DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 4/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 18, line 1, “for cutting flat material” should be “for cutting a flat material” to avoid lack of antecedent issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means,” Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“connection means” as recited in claim 6.
“respective connecting means” as recited in claim 13.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 8-9 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 claim 8, “at least partially surrounds a part of the machining device” with “for a machining device” of claim 1 is indefinite. Examiner notes that in claim 1 that “a machining device” not part of the arcuate cutting tool, however “surrounds” is a positive limitation that require the arcuate cutting tool to compare to the machining device, therefore the limitation is unclear if “a part” is required by the claim or just a functional limitation. The examiner suggests claiming “configured to surround” to overcome the rejection.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Antosh (US 2666485).
Regarding claim 1, Antosh teaches an arcuate cutting tool part for a machining device for cutting flat material, such as sheet metal, comprising:
a radially outer cutting edge area having at least one arcuate cutting edge (edge of 19);
an attachment arrangement for attachment to the machining device (see Figures 1-5);
a first coupling arrangement having a first coupling portion (1st 12, see Figure 1-5); and
a second coupling arrangement having a second coupling portion (2nd 12, see Figures 1-5),
wherein the arcuate cutting tool part defines a circumferential direction in accordance with an arcuate shape of the arcuate cutting tool part (see Figures 1-5), and
wherein at least one of the first and the second coupling arrangements are configured to be releasably coupled to at least one further arcuate cutting tool part in the circumferential direction (releasable via 30, see Figures 1-5),
wherein the arcuate cutting tool part is formed as a one-piece part (formed into one via 29, see Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 2, Antosh teaches the first and the second coupling arrangements are configured such that imaginary coupling to the respective other of the first and second coupling arrangements is provided (see Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 3, Antosh teaches the first and the second coupling arrangements are coupled together by way of positive abutment with one another without an additional component arranged between the first and the second coupling arrangements (via 29, see Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 4, Antosh teaches the first and the second coupling portions are configured to be at least partially complementary to each other (via 29, see Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, Antosh teaches the first coupling portion and/or the second coupling portion have a groove and/or a protrusion, wherein the groove is configured to receive the protrusion.
Regarding claim 6, Antosh teaches at least one of the first and the second coupling arrangements has at least one recess for receive the connecting means (29, see Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 7, Antosh teaches the connection means comprises a screw (30, see Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 8, Antosh teaches a radially inner portion that at least partially surrounds a part of the machining device (see Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 9, Antosh teaches the radially inner portion is arcuate, and wherein the part of the machining device comprises a guide cylinder (see Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 10, Antosh teaches the at least one arcuate cutting edge has the shape of a segment of a circle (see Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 11, Antosh teaches the arcuate cutting tool part has the shape of a segment of a ring (see Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 12, Antosh teaches the arcuate cutting tool part has a substantially constant thickness at least in the radial direction (see Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 13, Antosh teaches the attachment arrangement comprises one or more fastening holes for at least partially receiving a respective connecting means for attachment to the machining device (see Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 14, Antosh teaches the fastening holes are arranged along a pitch circle (see Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 15, Antosh teaches An arcuate cutting tool for a machining device for cutting flat material, the arcuate cutting tool comprising:
a first cutting tool part (17), comprising:
a first radially outer cutting edge area (19) having at least one first arcuate cutting edge; a first attachment arrangement for attachment to the machining device (see Figures 1-5); and
a first set of coupling arrangements (12), wherein the first arcuate cutting tool part defines a first circumferential direction in accordance with a first arcuate shape of the first cutting tool part (see Figures 1-5), and
a second cutting tool part (other 17), comprising:
a second radially outer cutting edge area (other 19) having at least one second arcuate cutting edge; a second attachment arrangement for attachment to the machining device (see Figures 1-5);
a second set of coupling arrangements (other 12), wherein the second arcuate cutting tool part defines a second circumferential direction in accordance with a second arcuate shape of the second cutting tool part (see Figures 1-5), and
wherein a coupling arrangement of the second set of coupling arrangements is coupled to a coupling arrangement of the first set of coupling arrangements (see Figures 1-5),
wherein at least one of the first cutting tool part and the second cutting tool part is a one piece part (forming one part via mating elements 29 see Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 16, Antosh teaches at least one connecting means for releasably coupling the first cutting tool part to the second cutting tool part (see Figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 17, Antosh teaches the first and the second cutting tool parts are similar (see Figures 1-5).
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 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antosh (US 2666485) in view of Flaherty (US 20030205117 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Antosh teaches a machining device for cutting flat material, comprising:
a cutting device arrangement configured to cut the flat material (see Figures 1-5), comprising:
a radially outer cutting edge area (19) having at least one arcuate cutting edge;
an attachment arrangement for attachment to the machining device (two 12s, see Figures 1-5);
a first coupling arrangement (12) having a first coupling portion (see Figures 1-5); and
a second coupling arrangement (other 12) having a second coupling portion (see Figures 1-5),
wherein the cutting device arrangement defines a circumferential direction in accordance with an arcuate shape of the cutting device arrangement (see Figures 1-5), and wherein at least one of the first and the second coupling arrangements are configured to be releasably coupled to another cutting device arrangement in the circumferential direction (see Figures 1-5),
wherein the cutting device arrangement part is a one-piece part (via mating portion 29, see Figures 1-5).
Antosh fails to teach a base including a support table for the flat material, the base defining a feed direction in which the flat material can be fed into the machining device.
Flaherty teaches a machining device including cutting elements (58) and a base (22) including a support table (top of 22) for the flat material, the base defining a feed direction in which the flat material can be fed into the machining device (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Antosh to use the cutting element of Antosh for each of the cutting element in the system of Flaherty, as taught by Flaherty and Antosh, in order to provide a removable cutting system to increase the life of the machine (col. 1 lines 1-45 of Antosh).
Regarding claim 19, modified Antosh further teaches the cutting device arrangement comprises a first cutting device configured to cut the flat material transversely to the feed direction (as modified, see Figure 1 of Flaherty), wherein the machining device further comprises a second cutting device arrangement comprising a second cutting device configured to cut the flat material in the feed direction (as modified, see Figure 1 of Flaherty), wherein the second cutting device arrangement defines a second circumferential direction in accordance with a second arcuate shape of the second cutting device arrangement (as modified, see Figure 1 of Flaherty), and wherein the second cutting device arrangement comprises: a second radially outer cutting edge area having at least one second arcuate cutting edge (as modified, see Figure 1 of Flaherty); a second attachment arrangement for attachment to the machining device; and at least one coupling arrangement configured to be releasably coupled to the first cutting device (as modified, see Figure 1 of Flaherty).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 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, Ashley Boyer 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights