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 .
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.
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: “element” in claim 7.
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.
The corresponding structure described in the specification for the 112(f) invoked
limitations are as follows:
• “element” as described structurally in [0014] of the specification.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “cutting tool” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osamu Yamamoto et al. (JP 2015202551 A – hereinafter Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a rotary die cutter with a machine frame, comprising: a cutting device that is arranged in the machine frame (Fig. 2, Frame 51) and comprises a rotatable die cylinder (Fig. 2, Knife Cylinder 44) and a counter die cylinder (Fig. 2, Anvil Cylinder 43) interacting with the die cylinder, wherein - a cutting tool (Fig. 2, Cutting Knife 46) is arranged on the die cylinder and defines an enveloping cylindrical surface of the die cylinder (Fig. 2, outer surfaces of Knives 46 and the Cylinder 44 form an enveloping and generally cylindrical surface),- the counter die cylinder is arranged parallel to the die cylinder so as to be rotatable about a first axis (Fig. 2, axis defined by center of crosshairs of Anvil Cylinder 43) and - a cylindrical surface of the counter die cylinder rolls on the enveloping cylindrical surface of the cutting tool (Fig. 2, the outer cylindrical surfaces of Cylinders 43 and 44 are shown to be in contact while rotating), and- a cleaning device (Fig. 3) that is arranged in the machine frame and comprises a roller brush (Fig. 7, Brush Roller 53) rotatable about a second axis (Fig. 7, center of circle defining the outer edge of Brush 64), wherein- the roller brush is configured to remove particles from the enveloping cylindrical surface of the counter die cylinder (Page 4, Para 4),- the second axis is arranged collinearly to the roller brush and to the first axis of the counter die cylinder at a variable distance (Page 5 Para 5) and- the cleaning device has a first controllable drive (Fig. 6, controllable drive comprising Motor 55) that is operatively connected to the roller brush, comprising an adjustment device (Fig. 6, adjustment device including but not limited to Motor 55, the adjustment device functioning to control the position of the Roller Brush 53. Motor 55 adjusts the rotational position of this brush) of the cleaning device, which is functionally connected to the roller brush, wherein the adjustment device has a second controllable drive (Fig. 3, controllable drive comprising Motor 57).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, comprising a first linear guide (Fig. 6, Guide Rail 81) of the adjustment device, wherein the roller brush of the cleaning device is received in the machine frame (Fig. 3, Frame 51) and is displaceable relative to the counter die cylinder in an adjusting direction (Fig. 5, vertical direction in Fig. 5) by means of the first linear guide.
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto further teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first linear guide is oriented parallel to the distance between the second axis of the roller brush and the first axis of the counter die cylinder (Fig. 2).
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osamu Yamamoto et al. (JP 2015202551 A – hereinafter Yamamoto) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ling-ling Zou (CN 112981925 A – hereinafter Zou).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto does not teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second controllable drive of the adjustment device has an pneumatic lifting cylinder.
However, Zou teaches the use of a pneumatic lifting cylinder (Fig. 2, Pneumatic Push Rod 304) to induce linear movement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Yamamoto such that the second controllable drive utilizes a pneumatic lifting cylinder rather than a motor as taught by Zou. Doing so is beneficial as it is well known in the art that pneumatic actuators are low cost compared to a motor type drive device.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yamamoto and Zou already teaches the apparatus according to claim 4, comprising a controllable pressure reducer, wherein the controllable pressure reducer is arranged in a compressed air line of the pneumatic lifting cylinder to predefine a force exerted by the pneumatic lifting cylinder (any pneumatic cylinder or rod must inherently be connected to a pneumatic valve or other form of pressure controller in a compressed air line to function as intended).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osamu Yamamoto et al. (JP 2015202551 A – hereinafter Yamamoto) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xian-yang Li (CN 111347469 A – hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the adjustment device has a supporting roller (Fig. 7, Roller 54) connected to the roller brush by an arm (Fig. 3, Duct 61), wherein the supporting roller rolls on a cylindrical surface of the counter die cylinder (Fig. 7, Roller 54 is shown to roll on the cylindrical surface of Anvil Roller 43), which extends concentrically to the first rotational axis of the counter die cylinder.
Yamamoto does not teach that the supporting roller limits the variable distance between the second rotational axis of the roller brush and the first rotational axis of the counter die cylinder to a predefined minimum size.
However, Li teaches a supporting roller (Fig. 2, Flattening Roller 20) which limits the variable distance between two elements to a predefined minimum size (Fig. 2, Screw Rod 18; - Screw Rod 18 is used to set the distance between the two elements, and inherently has an minimum and maximum distance that it is capable of setting).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Yamamoto such that the supporting roller limits the variable distance between the second rotational axis of the roller brush and the first rotational axis of the counter die cylinder to a predefined minimum size as taught by Li. Doing so is beneficial as it is well known in the art that having a built in mechanical stop such as the roller support to define a minimum distance between two moving elements can prevent damage due to unwanted contact and accidental crashing of the two components.
Regarding claim 9, the existing combination of Yamamoto and Li does not teach the apparatus according of claim 6, comprising a second linear guide of the arm, wherein the second linear guide of the arm is oriented parallel to the first linear guide of the adjustment device and the second linear guide allows variation of a distance of the supporting roller from the second rotational axis of the roller brush.
However, Li teaches a linear guide (Fig. 2, Telescopic Guide Rod 21) which allows variation of a distance of the supporting roller between two elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Yamamoto and Li such that the second linear guide is located oriented parallel to the first linear guide and is part of the arm as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Yamamoto and Li to include the limitations of claim 9 above as taught by Li. Doing so is beneficial as guides help to stabilize the support roller during movement (Li; Page 3, Para 4).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osamu Yamamoto et al. (JP 2015202551 A – hereinafter Yamamoto) and Xian-yang Li (CN 111347469 A – hereinafter Li) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Zhi-fei Shao et al. (CN 112894930 A – hereinafter Shao).
Regarding claim 7, the existing combination of Yamamoto and Li does not teach the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the arm has an element with such a resilience that the supporting roller can approach the second rotational axis of the roller brush, wherein the degree of the approach in an adjusting direction can be described by a definite function of a radial force exerted upon the supporting roller.
However, Shao teaches the use of a spring element (Fig. 5, Spring 624) with such a resilience that it can bias an element (Fig. 5, Handle 623) in a direction along a linear guide (Fig. 5, Sliding Rod 621), the degree of approach being in said direction able to be described by the definite function of force attributed to the compression of a spring. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Yamamoto, Li, and Shao such that the spring element is part of the arm as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Yamamoto and Li to include the limitations of claim 7 above as taught by Shao as it has been held that adjustability is not a patentable advance In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954), and there would have been an art recognized need to adjust the length of the roller guide in response to a change in distance between the roller guide and the cylinder.
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto further teaches the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the supporting roller (Fig. 7, Roller 54) is connected to the second controllable drive (Fig. 3, controllable drive comprising Motor 57) of the adjustment device by the arm (Fig. 3, Duct 61) in such a way that the controllable drive exerts the radial force upon the supporting roller (Fig. 7, the second controllable drive presses Roller 54 against Anvil Cylinder 53, which would result in a radial force upon the supporting roller).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724