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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Preliminary Amendment filed 22 February 2024 has been entered. Claims 1-7 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 16 February 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. In particular, no concise explanation of relevant of the Written Opinion of PCT/JP2022/0232662 has been provided. Since the Written Opinion document is in Japanese, the examiner is unable to consider the Written Opinion document. The IDS has been placed in the application file, but the Written Opinion of PCT/JP2022/0232662 referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with PCT Rule 11.13(a), which requires drawings to be executed in black lines and strokes without coloring. The present drawings include grayscale images, which are not permitted by PCT Rule 11.13(a).
The drawings are objected to under PCT Article 7 as lacking clarity because each of claims 1 and 5-7 requires contact between the blade and the cutting table while the blade is moved by the parallel movement mechanism. No such contact is illustrated in the drawings. Moreover, the nature of this contact in the inventive sheet processing device is unclear as a result of a lack of illustration of the contact. It is known in the art that blade wear resulting from contact between the blade and a table is a problem to be avoided. Some prior art devices provide a table with a recess opposite the blade so that the blade extends into the recess without contacting the table, thus reducing blade wear. Some prior art devices use a table having bristle blocks so that contact between the blade and the bristle blocks does not rapidly wear the blade. Some prior art devices use a sacrificial layer atop a table surface, where the blade contacts the sacrificial layer but not the table surface, and where the softness of the sacrificial layer does not rapidly wear the blade. However, it is unclear which of these solutions, if any, are employed by the present sheet processing device to avoid excessive blade wear. Moreover, if the sheet processing device does employ a sacrificial layer, then that feature is necessary for an understanding of the invention because it is unclear whether a sacrificial layer can be considered part of a table. The examiner suggests resolving this issue by removing the requirement of contact between the blade and the table from the claim(s).
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed 22 February 2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The incorporations by reference of the international patent application PCT/JP2022/023662 and of Japanese Patent Application number 2021-133375 are ineffective as they were added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of the associated PCT, in this case 13 June 2022 (see MPEP 1893.03(b)). Therefore, the specification amendment of 22 February 2024 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p). To remedy the issue, applicant should remove the phrase “the disclosures each of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety” from the specification. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a lifting mechanism” as recited in claims 1 and 5-7 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language including moving the cutting blade; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “lifting” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism);
“a parallel movement mechanism” as recited in claims 1 and 5-7 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language moving the cutting blade; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “parallel movement” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism);
“a transportation mechanism” as recited in claims 1 and 5-7 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “capable of placing a sheet”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “transportation” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism);
“an imaging device” as recited in claims 1 and 5-7 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language imaging the sheet; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “imaging” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device);
“a cutting trace extractor” as recited in claims 1 and 5 (first, the Applicant has not provided any special definition of ‘extractor’ and the definition of ‘extractor’ from www.merriam-webster.com is one that extracts – as such, an “extractor” is anything that extracts, such that “extractor” is a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning, thus satisfying the first prong set forth in MPEP 2181; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “extract, from the image, a cutting trace that is a line at which a formed cutting surface and a sheet back surface intersect each other”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function; as disclosed in the present specification, “a general computer system” can provides the cutting trace extractor as disclosed at paragraph 80); and
“a determiner” as recited in claims 1 and 5 (first, the Applicant has not provided any special definition of ‘determiner’ and the definition of ‘determiner’ from www.merriam-webster.com is one that determines – as such, a “determiner” is anything that determines, such that “determiner” is a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning, thus satisfying the first prong set forth in MPEP 2181; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “determine that the cutting blade that is instructed to form the cutting surface is worn”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function; as disclosed in the present specification, “a general computer system” can provides the determiner as disclosed at paragraph 80).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing 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 § 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.
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) 1-7 is/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 claim 1, the claim limitation “a cutting trace extractor” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as explained above and is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for failing to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as explained below. Per MPEP 2181(IV), a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description. Therefore, claim 1 lacks adequate written description with respect to the ‘cutting trace extractor’.
Regarding claim 5, the claim limitation “a cutting trace extractor” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as explained above and is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for failing to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as explained below. Per MPEP 2181(IV), a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description. Therefore, claim 5 lacks adequate written description with respect to the ‘cutting trace extractor’.
Regarding claim 6, the claim requires “extracting, from the image, a cutting trace that is a line at which a formed cutting surface and a sheet back surface intersect each other”. This recitation fails to comply with the written description requirement. The only structure disclosed in the present application for performing this step is an extractor, and the extractor is provided by a general purpose computer (see paragraph 80 of the present specification). The extraction step is thus computer-implement step performed by a general purpose computer, consistent with the present disclosure. As explained in MPEP 2181, “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. ... It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .... If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.” In the present case, the specification fails to disclose an algorithm for performing the extracting function. Instead, the present specification only discloses a general computer that can perform the function. As such, since no algorithm is disclosed for performing the step of extracting, claim 6 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 7, the claim requires “extracting, from the image, a cutting trace that is a line at which a formed cutting surface and a sheet back surface intersect each other”. This recitation fails to comply with the written description requirement for the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph with respect to claim 6.
Claim(s) 1-7 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 1 recites a plurality of recitations reading “a surface of the table”. For example, claim 1 at line 2 recites, “a surface of the table”, claim 1 at line 3 recites, “a surface of the table”, claim 1 at lines 4-5 recites, “a surface of the table”, and claim 1 at lines 8-9 recites, “a surface of the table”. Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear how many surfaces of the table are required. Can claim 1 be satisfied by a table having a single surface upon which a sheet is placed? Must the surface of the table parallel to which the parallel movement mechanism moves the cutting blade also be a surface of the table upon which the sheet is held, or can these be two different surfaces? It is unclear why, if Applicant intends to only require a single surface of the table, each surface is introduced with the article “a”. As one potential interpretation issue that arises from the repeated introductions of “a surface”, it is unclear whether a first surface can be arbitrarily divided into any number of surfaces. That is, can surface ‘9’ as shown in Fig. 1 of the drawings of the present application be considered as being formed by a plurality of sub-surfaces?
Claim 1 recites a plurality of recitations reading “a sheet”. Claim 1 is indefinite because the relationship between the various sheets is unclear. For example, claim 1 at line 7 recites, “a sheet placed on the table”, whereas claim 1 at line 5 recites, “a sheet held on a surface of the table”. Must the sheet that is placed on the table as required by claim 7 also be held on the surface of the table as required by line 5? Or, is claim 1 describing a plurality of different sheets? This issue is prevalent throughout claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “lifting mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to explicitly link any corresponding structure to the “lifting mechanism”. Although the specification notes that Fig. 2 illustrates a cross-sectional view of the lifting mechanism; there is no clear link between the particular structures shown in Fig. 2 and the lifting mechanism. For example, there is no explicit description of which components shown in Fig. 2 constitute the lifting mechanism. As two examples, it is unclear whether housing ‘55’ and ‘spring 65’ are required components of the lifting mechanism. Since there is no clear link between disclosed structures and the recited “lifting mechanism”, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. [Note that no rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is included because as presently understood the specification discloses, but does not clearly link, corresponding structure of the lifting mechanism.]
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “parallel movement mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to explicitly link any corresponding structure to the “parallel movement mechanism”, similar to the issue raised with respect to the “lifting mechanism” discussed above. As an example, it is unclear whether rails constitute the “parallel movement mechanism”, or whether one or more actuators constitute the “parallel movement mechanism”, or whether rails and actuators constitute the “parallel movement mechanism”, or whether some other structure(s) also or alternatively constitute the “parallel movement mechanism”. Since no is no clear link between disclosed structure and the “parallel movement mechanism”, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. [Note that no rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is included because as presently understood the specification discloses, but does not clearly link, corresponding structure of the parallel movement mechanism.]
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “cutting trace extractor” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). When the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) The present specification fails to disclose any algorithm for the ‘extractor’. For example, Fig. 5 shows the entirety of the function as a single ‘extract’ step S12. A single box labeled with a step of ‘extract’ is not an algorithm. Since the present specification does not disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed computer-implemented step of extracting a cutting trace, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. [Contrast the lack of an algorithm for an ‘extractor;’ with the algorithm of steps S13-S15 corresponding to the ‘determiner’.]
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear if two ‘back surfaces’ are required. Claim 1 at line 4 recites that the cutting surface penetrates from “a front surface to a back surface”, and claim 1 at line 16 recites that the imaging device images “a back surface”. Must the same back surface be imaged with respect to the back surface to which the cut extends? Or, can claim 1 be satisfied by considering the back surface of line 16 as a different back surface than that of line 4? In particular, can the front surface of line 4 be a back surface for the purposes of line 16? If not, are two different back surfaces being described in claim 1? Since there is confusion regarding which sheet is being referred to throughout the claim, it is difficult to determine the relationship between a “back surface” of what may be different sheets.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the relationship between the various ‘cutting surfaces’ introduced in the claim is unclear. Is the cutting surface of line 20 the same cutting surface as that of line 13, for example, even though line 20 uses the term ‘a’ and the new descriptor ‘formed’? Or, is claim 1 requiring a plurality of different cutting surfaces?
Claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear how many, if any, additional sheets, cutting surfaces, images, and other features already introduced in claim 1 are further required by claim 2. Claim 1 already introduces a sheet, a cutting surface, an image, etc., so claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear whether claim 2 is describing the same features, or new features, relative to claim 1.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear how many, if any, additional sheets, surfaces of the table, surfaces of the sheet, and potentially other features already introduced in claim 1 are further required by claim 3. Claim 1 already introduces a sheet, a surface of the table, a back surface of the sheet, etc., so claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear whether claim 3 is describing the same features, or new features, relative to claim 1.
Claim 3 is indefinite because the relationship between the cutting blade of claim 1 and the “plurality of cutting blades” required by claim 3 is unclear. In particular, it is unclear whether claim 3 permits the cutting blade of claim 1 to be one of the plurality of cutting blades required by claim 3, such that claim 3 requires at least two cutting blades. Alternatively, since claim 3 recites “a” plurality of cutting blades, claim 3 arguably requires a plurality of cutting blades that are in addition to the cutting blade already required by claim 1. In this interpretation, claim 3 would require at least three cutting blades. Since the total number of cutting blades required by claim 3 is unclear, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 4 is indefinite because the relationship between the parallel movement mechanism of claim 1 and the plurality of parallel movement mechanisms required by claim 4 is unclear. In particular, it is unclear whether claim 4 permits the mechanism of claim 1 to be one of the plurality required by claim 4, such that claim 4 requires at least mechanisms. Alternatively, since claim 4 recites “a” plurality of mechanism, claim 4 arguably requires a plurality of parallel movement mechanisms that are in addition to the mechanism already required by claim 1. In this interpretation, claim 4 would require at least three parallel movement mechanism. Since the total number of parallel movement mechanisms required by claim 4 is unclear, the claim is indefinite. The same is true with respect to the plurality of lifting mechanisms as recited in claim 4, further rendering claim 4 indefinite.
Claim 4 recites, “any cutting blade that is not determined to be worn”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether this blade must be one of the previously introduced ‘plurality of the cutting blades’, or whether this blade can be some other blade. For example, can the ‘any blade’ be a replacement blade for the worn blade that is attached to the same lifting mechanism as the worn blade following removal of the worn blade?
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear whether double inclusion is intended for a host of features. Several features are introduced multiple times (see, e.g., “a cutting surface” at lines 3, 9, and 15; “a sheet” at lines 3 and 7; “a surface” of the table at lines 4 and 5; and “a back surface” of the sheet at line 13 and “a sheet back surface” at line 15). Conventionally, the article “a” should only be used the first time a structure is introduced, such that use of “a” implies a new structure is being introduced. Thus, Applicant’s use of “a” suggests that plurality of various structures are being introduced. However, since various structures have similar names, arguably the same structure that is previously introduced is being referred to, even when Applicant uses “a” to describe the structure a second time. As such, claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear whether double inclusion is intended for a variety of structures.
Claim 5 is indefinite due to the run-on nature of the paragraph beginning “a cutting controller”. For example, it cannot be determined with certainty what structure is being described by the recitation “and is held by the table from a front surface to a back surface of the sheet, in a direction intersecting a surface of the table between a position at which the cutting blade comes into contact with the table and a position at which the cutting blade is separated from a sheet placed on the table”. Is this entire recitation describing one structure, or is the recitation describing multiple structures? Is the same structure that is held on the table the structure that intersects the surface of the table? Since the run-on nature of the recitation makes the recitation subject to a variety of interpretation, the recitation is indefinite.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear what structures form the claimed device. For example, it is unclear whether “a lifting mechanism” is required, or whether the claim merely intends to require a controller that is capable of controlling a lifting mechanism. The fact that the claim requires the controller to cause the lifting mechanism to move the cutting blade suggests that the lifting mechanism and cutting blade are required. As another example, it is unclear whether a transportation mechanism is required. Since the extractor is required to extract while the transportation mechanism moves the sheet, it would appear that the transportation mechanism is required. Otherwise, it is impossible to determine whether the extraction occurs “while” the transportation mechanism moves the sheet.
