blade 12 including an edge of the blade 12 being linear through the multilayer base in a direction parallel to a surface of the support on which the multilayer base is placed.
([0027]) teaches that the angle of the blade tip is set to 10 degrees to 20 degrees so that when cutting the laminate block 11, the laminate is not deformed due to the thickness of the blade tip.
Regarding Claim 1, Atsuo is silent on details regarding the cutting blade being moved such that the edge is inclined with respect to a moving direction of the cutting blade by an inclination angle of 15° to 80°. In analogous art for an apparatus utilized for cutting a multilayer bundle, (Abstract), Hommochi suggests details regarding the cutting blade being moved such that the edge is inclined with respect to a moving direction of the cutting blade by an inclination angle of 15° to 80, and in this regard, Hommochi teaches the following:
([0062]) teaches that right cams C1 a and C1 b and the left cams C2 a and C2 b incline the cutting blade 120 a in the opposite directions, respectively. The inclination angles on the right and left sides to the sheets are equal and are set to a proper angle such as 30° or the like based on experiments. ([0061]) notes that That since the cutting blade is inclined toward the cutting direction and gradually cuts the sheet bundle, the cutting load is minimized, and the miniaturization and light weight of the apparatus are accomplished. Highlighting, that an inclination angle of 30° (which is optimized based on experiments) is understood to be disclosed which falls within applications range of an inclination angle of 15° to 80°. Furthermore, it has been noted that the inclination angle is optimized through routine experimentation. Accordingly, the case law for optimization within prior art conditions and routine experimentation may be recited. Where, the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for cutting a ceramic component having superior shape accuracy of Atsuo. By modifying the cutting apparatus to comprise a cutting blade being moved such that the edge is inclined with an inclination angle of an angle such as 30° or the like based on experiments, as taught by Hommochi . Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a cutting blade being moved such that the edge is inclined with an inclination angle such as 30° or the like based on experiments as it provides for the cutting load on the blade to be minimized, ([0061]). Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 1, Atsuo as modified by Hommochi is silent on details regarding the cutting blade having a tip with an angle of 30° to 75° as viewed from a lateral direction. In analogous art for cutting a surface with a blade, (¶1), Kurt suggests details regarding the cutting blade having a tip with an angle of 30° to 75° as viewed from a lateral direction, and in this regard, Kurt teaches the following:
(Pg. 633, Abstract) teaches that in the analyses, according to changes to blade angles of 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 30°, changes have been observed in maximum principal stress, S1, minimum principal stress, S3 and von Mises stresses, SEQV. In conclusion; since Von Mises stresses and especially max. compressive stresses (min. principal stress, S3) occurred at the lowest level for paper pulp I, paper pulp II, coated paper and Bristol papers, it has been observed that for increased durability of the knife the critical blade angle in terms of abrasion/breakage of the blade should be 28° rather than the more widely used angle of 24°. A blade angle below 22° is not advised. (Pg. 633, Introduction, ¶2) teaches that main reason for this is that hard cutting materials display great resistance during cutting. Blade angles also have an important place in cutting jobs. Blades with small angles require less cutting strength compared to blades with larger angles. Blades with small angles cannot remain strong in hard and flexible cutting materials; they will bend or eventually wear out. For example, a blade with a small angle is not forced with soft and high stowing but it is forced with hard stowing and so it is quickly worn out. As such, the blades angle is understood to impact several characteristics of the blade when used for cutting, including the cutting strength, quickly wears out and impacts both the hardness and flexibility of the blade when used with hard cutting materials, eventually being and wear out. (Pg. 634, Fig. 3) shows the load distributions on the blade and the blade angle (α). (Pg. 638 – Pg. 639) comprises (Fig. 11) which shows different models formed with angles of 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 30° for type of blade to have been used to investigate stresses on the blade angle (α). Highlighting, as shown in (Fig. 3) the blade angle (α) comprises the tip having an angle of as viewed from a lateral direction. Highlighting, that the disclosed range of the blade angle (α) from 20 to 30° is understood to overlap with applicant’s range of 30° to 75° (as viewed from a lateral direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for cutting a ceramic component having superior shape accuracy of Atsuo as modified by Hommochi. By further modifying the cutting apparatus to comprise a cutting blade that comprises an optimizing having a tip with a blade angle of 20° to 30°, as taught by Kurt. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a cutting blade that comprises a tip with a blade angle of 20° to 30° and optimizing the blade angle due to tailoring and impacting several characteristics of the blade when used for cutting, including the cutting strength, quickly wears out and impacts both the hardness and flexibility of the blade when used with hard cutting materials, eventually being and wear out, (Pg. 633, Introduction, ¶2). Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the cutting is performed with an uncut portion of the multilayer base held between the support and a holding plate.
Atsuo teaches the following:
([0030]) teaches that although not shown, by applying pressure from the upper surfaces on both sides of the intended cutting position of the laminated block 11, it is possible to prevent the laminated block 11 from shifting position during cutting, thereby enabling cutting with high precision. Highlighting, that the cutting illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 3) is provided on an uncut portion of the multilayer base.Accordingly, the application of pressure from above is understood to be cutting that is performed with an uncut portion of the multilayer base held between the support and a holding plate
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the multilayer base is a flat plate including a plurality of stacks aligned in a same direction and
fixed with a resin.
Atsuo teaches the following:
& b.) ([0019]) teaches that first a layer comprising a ceramic sheet to become the dielectric layer 21 is prepared by a doctor blade method using ceramic powder containing barium titanate as the main component, a binder such as acrylic resin or polyvinyl butyral resin, and a plasticizer such as dibutyl phthalate. ([0020]) teaches that the ceramic sheet is cut, and a plurality of conductive layers 22 made of Ni powder as the main component and ethyl cellulose, acrylic resin, polyvinyl butyral resin or the like are formed on the surface by screen printing. The conductive layer 22 is a rectangular parallelepiped having a length of 2 mm, a width of 3 mm and a thickness of 2 to 2.5 μm, and about 100 of them are aligned lengthwise and widthwise on the ceramic sheet. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Fig. 4) a cutaway view of a multilayer ceramic capacitor is provided that shows the dielectric layers 21 and conductive layers 22 in an alternately stacked manner.Accordingly, either set of layers i.e., dielectric layers 21 and conductive layers 22 may act as the a plurality of stacks aligned in a same direction. Due to the alternately stacked manner each set of layers (layers 10 and layers 11) are found, as it provides for the next respective next layer within the layer set to be aligned with previous layer within the layer set and is fixed with a resin as each set of layers (dielectric layers 21 and conductive layers 22) comprises a binder such as acrylic resin / polyvinyl butyral resin for the dielectric layers 21 or acrylic resin / polyvinyl butyral resin or the like for the conductive layers 22.
C.) Claim(s) 3 & 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhiro in view of Hommochi in view of Kurt and in further view of Takashima Takeshi (JP 2008243976 A, hereinafter Takeshi)Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the cutting is performed with the multilayer base being heated.
Regarding Claim 3, Mitsuhiro as modified by Hommochi and Kurt is silent on cutting being performed with the multilayer base being heated. In analogous art regarding the cutting of multilayer intermediate body comprised of a ceramic electronic component, (Abstract), Takeshi suggests details regarding the cutting being performed with the multilayer base being heated, and in this regard, Takeshi teaches the following:
([0015]) teaches that the process comprise a cutting step S3, a separation step S4, a firing step S5. ([0035]) teaches that the cutting step S3 and the separating step S4 correspond to a first laminate obtaining step, and a first laminate 31 is obtained through the cutting step S3 and the separating step S4. As such, the cutting and separating step are understood to be a single step of obtaining plurality of cut / sized laminates, used for the firing step S5. ([0036]) notes that the aminate obtained in the cutting step S3 is heated to be dried, de-bindered, and fired. As such, the cutting and heating are understood to be preformed in sequence. Accordingly, the case law for sequential vs simultaneous steps may be recited. Where, generally, no invention is involved in the broad concept of performing simultaneously operations which have previously been performed in sequence. In re Tatincloux, 108 USPQ 125, MPEP 2144.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for cutting a green sheet, and more specifically, a method for cutting a green sheet by holding the green sheet on a table and inserting a cutting blade into the green sheet of Mitsuhiro as modified by Hommochi and Kurt. By further modifying the method to include firing step in which the green sheet after cutting / sizing is dried, de-bindered, and fired, as taught by Takeshi. Highlighting, one would be motivated include a step of firing step in which the green sheet after cutting / sizing is dried, de-bindered, and fired as it provides for obtaining the a multilayer ceramic article / capacitor, ([0036]). Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the multilayer base is a flat plate including a plurality of stacks aligned in a same direction and
fixed with a resin.
Regarding Claim 9, Mitsuhiro as modified by Hommochi and Kurt is silent on details regarding the multilayer base is a flat plate including a plurality of stacks aligned in a same direction and fixed with a resin. In analogous art as applied above, Takeshi suggests details regarding the multilayer base is a flat plate including a plurality of stacks aligned in a same direction and fixed with a resin, and in this regard, Takeshi teaches the following:
& b.) ([0020]) teaches that the ceramic green sheets are obtained by mixing and dispersing a dielectric material mainly composed of barium titanate with a binder resin (e.g., an organic binder resin), a solvent, a plasticizer, etc., and applying the ceramic slurry onto a support and then drying the same. The first and second electrode patterns 11, 21 are formed, for example, by printing an electrode paste on the upper surfaces of the first and second ceramic green sheets 10, 20 and then drying the same. The electrode paste is a paste-like composition in which a metal powder such as Ni, Ag, or Pd is mixed with a binder resin, a solvent, and the like. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Figs. 2 & 6) a cutaway view of a multilayer ceramic capacitor is provided that shows the layers 10 and layers 11 in an alternately stacked manner.Accordingly, either set of layers i.e., layers 10 and layers 11 may act as the a plurality of stacks aligned in a same direction. Due to the alternately stacked manner each set of layers (layers 10 and layers 11) are found, as it provides for the next respective next layer within the layer set to be aligned with previous layer within the layer set and is fixed with a resin as each set of layers (layers 10 and layers 11) comprises a binder / resin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for cutting a green sheet, and more specifically, a method for cutting a green sheet by holding the green sheet on a table and inserting a cutting blade into the green sheet of Mitsuhiro as modified by Hommochi and Kurt. By further modifying the structure being cut to comprise a multilayer base that is a includes a plurality of stacks aligned in a same direction fixed with resin, as taught by Takeshi. Highlighting, one would be motivated to utilize a multilayer base is a flat plate including a plurality of stacks aligned in a same direction and fixed with a resin as it provides a known means for ceramic sheets to stacked together so that the conductive layers face each other with the ceramic sheet therebetween, to prepare a laminated block, ([0020]).Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. Additionally, the use of a known material, namely acrylic resin / polyvinyl butyral resin or acrylic resin / polyvinyl butyral resin or the like for its intended use, i.e., a dielectric layers or conductive layers, respectively, in a known environment i.e., an electronic ceramic components, provides for the recitation of known material in the art. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.D.) Claim(s) 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhiro in view of Hommochi in view of Kurt and in further view of Fischer et al. (DE 202021101889 U1, hereinafter Fischer)
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the support includes a magnet
Regarding Claim 5, Mitsuhiro as modified by Hommochi and Kurt is silent on details regarding the support including a magnet. In analogous art directed towards the same problem, namely a cutting device for cutting narrow strips from a strip of material, (Abstract), Fischer suggests details regarding the support including a magnet, and in this regard, Takeshi teaches the following:
([0060]) teaches that a gripping device 5 is also provided, comprising on the one hand a hold-down section 17 which fixes the material strip on the knife table 14 during the cut, and a magnetic element 18 which is magnetically coupled to an element 8 of the material strip 3 located directly below it, so that the cut strip 2 is magnetically connected to the gripping device 5 or the hold-down section 17 and can be transported away via the gripping device 5. ([0061]) noting that the hold-down section 17is provided with a recess 23 in the form of an elongated slot through which the knife 10 cuts.Highlighting, as illustrated in (Fig. 1) the support system includes a table and a hold-down section overlayed on the strip of material with a recess used to fix the material strip on the table and protect the material for cutting in the wrong area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for cutting a green sheet, and more specifically, a method for cutting a green sheet by holding the green sheet on a table and inserting a cutting blade into the green sheet of Mitsuhiro as modified by Hommochi and Kurt. By further modifying the support system to include a hold-down section which fixes the material strip on the table during the cut, with a magnetic element, as taught by Takeshi. Highlighting, one would be motivated to utilize support system includes a table and a hold-down section overlayed on the strip of material with a recess, as taught by Fischer. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include a support system includes a table and a hold-down section overlayed on the strip of material with a recess as it provides for fixing the material strip on the table and protect the material for cutting in the wrong area, ([0061]). Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
E.) Claim(s) 6 – 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhiro in view of Hommochi in view of Kurt and in further view of Michel Vanhoudt (EP 1584437 A1, hereinafter Vanhoudt)Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein a plurality of the cutting blades is located on a holder at intervals in a direction orthogonal to the moving direction, and
the cutting is performed by moving the holder.
Regarding Claim 6, Mitsuhiro as modified by Hommochi and Kurt is silent on details regarding the cutting blades being located on a holder at intervals in a direction orthogonal to the moving direction, and the cutting is performed by moving the holder. In analogous art for moving a monolith by a conveyor with respect to a position of circular saw blades, (Abstract), Vanhoudt suggests details regarding the cutting blades being located on a holder at intervals in a direction orthogonal to the moving direction, and the cutting is performed by moving the holder, and in this regard, Vanhoudt teaches the following:
& b.) ([0012] & [0024]) teaches that the blades are mounted equidistantly on a drive shaft (17) driven by a motor (18) with an equal intermediate distance or a distance equal to dimension of a construction block (11) to be fabricated. The monolith block is cut by the blades along longitudinal direction and transversal direction. Accordingly, plurality of the cutting blades is located on a holder / shaft 17 at intervals in a direction orthogonal to the moving direction such that the cutting is performed by moving / rotating the holder by the motor (18). Highlighting, the spacing of the plurality of the cutting blades on the holder / shaft 17 is understood to be a result effective variable that impacts and tailors the dimension of a construction block to be fabricated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for cutting a green sheet, and more specifically, a method for cutting a green sheet by holding the green sheet on a table and inserting a cutting blade into the green sheet of Mitsuhiro as modified by Hommochi and Kurt. By further modifying the apparatus to include a plurality of blades spaced at optimized distances from each other equal to a dimension of a block to be fabricated, as taught by Vanhoudt. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include a plurality of blades spaced at optimized distances from each other as it provides for fabricating a plurality of equal articles of equal dimensions to that of the optimized distances of the blades, ([0012 & [0024]). Accordingly, the due to the spacing of the plurality of the cutting blades on the holder / shaft being recognized as result effective variable the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 6,
Wherein the plurality of cutting blades is located on the holder at different positions in the moving direction.
Regarding Claim 7, Mitsuhiro as modified by Hommochi and Kurt is silent on details regarding the cutting blades being located on a holder at intervals in a direction orthogonal to the moving direction, and the cutting is performed by moving the holder. In analogous art as applied above in claim 6, Vanhoudt suggests details regarding the cutting blades being located on a holder at intervals in a direction orthogonal to the moving direction, and the cutting is performed by moving the holder, and in this regard, Vanhoudt teaches the following:
([0012] & [0024]) teaches that the blades are mounted equidistantly on a drive shaft (17) driven by a motor (18) with an equal intermediate distance or a distance equal to dimension of a construction block (11) to be fabricated. The monolith block is cut by the blades along longitudinal direction and transversal direction. Accordingly, plurality of the cutting blades is located on a holder / shaft 17 at intervals in a direction orthogonal to the moving direction such that the cutting is performed by moving / rotating the holder by the motor (18). Highlighting, the spacing of the plurality of the cutting blades on the holder / shaft 17 is understood to be a result effective variable that impacts and tailors the dimension of a construction block to be fabricated.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 7, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the cutting blade includes vertical ends fixed to fixing members, and
the fixing members move in synchronization.
Mitsuhiro teaches that following:
([0003]) teaches as illustrated in (Fig. 8) fixing of the green sheet 52 is done by a method such as suction or adhesion, and this is followed by the lowering of the cutting blade 54 held by a holder 53 to cut the green sheet 52 by inserting the cutting blade 54 into the green sheet 52 as shown in (Fig. 9). Highlighting, while only a single blade / fixing member is shown the entirety of the blade including the fixing member is found to move with synchronization
Regarding Claim 8, Mitsuhiro as modified by Hommochi and Kurt is silent on details regarding the cutting blades being located on a holder at intervals in a direction orthogonal to the moving direction, and the cutting is performed by moving the holder. In analogous art as applied above in claim 6, Vanhoudt suggests details regarding the cutting blades being located on a holder at intervals in a direction orthogonal to the moving direction, and the cutting is performed by moving the holder, and in this regard, Vanhoudt teaches the following:
([0012] & [0024]) teaches that the blades are mounted equidistantly on a drive shaft (17) driven by a motor (18) with an equal intermediate distance or a distance equal to dimension of a construction block (11) to be fabricated. The monolith block is cut by the blades along longitudinal direction and transversal direction. Accordingly, plurality of the cutting blades is located on a holder / shaft 17 at intervals in a direction orthogonal to the moving direction such that the cutting is performed by moving / rotating the holder by the motor (18). Highlighting, that due to the plurality of the cutting blades all being located on the same holder / drive shaft driven by an engine it is understood that the plurality of the cutting blades move in synchronization.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 7, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.F.) Claim(s) 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhiro in view of Hommochi in view of Kurt and in further view of Crozier Owen (US 1405671 A, hereinafter Owen)
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the cutting blade includes vertical ends fixed to fixing members, and
the fixing members move in synchronization.
Mitsuhiro teaches that following:
([0003]) teaches as illustrated in (Fig. 8) fixing of the green sheet 52 is done by a method such as suction or adhesion, and this is followed by the lowering of the cutting blade 54 held by a holder 53 to cut the green sheet 52 by inserting the cutting blade 54 into the green sheet 52 as shown in (Fig. 9). Highlighting, while only a single blade / fixing member is shown the entirety of the blade including the fixing member is found to move with synchronization
Regarding Claim 8, Mitsuhiro as modified by Hommochi and Kurt is silent on details regarding the cutting blades being located on a holder at intervals in a direction orthogonal to the moving direction, and the cutting is performed by moving the holder. In analogous art for an apparatus and processes for dividing a shaped articles by cutting, (Abstract), Owen suggests details regarding the cutting blades being located on a holder at intervals in a direction orthogonal to the moving direction, and the cutting is performed by moving the holder, and in this regard, Owen teaches the following:
& b.) (Col. 2, lines 8 - 11) teaches that as illustrated in (Fig. 7) is a perspective view showing a simple embodiment of the invention in which a plurality of cutters are provided, for making a plurality of cuts simultaneously, provided is a simple and effective method of securing and tautening the cutters in its frame 17. Highlighting, that tautening the cutters in its frame 17 is provided with a tapered thread 7 to receive a binding nut 14. The member 13 extends through an opening 15 in the frame and is provided with a wing nut 16 by which the device can be drawn outwardly and the cutter thereby tensioned and made suitably taut. Highlighting, that the plurality of cutters and the fixing members is found to move with synchronization are the frame is moved up and down to preform a cutting operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for cutting a green sheet, and more specifically, a method for cutting a green sheet by holding the green sheet on a table and inserting a cutting blade into the green sheet of Mitsuhiro as modified by Hommochi and Kurt. By further modifying the holding device to comprise a frame with a tapered thread 7 to receive a binding nut 14 and the member 13 extends through an opening 15 in the frame and is provided with a wing nut 16 by which the device can be drawn outwardly, as taught by Owen. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include the above structure as it provides for providing a plurality of cutters that are thereby tensioned and are able to made suitably taut for cutting operations, (Col. 2, lines 8 – 11).G.) Claim(s) 2 & 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsuo in view of Hommochi in view of Kurt and in further view of Mitsuhiro Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the cutting is performed with an uncut portion of the multilayer base held between the support and a holding plate.
