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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-14, 18-19 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 1, Ln 5-6, the limitations "first coupling portion" & "second coupling portion" are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly what defines a portion, the metes and bounds of the claims being unclear as to the amount of the coupling that defines a portion. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claims to mean any part of a whole.
Regarding Claim 2, Ln 2, the limitation "imaginary coupling" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim what defines an imaginary coupling, the metes and bounds of the claims being unclear. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claims to mean that the intended use of the first and second couplings are to join one to the other.
Regarding Claim 4, Ln 2, the limitation "at least partially complementary" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim what defines partially complementary, the metes and bounds of the claims being unclear as to the extent of complement required to satisfy the claims. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claims to mean that the intended use of the first and second couplings are to join one to the other.
Regarding Claims 4, 5, Ln 1-2, the limitations ""first coupling portion" & "second coupling portion" are indefinite as recited above.
Regarding Claim 9, Ln 2, the limitation "part of the machining device" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
a) exactly what defines a portion, the metes and bounds of the claims being unclear as to the amount of a portion, and
b) whether the machining device is a required structural element of the claimed arcuate cutting tool part or not, and
c) whether the guide cylinder, being recited as an element of the machining device, is a required structural element of the claimed arcuate cutting tool part or not.
In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claims to mean that
a) any part of the whole machining device ,and
b) neither the machining device nor the guide cylinder, not having been previously positively recited, is intended use of the arcuate cutting tool part and not required structural elements of the claimed arcuate cutting tool part.
Regarding Claim 13, Ln 2, the limitation "for at least partially receiving" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim what defines partially receiving, the metes and bounds of the claims being unclear as to the extent of receipt required to satisfy the claims. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claims to mean that the intended use of the fastening holes is fastening.
Regarding Claims 18-19, the limitation "flat material" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether the flat material is a required structural element of the claimed machining device or not. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claims to mean that the flat material is intended use of the machining device and not a required structural element of the claimed machining device.
Regarding Claim 19, Ln 11-12, the limitation "the first cutting device arrangement" lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reed (US 3,908,499), hereinafter Reed.
Regarding Claim 1, Reed discloses an arcuate cutting tool part (A) (Col 3, Ln 17; as illustrated in at least Fig 1) for a machining device (B) (Col 1, Ln 18 & Col 1, Ln 1-2; as illustrated in at least Fig 1) for cutting flat material, such as sheet metal (Col 1, Ln 15, 17-19), comprising:
a radially outer cutting edge area (98) having at least one arcuate cutting edge (100) (Col 4, Ln 63-65 & Col 5, Ln 1-2; as illustrated in at least Fig 1);
an attachment arrangement (32) (34) (Col 3, Ln 41, 43, resp.; as illustrated in at least Fig 2) for attachment to the machining device;
a first coupling arrangement having a first coupling portion (120) (Col 6, Ln 45; as illustrated in at least Fig 6); and a second coupling arrangement having a second coupling portion (122) (Col 6, Ln 47-48; as illustrated in at least Fig 6),
wherein the arcuate cutting tool part defines a circumferential direction in accordance with an arcuate shape of the arcuate cutting tool part (as illustrated in at least Fig 1), 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 (Col 6, Ln 41-47; as illustrated in at least Fig 6).
Regarding Claim 2, Reed discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, a stated above. Reed further discloses 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 (Col 6, Ln 41-47; as illustrated in at least Fig 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Reed discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, a stated above. Reed further discloses 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 (as illustrated in at least Fig 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Reed discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, a stated above. Reed further discloses the first and the second coupling portions are configured to be at least partially complementary to each other (as illustrated in at least Fig 6).
Regarding Claim 5, Reed discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, a stated above. Reed further discloses the first coupling portion and/or the second coupling portion have a groove (72) and/or a protrusion (44), wherein the groove is configured to receive the protrusion (Col 4, Ln 33-36, as illustrated in at least Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Reed discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, a stated above. Reed further discloses at least one of the first and the second coupling arrangements has at least one recess (120) for receiving a connecting means (114), (116) (Col 6, Ln 41-47; as illustrated in at least Fig 6).
Regarding Claim 7, Reed discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, a stated above. Reed further discloses the connecting means comprises a screw (114), (116) (Col 6, Ln 41-47; as illustrated in at least Fig 6).
Regarding Claim 8, Reed discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, a stated above. Reed further discloses a radially inner portion (20) (Col 3, Ln 31) that at least partially surrounds a part of the machining device as illustrated in at least Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Reed discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, a stated above. Reed further discloses the radially inner portion is arcuate (as illustrated in at least Fig 3), and wherein the part of the machining device comprises a guide cylinder (B).
Regarding Claim 10, Reed discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, a stated above. Reed further discloses the at least one arcuate cutting edge has the shape of a segment of a circle (as illustrated in at least Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Reed discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, a stated above. Reed further discloses the arcuate cutting tool part has the shape of a segment of a ring (as illustrated in at least Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Reed discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, a stated above. Reed further discloses the arcuate cutting tool part has a substantially constant thickness at least in the radial direction (as illustrated in at least Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Reed discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, a stated above. Reed further discloses the attachment arrangement comprises one or more fastening holes (120) for at least partially receiving a respective connecting means (114), (116) for attachment to the machining device (Col 6, Ln 41-47; as illustrated in at least Fig 6).
Regarding Claim 14, Reed discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, a stated above. Reed further discloses the fastening holes are arranged along a pitch circle (as illustrated in at least Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 15, Reed discloses an arcuate cutting tool (A) (Col 3, Ln 17; as illustrated in at least Fig 1) for a machining device (B) (Col 3, Ln 18 & Col 1, Ln 1-2; as illustrated in at least Fig 1) for cutting flat material (Col 1, Ln 15), the arcuate cutting tool comprising:
a first cutting tool part (90) (Col 4, Ln 62-64; as illustrated in at least Fig 1), comprising:
a first radially outer cutting edge area (98) having at least one first arcuate cutting edge (100) (Col 4, Ln 63-65 & Col 5, Ln 1-2; as illustrated in at least Fig 1);
a first attachment arrangement for attachment to the machining device; and a first set of coupling arrangements (120) (Col 6, Ln 45; as illustrated in at least Fig 6),
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 (as illustrated in at least Fig 1), and
a second cutting tool part (92) (Col 4, Ln 62-64; as illustrated in at least Fig 1), comprising:
a second radially outer cutting edge area (98) having at least one second arcuate cutting edge (100) (Col 4, Ln 63-65 & Col 5, Ln 1-2; as illustrated in at least Fig 1);
a second attachment arrangement for attachment to the machining device; a second set of coupling arrangements (120) (Col 6, Ln 45; as illustrated in at least Fig 6),
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 (as illustrated in at least Fig 1), 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 (as illustrated in at least Fig 6).
Regarding Claim 16, Reed discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, a stated above. Reed further discloses at least one connecting means (144), (116) for releasably coupling the first cutting tool part to the second cutting tool part (Col 6, Ln 41-47; as illustrated in at least Fig 6). Examiner notes it is well known in the art to releasably connect elements using screws.
Regarding Claim 17, Reed discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, a stated above. Reed further discloses the first and the second cutting tool parts are similar (as illustrated in at least Fig 6).
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.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed, in view of Schmauder (US 2007/0101840), hereafter Schmauder.
Regarding Claim 18, Reed discloses a machining device for cutting flat material (Col 1, Ln 8-28, especially Ln 27-28), comprising:
a cutting device arrangement (A) (Col 1, Ln 17; as illustrated in at least Fig 1) configured to cut the flat material (Col 1, Ln 15, 17-19), comprising:
a radially outer cutting edge area (98) having at least one arcuate cutting edge (100) (Col 4, Ln 63-65 & Col 5, Ln 1-2; as illustrated in at least Fig 1); an attachment arrangement for attachment to the machining device (32) (34) (Col 3, Ln 41, 43, resp.; as illustrated in at least Fig 2);
a first coupling arrangement having a first coupling portion (120) (Col 6, Ln 45; as illustrated in at least Fig 6); and
a second coupling arrangement having a second coupling portion (122) (Col 6, Ln 47-48; as illustrated in at least Fig 6),
wherein the cutting device arrangement defines a circumferential direction in accordance with an arcuate shape of the cutting device arrangement (as illustrated in at least Fig 1), 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 (Col 6, Ln 41-47; as illustrated in at least Fig 6). Examiner notes it is well known in the art to releasably connect elements using screws.
Reed is silent to a base having a support table configured for a flat material the base defining a feed direction in which the flat material can be fed into the machining device.
Schmauder teaches a machining device for cutting flat material (Para [0002], Ln 1-3). Schmauder further teaches a base (4) including a support table (10) for the flat material, the base defining a feed direction in which the flat material can be fed into the machining device (al as illustrated in at least Fig 1). Examiner notes that a skilled Artisan would recognize the space between the cutter (6) and the table (10) as defining a workpiece feed direction, into the machine.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machining device for cutting flat material, as disclosed by Reed, to include a base having a support table configured for a flat material the base defining a feed direction in which the flat material can be fed into the machining device, as taught by Schmauder, in order to process the material.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed, in view of Schmauder and Laib, et alia (WO 2008 046500),hereinafter Laib.
Regarding Claim 19, combined Reed/Schmauder teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Reed further discloses, wherein the machining device further comprises a second cutting device arrangement comprising a second cutting device (Col 1,Ln 23-28, especially Ln 27-28).
Reed is not explicit to the second cutting device arrangement defines a second circumferential direction in accordance with a second arcuate shape of the second cutting device arrangement, and wherein the second cutting device arrangement comprises: a second radially outer cutting edge area having at least one second arcuate cutting edge; a second attachment arrangement for attachment to the machining device; and at least one coupling arrangement configured to be releasably coupled the first cutting device arrangement. Examiner notes a skilled Artisan would recognize the utility of replicating like devices for like purposes, as disclosed by Reed.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machining device for cutting flat material, as taught by combined Reed/Schmauder, to include the second cutting device arrangement defines a second circumferential direction in accordance with a second arcuate shape of the second cutting device arrangement, and wherein the second cutting device arrangement comprises: a second radially outer cutting edge area having at least one second arcuate cutting edge; a second attachment arrangement for attachment to the machining device; and at least one coupling arrangement configured to be releasably coupled the first cutting device arrangement, as is well known in the art, to maximize the efficiency of utilizing like parts for like purposes.
Reed is silent to the cutting device arrangement comprises a first cutting device configured to cut the flat material in the feed direction. Laib teaches first cutting device configured to cut the flat material in the feed direction (page 3, machine translation provided herein, Para [Description] Ln 2-3), as well as a first cutting device configured to cut the flat material transversely to the feed direction (page 3, machine translation provided herein, Para [Description] Ln 8-10). Laib further teaches the advantage of this arrangement in that it allows for more efficient utilization of the machine (page 4, machine translation provided herein, Para [Description] Ln 11-13).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machining device for cutting flat material, as taught by combined Reed/Schmauder, to include first cutting device configured to cut the flat material in the feed direction, as well as a first cutting device configured to cut the flat material transversely to the feed direction, as taught by Laib, in order to provide for more efficient utilization of the machine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 1,584,868 to Kutter teaches a machining device for cutting flat material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred C Hammers whose telephone number is (571)272-9870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0080-1700.
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.
/FRED C HAMMERS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724