Regarding claim 5, claim limitation “lifting mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to explicitly link any corresponding structure to the “lifting mechanism”. Although the specification notes that Fig. 2 illustrates a cross-sectional view of the lifting mechanism; there is no clear link between the particular structures shown in Fig. 2 and the lifting mechanism. For example, there is no explicit description of which components shown in Fig. 2 constitute the lifting mechanism. As two examples, it is unclear whether housing ‘55’ and ‘spring 65’ are required components of the lifting mechanism. Since there is no clear link between disclosed structures and the recited “lifting mechanism”, claim 5 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. [Note that no rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is included because as presently understood the specification discloses, but does not clearly link, corresponding structure of the lifting mechanism.]
Regarding claim 5, claim limitation “parallel movement mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to explicitly link any corresponding structure to the “parallel movement mechanism”, similar to the issue raised with respect to the “lifting mechanism” discussed above. As an example, it is unclear whether rails constitute the “parallel movement mechanism”, or whether one or more actuators constitute the “parallel movement mechanism”, or whether rails and actuators constitute the “parallel movement mechanism”, or whether some other structure(s) also or alternatively constitute the “parallel movement mechanism”. Since no is no clear link between disclosed structure and the “parallel movement mechanism”, claim 5 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. [Note that no rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is included because as presently understood the specification discloses, but does not clearly link, corresponding structure of the parallel movement mechanism.]
Regarding claim 5, claim limitation “cutting trace extractor” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). When the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) The present specification fails to disclose any algorithm for the ‘extractor’. For example, Fig. 5 shows the entirety of the function as a single ‘extract’ step S12. A single box labeled with a step of ‘extract’ is not an algorithm. Since the present specification does not disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed computer-implemented step of extracting a cutting trace, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. [Contrast the lack of an algorithm for an ‘extractor;’ with the algorithm of steps S13-S15 corresponding to the ‘determiner’.]
Claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear whether double inclusion is intended for a host of features. Several features are introduced multiple times (see, e.g., “a cutting surface” at lines 5 and 11; “a sheet” at lines 5, 8, and 14; “a surface” of the table at lines 5 and 7; and “a back surface” of the sheet at lines 6 and 12). Conventionally, the article “a” should only be used the first time a structure is introduced, such that use of “a” implies a new structure is being introduced. Thus, Applicant’s use of “a” suggests that plurality of various structures are being introduced. However, since various structures have similar names, arguably the same structure that is previously introduced is being referred to, even when Applicant uses “a” to describe the structure a second time. As such, claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear whether double inclusion is intended for a variety of structures.
Claim 6 is indefinite due to the run-on nature of the paragraph beginning “causing a lifting mechanism”. For example, it cannot be determined with certainty what structure is being described by the recitation “and is held by the table from a front surface to a back surface of the sheet, in a direction intersecting a surface of the table between a position at which the cutting blade comes into contact with the table and a position at which the cutting blade is separated from a sheet placed on the table”. Is this entire recitation describing one structure, or is the recitation describing multiple structures? Is the same structure that is held on the table the structure that intersects the surface of the table? Since the run-on nature of the recitation makes the recitation subject to a variety of interpretation, the recitation is indefinite.
Regarding claim 6, claim limitation “lifting mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to explicitly link any corresponding structure to the “lifting mechanism”. Although the specification notes that Fig. 2 illustrates a cross-sectional view of the lifting mechanism; there is no clear link between the particular structures shown in Fig. 2 and the lifting mechanism. For example, there is no explicit description of which components shown in Fig. 2 constitute the lifting mechanism. As two examples, it is unclear whether housing ‘55’ and ‘spring 65’ are required components of the lifting mechanism. Since there is no clear link between disclosed structures and the recited “lifting mechanism”, claim 6 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. [Note that no rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is included because as presently understood the specification discloses, but does not clearly link, corresponding structure of the lifting mechanism.]
Regarding claim 6, claim limitation “parallel movement mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to explicitly link any corresponding structure to the “parallel movement mechanism”, similar to the issue raised with respect to the “lifting mechanism” discussed above. As an example, it is unclear whether rails constitute the “parallel movement mechanism”, or whether one or more actuators constitute the “parallel movement mechanism”, or whether rails and actuators constitute the “parallel movement mechanism”, or whether some other structure(s) also or alternatively constitute the “parallel movement mechanism”. Since no is no clear link between disclosed structure and the “parallel movement mechanism”, claim 6 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. [Note that no rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is included because as presently understood the specification discloses, but does not clearly link, corresponding structure of the parallel movement mechanism.]
Claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear whether double inclusion is intended for a host of features. Several features are introduced multiple times (see, e.g., “a cutting surface” at lines 4 and 10; “a sheet” at lines 4, 7, and 13; “a surface” of the table at lines 4 and 6; and “a back surface” of the sheet at lines 5 and 11). Conventionally, the article “a” should only be used the first time a structure is introduced, such that use of “a” implies a new structure is being introduced. Thus, Applicant’s use of “a” suggests that plurality of various structures are being introduced. However, since various structures have similar names, arguably the same structure that is previously introduced is being referred to, even when Applicant uses “a” to describe the structure a second time. As such, claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear whether double inclusion is intended for a variety of structures.
Claim 7 is indefinite due to the run-on nature of the paragraph beginning “causing a lifting mechanism”. For example, it cannot be determined with certainty what structure is being described by the recitation “and is held by the table from a front surface to a back surface of the sheet, in a direction intersecting a surface of the table between a position at which the cutting blade comes into contact with the table and a position at which the cutting blade is separated from a sheet placed on the table”. Is this entire recitation describing one structure, or is the recitation describing multiple structures? Is the same structure that is held on the table the structure that intersects the surface of the table? Since the run-on nature of the recitation makes the recitation subject to a variety of interpretation, the recitation is indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, claim limitation “lifting mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to explicitly link any corresponding structure to the “lifting mechanism”. Although the specification notes that Fig. 2 illustrates a cross-sectional view of the lifting mechanism; there is no clear link between the particular structures shown in Fig. 2 and the lifting mechanism. For example, there is no explicit description of which components shown in Fig. 2 constitute the lifting mechanism. As two examples, it is unclear whether housing ‘55’ and ‘spring 65’ are required components of the lifting mechanism. Since there is no clear link between disclosed structures and the recited “lifting mechanism”, claim 7 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. [Note that no rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is included because as presently understood the specification discloses, but does not clearly link, corresponding structure of the lifting mechanism.]
Regarding claim 7, claim limitation “parallel movement mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to explicitly link any corresponding structure to the “parallel movement mechanism”, similar to the issue raised with respect to the “lifting mechanism” discussed above. As an example, it is unclear whether rails constitute the “parallel movement mechanism”, or whether one or more actuators constitute the “parallel movement mechanism”, or whether rails and actuators constitute the “parallel movement mechanism”, or whether some other structure(s) also or alternatively constitute the “parallel movement mechanism”. Since no is no clear link between disclosed structure and the “parallel movement mechanism”, claim 7 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. [Note that no rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is included because as presently understood the specification discloses, but does not clearly link, corresponding structure of the parallel movement mechanism.]
For each of “lifting mechanism”, “parallel movement mechanism”, and “cutting trace extractor” as recited in the claims as discussed above, Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005/108027 A1 to Alsten et al. in view of US Pub. No. 2020/0048024 A1 to Nasu and US Pub. No. 2022/0371297 A1 to De Franceschi et al.
Regarding claim 1, Alsten discloses a sheet processing device 70 (see Fig. 5), comprising:
a table (the table being the structure defining surface 2; note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘table’ includes something that resembles a table especially in having a plane surface, and the table of Alsten satisfies this interpretation; note also that the similar structure 3 of Nasu is expressly considered as a table) to hold a sheet 40 placed on a surface 2 of the table (see Fig. 5 and page 15, lines 1-5);
a cutting blade 6 (see Fig. 5; see also page 1, lines 26-29) capable of forming, in a sheet 40 held on a surface 2 of the table, a cutting surface that penetrates the sheet 40 from a front surface to a back surface of the sheet 40 (see a cutting surface along cut line 60 in Fig. 3 and page 13, lines 3-5; the front surface is referred to as the ‘process side’ and the back surface is referred to as ‘graphics side’);
