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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/30/2024 and 03/26/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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, “a direction of detaching” in claim 1 and “wherein the cover further includes the first shaft member and the second shaft member” of claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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 not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a first movement restriction member and second movement restriction member in claim 1.
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 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
-Regarding claim 1, the phrase “at least one of a first shaft member pivotably connecting the first cutting blade to the first link by being inserted through the first opening and the opening of the first link, and a second shaft member pivotably connecting the first cutting blade to the frame by being inserted through the second opening and the opening of the frame; and
at least one of a first movement restriction member configured to restrict the first shaft member from moving in a direction of detaching from the first opening by being disposed at a rear end of the first shaft member inserted through the first opening and the opening of the first link, and a second movement restriction member configured to restrict the second shaft member from moving in a direction of detaching from the second opening by being disposed at a rear end of the second shaft member inserted through the second opening and the opening of the frame” is unclear. Examiner notes it is unclear as to the intent of the phrase “at least one of”. It is unclear if Applicant is intending the second shaft member and second movement restriction member as alternative structural elements. As currently claimed, there must only be a first shaft member, and a first movement restriction member. For the purposes of examination, the limitation of “at least one of” will be removed from consideration to require both structural elements.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “a cover on which the first movement restriction member and the second movement restriction member are provided” is unclear. It is unclear how the cover works in combination with the structural elements already provided for in claim 1. Is the cover in addition to the frame elements already required, a portion of the frame or a combination? How does the restricting member of claim 1, work in combination with the cover of claim 5? As currently claimed, it appears any structural element of an outside housing portion or frame, reads upon the language, as the outside housing portion would restrict movement of the first and second shafts.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase wherein the cover further includes the first shaft member and the second shaft member is unclear. It is unclear how the cover works in combination with the structural elements already provided for in claim 1, if the cover must also include both the first and second shafts. It is unclear if the cover includes a plurality of different components, or would be a monolithic piece that is removed, thereby allowing removal of the shafts simultaneously (See Paragraph 0081; However, the specification does not appear to detail what “integrated” refers to, nor does it appear to be shown in the Figures). For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as a cover, that works in combination with the shaft elements to prevent movement.
-Regarding claim 12, the phrase “wherein the cutting device includes at least one of a combination of the first shaft member and the first movement restriction member, and a combination of the second shaft member and the second movement restriction member” is unclear. As currently claimed the limitations appear to be required already. It is unclear what structure, or combination of elements are not required to allow for different combinations to be provided. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as the same structural elements of claim 1.
Claims 2-12 dependent from claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are rejected as being dependent from a rejected parent claim.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 2021/0339410).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi teaches a cutting device (1A)(Figure 1), comprising:
a first cutting blade (2A) in which a first opening and a second opening (22A) are formed (Figure 2); a first link (54A)(Figure 3; Paragraphs 0057-0059) in which an opening is formed (Figure 3 noting bolt 55A);
a frame (10,4A,4B)(Figure 1; Paragraph 0050) in which an opening (42A) is formed (Figures 1-3);
Hayashi does not specifically provide a first movement restriction member configured to restrict the first shaft member from moving in a direction of detaching from the first opening by being disposed at a rear end of the first shaft member (55A) inserted through the first opening and the opening of the first link.
In light of paragraph 0054 of Hayashi noting that restriction members are used for other shafts (21A, 21B) to prevent lateral movement, modifying Hayashi with any reasonable number of movement restriction members, would be a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
As such, the modified device of Hayashi provides
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi teaches the cutting device according to claim 1, wherein the first movement restriction member is provided to restrict the first shaft member from moving in the direction of detaching from the first opening by being disposed opposite to an end surface of the first shaft member (Figure 2), and the second movement restriction member is provided to restrict the second shaft member from moving in the direction of detaching from the second opening by being disposed opposite to an end surface of the second shaft member (Figure 2; Noting the restriction members to be nearest frame portion 4A).
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi teaches the cutting device according to claim 1, wherein the first shaft member (55A) includes: a first body portion having a cylindrical surface and formed to be able to pass through the first opening and the opening of the first link and a first flange portion formed by expanding radially from the first body portion (Figure 2), and the second shaft member (21A) includes a second body portion having a cylindrical surface and formed to be able to pass through the second opening and the opening of the frame and a second flange portion formed by expanding radially from the second body portion (Figure 2; Figures 8A and 8B specifically noting the end flange portion).
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi teaches the cutting device according to claim 1, wherein the first movement restriction member (24) is provided on at least one of the first cutting blade and the first link (54A)(Figure 1 and 3), and the second movement restriction member is provided on the frame (Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi teaches the cutting device according to claim 1, further comprising: a cover on which the first movement restriction member and the second movement restriction member are provided (Figure 1 noting the housing element 10 and the frame portions being fixed thereto Paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi teaches the cutting device according to claim 5, wherein the cover further includes the first shaft member and the second shaft member (Figure 1 noting the housing element 10 and the frame portions being fixed thereto, this allowing the first and second shaft members to work in combination with the cover portion of the housing Paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi teaches the cutting device according to claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of openings formed in the frame; a second cutting blade (2B) in which a third opening and a fourth opening are formed; a second link (54B)in which an opening is formed; a third shaft (55B) member pivotably connecting the second cutting blade to the second link by being inserted through the third opening and the opening of the second link; and a fourth shaft member (21B) pivotably connecting the second cutting blade to the frame by being inserted through the fourth opening and another opening of the frame (Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi teaches the cutting device according to claim 7, wherein the third shaft member (55B) includes a third body portion having a cylindrical surface and formed to be able to pass through the third opening and the opening of the second link and a third flange portion formed by expanding radially from the third body portion (Figures 2-3), and the fourth shaft member (21B) includes: a fourth body portion having a cylindrical surface and formed to be able to pass through the fourth opening and the other opening of the frame; and a fourth flange portion formed by expanding radially from the fourth body portion (Figure 2; Figures 8A and 8B specifically noting the end flange portion).
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi teaches the cutting device according to claim 7, further comprising: a moving member (52, 53) connected to each of the first link and the second link and configured to move in a predetermined direction; and an actuator (50, 51) configured to move the moving member in the predetermined direction, wherein as the first link and the second link respectively rotate by the moving member moving in the predetermined direction, the first cutting blade connected to the first link via the first shaft member rotates about the second shaft member as a fulcrum, and the second cutting blade connected to the second link via the third shaft member rotates about the fourth shaft member as a fulcrum, so that a cutting edge of the first cutting blade and a cutting edge of the second cutting blade move in a direction close to each other (Figure 3; Paragraphs 0055-62).
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi teaches the cutting device according to claim 1, further comprising: a second cutting blade (2B) in which a third opening and a fourth opening are formed (Figures 2 and 3) a second link (54B) in which an opening is formed and a third shaft member pivotably connecting the second cutting blade to the second link by being inserted through the third opening and the opening of the second link, wherein the second shaft member further pivotably connects the second cutting blade to the frame by being inserted through the fourth opening (Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 11, Hayashi teaches the cutting device according to claim 7, wherein the first cutting blade and the second cutting blade are arranged opposite to each other, and a cutting edge of the first cutting blade and a cutting edge of the second cutting blade are configured to move relatively on approximately the same plane (Figures 1-3; Paragraphs 0051, 0062).
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi teaches the cutting device according to claim 1, wherein the cutting device includes at least one of a combination of the first shaft member and the first movement restriction member, and a combination of the second shaft member and the second movement restriction member (Figures 1-3).
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references A, C-K on page 1 establish the state of the art with a variety of cutting elements/blades using a variety of driving mechanisms for the cutting elements and blades.
Conclusion
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/ 05/01/2026 Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights