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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 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 Claims 1, 5, the limitation "first and second movable blades" constitute new matter as neither have been previously disclosed in the INSTANT APPLICATION. Instead, the SPECIFICATION of the INSTANT APPLICATION discloses first and second movable blade portions (24a), (24b), which have been interpreted as separate aspects of the singular blade (24), as illustrated in at least Fig 24, page 2/12 of the DRAWINGS the INSTANT APPLICATION.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) Rejections of Claims 1-5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) Rejections of Claims 1-5 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that combined Hiroyuki/Ito fail to teach or fairly suggest a blade assembly having a first and second movable blade. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that Ito teaches this limitation, as illustrated in at least Fig 10, and the illustration of Ito closely resembles the FIG 4 of the DRAWINGS of the INSTANT APPLICATION in the aspect of two movable blades (24a), (24b) of blade assembly (24), as Ito teaches these aspects, two movable blades (25), of blade (24), as illustrated in at least Fig 5, and as stated below.
Applicant further argues that since the movable blades (25) of Ito are integrally formed, they cannot teach a variable shearing angle with the fixed blade. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that Ito teaches an arrangement similar to that illustrated in FIG 4 of the DRAWINGS of the INSTANT APPLICATION, and further if prior art Ito fails to teach the limitation, the INSTANT APPLICATION similarly fails to disclose this limitation, which Examiner notes would present a new matter issue for further consideration.
Examiner notes, as stated below, the shearing angle taught by prior art Ito is in fact variable since the angle changes as the material to be cut is contacted by first one blade and then the other, which are arranged at differing angles, relative to each other and the fixed blade, as illustrated in at least Fig 4 of Ito, and as stated below. This arrangement has been interpreted to teach a variable shearing angle, as required by the claims, and as stated below.
Applicant further argues that, with respect to both amended Claims 1 & 5, combined Hiroyuki/Ito fail to teach or fairly suggest a holding member configured to rotatably hold the first and second movable blades. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes, that, as stated in the OFFICE ACTION mailed on 02OCT2025 and as stated below, combined Hiroyuki/Ito teaches this limitation, reference Hiroyuki, Para [0010], Ln 3-5 as illustrated in at least Fig 7 and reference Ito, Para [0029], Ln 1-3, and as illustrated in at least Fig 2.
Examiner notes Applicant makes no specific arguments against the prior art based rejections of dependent claim 2-4.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki, et alia (JP 2004 106502), hereinafter Hiroyuki, in view of Ito (US 2007/0175307), hereinafter Ito.
All references to Hiroyuki refer to the English language translation provided by the Applicant.
Regarding Claim 1, Hiroyuki discloses a printer (Para [0002], Ln 1) comprising:
a fixed blade (Para [0002], Ln 6);
a movable blade (Para [0002], Ln 5) configured to be displaced relative to the fixed blade (Para [0002], Ln 5-6). Hiroyuki is not explicit to the movable blade assembly having first and second movable blades.
Ito teaches a printer having a cutting device (Para [0002], Ln 1-3), having a fixed blade and movable blade assembly (Para [0003], Ln 6-7). Ito further teaches the movable blade assembly (24) having a first movable blade (25) inclined from one longitudinal end toward a substantially longitudinal center in a direction opposed to the fixed blade, and a second movable blade (25), which is separated from the first movable blade, inclined from another longitudinal end toward the substantially longitudinal center in the direction opposed to the fixed blade (Para [0004], Ln 5; as illustrated in at least Fig 4). Ito further teaches the advantage of this arrangement being lower cutting force and a smother cut of the article being cut than possible with other means (Para [0004], Ln 11-13).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the printer, as disclosed by Hiroyuki, to include the movable blade assembly having a first movable blade inclined from one longitudinal end toward a substantially longitudinal center in a direction opposed to the fixed blade, and a second movable blade, which is separated from the first movable blade, inclined from another longitudinal end toward the substantially longitudinal center in the direction opposed to the fixed blade, as taught by Ito, in order to produce lower cutting force, and thus a more efficient arrangement and a smother cut of the article being cut than possible with other means.