a lifting mechanism (see tool actuator 8) capable of moving the cutting blade 6 in a direction intersecting a surface 2 of the table between a position at which the cutting blade 6 is engaged with the sheet 40 to cut the sheet 40 (see the formation of cut line 60 in Fig. 3) and a position at which the cutting blade 6 is separated from a sheet 40 placed on the table (when no cutting is occurring – e.g., when producing the cut line 60 shown in Fig. 3, the blade 6 is lowered during cutting and raised during non-cutting such that there is no cut line extending to the perimeter of the sheet; see col. 13, lines 23-24);
a parallel movement mechanism (see page 13, lines 20-23) capable of moving the cutting blade 6 in parallel with a surface 2 of the table while the cutting blade 6 is brought into the position at which the cutting blade 6 cuts the sheet 40 (see the formation of cut line 60 in Fig. 3);
a transportation mechanism 20 capable of placing a sheet 40 on the table and separating a sheet 40 from the table and moving a sheet 40 while the sheet 40 is separated from the table (see Fig. 5 and page 13, line 25 to page 14, line 4; since the mechanism 20 is capable of placing a sheet 40 on the table, the mechanism is also capable of separating the sheet 40 from the table by reversing a placing operation);
a cutting controller to cause the parallel movement mechanism and the lifting mechanism to operate and instruct formation of a cutting surface 60 in a sheet 40 placed on the table by the cutting blade 6 (see page 17, lines 22-24; controlling finishing operations includes controlling the parallel movement and lifting mechanisms in view of Figs. 3 and 5);
an imaging device 22 to, while a sheet 40 after formation of the cutting surface is instructed is separated from the table by the transportation mechanism 20, image a back surface of the sheet 40 (see Fig. 5 and CITATION; note that the particular time at which the imaging device 22 images the back surface of the sheet 40 is merely an intended use of the imaging device and does not alter the structure of the imaging device); and
an image captured by imaging, by the imaging device 22, a portion of a back surface of the sheet 40 where formation of a cutting surface is instructed (see Fig. 5 – the imaging device images the bottom of the sheet 40).
Alsten fails to explicitly disclose that the blade comes into contact with the table and that the parallel movement mechanism moves the blade while the cutting blade is brought into contact with the table as required by claim 1. Alsten also fails to disclose a cutting trace extractor to acquire the image captured by, while a sheet after formation of the cutting surface is instructed is separated from the table, imaging the portion of the back surface of the sheet and extract, from the image, a cutting trace that is a line at which a formed cutting surface and a sheet back surface intersect each other; and a determiner to, when an assumed line that is a line at which a cutting surface that is assumed to be formed in the sheet by the cutting blade intersects a sheet back surface and a cutting trace that the cutting trace extractor extracted do not coincide with each other, determine that the cutting blade that is instructed to form the cutting surface is worn also as required by claim 1.
Nasu teaches a sheet processing device where a blade 48 is lowered (by cylinder 19; see paragraph 71) to a position at which the blade 48 comes into contact with a table 3 (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 66; the table 3 includes material layer 57 such that contact between the blade 48 and layer 57 provides contact of the blade 48 with the table 3), and where the blade 48 is moved while the blade 48 is brought into contact with the table 3 (see Fig. 5, where arrow ‘F’ indicates a direction of movement per paragraph 81). Lowering the blade into contact with the table allows the blade to cut completely through a workpiece. If, to the contrary, the blade is not lowered to contact the table underlying the workpiece, there is a likelihood that an entirety of the workpiece would not be cut through.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the lifting mechanism of Alsten to lower the blade to a position at which the cutting blade comes into contact with the table, so that the parallel movement mechanism is able to move the blade while the blade is in contact with the table, in view of the teachings of Nasu. This modification is advantageous because lowering the blade to contact the table ensures that the blade cuts entirely through the workpiece, at least when a complete separation of a product from a remainder of the workpiece is desired (e.g., when cutting a shape out of the workpiece). Without lowering the blade into contact with the table, there is the risk that the workpiece is incompletely cut because the blade does not necessarily extend entirely through the workpiece. Note also that this modification can include modifying the table of Alsten to include a layer of comparatively soft material such as velour as taught by Nasu in order to avoid excessive wear to the blade.
