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 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.
Claim 18 is 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. Claim 18 requires “18. The cutting method according to claim 16,” which is indefinite, because the preamble of claim 16 is not to a method—so claim 18 is indefinite in scope. It is believed this was intended to depend on claim 17 (a method).
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 –
Claim(s) 1-4, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 10,940,658 (Lemmens).
Regarding claim 1, Lemmens discloses A cutting apparatus (figure 5), comprising: a pair of cutting blades (46, 92); a drive mechanism configured to drive the pair of cutting blades to close or open with respect to each other in a first direction (See action in figures 6-7); and a gap adjustment mechanism (112) configured to drive at least one of the pair of cutting blades to move along a second direction before the drive mechanism drives the pair of cutting blades to open (it positions 92 left/right at will, so is capable of performing this function, as claimed), so as to enlarge a movement gap between the pair of cutting blades; wherein the first direction intersects with the second direction (They are perpendicular as shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 2 Lemmens further discloses the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (figure 5)
Regarding claim 3, Lemmens further discloses the gap adjustment mechanism is further configured to drive at least one of the pair of cutting blades to reset in an opposite direction of the second direction before the drive mechanism drives the pair of cutting blades to close (the device is threaded and capable of performing that adjustment as seen in figure 5).
Regarding claim 4, Lemmens further discloses the pair of cutting blades are a first cutting blade and a second cutting blade (82, 92, figure 5); the drive mechanism is configured to drive the first cutting blade to reciprocate in the first direction (See column 8 line 7+: “The driven blade 46 may be driven manually, such as via an operator applying force to a lever (not shown), for example attached to the driven carriage 80. Alternatively, the driven blade 46 may be linearly translated by other suitable means, such as a linear actuator, pneumatics, hydraulics, etc.”; and the gap adjustment mechanism is configured to drive the second cutting blade to move along the second direction and reset in the opposite direction of the second direction (as seen in figure 4, the adjustment mechanism is shown to move left/right as claimed).
Regarding claim 13, Lemmens further discloses a guide plate (90 surrounding 110, figure 4) fixed to the second cutting blade and configured to guide a material strip into a gap between the first cutting blade and the second cutting blade (the flat plate thereof does this alignment as claimed).
Regarding claim 15, Lemmens further discloses the drive mechanism is one of two drive mechanisms of the cutting apparatus (112/ 112, figure 4), and the two drive mechanisms are apart from each other in a third direction (along the length of the blade, seen in figure 4), the third direction being perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction.(see figures 4, 5, inter alia)
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) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemmens as set forth above, in view of US 2016/0107249 (Cartwright).
Regarding claim 17, while the device of Lemmens is suitable for and capable of spacing the blade lower from the higher during use—by driving the screws 112, it does not disclose this method. In the same field of shearing devices, it is known to automate and set the blade positions of both upper and lower blades automatically, as taught in Cartwright. Cartwright shows a gap “g” and notes that “the blade gap needs to be adjusted according to the thickness and the strength of material being sheared and the blade gap needs to be set accurately in order to get the best cut quality and to minimize the blade wear.” And [0043]: “Any wear of the wedges 9 and slides 13 in the gap adjustment system is automatically taken care of by using the blade gap measurement system to provide feedback into the blade gap adjustment system.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Lemmens to permit automated gap creation in order to achieve the objective of blade wear reduction, by the automated gap setting during strokes of a shear, as taught by Cartwright above.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 5, 14 and 16 contain additional limitations which are not obvious in light of the closest art, shown as Lemmens above. Claims 6-12 and 16 which depend directly or indirectly from one of these claims are allowable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 5, the term “a drive member” configured to drive the second cutting blade to move along the second direction appears to read on the mechanism shown in figure 4 of Lemmens, however, there is not an elastic reset member configured to drive the second cutting blade to reset in the opposite direction of the second direction. Similarly, the elements of claim 14 and 16 are not seen in the prior art, and do not lend themselves to being incorporated to Lemmens or similar known shears.
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
Prosecution Insights