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.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 21 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 21 is distinct as the product cutting system utilizing a pair of cutting dies and conveying device not previously present independent claim formatting.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 “the conveying device having a matching notch formed therethrough and receiving a portion of the cutting device” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
-Examiner notes there does not appear to be a reference character to provide where or what the matching notch is intended to refer to within the drawings.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
-Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the conveying device having a matching notch formed therethrough and receiving a portion of the cutting device” is new matter. Examiner notes paragraph 0016 of the specification appears to be the only written text providing support for the matching notch and states “The conveying channel 20 has a matching notch suitable for matching with the lower cutting die 111. The lower cutting die 111 is matched into the matching notch of the conveying channel 20, allowing the product 3 to be transported to the top surface of the lower cutting die 111”. As such, the specification only provides support for the lower cutting die, but not any other portion of the cutting device.
-Regarding claim 3, the phrase “the conveying device extends continuously along the predetermined path from a first side of the cutting device to a second side of the cutting device for continuous supporting the product arranged within the matching notch” is new matter. The specification does not appear to detail interaction between the conveying device, the work product and moving the work product to be supported and arranged within the matching notch as currently claimed.
-Regarding claim 4, the phrase “the matching notch being open on a first end in a direction transverse to the predetermined path of the produce along the conveying channel, and closed on a second end opposite the first end in the transverse direction” is new matter. Examiner notes it is unclear what the matching notch is intended to be, as it is not labeled within the drawings, and the specification appears to be silent to any further details such as the limitations claimed. Currently, the specification only provides support for “The conveying channel 20 has a matching notch suitable for matching with the lower cutting die 111. The lower cutting die 111 is matched into the matching notch of the conveying channel 20, allowing the product 3 to be transported to the top surface of the lower cutting die 111”.
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 1-10 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.
-Regarding claims1 and 3, the phrase “the conveying device including a conveying channel and guiding the product along a predetermined path to and from the cutting station, the conveying device having a matching notch formed therethrough and receiving a portion of the cutting device” and more specifically “ the conveying device extends continuously along the predetermined path from a first side of the cutting device to a second side of the cutting device for continuous supporting the product arranged within the matching notch” are unclear. It is unclear how the conveying device moves product towards the matching notch to then be received by the cutting device (lower cutting die 111 as shown in Figures 1-2). The conveyor system appears to move product (3, 32) on a conveyor past or to left left (when viewed in Figures 1-2) of the lower cutting die (111,111a). How does the conveyor move product to be arranged within, on over, or near the cutting die 111 to be punched? The specification does not appear to describe a system wherein the conveyor goes over the lower cutting die 111, and Figure 3 of the drawings show that the lower cutting die is solid, thus the product cannot go through the lower cutting die. As such, it is unclear how the conveying device as claimed is capable of continuously supporting and moved the product along a predetermined path to be cut.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gifford (U.S. Patent No. 6,546,833).
Regarding claim 1, Gifford teaches a product cutting system, comprising:
a cutting device (10) disposed at a cutting station for cutting a product (32); and
a conveying device (42) transporting the product to be cut to the cutting station (Figure 1), the cutting device is separate from the conveying device and can cooperate with a plurality of different conveying devices to cut a plurality of different products (Figure 1; Col. 5, Lines 44-61 noting different conveying systems may also be utilized as needed);
the conveying device including a conveying channel (46,48) and guiding the product along a predetermined path to and from the cutting station, the conveying device having a matching notch formed therethrough and receiving a portion of the cutting device (Figure 4 noting also Figures 11-12; Col. 5, Lines 44-67, Col. 6, Lines 1-5 and Col. 7, Lines 35-47; Examiner notes the specifics of the matching notch are not defined, and the conveying device, as a whole merely requires a space to allow for a portion of the cutting device/cutting die. As such, the spacing between the two noted conveyors as shown in Figure 4 provides a “notch” to allow for cutting of the workpiece as claimed)
Regarding claim 2, Gifford teaches the product cutting system according to claim 1, wherein the cutting device includes: an installation frame (18)(Figure 2);
a pair of cutting dies (22,23,25) installed on the installation frame and capable of being opened and closed in a vertical direction to cut the product; and
a first driving device (24) installed on the installation frame to drive the pair of cutting dies to open and close (Figure 1; Col. 5, Lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 3, Gifford teaches the product cutting system according to claim 2, wherein the conveying channel is separable from the installation frame so that different products can be transported to the cutting station by replacing the conveying channel (Figure 1; Col. 5, Lines 44-61 noting different conveying systems may also be utilized as needed); and the conveying device extends continuously along the predetermined path from a first side of the cutting device to a second side of the cutting device for continuous supporting the product arranged within the matching notch (Figure 4; Col. 5, Lines 44-66).
Regarding claim 4, Gifford teaches the product cutting system according to claim 3, wherein the pair of cutting dies includes a lower cutting die (20) fixed on the installation frame and an upper cutting die (26) movably installed on the installation frame, the matching notch matches with the fixed lower cutting die, the lower cutting die is matched into the matching notch of the conveying device so that the product can be transported to the lower cutting die (Figures 1-3; Col. 6, Lines 6-14; note Figure 2 allowing the conveying device through the support elements 60 within the overall cutting system to provide the matching elements for the lower cutting die);
the matching notch being open on a first end in a direction transverse to the predetermined path of the product along the conveying channel, and closed on a second end opposite the first end in the transverse direction (Figures 1 and 4 noting the matching notch is open as viewed in Figure 4 and Closed as viewed in Figure 1 due to the structural components of the conveying device).