Regarding Claim 2, Atsuo as modified by Hommochi and Kurt is silent on details regarding the cutting is performed with an uncut portion of the multilayer base held between the support and a holding plate. In analogous art for cutting and obtaining laminated ceramic electronic components, (Abstract), Mitsuhiro suggests details regarding the cutting blades being located on a holder at intervals in a direction orthogonal to the moving direction, and the cutting is performed by moving the holder, and in this regard, Mitsuhiro teaches the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
450
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0031]) teaches as illustrated in (Fig. 3), an L-shaped contact portion 13a of a pressing means 13 is brought into contact with the vicinity of the ridge portion consisting of the upper surface 22 and the side surface 23 of the green sheet 2 (2a) on the side to be cut out.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for cutting a ceramic component having superior shape accuracy of Atsuo as modified by Kurt. By further modifying the cutting is performed with an uncut portion of the multilayer base held between the support and a holding plate, as taught by Mitsuhiro. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include a cutting operation that is performed with an uncut portion of the multilayer base held between the support and a holding plate as it provides for applying a downward force, it is possible to reliably press down both the upper surface and the side surfaces 23 of the green sheet 2 thereby cutting the green sheet 2 while preventing deformation of the green sheet 2, ([0031]).
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the cutting blade includes a pointed tip.
Regarding Claim 4, Atsuo as modified by Hommochi and Kurt is silent on the cutting blade includes a pointed tip. In analogous art as applied above, Mitsuhiro suggests details regarding the cutting blade including a pointed tip, and in this regard, Mitsuhiro teaches the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
560
433
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Fig. 3) (and provided within), the blade is found to have a pointed tip, that is highlighted by the circle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for cutting a ceramic component having superior shape accuracy of Atsuo as modified by Hommochi and Kurt. By further modifying the cutting bladed to comprise a pointed tip, as taught by Mitsuhiro. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include a cutting blade that comprise a pointed tip as it provides for reliably cut the sheet into a predetermined shape and size using a cutting blade, ([0007]). Highlighting, that the case law for the change of shape may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
H.) Claim(s) 3 & 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsuo in view of Hommochi in view of Kurt and in further view of Takeshi Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the cutting is performed with the multilayer base being heated.
Regarding Claim 8, Atsuo as modified by Hommochi and Kurt is silent on cutting being performed with the multilayer base being heated. In analogous art regarding the cutting of multilayer intermediate body comprised of a ceramic electronic component, (Abstract), Takeshi suggests details regarding the cutting being performed with the multilayer base being heated, and in this regard, Takeshi teaches the following:
([0015]) teaches that the process comprise a cutting step S3, a separation step S4, a firing step S5. ([0035]) teaches that the cutting step S3 and the separating step S4 correspond to a first laminate obtaining step, and a first laminate 31 is obtained through the cutting step S3 and the separating step S4. As such, the cutting and separating step are understood to be a single step of obtaining plurality of cut / sized laminates, used for the firing step S5. ([0036]) notes that the aminate obtained in the cutting step S3 is heated to be dried, de-bindered, and fired. As such, the cutting and heating are understood to be performed in sequence. Accordingly, the case law for sequential vs simultaneous steps may be recited. Where, generally, no invention is involved in the broad concept of performing simultaneously operations which have previously been performed in sequence. In re Tatincloux, 108 USPQ 125, MPEP 2144.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for cutting a ceramic component having superior shape accuracy of Atsuo as modified by Hommochi and Kurt. By further modifying the method to include firing step in which the green sheet after cutting / sizing is dried, de-bindered, and fired, as taught by Takeshi. Highlighting, one would be motivated include a step of firing step in which the green sheet after cutting / sizing is dried, de-bindered, and fired as it provides for obtaining the a multilayer ceramic article / capacitor, ([0036]). Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the multilayer base is a flat plate including a plurality of stacks aligned in a same direction and
fixed with a resin.