De Franceschi teaches providing a sheet processing device 1000 with a cutting trace extractor (the ‘extractor’ being a portion of computer 300 that performs video processing and recognition of cutting defects per paragraph 120; alternatively, the ‘extractor’ is whatever structure of De Franceschi that extracts a cutting trace from the image in order to recognize cutting defects per paragraph 120) to acquire an image captured by, after formation of a cutting surface in the sheet (the cutting surface formed by cutter 200), imaging, by an imaging device 100 (see Fig. 16 and paragraph 116), a portion of a surface of the sheet where formation of a cutting surface is instructed and extract, from the image, a cutting trace that is a line at which a formed cutting surface and a sheet surface intersect each other (see Figs. 9 and 10 showing the cutting trace; see also paragraph 71 and 72 – e.g., in paragraph 72, the cutting trace is a line indicating a portion of the workpiece that is not completely cut); and a determiner to, when an assumed line that is a line at which a cutting surface that is assumed to be formed in the sheet by the cutting blade intersects a sheet back surface and a cutting trace that the cutting trace extractor extracted do not coincide with each other (see paragraph 122; the determiner is the structure of the computer 300 that performs the comparison of paragraph 22), determine that a cutting blade that is instructed to form the cutting surface is worn (see paragraph 123). Note that per paragraph 35 the features of De Franceschi are applicable to cutting means other than rotary dies. De Franceschi teaches that the extractor and determiner are advantageous in order to monitor performance of the sheet processing device, including recognizing defects in the cutting line achieved by a cutter and to provide a warning when there is an unacceptable wear of the cutter (see the Abstract and paragraphs 122-123).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Alsten by providing Alsten with an extractor that extracts a cutting trace from an image captured by the imaging device of Alsten and also providing Alsten with a determiner that determines when the cutting blade is worn in view of the teachings of De Franceschi. This modification is advantageous because it utilizes the existing structure of Alsten (in particular, the modification utilizes the existing imaging device 22 of Alsten that images the bottom surface of the sheet as shown in Fig. 5) in order to image the sheet after cutting in order to add the functionality of determining that the cut quality is acceptable and also providing a warning once the blade becomes worn. As a result of this modification, Alsten is improved by adding additional quality control for the sheets following cutting (since the sheets are confirmed to have acceptable cuts following cutting – e.g., sheets with defective cuts can be re-cut or discarded), and Alsten is further improved because a warning is provided once the blade becomes worn so that future defective cuts can be avoided. Using the existing imaging device of Alsten to capture images after cutting is advantageous to avoid having to provide a second imaging device, such that the number of components of the sheet processing device can be minimized.
Regarding claim 2, Alsten, as modified above discloses that the cutting controller instructs formation of a cutting surface in a margin of a sheet separately from a cutting surface that forms a processed product to be cut out from a sheet (this recitation is merely a manner of operating the device of Alsten, as modified – the device of Alsten, as modified, includes a cutter mounted on a gantry, and this structure allows the control to instruct formation of a cutting surface in a margin of the work), the cutting trace extractor acquires an image captured by imaging, by the imaging device, a portion of a back surface of a sheet where formation of a cutting surface in the margin is instructed and extracts, from the image, the cutting trace of a cutting surface formed in the margin (see the discussion of De Franceschi’s teachings provided to Alsten with respect to claim 1 above), and when the assumed line of a cutting surface that is assumed to be formed in the margin and the cutting trace of a cutting surface formed in the margin do not coincide with each other, the determiner determines that the cutting blade that is instructed to form the cutting surface is worn (see the discussion of De Franceschi’s teachings provided to Alsten with respect to claim 1 above; the particular location of the cut that is imaged is merely a manner of operating the recited device).
Regarding claim 5, Alsten, as modified above with respect to claim 1, discloses the features of claim 5 since the cutting controller of Alsten, as modified as discussed above with respect to claim 1, performs the functions of the cutting controller required by claim 5, and since Alsten, as modified, includes a cutting trace extractor and a determiner (see the teachings of De Franceschi discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, which teachings are also applicable to the extractor and determiner of claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, Alsten, as modified above with respect to claim 1, discloses the features of claim 6. The cutting controller of Alsten, as modified as discussed above with respect to claim 1, performs the functions of causing the lifting mechanism and the parallel movement mechanism to move the cutting blade in the manner required by claim 6. The imaging device of Alsten, as modified as discussed above with respect to claim 1, acquires an image in the manner required by claim 6. The extractor of Alsten, as modified as discussed above with respect to claim 1, extracts a cutting trace from the image in the manner required by claim 6. The determiner of Alsten, as modified as modified as discussed above with respect to claim 1, determines that the cutting blade is worn in the manner required by claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Alsten, as modified above with respect to claim 1, discloses the features of claim 7. The cutting controller of Alsten, as modified as discussed above with respect to claim 1, performs the functions of causing the lifting mechanism and the parallel movement mechanism to move the cutting blade in the manner required by claim 7. The imaging device of Alsten, as modified as discussed above with respect to claim 1, acquires an image in the manner required by claim 7. The extractor of Alsten, as modified as discussed above with respect to claim 1, extracts a cutting trace from the image in the manner required by claim 7. The determiner of Alsten, as modified as modified as discussed above with respect to claim 1, determines that the cutting blade is worn in the manner required by claim 7.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alsten as modified by Nasu and De Franceschi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2003/0230178 A1 to Steadman.
Regarding claim 3, Alsten, as modified, discloses the sheet processing apparatus having a single cutting blade capable of forming in a sheet held on a surface of the table, cutting surfaces penetrating the sheet from a front surface to a back surface of the sheet (see Alsten at Fig. 5, as well as Fig. 3 showing a potential cutting surface; note that the modification of Alsten above with respect to claim 1 includes the blade being able to fully penetrate the sheet material ), wherein the cutting controller instructs the cutting blade to form cutting surfaces that are different from one another (see, e.g., the various types of surfaces shown in Fig. 3, where which include linear and curved surfaces that are different from one another), the cutting trace extractor extracts, with respect to the cutting blade, the cutting trace of a cutting surface that is formed by the cutting blade from the image (see the discussion of claim 1 above), and when with respect to the cutting blade, the assumed line of a cutting surface that is assumed to be formed by the cutting blade and the cutting trace of a formed cutting surface do not coincide with each other, the determiner determines that the cutting blade that is instructed to form the cutting surface is worn (see the discussion of claim 1 above).
Alsten, as modified, fails to disclose a plurality of cutting blades that form cut surfaces independently from one another, that the controller instructs respective ones of the cutting blades to form the cutting surfaces, and that the determiner determines that the cutting blade is worn with respect to each of the cutting blades as required by claim 3.
Steadman, though, teaches a sheet processing device comprising a plurality of cutting blades (see Fig. 1 and the Abstract; the cutting blades are members of heads 56 and 62 in Fig. 1). Steadman teaches that a controller instructs the blades to form cutting surfaces (see the Abstract). Steadman’s system provides improved throughput (see paragraph 4). Each blade of Steadman includes its own movement mechanism (see gantries 50 and 52; see also Fig. 14 and paragraph 62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Alsten, as previously modified, with a plurality of cutting blades and to configure the controller to instruct each of the cutting blades to form cutting surfaces, in view of the teachings of Steadman. This modification is advantageous to increase throughput, since each cutting pattern can be simultaneously cut by two cutting blades rather than being cut by a single blade. Moreover, the combined teachings of Alsten, as modified, and Steadman teach that the determiner determines which particular cutting blade is worn. Alsten, as modified, desires the ability to assess blade wear. Steadman provides a motivation to include two cutting blades. The teachings of Alsten, as modified, with respect to blade wear are therefore applicable to each of the cutting blades resulting from the modification of Steadman. In order to retain the ability to assess blade wear, the system of Alsten, as modified, when provided with two cutter blades, must associate each cutting blade with the portion of the cutting surface produced by that respective blade in order to determine wear for each of the blades. Thus, the combined teachings of Alsten, as modified, and Steadman render claim 3 obvious. This modification includes providing each of the blades with its own movement mechanism, so that each blade is independently movable with respect to the other.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alsten as modified by Nasu, De Franceschi, and Steadman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2005/0166745 A1 to Tokumitsu.
Regarding claim 4, Alsten, as modified, discloses a plurality of the parallel movement mechanism and a plurality of the lifting mechanism capable of moving the cutting blades independently from one another (see the modification in view of Steadman as applied to claim 3 above).
Alsten, as modified, fails to disclose that when the determiner determines that one of the cutting blades is worn, the cutting controller forms, from a sheet to be processed next, a cutting surface that has been scheduled to be formed by the cutting blade determined to be worn by any cutting blade that is not determined to be worn among the plurality of cutting blades in substitution as required by claim 4.
Tokumitsu, which is pertinent to a problem of a cutting blade in a cutting device becoming worn, teaches a control means that determines when one a plurality of cutting blades is worn (see the Abstract), the control means forms, from a workpiece to be processed next, a cutting surface that has been scheduled to be formed by the cutting blade determined to be worn by any cutting blade that is not determined to be worn among the plurality of cutting blades in substitution (see the Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the determiner of Alsten, as modified, with the ability to compare the wear levels of the blades and to select for cutting one of the blades that is not overly worn. Note that Alsten, as modified, teaches the ability to perform two cuts simultaneously. However, it is further known in the art that a worn blade produces a low quality cut (see the teachings of De Franceschi discussed above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Alsten, as modified, to include performing an entire cut that had been scheduled to be performed with two blades using only one of the blades in view of the teachings of Tokumitsu and De Franceschi. De Franceschi provides a reason not to cut with an overly worn blade, and Tokumitsu teaches selecting from among multiple blades the least worn blade for cutting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights