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 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (CN-107984543-A and Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Liu shows a cutter unit (Figure 6) comprising:
a cutter roll (3) comprising a roll body (its body) having an outer circumferential surface, and a cutting blade (Figure 7 and abstract “an upper knife roll”) positioned at the outer circumferential surface, the cutting blade having a cutting geometry (see the blade is geometry in Figure 5);
an anvil roll (4) 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 (Figure 7, both cutter and anvil rolls are parallel);
a first pair of rotatably-supporting portions (upper bearing seats 6, Figures 3 and 5 and Page 7, the 5th paragraph recites “the bearing seat 6 to slide up and down along the slide rail”) each disposed at a respective one of opposite ends of the cutter roll;
a second pair of rotatably-supporting portions (lower bearing seats 6, Figures 3 and 5 and Page 7, the 5th paragraph recites “the bearing seat 6 to slide up and down along the slide rail”) each disposed at a respective one of opposite ends of the anvil roll;
a 1st pair of air springs each installed to apply pressure to the 1st pair of rotatably- supporting portions the cutter roll (as this is written, it is unclear what structures of the air springs be, therefore, see a pair of upper pneumatic assemblies 12-16, Figure 7); and
a 2nd pair of spring means each installed to apply pressure to the 2nd pair of rotatably-supporting portions (the bearing boxes) of the other roll, in a direction opposed to a direction of the pressure application of the pair of air springs (see a pair of lower pneumatic assemblies in Figure 7),
wherein the pair of air springs and the pair of spring means apply pressures to respective corresponding ones of the pairs of rotatably-supporting portions, in opposite directions sandwiching the cutter and anvil rolls (Figure 7),
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 Figure 6, there are top and bottom pneumatic assemblies and coil springs 17, 19 between the upper and lower knife rolls and see the discussion above for sliding bearing seats and see Page 8, the 3rdh paragraph “the pressurizing position of the upper knife roll and the lower knife roll pressure device up and down on a vertical line, when the rotating rolling roller body bearing of the upper knife roll and the lower knife roll is reasonable” (emphasis added) and the 4th paragraph “each cylinder is connected with a pressure regulating valve and a pressure gauge, can be independently adjusted pressure of one side, it can effectively ensure the die cutting effect” (emphasis added) that means increasing or decreasing the pressure).
Regarding claim 3, Liu shows that each of the pair of spring means is composed of an air spring (as it is written, it is unclear what structures of the air spring be, therefore, see the discussion of the lower pneumatic mechanisms in figure 7 that uses an air and meets this limitation and see Applicant’s specification, para. 15 “…a commonly-used spring means (such as …a pneumatic cylinder)”).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Ichikawa (US 6158316).
Regarding claim 2, Liu shows all of the limitations as stated above including
a pair of cooperating springs (17-18, Figure 3) installed between the pair of rotatably-supporting portions of the cutter roll (bearing seats) and the pair of rotatably-supporting portions of the anvil roll (bearing seats), 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 (Figure 3), in a direction along a direction which causes the pressure applied from the pair of air springs to increase or decrease (Figure 3).
However, it is unclear whether the springs are air springs or not.
Ichikawa shows a cutting device (Figure 2) having an air spring (60) between slides support members (33, 43) of a pair of cutter and anvil rolls (30, 40).
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 springs (17-18) of Liu to have air springs, as taught by Ichikawa, since this is known alternative way for the same purpose and in order to prevent the bearing seats of the cutter roll and the bearing seats 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).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu or Liu in view of Ichikawa (US 6158316).
Regarding claims 1-3, if one argues that the cutting blade of Liu 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 sanitary goods, medical sanitary articles, cosmetic products, electronic products, leather goods, various packaging, printing, trademark label.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons below.
With regards to “attenuate vibrations that occur during operation” in pages 8-10, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., applying pressure is configured to “attenuate vibrations that occur during operation”) 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).
See the discussion in the rejection above; the Liu’ pneumatic assemblies applying pressure to at least one of the knife roll and the lower knife roll (Figures 6-7) for providing a proper pressure between the knife roll and the lower knife roll (as discussed in the background technology) and springs (17, 19, Figure 3) between the knife roll and the lower knife roll can be for “attenuate vibrations that occur during operation”.
Given this understanding of the breadth of Applicant's claim, the Liu’s pneumatics and springs can be intrinsically for reduced or “attenuate vibrations that occur during operation” within the broad scope of the claim. Examiner has no doubt that Applicant's device does a better job “attenuate vibrations that occur during operation” than Liu, but that does not mean that Liu does not broadly “attenuate vibrations that occur during operation”. Therefore, Applicant needs to amend claim 1 (what features, currently not in claim) to articulate the structure that causes Applicant's device to be better “attenuate vibrations that occur during operation”.
With regards to “the pneumatic air cylinder…is different in from the air spring in the present application”, this argument is acknowledged, but it is persuasive because as the claim is written, it is unclear what structures of the air springs be, in order to be different from the pneumatic air cylinder, therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation, the pneumatic cylinders use an air to operate and meet the limitation. Please note that Applicant’s specification, Para. 15 “whereby the pair of air springs A and the pair of spring means B can attenuate vibration generated between the two rolls 1, 2” in which both air springs and spring means have the same purposes and functions.
What are structures of the air springs in Applicant’s claim different from structures of the pneumatic air cylinder?
Applicant inserts that “each of the air springs and the spring means is configured to press a corresponding one of the rotatably- supporting portions (e.g. bearing boxes)”, See Liu’s Figures 6-7, both top and bottom pneumatic assemblies, each is configured to press a corresponding one of the rotatably- supporting portions since claim 1 does not require that “each of the air springs and the spring means” directly applies pressure to a corresponding one of the rotatably- supporting portions.
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
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 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 3/24/2026