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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claim 19, it is suggested that the term “The” in line 2 be deleted and replaced with the term --the-- to correct an obvious typographical error.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 1-4, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under each of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (US 4,617,577).
With respect to claim 1, Takahashi et al. teaches a cutting device for cutting a medium S, comprising:
a cutter 14 including a fixed blade 141 above a conveyance path along which the medium S is conveyed and a movable blade 142 below the conveyance path, the movable blade being movable upward to cut the medium S between the fixed blade 141 and the movable blade 142; and
a guide 143 disposed above the conveyance path and downstream of the cutter in a conveyance direction in which the medium is conveyed along the conveyance path, the guide 143 guiding the medium having passed between the fixed blade 141 and the movable blade 142 in the conveyance direction, wherein
the guide 143 is movable in a vertical direction in conjunction with the movable blade 142. Particular attention is invited to Figures 14(I) and 14(II) and column 19, line 5-column 20, line 10.
With respect to the language in claim 1 reciting that the cutting device is for cutting a cloth medium, note that this language is a functional intended use and the cloth has not been recited as a positive element of the cutting device. Note MPEP 2114(II) states “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” and “A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Additionally, MPEP 2115 states “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” Since Takahashi et al. teaches a cutting device having all of the structure as recited and it is capable of being operated in the manner recited such that for cutting a cloth medium, it thereby meets the claim language.
With respect to claim 2, Takahashi et al. teaches the guide includes a plate-like part 143 extending along the conveyance direction, a downstream end of the plate-like part is supported by a first rotation shaft (i.e., pin 1431) and the plate-like part 143 is rotatable around the first rotation shaft, as described in column 19, lines 25-30.
With respect to claim 3, Takahashi et al. teaches wherein an upstream end of the plate-like part 143 is a free end, as shown in Figures 14(1)-14(II).
With respect to claim 4, Takahashi et al. teaches a first drive mechanism (i.e., the driver for the cutter blade) that rotates the plate-like part 143 in conjunction with the movable blade 142, as described in column 19, lines 14-35.
With respect to claim 17, note that this claim is a functional recitation of a desired mode of operation and fails to recite any additional structure that is necessary to perform this function. Thus, since Takahashi et al. teaches all of the structure as recited and is capable of operating in the manner recited, it meets the claim language. Takahashi et al. teaches wherein the cutter 141, 142 cuts off a portion of the medium S with a predetermined length, and the guide 143 guides the cut-off portion of the medium S, as shown in Figures 14(I)-14(II) and described in column 19, line 10-column 20, line 4.
With respect to claim 18, Takahashi et al. teaches the movable blade 142 includes a support shaft 1421 and is rotatable around the support shaft, as described in column 19, lines 10-13.
With respect to claim 20, Takahashi et al. teaches a printer (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a printing mechanism 23 configured to perform printing on a medium S;
a cutter including a fixed blade 141 above a conveyance path along which the medium S is conveyed and a movable blade 142 below the conveyance path, the movable blade being movable upward to cut the medium S between the fixed blade 141 and the movable blade 142; and
a guide 143 disposed above the conveyance path and downstream of the cutter in a conveyance direction in which the medium is conveyed along the conveyance path, the guide 143 guiding the medium having passed between the fixed blade 141 and the movable blade 142 in the conveyance direction, wherein
the guide 143 is movable in a vertical direction in conjunction with the movable blade 142. Particular attention is invited to Figures 14(I) and 14(II) and column 19, line 5-column 20, line 10.
With respect to the language in claim 20 reciting that that the printing device and cutting device are for use with a cloth medium, note that this language is a functional intended use and the cloth has not been recited as a positive element of the cutting device. Note MPEP 2114(II) states “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” and “A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Additionally, MPEP 2115 states “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” Since Takahashi et al. teaches a printing device and cutting device having all of the structure as recited and it is capable of being operated in the manner recited such that for printing and cutting a cloth medium, it thereby meets the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 4,617,577) in view of Kaneko et al. (US 2006/0061030 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Takahashi et al. teaches a cutting device having all of the structure as recited but is silent with respect to whether the plate-like part (i.e., the guide member) is composed of a conductive material and is grounded. Kaneko et al. teaches it is well known in the art to provide guide members in printers to be comprised of conductive material and grounded for the purpose of eliminating static electricity build up in sheets, as exemplified by the guide member 702 shown in Figure 8 and described in paragraphs [0112], [0135]-[0137], and [0146]. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plate-like part of Takahashi et al. to be composed of conductive material and grounded to insure that any static electrical charge that is generated in the sheet is easily dissipated.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 4,617,577) in view of JP 3-166982 A (hereafter referred to as JP ‘982).
With respect to claim 6, note that Takahashi et al. teaches a cutting device as recited including a lower guide that is disposed below the conveyance path and support the conveyed sheet from below. See, in particular, the guide 150 shown in Figures 14(I) and 14(II) and described in column 5, line 66, column 6, line 16-17, and column 19, line 59-63. However, Takahashi et al. does not specifically teach the provision of a static eliminator on the lower guide to remove static electricity of the sheet being conveyed. JP ‘982 teaches a printing arrangement which includes a static elimination brush 17 mounted on a cutter guide 14, as shown in Figure 1 and described in the English language translation. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a guide associated with the cutter in the device of Takahashi et al. to include a static elimination brush as taught by JP ‘982 to allow for any static electrical charge that is generated in the sheet is easily dissipated.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 4,617,577) in view of Takahashi et al. (JP 2015-101065 A).
With respect to claim 19, Takahashi et al. (US ‘577) teaches a cutting device having all of the structure as recited but is silent with respect to the whether the movable blade is composed of a conductive material and is grounded. Takahashi et al. (JP ‘065) teaches it is well known in the art to provide the movable cutting blade in a printer to be comprised of conductive material and grounded for the purpose of eliminating static electricity build up in sheets, as exemplified by the movable blade 82 shown in Figure 4 and described in paragraphs [0026] and [0039]. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the movable blade of Takahashi et al. (US ‘577) to be composed of conductive material and grounded as taught by Takahashi et al. (JP ‘065) to insure that any static electrical charge that is generated in the sheet is easily dissipated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a cutting device including all of the structure as recited, in combination with and particularly including, a second rotation shaft that is disposed above the conveyance path and rotates in the conveyance direction; and a paddle that is attached to the second rotation shaft and moves in the conveyance direction along with a rotation of the second rotation shaft to sweep out the cloth medium in the conveyance direction, wherein the plate-like part is disposed between an upper surface of the movable blade and the second rotation shaft.
With respect to claim 9, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a cutting device including all of the structure as recited, in combination with and particularly including, a platform on which a portion of the cloth medium cut off by the cutter is placeable; a second rotation shaft above the conveyance path; and at least one paddle that is attached to the second rotation shaft and contacts the platform when the second rotation shaft is rotated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Suzuki et al. (EP 2 338 689 A2) teaches a printing apparatus with a cutter mechanism having similarities to the claimed subject matter that are readily apparent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE J THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:00 pm.
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, Stephen D Meier can be reached at 571-272-7149. 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.
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853