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 Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim
1, “the first tip and the second tip coming close to or moving away from each other in the first direction” lacks verb and should be –“the first tip and the second tip come close to or move away from each other in the first direction--. In claim 5, “a part of any one” should be --a part of one of--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
2. 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 fixing member,” “a fixing mechanism,” and “a motion mechanism” recited 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
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-5 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, “a motion mechanism configured to move the fixing member between a non-cutting position and a cutting position in a vertical direction to perform switching between a non-cutting state where a first tip of the first knife is spaced apart in the vertical direction …wherein the fixing mechanism is configured to adjust the fixing position” is confusing. It is unclear whether the recited “switching” between the non-cutting state and the cutting state is performed solely by the motion mechanism, or whether the fixing mechanism also participates in such switching. Additionally, the claim fails to clearly differentiate the fixing mechanism from the motion mechanism in terms of structural features or functional boundaries, such that it is unclear how the fixing mechanism is structurally and functionally distinct from the motion mechanism.
Regarding claim 1, “the wherein the fixing mechanism is configured to adjust the fixing position in a first direction” is confusing. It is unclear whether the fixing position refers to a discrete position or a continuous range of positions, and whether the adjustment of the fixing position occurs continuously or in a stepwise manner. Furthermore, the claim fails to specify how the fixing position is set or adjusted, thereby rendering the scope of the claimed adjustment unclear.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “a holding part configured to hold a state where the first end face and the second end face are in contact with each other.” The phrase “hold a state” is unclear and lacks objective boundaries. Specifically, the claim does not clarify whether “hold a state” refers to resisting a separation force, temporarily maintaining positional contact, or merely providing alignment between the first end face and the second end face. Without further structural or functional limitations, the scope of the holding part is indefinite.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “a magnet arranged so as to form a part of any one of the first end face and the second end face, and wherein the other of the first end face and the second end face is formed of a magnetic material.”
The phrase “the other of the first end face and the second end face” lacks clear antecedent basis, as the claim does not clearly establish which of the first end face or the second end face includes the magnet and which includes the magnetic material in a given embodiment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Dehn (2,525,401). Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Dehn teaches a cutting apparatus configured to cut a sheet bundle, the cutting apparatus comprising: a first knife (46, 52’); a second knife 45 fixed at a predetermined position; a fixing member 16’, the first knife (46, 52’) being fixed to the fixing member 16’ (Fig. 8); a fixing mechanism 66 configured to detachably fix the first knife at a fixing position of the fixing member; and a motion mechanism (defined by the movable ram B) configured to move the fixing member between a non-cutting position and a cutting position in a vertical direction to perform switching between a non-cutting state where a first tip of the first knife (46, 52’) is spaced apart in the vertical direction from a second tip of the second knife 45 and a cutting state where the first tip passed by the second tip, wherein the fixing mechanism is configured to adjust the fixing position in a first direction (defined by the horizontal direction along which the first blade 46, 52’ moves as slides along the inclined surface of the fixing member 16’; Fig. 8), the first direction being orthogonal to the vertical direction, and the first tip and the second tip coming close to or moving away from each other in the first direction. See Figs. 1-8 in Dehn.
Regarding claim 2, Dehn teaches everything noted above including that the first knife has a first end face and at least one fastening hole (the hole that receives bolt 66; Fig. 8), the first end face being formed on a first base end on the opposite side of the first tip in the vertical direction, and the fastening hole being formed in the first end face so as to extend in the vertical direction and having an internally threaded inner circumferential face, wherein the fixing member 16’ has a second end face and at least one fitting groove 67, the second end face being arranged facing the first end face in the vertical direction, and the fitting groove 67 extending in the vertical direction and opened on one end side in the first direction, and wherein the fixing mechanism has at least one fastening bolt 66 having an externally threaded outer circumferential face and fastened into the fastening hole and fastens the fastening bolt into the fastening hole with the first end face and the second end face being in contact with each other to fix the first knife (46, 52’) at the fixing position of the fixing member.
Regarding claim 3, Dehn teaches everything noted above including that the fixing member 16’ has a plurality of fitting grooves 67 arranged with intervals in a second direction, the second direction being orthogonal to the vertical direction and the first direction, wherein the first knife (46, 52’) has a plurality of fastening holes arranged with intervals in the second direction, and wherein the fixing mechanism has a plurality of fastening bolts 66 and fastens the plurality of fastening bolts into the plurality of fastening holes with the first end face and the second end face being in contact with each other to fix the first knife at the fixing position of the fixing member.
