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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, corresponding claims 55-66 in the reply filed on 02/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "31", “27”, “29”, “33” and "28" in Figures 4A-4D have been used to designate the same part (it is unclear what the references are pointing to). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in the abstract, line 1 “Contour cutting system” should read A contour system--. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The tittle is objected to because “Contour cutting device…” should read –A contour cutting device…--.
Claim Objections
Claims 55, 59 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 55, lines 26-27 “the first and second head conductor …the first and second cutting connector” should read -- the first and second head conductors …the first and second cutting connectors—.
Claim 59, line 2 “clamp” should read –a clamp—and line 3 should read –a clamp--.Appropriate correction is required.
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 61 limitation “aligning means for aligning the cutting head” invokes 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, First, "means" is a generic substitute for “means”; second, the "means" is modified by functional language including “for aligning the cutting head”; and third, the "means" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "aligning" preceding means describes the function, not the structure of the means.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 61 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 § 112
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.
Claims 55-66 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 55, lines 2-3 recites “at least one cutting head and at least one cutting member” and later, it recites “the cutting head” is unclear whether the cutting head is the same as the at least one cutting head or not. If it is the same, Applicant is requested to use same terminology throughout the claim. The cutting member, the air channel have the same issue above.
Claim 55, lines 1-2 “in particular for cutting water-soluble pods” is unclear whether the contour cutting system is for cutting water-soluble pods since the "particular" limitation is optional or required.
Claim 55, lines 16-19, the phrase “…the cutting conductor having a resistance chosen to allow the cutting edge to become hot as a result of a current rung through the cutting conductor” is unclear what the language “resistance chosen” is in this phrase. Is that mean a specific resistance, a special resistance, …or one of resistances in the markets?
Claim 55 recites “electric current’ in line 6, “a current” in line 19, “an electric cutting current” in line 23 that are unclear whether these currents are the same or different. If it is the same, Applicant is requested to use same terminology throughout the claim.
Claim 55, the last sentence “preferably a product comprising a water soluble pod comprising PVOH” is unclear. First, a language of "preferably” is unclear whether the preferably product is requires by the invention or not. Second, what is the PVOH represented? Thus, it is unclear. The PVOH should be spelled out at least one time in the claim.
Claim 55, the last paragraph “the cutting edge reaches a cutting temperature at or above a minimum suitable temperature for cutting a product from a foil, …” is unclear what the cutting temperature and a minimum suitable temperature be. If an art has a cutting edge to be heated at any degrees, the cutting edge meets these temperatures, right (since the temperatures are defined “suitable”)?
Claim 56 is the term “the cutting conductor forms a closed loop of substantially the same shape as the closed cutting shape”. Examiner has reviewed the disclosure and can find no guidance for what the boundaries of this term might be. Looking at Applicant’s Figure 4D, the cutting edge (37) and the cutting conductor (31) are the same shape (because both form as the same part), therefore, it is unclear what the language “substantially” is for. As a result, the recitation of “…substantially the same shape…” is indefinite because it is unclear what differences are permitted while still being considered “…substantially the same shape as the closed cutting shape”. Claims 57 and 66 have the same issue above.
Claim 56, the last paragraph “…the contour cutting system is configured for conducting the electric cutting current such that a first portion of the current flows along the first loop section and a second portion of the current flows along the second loop section” is unclear and conflicts with the scope of claim 55. What cause of structure of the system allows “a first portion of the current flows along the first loop section and a second portion of the current flows along the second loop section” since the cutting edge is a closed loop cutting edge or conductor as seen in figures 4A-4D.
Are there two different conductors or resistances that forms the closed loop cutting edge?
See claim 55, lines 16-20 “a cutting edge forming a closed cutting shape, … the cutting conductor having a resistance chosen to allow the cutting edge to become hot as a result of a current running through the cutting conductor” (emphasis added), which appears only one conductor or resistance allows to heat the cutting edge a result of a current running through the cutting conductor. Therefore, the scope of claim 56 conflicts with claim 55.
Claim 57 recites “a product of a length of the first loop section….a product of the length of the second loop section” are unclear whether both products are parts of the contour cutting system or refer to two workpieces. Also, as claim 57 are written, “an electric resistance…a resistance” are unclear whether both resistances are referencing to the resistance in claim 55 or additional resistances.
Also, the language “the length of the second loop section” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the length refers to an inherent length introduced second loop section or a new length.
Claims 64 “multiple cutting heads and multiple cutting members” are unclear whether the “multiple cutting heads and multiple cutting members” refer to the “at least one “cutting head” and the “at least one cutting member” in claim 55 or additional multiple cutting heads and multiple cutting members.
Claim 65 “the cutting action of the cutting member” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the cutting action refers to an inherent cutting performance in claim 55 or a new cutting action. Also, the cutting member should be read –the at least one cutting member—see the issue discussed above. the last paragraph of claim 65 and claim 66 “the cutting member” has the same issue above.
All claims dependent from claim 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 55-66 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is reasons for allowance: the independent claim 55 is free of the prior art because the prior art does not teach or suggest a contour cutting system for cutting water- soluble pods, the contour cutting system comprising: a controller, at least one cutting head and at least one cutting member, wherein the cutting head comprises:
a first head conductor and a second head conductor configured for conducting electric current from respective first and second controller terminals of the controller to the at least one cutting member,
at least one air channel (a vacuum or a suction for removing fume as discussed in Applicant’s specification), the air channel comprising an entrance arranged at the at least one cutting member, and
a coupling device configured for releasably coupling the cutting member to the cutting head, wherein the at least one cutting member comprises:
a first cutting connector and a second cutting connector for electrically contacting the first head conductor and the second head conductor, respectively, and
a cutting segment defining a cutting edge forming a closed cutting shape, the cutting segment comprising a cutting conductor in thermal contact with the cutting edge, the cutting conductor having a resistance to allow the cutting edge to become hot as a result of a current running through the cutting conductor, wherein:
the cutting conductor is electrically connected to the first cutting connector and the second cutting connector, the controller is configured to provide an electric cutting current to the controller terminals, and the contour cutting system is configured for conducting the electric cutting current from the controller terminals via the first and second head conductors and via the first and second cutting connectors to the cutting conductor, such that the cutting edge reaches a cutting temperature at or above a minimum suitable temperature for cutting a product from a foil, preferably a product comprising a water soluble pod comprising polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) (emphasis added), as set forth in claim 55.
There are many systems teaching heating blades or cutting edges, for examples:
Huili (CN 211221073 U and Translation) teaches a heating blade (1, Figure 1), a suction channel (7 for removing fume), one heating conductor (coil 2), a controller (7), however, Huili fails to teach many claimed features such as the cutting edge is a closed cutting shape, three conductors…etc.,.
Van (US 2014/0020532) shows a heating blade (figures 5A-5C, not a closed shape).
Larry (US 5451288) appears to teach a heating blade (26, figure 1, a closed shape), however, there is only one conductor/resistance (Figure 2) and no suction channel.
Robert (US 2615111) shows a heating blade (figure 4, a closed shape) and only one conductor/resistance (42).
Based on the teachings above, therefore, none of the references above by themselves or in combination with the other prior art cited teach or suggest the contour cutting system as set forth in claim 55 (including 1st and 2nd head conductors; controller terminals, an air channel, a coupling device, 1st and 2nd cutting connectors, a closed loop cutting edge, …).Moreover, the system of each the art above and the art of record are used in different configuration and application for different purposes; there appears to be no justification to modify the above mentioned references, in any combination to meet the requirements of the claimed invention as set forth in claim 55.
Therefore, Claims 54-66 are considered to contain allowable subject matter due to their dependency on claim 55. Thus, claims 55-66 are allowed.
Conclusion
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 3/3/2026