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 Amendment
The amendment filed 11/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application. Claims 7-8 are cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 2, “the at least one movable” should read “the at least one movable needle”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumuller (US 20120111163) in view of Kim (KR 102071694).
Regarding claim 1, Baumuller discloses a cutting device (cutting blade support 5 and cutting blade 7; see fig. 1) configured to be disposed on a transportation path (web 1 moves in the direction of transport A; see fig. 1) along which a web including at least accumulated fibers (web 1 is preferably paper, but can be fabric, plastic, or metal foil; see paragraph [0001]) is transported and configured to cut the web (cutting blade 7 projects in the direction of web 1 and travels in transverse direction to be brought into cutting engagement with web 1; see paragraph [0037]), the cutting device comprising: a cutter configured to cut the web (cutting blade 7 projects in the direction of web 1 and travels in transverse direction to be brought into cutting engagement with web 1; see paragraph [0037]); at least one movable needle configured to stick into the web to hold the web when the web is cut (spur needle 6 and cutting blade 7 engage web 1 at the same time, and after cutting, spur needle 6 carries material section 11 away from the cutting point and along the direction of transport A; see abstract, paragraph [0044], and fig. 1).
Baumuller does not explicitly disclose a ball screw mechanism.
Kim discloses a ball screw mechanism (moving block 152, which supports rotary cutter 153, can be reciprocated by a ball screw mechanism; see paragraph [0056-0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Baumuller in view of Kim to include a ball screw mechanism for moving the cutter and needle. Baumuller discloses using a linear drive (linear drive 2, 9, 10; see paragraph [0038]) to move the cutter and the movable needle. Kim discloses a ball screw mechanism configured to move the cutting means. Since the linear drive and ball screw mechanism are both used for similar purposes, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the ball screw mechanism in place of the solenoid as a simple substitution of drive elements.
Baumuller as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the ball screw mechanism is configured to move the cutter in a transportation direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Baumuller to make the cutter move in a transportation direction since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). Baumuller as modified already discloses moving the at least one movable needle in a transportation direction (linear drives 2, 9, 10 move spur needles 6 along the direction of linear guide axis X; see paragraphs [0038-0039]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that including the cutter (cutting blade 7) on carrier 4 would result in the claimed arrangement and further, would reduce the number of parts necessary. If cutting blade 7 were located on carrier 4, at least cutting blade support 5 would no longer be needed since the blade would be supported by the carrier. Reducing the number of parts required simplifies the design of the machine, particularly since the parts involved are movable.
Regarding claim 2, Baumuller as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Baumuller as modified further discloses wherein the at least one movable needle is located below the web and moves up when the web is cut (spur needle 6 (located next to reference character A in fig. 1) moves up to punch into web 1 when cutting blade 7 is actuated; see paragraph [0044] and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Baumuller as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Baumuller as modified further discloses wherein the at least one movable is located above the web and moves down when the web is cut (spur needle 6 (located near the middle of fig. 1) moves down to punch into web 1 when cutting blade 7 is actuated; see paragraph [0044] and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Baumuller as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Baumuller as modified further discloses wherein a slit (cutting blade 7 can extend across the entire width of web 1 and thus cutting bar 8 must extend the same width in order to provide its counter element function. As such, the slit must also be formed across the entire width of web 1; see paragraph [0029] and annotated portion of fig. 1 below) is located at a position facing the cutter with the web interposed therebetween (the slit that holds cutting bar 8 faces cutting blade 7, with web 1 located between them; see fig. 1), and the at least one movable needle is located at at least one of an upstream position (spur needle 6 located next to reference character A; see fig. 1) and a downstream position relative to the slit in the transportation direction of the web (spur needle 6 located near the middle of fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Baumuller as modified discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Baumuller as modified further discloses wherein the at least one movable needle includes an upstream movable needle located at the upstream position (spur needle 6 (located next to reference character A in fig. 1) is in the upstream position relative to the slit; see fig. 1) and a downstream movable needle located at the downstream position (spur needle 6 (located near the middle of fig. 1) is located downstream relative to the slit; see fig. 1), relative to the slit in the transportation direction of the web.
Regarding claim 6, Baumuller as modified discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Baumuller as modified further discloses a movable cover member (cutting bar 8 acts as a pressure pad/counter element for cutting blade 7, and since it is supported by carrier device 4, it is capable of moving in both the x and y directions; see paragraphs [0038-0039]) configured to cover the slit when cutting is not performed (cutting bar 8 covers the slit regardless of whether cutting is performed; see fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 6-7, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 USC § 103 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 Baumuller as modified by Kim. As presently applied, these references recite the limitations of claims 1-6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724