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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Whitelaw (WO 2022/111869).
Regarding claim 1, Whitelaw discloses A method for cutting a running web , comprising the steps: guiding the web over a circumferential surface of an abutment drum; rotating a blade, that extends in the axial direction of the abutment drum, about an axis of rotation parallel to the axis of the abutment drum (16 figure 1)
Whitelaw discloses holding the blade in a retracted position in which a cutting edge of the blade is spaced apart from the web on the abutment drum (See figures 1-3); impacting the blade against the web and the surface of the abutment drum at a time when the blade passes through a plane (see figure 1, and discussion below on control timing) that contains the axis of the abutment drum and said axis of rotation (as shown in figure 1 52 and 34 share a plane shown as a vertical line) supporting a knife shaft carrying the blade in an oscillating crank (28; applicant may mean something different than that which is depicted as 28 being an ‘oscillating crank’ but the plain meaning encpompasses a link which moves back and forth—as shown 28 achieves) which in turn is mounted on a rotary eccentric (38 figure 1) and controlling the impact movement of the blade by controlling a drive of the eccentric (As on p. 7 of “The timing of the rotation of the can shaft is controlled such that the cutting edge of the blade will hit the web at the moment when the blade passes through the vertical plane”).
Regarding claim 2, (see claim 2 of Whitelaw, “…the blade is controlled to match the …speed of the …drum…”)
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Whitelaw further discloses the step of keeping the blade at an elevated temperature (See page 3 which discusses heating the blade). This therefore includes a heating system per se, since that is the catch all term for whatever has heated the blade as discussed. Alternatively, examiner takes official notice that heating blades in cutters is old and well known for the purpose of easing the cut and adding it in response to Whitelaw’s suggestion would have been obvious as set forth below under the section 103 discussion.
Regarding claim 6, the structures thereof are clearly addressed by Whitelaw as set forth with respect to claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 7 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/111869 (Whitelaw, herein) in view of FR 2511636 (Martin, herein).
Regarding claim 3, Whitelaw does not disclose supporting the knife shaft in a cutting gate and guiding the cutting gate for linear motion during the impact movement. In the same manner as applicant, Martin shows a blade mounted on a cutting gate 41, 15, etc, guided on 40 for linear movement to and from the anvil roller 4. The link- or oscillating crank of Martin (See 23 figure 4) is mounted on eccentric cam arrangement for the same reasons as applicant—driving the reciprocation of blade (2 figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the crank and guides (if any) of Whitelaw with the linear guide and cutting gate and crank of Martin, since both are known to be used for the same purpose of guiding the oscillation of a blade to and from engagement with an anvil, and the substitution would involve no undue experimentation or create any unexpected result—it is just the substitution of one art known solution for another similar mechanism for the same movement objective.
Claim 7, in requiring the cutting gate, etc. is obvious for the same reason as claim 3.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitelaw as in claim 1, 6 , or Whitelaw in view of Martin as applied to claims 3, 7 above, and further in view of Kishine (US 6,401,583).
Regarding claim 4. Whitelaw discloses the eccentric is mounted on an eccentric shaft (See figures 1-3), and Whitelaw does not disclose that driving the eccentric shaft uses one of: a servo motor (40) or a stepper motor. Martin shows a motor at 27 figure 2 for driving the device—as is well known. The kind of motor 27 is not specified by Martin—referenced as ‘motor’ of a ‘known type.’
It is a well known motor type to select a servo motor for the driving of rotary machinery—including cutter drums, as shown in US 6,401,583, at least “servo motor 32…53…65 and 66” shown throughout the figures are used to drive the machine.
It would have been obvious to add an appropriate driving motor to Whitelaw, such as indicated to be used in Martin, and universally known to be effectively selected as servo motors, as seen in Kishine (US 6,401,583).
Alternatively, if Whitelaw does not use an ‘eccentric shaft’ as claimed—the substitution with Martin to use the shaft, crank, and gate therefrom includes this same features as applicant’s disclosure, rendering them obvious in similar manner.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitelaw in view of Martin as applied to claims 3, 7 above, and further in view of Mizuno (US 5,788,999).
Regarding claim 9. Mizuno discloses a Winder (45) for winding a web (40) onto a coil (shown at 45), comprising a cutting unit (blade group 110). This is not a cutter according to claim 6, but a different cutter. IN any event. The use of winders to wind webs is known and shown in Mizuno, but not combined with the type of cutter shown in claim 6—here this is shown ot be obvious in light of Whitelaw and Martin above.
It has been held that the combination of elements known in the prior art to be used in accordance with their known functions is unpatentable as a matter of law absent a showing that the combination has results which are unexpectedly advantageous over the prior art. Please see Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc. U.S. Supreme Court No. 75-110 425 US 273, 189 USPQ 449 (1976), Which states “patent[s] for combination that only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions withdraws what is already known into field of its monopoly and diminishes resources available to skillful men” and [a] patent [which] simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, although perhaps producing a more striking result than in previous combinations…are not patentable under standards appropriate for a combination patent”; also see Anderson’s Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., Inc. U.S. Supreme Court 396 US 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969) which states “while the combination of old elements performed a useful function, it added nothing to the nature and quality of the radiant-heat burner already patented”. Similarly here, the combionation is of old elements with no change in their functions, and nothing unexpected happens when you add a wind up machine to a slitter or cutter, it simply functions to wind up the material being processed.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. _____(2007) affirmed both Sakraida and Anderson’s requirement that to be patentable a combination needed to provide some synergistic effect. See Slip op. at 13 lines 3-19. Using known elements for their known functions is as a matter of law not patentable, since it removes resources available to skillful men, contrary to U.S. Const., Art. I §8, cl.8. which provides patent monopolies to promote the progress of useful arts. See Slip op. KSR at 24 lines 5-7.
Each of the elements claimed are known as seen in the cited prior art (above); their combination is unpatentable absent a showing that one of ordinary skill would be unable to effect their combination, or their combination provides unexpectedly good results (more than a duplicated effect).
Claim(s) 5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitelaw as applied to claims 1,2, 5-6, above, and further in view of Official notice.
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Whitelaw further discloses the step of keeping the blade at an elevated temperature (See page 3 which discusses heating the blade). This therefore includes a heating system per se, since that is the catch all term for whatever has heated the blade as discussed. Alternatively, examiner takes official notice that heating blades in cutters is old and well known for the purpose of easing the cut and adding it in response to Whitelaw’s suggestion would have been obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
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.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724