7. Claim 1, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hawkins et al. (5,042,345), hereinafter Hawkins. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Hawkins teaches a cutting apparatus configured to cut a sheet bundle, the cutting apparatus comprising: a first knife 25; a second knife 16 fixed at a predetermined position; a fixing member 24, the first knife 25 being fixed to the fixing member 24 (Fig. 4); a fixing mechanism 72 configured to detachably fix the first knife at a fixing position of the fixing member 24; and a motion mechanism 26 (Fig. 3A) configured to move the fixing member between a non-cutting position and a cutting position in a vertical direction to perform switching between a non-cutting state where a first tip of the first knife 25 is spaced apart in the vertical direction from a second tip of the second knife 16 and a cutting state where the first tip passed by the second tip, wherein the fixing mechanism is configured to adjust the fixing position in a first direction (defined by the horizontal direction along which the position of the first blade is adjusted with respect to the second bade; Fig. 4), the first direction being orthogonal to the vertical direction, and the first tip and the second tip coming close to or moving away from each other in the first direction. See Figs. 1-4 in Hawkins.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim 1, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whistler, Jr. (4,011,781), hereinafter Whistler, in view of Pater (2,734,572). Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Whistler discloses a cutting apparatus (10) configured to cut a sheet bundle (14; Fig. 1), comprising a first knife (44), a second knife (44’) fixed at a predetermined position, a fixing member (46) to which the first knife is fixed, a fixing mechanism (50) configured to detachably fix the first knife at the fixing position of the fixing member, and a motion mechanism (16; press ram) configured to move the fixing member (46) between a non-cutting position and a cutting position in a vertical direction to switch between a non-cutting state, where the first tip of the first knife is spaced apart from the second tip of the second knife, and a cutting state, where the first tip passes the second tip. (Figs. 1–4, Whistler).
Whistler does not explicitly disclose that the fixing mechanism is configured to adjust the fixing position in a first direction, orthogonal to the vertical direction, so that the first tip and the second tip come closer together or move apart in that direction. Pater, however, teaches a cutting apparatus including a fixing mechanism (27, 33) configured to adjust a fixing position in a first direction orthogonal to a vertical direction, wherein a motion mechanism moves a fixing member (14) between non-cutting and cutting positions, so that a first tip of a first cutter (20) and a second tip of a second cutter (22) come closer together or move apart in the first direction. (Figs. 1–5, Pater). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Whistler’s fixing mechanism with the adjustment mechanism taught by Pater in order to adjust the gap between the cutting tips and achieve a precise cut.
10. Claims 4-5, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehn in view of Zeytoonian (3,227,020). Regarding claim 4, Dehn teaches everything noted above including a part (defined by the part that of the fixing member 16’ which contacts the upper end surface of section 46 of the blade 46, 52’; Fig. 8) that is configured to abut the blade in a state where the first end face and the second end face are in contact with each other in an unfixed state where the first knife is not fixed at the fixing position of the fixing member. Dehn does not explicitly teach that the part is a holding part. However, Zeytoonian teaches a cutting apparatus including a fixing member 14 having a holding part 16 (defined as a magnet) for holding a blade 15, as well as a bolt or screw 17 for securing the blade to the fixing member 14. See Figs. 1-5 in Zeytoonian. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the part of Dehn’s fixing member with a holding means or magnet, as taught by Zeytoonian, in order to prevent movement of the blade prior to fixing the blade to the fixing member and to further enhance attachment of the blade to the fixing member.
Regrading claim 5, Dehn, as modified by Zeytoonian, teaches everything noted above including that the holding part is a magnet (16; Fig. 5 in Zeytoonian) arranged so as to form a part of any one of the first end face and the second end face, and wherein the other of the first end face and the second end face is formed of a magnetic material.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Sundquist, III et al. (8,312,801 B2), Stager (2007/0158478 A1), Gross et al. (5,784,940), Bradstreet, Jr. et al. (5,439,039), Malof (4,494,428), Von Arx (3,756,110), and Pearson et al. (3,371,569) teach a shearing apparatus including an adjustment mechanism for adjusting a gap between blades.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
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 Ashely can be reached on (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./GHASSEM ALIE/ /GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 January 14, 2026