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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim 1 limitation “a pair of rotatably-supporting portions…of the cutter roll”; “a pair of rotatably-supporting portions…of the anvil roll”; “a pair of spring means B…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
For an example of “a pair of rotatably-supporting portions…of the cutter roll”, First, "portions" is a generic substitute for “means” (since it is not clear what portions be); second, the "portions" is modified by functional language including “disposed …opposite ends of the cutter roll”; and third, the "portions" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "rotatably-supporting" preceding “portions” describes the function, not the structure of the portions.
Similarly analysis to other limitations.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spataforam (EP945233A1) in view of Shoji (JP2017177300 A and Translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Spataforam shows a cutter unit (Figures 1-2) comprising:
a cutter roll (a left roller 3) comprising a roll body (its body) having an outer circumferential surface, and a cutting blade (8) positioned at the outer circumferential surface, the cutting blade having a cutting geometry (see the blade 8 is geometry in the zoom-in of Figures 1-2);
an anvil roll (a right roller 3) comprising a roll body (its body) having an outer circumferential surface configured to receive the cutting blade, the anvil roll disposed parallel to the cutter roll so that the outer circumferential surface of the anvil roll and the outer circumferential surface of the cutter roll are positioned parallel in horizontal positions (see Figures 1-2, both rollers 3 are parallel);
a first pair of rotatably-supporting portions (each roller 3 has a pair of housings 10 as discussed in Para. 23), each disposed at a respective one of opposite ends of the cutter roll (see the left roller in Figures 1-2);
a second pair of rotatably-supporting portions (each roller 3 has a pair of housings 10 as discussed in Para. 23) each disposed at a respective one of opposite ends of the anvil roll (see the right roller in Figures 1-2);
a 1st pair of
a 2nd pair of spring means or nd pair of rotatably-supporting portions of the other roll, in a direction opposed to a direction of the pressure application of the pair of air springs (see Figures 1-2),
wherein the pair of
wherein each rotatably-supporting portion of the 1st and 2nd pairs of rotatably-supporting portion is composed of a bearing box (see the housing 10, Figure 2), and
wherein each rotatably-supporting portion of the pairs of rotatably-supporting portions of the cutter and anvil rolls is slidable in directions which cause the pressure applied from a corresponding one of the pair of air springs and the pair of spring means to increase and decrease (see Figures 1-2 and Paras. 21-23).
However, Spataforam silently discuses that all springs being air springs.
Shoji shows a cutter unit (Figure 1) having a pressing unit (40) for directly pressing to bearing boxes (30) and Shoji also discusses that the pressing unit can be a pneumatic pressure (air), a mechanical pressuring device, a spring or the like in the 2nd last paragraph of page 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the springs of Shoji to have air springs (pneumatic pressures, mechanical pressuring devices, springs or the like), as taught by Shoji, since this is known alternative way for the same purpose and in order to allow manufacturers to have alternatively ways to custom the cutter units to obtain predictable results. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, as per MPEP 2143, and the KSR decision, exemplary rationale B.
With regards to “a cutting geometry”, if one argues that the cutting blade 8 is NOT has a cutting geometry. Then, Examiner takes Official Notice that it has long been known to have the cutting blade being a cutting geometry. Examples can be provided if challenged, as they are numerous. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to have a cutting blade being a cutting geometry, in order to cut or produce geometrical pieces of disposable diapers, sanitary napkins, etc., to cut a nonwoven fabric or resin film into a predetermined pattern, or to cut a laminate of a plurality of nonwoven fabrics or a laminate of a nonwoven fabric and a resin film into a predetermined pattern.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spataforam (EP945233A1) in view of Shoji (JP2017177300 A and Translation) and Ichikawa (US 6158316).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, if there is any doubt about the obviousness of using air springs (as structures in Applicant’s remarks), see Col. 4,lines 44-45 of the Ichikawa reference “the air spring 60 may be replaced by an air cylinder, a hydraulic cylinder or a coil spring” that means an air cylinder, a hydraulic cylinder or a coil spring can be simple substituted of one known element (air springs) for another to obtain predictable results, as per MPEP 2143, and the KSR decision, exemplary rationale B.
Regarding claim 2, the modified cutter unit of Spataforam shows all of the limitations as stated above including actuator (15, 13) installed between the pair of rotatably-supporting portions of the cutter roll and the pair of rotatably-supporting portions of the anvil roll.
However, it is unclear whether the actuators (13, 15) for controlling and adjusting the distance between the rollers are having air springs or not.
Ichikawa shows a cutting device (Figure 2) having an air spring (60 of the toggle mechanism 50 with a pressure sensor 110 or piezoelectric element as Col. 5, the last line) between slides support members (33, 43) of a pair of cutter and anvil rolls (30, 40) for controlling and adjusting the distance between the cutter and anvil rollers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had the actuators of Spataforam to have air springs with sensors, as taught by Ichikawa, since this is known alternative way for the same purpose and in order to prevent the bearing seats (bearing boxes) of the cutter roll and the bearing seats (bearing boxes) of the anvil roll from being pressed and slanted with each other when the air spring is expanded (see the discussion in Figures 2-3 of Ichikawa).
In doing so, the modified cutter unit has a pair of air springs to apply pressure to at least one of the pair of rotatably-supporting portions of the cutter roll and the pair of rotatably-supporting portions of the anvil roll (Ichikawa’s Figure 2), in a direction along a direction which causes the pressure applied from the pair of air springs to increase or decrease.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 06/18/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regards to “structures of the air springs” in page 4, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a rubber or elastomeric…containing compressed air…) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
What are structures of the air springs in Applicant’s claim different from structures of the air springs from the reference that haven’t been claimed?
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2511784B2 shows air springs between cutter and anvil rollers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 6/26/2026
Prosecution Insights