DETAILED ACTION
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 . 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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/08/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 2-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
-Claim 2 recites the limitation "said perforating wheel" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Regarding claim 3, the language is unclear. Claim 2 provides the perfoating element comprising at least one perforating wheel, and claim 3 provides for two perforating wheels. It is unclear if these wheels are the same or different. As currently claimed, they appear to be different, resulting in three perforating wheels, which does not appear to be supported. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as only two perforating wheels.
-Regarding claim 5, the phrase “wherein it comprises two perforating heads that are movable to each other” is unclear. It is unclear what “it” is referring to as currently claimed, for the purposes of examination “it” will be treated as the printing and perforating machine. It is also unclear how many perforating heads are claimed. Claim 4 requires a perforating head, and claim further requires two perforating heads, for a total of three, which does not appear to be supported. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as two total perforating heads. Examiner notes it is also unclear how the two perforating heads are attached, such that they are movable to each other. Are the two heads each movable on their own, or do they move in tandem, together?
-Claim 7 recites the limitation "the perforating wheel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4 and 6 dependent from claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are rejected as being dependent from a rejected parent claim.
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.
Claims 1,2,4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenmotsu (U.S. Patent No. 2016/0144525) in view of Croft (U.S. Patent No. 6,190,297).
Regarding claim 1, Kenmotsu teaches a printing and perforating machine (Figure 1), comprising a perforating mechanism (30) and a printing mechanism (10) (Paragraphs 0017 and 0024) characterized in that the perforating mechanism (30) comprises:
a perforating element (31,32) provided with piercing elements (Figures 3A and 3B).
Kenmotsu does not provide a support element that defines with the perforating element a space for the passage of a sheet material, forming holes on the sheet material when it passes through this space.
Croft teaches a cutting element (54) with a piercing element (56, 58), and a support element (30,40,36) that defines with the cutting element a space for the passage of a sheet material (12), forming holes on the sheet material when it passes through this space (Figures 3 and 4; Col. 3 Lines 24-36, Col. 4, Lines 37-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Kenmotsu to incorporate the teachings of Croft to provide a support element. In doing so, the support element reduces damage and dulling of the blade during use.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Kenmotsu teaches the printing and perforating machine according to claim 1, and wherein the perforating element comprises at least one perforating wheel (32) provided with the piercing elements, said perforating wheel being movable along the support element (Figures 2 and 3A; Paragraphs 0033-0035; Examiner notes the perforating wheel is movable via the moving body 34 and moving mechanism 40).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Kenmotsu teaches the printing and perforating machine according to claim 2, wherein the at least one perforating wheel (32) is mounted on a perforating head (34)(Figures 2 and 3A; Paragraphs 0033-0035).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Kenmotsu teaches the printing and perforating machine according to claim 4, wherein the support element (30,40,36; Croft Figure 4) defines a longitudinal axis (Figure 4 noting the longitudinal direction), and the perforating head (34; Figure 2 Kenmotsu) is movable diagonally with respect to the longitudinal axis of the support element (Kenmotsu Figure 2 noting moving direction A and Figure 2 of Croft noting support element 30, 36)
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Kenmotsu teaches the printing and perforating machine according to claim 4, wherein the perforating head (34) comprises a pressing element (73,74) that presses the perforating wheel (32) against the sheet material (Kenmotsu Figure 10A and Paragraph 0088).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Kenmotsu teaches the printing and perforating machine according to claim 1, wherein the support element (30,40,36) comprises bristles (42)(Croft Figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Kenmotsu teaches the printing and perforating machine according to claim 8, wherein the bristles are formed by modules (40,42)(Croft Figure 4).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenmotsu (U.S. Patent No. 2016/0144525) in view of Croft (U.S. Patent No. 6,190,297) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pratt (U.S. Patent No. 5,775,193).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Kenmotsu teaches the printing and perforating machine according to claim 2, but does not provide wherein the perforating element comprises two perforating wheels coupled to each other by a mechanical coupling .
Pratt teaches it is known in the art of cutting to incorporate a cutting device with at least two cutting wheels (13,64)(Figure 5) wherein the at least two cutting wheels are coupled to each other by a mechanism coupling (55)(Figure 1; Col. 3, Lines 44-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Kenmotsu to incorporate the teachings of Pratt to provide two cutting wheels coupled by a mechanical coupling. In doing so, it allows for axial repositioning of the cutting wheels are desired.
Regarding claim 5, Kenmotsu teaches the printing and perforating machine according to claim 4, wherein the device comprises two perforating heads (6) that are movable to each other.
Pratt teaches it is known in the art of cutting to incorporate a cutting device with at least two cutting heads (13,64)(Figure 5) wherein the at least two cutting heads are movable relative to each other(Figure 1; Col. 3, Lines 44-67; Examiner notes the cutting units 13 are movable along the bar 55 as desired).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Kenmotsu to incorporate the teachings of Pratt to provide two cutting heads movable relative to each other. In doing so, it allows for axial repositioning of the cutting heads are desired.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenmotsu (U.S. Patent No. 2016/0144525) in view of Croft (U.S. Patent No. 6,190,297) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (U.S. Patent No. 3,753,380).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Kenmotsu teaches the printing and perforating machine according to claim 1, wherein the perforating element is a perforating roller (32,70 Kenmotsu Figure 3A) and but does not provide the support element is a support roller.
Lee teaches it is known in the art of cutting systems to provide a rotary cutting element (24) with a supporting element (18) wherein the support element is a support roller with bristles (20,28 (Figures 1-3; Col. 2, Lines 25-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Kenmotsu to incorporate the teachings of Lee to provide the supporting element as a support roller with bristles. In doing so, the workpiece is effectively constrained during cutting.
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Kenmotsu teaches the printing and perforating machine according to claim 9, wherein the support roller (20) comprises bristles (28), (Lee Figure 2).
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited.
- "892 cited references A-L on page 1 establish the state of the art with a variety of different perforation devices with various cutting elements/blades using a variety of driving mechanisms for the cutting elements and blades.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 01/09/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724