Regarding claim 5, Gifford teaches the product cutting system according to claim 4, wherein the first driving device is connected to the upper cutting die and drives the upper cutting die to move in the vertical direction to cut the product at the lower cutting die (Figures 1-2 and Col. 5, Lines 1-10, Col. 6, Lines 6-14).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gifford (U.S. Patent No. 6,546,833) in view of Miyakawa (U.S. Patent No. 2022/0098000).
Regarding claim 6, Gifford teaches the product cutting system according to claim 5, further comprising a first control device controlling the cutting system but does not provide the control device controlling an output force and an output speed of the first driving device to ensure that the upper cutting die can cut the product with a predetermined cutting force and a predetermined cutting speed.
Miyakawa teaches it is known in the art of product cutting systems with punches to provide a control unit (17) controlling an output force and an output speed of a driving device to ensure that a cutting member can cut the product with a predetermined cutting force and a predetermined cutting speed (Figure 1; Paragraphs 0038-0040, 0078-0079).
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 Gifford to incorporate the teachings of Miyakawa to provide the control unit with predetermined cutting forces and speeds. In doing so, it allows for the workpiece to be appropriately cut as desired.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gifford (U.S. Patent No. 6,546,833) in view of D’Agostino (U.S. Patent No. 3,992,966).
Regarding claim 7, Gifford teaches the product cutting system according to claim 4, but does not provide wherein a slot hole is formed in and vertically passes though the lower cutting die, the upper cutting die has a protrusion suitable for matching with the slot hole, a plurality of edges of the slot hole and the protrusion form cutting edges for cutting the product.
D’Agostino teaches it is known in the art of product cutting systems to incorporate an upper cutting element (11) and a lower cutting element (16) wherein a slot hole (68) is formed in and vertically passes though the lower cutting element, the upper cutting element (11) has a protrusion suitable for matching with the slot hole, a plurality of edges of the slot hole and the protrusion form cutting edges for cutting the product, thereby allowing for ejection of the workpiece through a channel (43)(Figures 2 and 3; Col. 4, Lines 1-40).
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 Gifford to incorporate the teachings of D’Agostino to provide a slot hole is formed in and vertically passes though the lower cutting die, the upper cutting die has a protrusion suitable for matching with the slot hole, a plurality of edges of the slot hole and the protrusion form cutting edges for cutting the product. In doing so, it allows for the workpiece to be cut completely through and ejected therefrom.
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Gifford teaches the product cutting system according to claim 7, wherein, when a portion to be cut of the product is moved and positioned into the slot hole of the lower cutting die, the protrusion of the upper cutting die is inserted into the slot hole of the lower cutting die to cut the portion to be cut of the product (D’Agostino Figure 3 noting the removal of product 43).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Gifford teaches the product cutting system according to claim 8, further comprising: a waste channel (43), an inlet of the waste channel is connected to an outlet of the slot hole of the lower cutting die to receive waste generated during cutting the product; and a waste recycling bin (note attachment of a bin/bag member via attached chain member 45) connected to the outlet of the waste channel to receive waste discharged from the waste channel, the waste channel and the waste recycling box are fixed to the installation frame (D’Agostino Figure 3; Col. 4, Lines 41-58).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Gifford teaches the product cutting system according to claim 9, wherein the installation frame includes (18):
a support body (28) extending to a predetermined height in the vertical direction;
a top plate (26) fixed to a top of the support body;
a bottom plate (12) fixed to a bottom of the support body; and
a support plate (16) fixed to a top surface of the bottom plate (12), the first driving device (24) is installed on the top plate, the upper cutting die is movably installed on the support body, the lower cutting die is fixed to the support plate (Gifford Figures 1 and 2), the waste channel and the waste recycling box are respectively fixed to the support plate and the bottom plate (Gifford Figure 2 and D’Agostino Figure 3).
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references A-B on page 1 establish the state of the art with a variety punching devices with associated conveyor mechanisms.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “In its rejection of claim 4 appearing on pages 4 and 5, the Action cites to the delivery structure 42 of Gifford as allegedly teaching the claimed conveying device. It is noted, however, that a detailed reading of Gifford reveals that the delivery structure 42 includes, for example, separate conveyors arranged on either side of a cutting press 10. See Figure 4, and col. 5, lines 44-65 of Gifford. This is distinct from a conveying device having a notch formed therethrough which receives a portion of a cutting device. Further, in arguendo, to the extent Gifford may show structure extending from one conveyor to the other in the area of the cutting press 10, these structures appear continuous. Nowhere does Gifford teach or suggest a "notch" formed through its conveying device which receives a portion of its cutting device. Examiner notes the specifics of the matching notch are not defined, and the conveying device, as a whole merely requires a space between two structural components to allow for a portion of the cutting device/cutting die. As such, the spacing between the two noted conveyors as shown in Figures 1 and 4 provides a “notch” to allow for the structural components of the cutting device, transportation of the workpiece to the cutting device, and cutting of the workpiece as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/ 09/03/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 09/04/2026
Prosecution Insights