Hiroyuki further discloses a holding member (14) (Para [0010], Ln 3) configured to rotatably hold the first and second movable blades (Para [0010], Ln 4) so that a shearing angle formed by the fixed blade and the first or second movable blades is variable (Examiner notes that by closing the distance between the fixed and movable blades, the angle between them is varied and, since the left blade and right blade edges are oriented at differing angles, with respect to each other and the fixed blade, the shearing angle is therefore variable during the shearing action); and
an elastic deformable member (10) (Para [0011], Ln 10) configured to urge the first and second movable blades in a predetermined direction (Para [0011], Ln 8-10) and elastically deformable (Examiner notes that elastically deformability is an inherent property of a spring), depending on a magnitude of a cutting resistance (Examiner notes that a skilled Artisan would recognize that a spring biased blade pushed against an object to be cut would transfer the force applied to the object in equal and opposite direction and magnitude, as per Mr. Newton's postulate, and that the force applied would vary based on the material).
Regarding Claim 2, combined Hiroyuki/Ito teach all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Hiroyuki further discloses each of the first and second movable blades is rotatable about a rotation fulcrum portion (15) (Para 0010], Ln 3-5) formed on the holding member. Hiroyuki is not explicit to first and second movable blades, however Ito teaches these elements, and Ito further teaches a rotation angle range of each the first and second movable blades is determined by an elongated hole (4a) (Para [0029], Ln 5; as illustrated in Fig 2) formed in each of the first and second movable blades and a stopper portion (5a) (Para [0029], Ln 5; as illustrated in Fig 2) formed on the holding member and received in the elongated hole.
Regarding Claim 3, combined Hiroyuki/Ito teach all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Hiroyuki is not explicit to first and second movable blades, however Ito teaches these elements, and Ito further teaches the first and second movable blades are asymmetrical relative to each other, and cooperatively form the movable blade assembly having a substantial V-shape by fitting with each other at a position apart from the longitudinal center of the movable blade assembly toward one of the longitudinal end (Para [0004], Ln 5; as illustrated in at least Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 4, combined Hiroyuki/Ito teach all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Hiroyuki further discloses a groove (18e) (Para [012], Ln 11; Examiner notes this is disclosed as being located within element [18d]) for partial cutting is formed on only one of the first and second movable blades so that a paper is not completely cut (Examiner further notes that as the distance between the blades is variable, any length of cut from inception to completion is possible depending upon the stroke of the action of the blades with respect to each other).
Regarding Claim 5, Hiroyuki discloses a cutter unit (Para [0001], Ln 1) comprising:
a fixed blade (Para [0002], Ln 6);
a movable blade (Para [0002], Ln 5) configured to be displaced relative to the fixed blade (Para [0002], Ln 5-6). Hiroyuki is not explicit to the movable blade assembly having first and second movable blades.
Ito teaches a printer having a cutting device (Para [0002], Ln 1-3), having a fixed blade and movable blade assembly (Para [0003], Ln 6-7). Ito further teaches the movable blade having a first movable blade inclined from one longitudinal end toward a substantially longitudinal center in a direction opposed to the fixed blade, and a second movable blade, which is separated from the first movable blade, inclined from another longitudinal end toward the substantially longitudinal center in the direction opposed to the fixed blade (Para [0004], Ln 5; as illustrated in at least Fig 10). Ito further teaches the advantage of this arrangement being lower cutting force and a smother cut of the article being cut than possible with other means (Para [0004], Ln 11-13).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the printer, as disclosed by Hiroyuki, to include the movable blade assembly having a first movable blade inclined from one longitudinal end toward a substantially longitudinal center in a direction opposed to the fixed blade, and a second movable blade, which is separated from the first movable blade, inclined from another longitudinal end toward the substantially longitudinal center in the direction opposed to the fixed blade, as taught by Ito, in order to produce lower cutting force, and thus a more efficient arrangement and a smother cut of the article being cut than possible with other means.
Hiroyuki further discloses a holding member (14) (Para [0010], Ln 3) configured to rotatably hold the first and second movable blades (Para [0010], Ln 4) so that a shearing angle formed by the fixed blade and the first or second movable blades is variable (Examiner notes that by closing the distance between the fixed and movable blades, the angle between them is varied and, since the left blade and right blade edges are oriented at differing angles, with respect to each other and the fixed blade, the shearing angle is therefore variable during the shearing action); and
an elastic deformable member (10) (Para [0011], Ln 10) configured to urge the first and second movable blades in a predetermined direction (Para [0011], Ln 8-10) and elastically deformable (Examiner notes that elastically deformability is an inherent property of a spring), depending on a magnitude of a cutting resistance (Examiner notes that a skilled Artisan would recognize that a spring biased blade pushed against an object to be cut would transfer the force applied to the object in equal and opposite direction and magnitude, as per Mr. Newton's postulate, and that the force applied would vary based on the material).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred C Hammers whose telephone number is (571)272-9870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0080-1700.
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.
/FRED C HAMMERS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724