Regarding Claim 9, Atsuo as modified by Hommochi and Kurt is silent on details regarding the multilayer base is a flat plate including a plurality of stacks aligned in a same direction and fixed with a resin. In analogous art as applied above, Takeshi suggests details regarding the multilayer base is a flat plate including a plurality of stacks aligned in a same direction and fixed with a resin, and in this regard, Takeshi teaches the following:
& b.) ([0020]) teaches that the ceramic green sheets are obtained by mixing and dispersing a dielectric material mainly composed of barium titanate with a binder resin (e.g., an organic binder resin), a solvent, a plasticizer, etc., and applying the ceramic slurry onto a support and then drying the same. The first and second electrode patterns 11, 21 are formed, for example, by printing an electrode paste on the upper surfaces of the first and second ceramic green sheets 10, 20 and then drying the same. The electrode paste is a paste-like composition in which a metal powder such as Ni, Ag, or Pd is mixed with a binder resin, a solvent, and the like. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Figs. 2 & 6) a cutaway view of a multilayer ceramic capacitor is provided that shows the layers 10 and layers 11 in an alternately stacked manner.Accordingly, either set of layers i.e., layers 10 and layers 11 may act as the a plurality of stacks aligned in a same direction. Due to the alternately stacked manner each set of layers (layers 10 and layers 11) are found, as it provides for the next respective next layer within the layer set to be aligned with previous layer within the layer set and is fixed with a resin as each set of layers (layers 10 and layers 11) comprises a binder / resin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for cutting a ceramic component having superior shape accuracy of Atsuo as modified by Hommochi and Kurt. By further modifying the structure being cut to comprise a multilayer base that is a includes a plurality of stacks aligned in a same direction fixed with resin, as taught by Takeshi. Highlighting, one would be motivated to utilize a multilayer base is a flat plate including a plurality of stacks aligned in a same direction and fixed with a resin as it provides a known means for ceramic sheets to stacked together so that the conductive layers face each other with the ceramic sheet therebetween, to prepare a laminated block, ([0020]). Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Additionally, the use of a known material, namely acrylic resin / polyvinyl butyral resin or acrylic resin / polyvinyl butyral resin or the like for its intended use, i.e., a dielectric layers or conductive layers, respectively, in a known environment i.e., an electronic ceramic components, provides for the recitation of known material in the art. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.J.) Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsuo in view of Hommochi in view of Kurt and in further view of Fischer
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the support includes a magnet
Regarding Claim 5, Atsuo as modified by Hommochi and Kurt is silent on details regarding the support including a magnet. In analogous art directed towards the same problem, namely a cutting device for cutting narrow strips from a strip of material, (Abstract), Fischer suggests details regarding the support including a magnet, and in this regard, Fischer teaches the following:
([0060]) teaches that a gripping device 5 is also provided, comprising on the one hand a hold-down section 17 which fixes the material strip on the knife table 14 during the cut, and a magnetic element 18 which is magnetically coupled to an element 8 of the material strip 3 located directly below it, so that the cut strip 2 is magnetically connected to the gripping device 5 or the hold-down section 17 and can be transported away via the gripping device 5. ([0061]) noting that the hold-down section 17is provided with a recess 23 in the form of an elongated slot through which the knife 10 cuts.Highlighting, as illustrated in (Fig. 1) the support system includes a table and a hold-down section overlayed on the strip of material with a recess used to fix the material strip on the table and protect the material for cutting in the wrong area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for cutting a ceramic component having superior shape accuracy of Atsuo as modified by Hommochi and Kurt. By further modifying the support system to include a table and a hold-down section overlayed on the strip of material with a recess which fixes the material strip on the table during the cut, with a magnetic element, as taught by Fischer. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include a support system includes a table and a hold-down section overlayed on the strip of material with a recess which fixes the material strip on the table during the cut, with a magnetic element as it provides for fixing the material strip on the table and protect the material for cutting in the wrong area, ([0061]). Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
K.) Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsuo in view of Hommochi and in further view of Owen Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the cutting blade includes vertical ends fixed to fixing members, and
the fixing members move in synchronization.
Regarding Claim 8, Atsuo as modified by Hommochi and Kurt is silent on details regarding the cutting blades being located on a holder at intervals in a direction orthogonal to the moving direction, and the cutting is performed by moving the holder. In analogous art for an apparatus and processes for dividing a shaped articles by cutting, (Abstract), Owen suggests details regarding the cutting blades being located on a holder at intervals in a direction orthogonal to the moving direction, and the cutting is performed by moving the holder, and in this regard, Owen teaches the following:
& b.) (Col. 2, lines 8 - 11) teaches that as illustrated in (Fig. 7) is a perspective view showing a simple embodiment of the invention in which a plurality of cutters are provided, for making a plurality of cuts simultaneously, provided is a simple and effective method of securing and tautening the cutters in its frame 17. Highlighting, that tautening the cutters in its frame 17 is provided with a tapered thread 7 to receive a binding nut 14. The member 13 extends through an opening 15 in the frame and is provided with a wing nut 16 by which the device can be drawn outwardly and the cutter thereby tensioned and made suitably taut.Highlighting, that the plurality of cutters and the fixing members is found to move with synchronization are the frame is moved up and down to perform a cutting operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for cutting a ceramic component having superior shape accuracy of Atsuo as modified by Hommochi and Kurt. By further modifying the holding device to comprise a frame with a tapered thread 7 to receive a binding nut 14 and the member 13 extends through an opening 15 in the frame and is provided with a wing nut 16 by which the device can be drawn outwardly, as taught by Owen. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include the above structure as it provides for providing a plurality of cutters that are thereby tensioned and are able to be made suitably taut for cutting operations, (Col. 2, lines 8 – 11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yajima et al. (US 20130271544 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) A cutting device includes: a first guide portion that supports a sheet as a target to be cut; and a pair of cutting blades that cuts the sheet by performing a shearing operation on the sheet when the pair of cutting blades is in a state of pinching a cutting-target part of the sheet supported by the first guide portion from both sides thereof
Ueki et al. (US 20220371214 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) A sheet processing system conveys a material sheet in a first direction; calculates an inclination angle of the first registration mark of the material sheet with respect to the first direction; and includes cutting blades configured to cut the material sheet to produce sheet pieces and a cutting direction adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a cutting direction to a direction of the inclination angle.
Watanabe et al. (US 20050120854 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) A thin-film slicer is disclosed that comprises a base; a sample holder; a cutting blade; and a feeder, wherein the sample holder and the cutting blade are placed at predetermined angles with respect to the base; the sample holder sandwiches the sample surfaces of the thin film at a portion other than a portion to be cut;
Luther (Secrets of Sharpening: Bevel Angles and Blade Geometry, 2020) – teaches what is the right bevel angle for sharpening my plane or chisel blades? This is a question we get asked often in our workshops and many folks have a hard time grasping the basic concepts of bevel angles and blade geometry as they relate to getting a sharp cutting edge on your tool. In this short article I will go over the basics of blade geometry you need to understand to help you improve and master your sharpening technique.
Gillard (Technical Datasheet #0051) – teaches that blade shape & position, thickness, width, length, and beveling & sharpening - here’s a look at the critical aspects of an area too often overlooked or else taken for granted. Because this area is still more of an art than engineering science & because the wide range of extrusions that our Servo-Torq® rotary cutter can cut, we’ve put together the following general suggestions.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights