Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6, line 1 the language “any of” should be deleted to make it more clearer. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-7, 19 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 5 “one track” is unclear. Claim 1 clearly recites “a track” that means one track. Therefore, it is unclear whether the track of claim 5 refers to the track of claim 1 or an additional track.
Claim 6 “two tracks” are unclear. Claim 1 clearly recites “a track” that means one track. Therefore, it is unclear whether these two tracks include the track of claim 1 with an additional track or two additional new tracks. Claim 7 has the same issue.
Claim 19 “the track…centrally on the punching sheet” refers to a first embodiment of Figure 3. Claim 19 depends on claim 14 that requires two tracks arranged at opposite edges of the punching sheet that refers to a second embodiment of Figure 1. Therefore, it is unclear how the track of the second embodiment (Figure) is centrally on the punching sheet. Please note that Claim 9 clearly recites “a track” that means one track. Therefore, claim 19 recites two tracks that is unclear
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claims 1, 9 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.
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 1-3, 5-7, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weck (WO 2009/036745 and Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Weck shows a punching cylinder (42, Figures 4-5) for rotary cutting of a material web, wherein the punching cylinder has a circumference (48) and a cutting contour (a leading blade for cutting the cut 20, Figure 2) provided on the circumference of the punching cylinder, the cutting contour being provided at a first circumferential portion of the punching cylinder (see the region where all blades are on the cylinder, Figure 4), wherein the punching cylinder has a track (a top track 52a, 52b, Figure 3), wherein the track is provided on the circumference at least at the first circumferential portion the track comprising a plurality of cutting teeth spaced apart in a circumferential direction (see teeth 54, 56 are spaced by a gap where the “50” is pointing to, Figure 9, in the circumferential direction or rotation direction),
wherein the track is arranged such that the material web is cut by the cutting teeth only in a residual material resulting from a cutting process
(MPEP 2112.01, under the heading "Product and Apparatus Claims - When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identical to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions are Presumed to be Inherent") and
please note that the invention is directed to a device (a punching cylinder) including a cutting contour, a track including cutting teeth… the function limitation “…the material web is cut by the cutting teeth only in a residual material resulting from a cutting process” has been considered and given weight inasmuch as it infers structure in the device (punching cylinder). It is a product by process claim. See MPEP 2113, and
wherein ends of the cutting teeth are arranged directly adjacent to one another or overlapping in the circumferential direction (as this is written, it is unclear what the ends refer to, therefore, see Figure 9, ends of the teeth 54 or tips or side ends or ends or based ends of the teeth are adjacent to one another or overlapping in the circumferential direction), such that, throughout the cutting process with the cutting contour, at least one cutting tooth is in engagement with the material web and fixes this for slipfree movement (see MPEP 2112.01, under the heading "Product and Apparatus Claims - When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identical to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions are Presumed to be Inherent". Moreover, during cutting process, the first tooth “adjacent to the leading blade for cutting the cut 20” pins or punches in engagement with the material web and fixes this for slipfree movement of the punching cylinder and the material web).
Regarding claim 2, Weck shows that the plurality of cutting teeth run obliquely and/or in a curve relative to the circumferential direction of the punching cylinder (see teeth 52a, Figures 3 and 9).
Regarding claim 3, Weck shows that the plurality of cutting teeth are hook-shaped or sickle-shaped (see teeth 52a in Figure 9).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Weck shows that the punching cylinder has one track provided on the circumference (see the issue above, there is one track on a top portion as seen in Figure 9).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Weck shows that the punching cylinder has two tracks provided on the circumference (see all figures, there are top and bottom tracks 52a, 52b on the cylinder in the longitudinal direction, it is show one top track in Figure 9), and wherein the tracks are arranged at opposite ends of the punching cylinder (see Figure 3, there are two end tracks 52b are at opposite ends of the punching cylinder).
Regarding claim 7, Weck shows that the punching cylinder has two tracks (top and bottom tracks as discussed in claim 6) provided on the circumference, and wherein cutting teeth of the two tracks are arranged mirror-symmetrically in order each to apply an outwardly directed transverse force (see Figure 3, top teeth of the top track are mirror-symmetrically to bottom teeth of the bottom track).
Regarding claims 16-17, Weck shows an apex of each cutting tooth points in the transport direction of the material web (while the cylinder turns, each of the cutting edges or an apex is pointing in the transport direction of the material web, Figure 3, for cutting the sheet 11) and wherein the one track is arranged centrally on the punching cylinder (see Figure 4 of Weck, the knife system 45 is centrally on the punching cylinder).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8-11, 13-15, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weck in view of Kang (EP 0841649 A2).
Regarding claim 8, Weck shows all of the limitations as stated above except a punching sheet (die board) on the cylinder.
Kang shows a punching sheet (10, Figure 4) on a cylinder (46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the punching cylinder of the Weck to have a punching sheet on a cylinder, as taught by Kang, in order to allow easily to remove or replace all cutters at a time for repairing if needed.
Regarding claim 9, the modified punching cylinder of Weck shows a cylinder for rotary cutting of a material web (see Kang’s Figure 4), wherein a cutting contour is provided on a first portion of a surface of the punching sheet (see Kang’s Figure 4), wherein the surface of the punching sheet has a track running in the longitudinal direction (see discussion in claim 1 above), wherein the track is provided at least at the first portion the track comprising a plurality of cutting teeth spaced apart in the longitudinal direction, wherein the track is arranged such that the material web is cut by the cutting teeth only in a residual material resulting from a cutting process (see all discussions in claims under 102 section above),
and wherein ends of the plurality of cutting teeth are arranged directly adjacent to one another or overlapping in the longitudinal direction, such that, throughout the cutting process with the cutting contour, at least one cutting tooth is in engagement with the material web and fixes this for slipfree movement (see the discussion in claim 1 above).
Please note the purpose of the modification to have a punching sheet for supporting all cutters of Weck for easily to remove or replace all cutters at the same time if needed.
Regarding claims 10-11, the modified punching cylinder of Weck shows all of the limitations as stated in claims 2-3 above.
Regarding claim 13, the modified punching cylinder of Weck shows that the punching sheet has one track provided on one portion of the surface (see Figure 9 of Weck and see the discussion in claim 5 and the issue above).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the modified punching cylinder of Weck shows that the punching sheet has two tracks provided on the surface, and wherein the tracks are arranged at opposite edges of the punching sheet and wherein the cutting teeth of the two tracks are arranged mirror-symmetrically in order each to apply an outwardly directed transverse force (see the discussion in claims 6-7 above).
Regarding claim 18, the modified punching cylinder of Weck shows that an apex of each cutting tooth points in the direction of a front end of the punching sheet (see the discussion in claim 16),
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, the modified punching cylinder of Weck shows that the tracks are arranged centrally on the punching sheet (see Figure 4 of Weck, the knife system 45 is centrally on the punching cylinder).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons below.
With regards to “one track", this argument is acknowledged, but it is unclear as the claims are written (see the 112b issues above).
With regards to the highlight in the 1st paragraph of the remark, page 6, it is unclear what the argument is about. As the claim is written “ends of the cutting teeth are arranged directly adjacent to one another or overlapping in the circumferential direction”, the art still read on it since the claim is not defined well what and where the ends of teeth be. See Weck’s Figure 9, each tooth has many ends that overlaps other ends of the adjacent tooth. See the claim rejections above.
Applicant states that “The specific arrangement provided in claim 1 is to provide additional cutting teeth that form a "tractor track". The cutting teeth of the tractor track penetrate the material web during processing, thereby ensuring that the punching cylinder or punching sheet having the cutting contour and the material web move without slippage during the cutting process. This function is not capable using the Weck system, as explained above, at least because of the intentional small interval arrangement the cutting teeth of Weck” this argument is not persuasive because at least one tooth pins or punches to the web that prevents slippage during the cutting process. Also, see all figures of Weck, if the web is slipped, the tear line 14 will be misalignment.
Please note that the invention is directed to an apparatus of a punching cylinder or sheet including at least one cutting tooth is in engagement with the material web and “fixes this for slipfree movement” of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (see the claim rejections above).
Given this understanding of the breadth of Applicant's claim, the Weck’s device including the tooth that pins or punches to the web in a fashion that is within the broad scope of the claim. Examiner has no doubt that Applicant's tooth does a better job for slipfree movement than Weck’s tooth, but that does not mean that Weck’s tooth does not broadly prevent slippage. The claim should be defined well on metes and bounds of the tooth or teeth in order to understand the claim has a position for better slipfree movement of the web.
With regards to one or two tracks as disclosed on a cutting cylinder, it is well-known in the art; see McNeil et al (US 8287977) shows two different embodiments, first embodiment is one cutting track (Figure 5) and a second embodiment (Figures 1 and 10) has two cutting tracks. Similarly, Quinn (US 5009093) shows one cutting track (10).
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
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 8/20/2026
Prosecution Insights