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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 9 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 23-44 are pending, of which claims 31-33, 35, 38-39, and 44 are withdrawn (see the Election/Restrictions section below for additional discussion).
The examiner further encourages the Applicant to review all withdrawn claims to ensure that the claims are in a condition for allowance in the event of rejoinder, especially in view of the large number of claim issues identified below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I, claims 25-28, in the reply filed on 9 July 2026 is acknowledged. Although claim(s) 30, 34, 36-37, 40 and 43 do not share a special technical feature with the claims of the elected Group I, the examiner has determined that reasonableness considerations favor rejoining these claims in view of the closeness of prior art found. Therefore, claims 30, 34, 36, 37, 40, and 43 are rejoined herein, and the restriction requirement of 18 June 2026 is withdrawn with respect to claims 30, 34, 36-37, 40, and 43. The restriction requirement, however, is subject to reinstatement depending on the nature of any amendments to these claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (see at least page 1, lines 19-20) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes legal phraseology, in particular “means” at line 4, and also because it includes a typographical error, in particular “having support element” should include an article preceding “support element”. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Each of claims 23 and 41 recites, “first actuating means”. Claim 25 recites the corresponding structure of the first actuating means, such that the present application discloses the corresponding structure of the first actuating means in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure will perform the recited function. However, the present specification fails to explicitly describe the corresponding structure of the first actuating means. The specification should be amended to explicitly describe the corresponding structure of the first actuating means. (E.g., the specification should be amended to recite, “A first actuating means is disclosed by ...” or similar.)
Each of claims 23 and 41 recites, “second actuating means”. Claim 30 recites the corresponding structure of the second actuating means, such that the present application discloses the corresponding structure of the second actuating means in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure will perform the recited function. However, the present specification fails to explicitly describe the corresponding structure of the second actuating means. The specification should be amended to explicitly describe the corresponding structure of the second actuating means. (E.g., the specification should be amended to recite, “A second actuating means is disclosed by ...” or similar.)
Claim Objections
The claims appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The examiner has identified many of these issues below. The Applicant should thoroughly review all claims and correct any additional issues.
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 at line 3 recites, “allowing rotation thereof”. This recitation should read – the first support element allowing rotation of the cutting blade
Claim 23 at line 8 recites, “the second rotating support element”. The term ‘rotating’ is not used in the name of the second support element as initially introduced, and as such line 8 should be amended to delete ‘rotating’ in the name of the second support element.
Claim 23 at line 9 recites, “the two support elements”. This recitation should read – the first and second support elements – to use the specific names of the support elements as previously introduced.
Claim 23 at line 16 recites, “the two support elements”. This recitation should read – the first and second support elements – to use the specific names of the support elements as previously introduced.
Claim 23 at line 20 recites, “the interaxial distance”. This recitation should recite – an interaxial distance – because the distal has not yet been introduced.
Claim 23 at line 21 recites, “the diameter (D1) of the blade”. This recitation should read – a diameter (D1) of the blade – in view of the diameter having not yet been introduced.
Claim 26 at line 4 recites, “to the shaft which operates the blade”. The shaft is introduced in claim 25, but is not explicitly referred to as ‘a shaft which operates the blade’. Therefore, claim 26 at line 4 should be amended to read – to the shaft, wherein the shaft operates the blade –.
Claim 27 at line 2 recites, “a drive pulley, which receives”. This recitation should read – a drive pulley, wherein the drive pulley receives –.
Claim 27 at line 3 recites, “the front end”. This recitation should read – a front end – since no front end is previously introduced.
Claim 34 recites, “the coup0ling means” at line 1. This recitation should read – the coupling means –.
Claim 34 should be amended to use consistent terminology for the names of the first and second support elements (e.g., by reciting “the first and second support elements” at line 4).
Claim 34 at lines 4-5 recites, “the longitudinal/axial direction”. The slash in this recitation should be replaced with the word “or” (although note that this amendment does not resolve the indefiniteness issue discussed below).
Claim 40 at line 3 recites, “one or more reels”. These reels are already introduced in the preamble, and thus line 3 should be amended to use “the” or “said” when referring to the previously introduced one or more reels.
Claim 40 at line 4 recites, “each”. This recitation should refer to the one or more reels to make clear that “each” refers to the one or more reels, rather than the reel-holder supports.
Claim 40 depends from claim 23. Each structure already introduced in claim 23 should be referred to with “the” or “said” in claim 40.
Claim 41 at line 2 recites, “greater axial/longitudinal length”. This recitation should recite – greater axial or longitudinal length – to make clear the effect of the slash.
Claim 41 at line 2 recites, “comprising the steps of”. This recitation should recite – the method comprising steps of: – or merely – the method comprising: –, since no steps are previously introduced.
Claim 41 at line 3 recites, “one or more reels”. One of these reels is previously introduced at line 2, such that lines 2 and 3 should be amended to consistently refer to the same reel(s). For example, the examiner suggests amending line 2 to recite – from one or more reels – and amending line 3 to recite – the one or more reels –.
Claim 41 at line 3 recites, “their axes”. This recitation should recite – axes of the one or more reels – since no axes are previously introduced.
Claim 41 at line 6 recites, “a cutting blade”. This recitation should read – the cutting blade – in view of line 1 already introducing the blade.
Claim 41 recites, “the cutting blade” and “the blade” (see, e.g., lines 8 and 12). The claim should consistently use the same language to describe the cutting blade, with either of “the cutting blade” and “the blade” being acceptable following the introduction of “a cutting blade”.
Claim 41 at line 11 recites “the interaxial distance (dx)”. This recitation should read – an interaxial distance (dx) – because the distance is not previously introduced.
Claim 41 at lines 12-13 should not include a line break – i.e., the final four lines of the claim are intended to be one continuous clause.
Claim 41 at line 13 recites, “the diameter (D1)”. This recitation should read – a diameter (D1) – in view of the diameter not having been previously introduced.
Claim 42 at line 6 recites, “the second support”. This recitation should be amended to read – the second support element – because an element, not merely a support, is originally introduced.
Claim 42 at line 13 recites, “a variation (D1-d1) in diameter (D1)”. These features are both introduced in claim 41, and thus should be referred to with “the”.
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.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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. Claim limitations using the words “means” that are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, include: “first actuating means” in claim 23, “coupling means” in claim 23, “second actuating means” in claim 23, “transmission means” in claim 26, “first actuating means” as recited in claim 41, “second actuating means” as recited in claim 41, and “coupling means” as recited in claim 42. 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 support element” as recited in claim 23 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means” per MPEP 2181; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “designed to carry the cutting blade”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “support” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the element, since “support” is a verb);
“a second support element” as recited in claim 23 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means” per MPEP 2181; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “arranged to rotate about a longitudinal orbital axis”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “support” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the element, since “support” is a verb);
“an assembly for translational actuation” as recited in claim 23 (first, “assembly” is a generic placeholder for “means” because an “assembly” is not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for any particular type of structure – i.e., any structure can be considered as an “assembly”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for translational actuation”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
“an assembly for sharpening the cutting blade” as recited in claim 37 (first, “assembly” is a generic placeholder for “means” because an “assembly” is not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for any particular type of structure – i.e., any structure can be considered as an “assembly”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for sharpening the cutting blade”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
“a first support element” as recited in claim 42 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means” per MPEP 2181; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “support” – i.e., in order for an element to be considered as a ‘support’ element, the element must perform a supporting function; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
“a second support element” as recited in claim 42 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means” per MPEP 2181; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “support” – i.e., in order for an element to be considered as a ‘support’ element, the element must perform a supporting function; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function); and
“an assembly for translational actuation” as recited in claim 42 (first, “assembly” is a generic placeholder for “means” because an “assembly” is not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for any particular type of structure – i.e., any structure can be considered as an “assembly”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for translational actuation”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function).
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.
Claim(s) 23-30, 34, 36-37, 40, and 42 is/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.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the cutting blade" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 23 indefinite. The claim previously introduces, “a circular blade” at line 1. The recitation of “the cutting blade” at line 3 renders claim 23 indefinite because, assuming that line 3 is intending to refer to the blade already introduced at line 1, it is unclear what is required of the blade. Does line 3 include a typographical error, where line 3 is intended to recite, “the circular blade”? Does line 1 include a typographical error, where line 1 is intended to recite, “a cutting blade”? Does line 3 intend to make a further requirement of the circular blade by requiring that the circular blade is a circular, cutting blade?
Claim 23 at line 18 recites, “and in that it comprises an assembly”. This recitation is indefinite because the structure referred to by “it” is unclear. Does “it” refer to the entire claimed apparatus? Or, does “it” refer to another structure, such as the first support element or the second support element? The examiner suggests replacing the term “it” with the name of the particular structure being described.
Claim 24 at line 2 recites, “the blade being preferably mounted on a spindle”. This recitation is indefinite because the term “preferably” makes it unclear whether this feature is required or optional. The fact that the recitation is recited in the claim suggests that the feature is required, since descriptions of examples or preferences should be set forth in the specification rather than the claims. However, if the feature is required, the effect of the term ‘preferably’ is unclear. The term ‘preferably’ appears to recite an optional feature. Thus, since it is unclear whether the blade is required to be mounted on a spindle, or whether this feature is merely an example or preference, claim 24 is unclear.
Claim 26 at lines 3-4 recites "the rotary movement” that is transmitted to “the drive motor blade". There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the rotary movement” and “the drive motor” in the claim, rendering claim 26 indefinite. For example, it is unclear it is unclear whether “the drive motor” of claim 26 is the same motor already introduced in claim 25. Moreover, it is unclear what ‘rotary movement’ is transmitted to the drive motor. Typically, a motor outputs a rotary movement, rather than receives a rotary movement. It is unclear which structure’s rotary movement is being described, since the rotary movement is described as one that is transmitted to, rather than received from, the drive motor.
Claim 27 is indefinite for a host of reasons. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the rotational movement” and “the first rotating sleeve”. Although claim 26 introduces “a rotating sleeve”, claim 27 does not depend from claim 26, and the “rotating sleeve” of claim 26 is not described as a ‘first’ rotating sleeve. Does claim 27 include a dependency error, where claim 27 is intended to depend from claim 26, and where “the first rotating sleeve” in claim 27 is intended to refer to the rotating sleeve already introduced in claim 26? Is the same rotational movement that is transmitted to the drive motor as described in claim 26 the same rotational movement described in claim 27? It is unclear from the present specification how movement transmitted to the drive motor is also transmitted to the drive pulley. Instead, is appears that a rotational movement is transmitted from the drive motor to the rotating sleeve, and from the rotating sleeve to the drive motor – however, this is not what claim 27 recites. Moreover, claim 27 is indefinite as a result of the phrase “in particular” at line 3. As noted above, the fact that the recitation is recited in the claim suggests that the feature that the drive pulley is rotationally integral with the front end of the sleeve is required, since descriptions of examples or preferences should be set forth in the specification rather than the claims. However, if the feature is required, the effect of the “in particular” is unclear. Thus, claim 27 is indefinite.
Claim 29 is indefinite for a host of reasons. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first disc”. Although claim 24 introduces “a rotating sleeve”, claim 29 does not depend from claim 24. Does claim 29 include a dependency error, where claim 29 is intended to depend from claim 24? Alternatively, does claim 29 intend to introduce a new “first disc” despite the use of ‘the’ preceding ‘first disc’? Moreover, claim 29 is indefinite as a result of the phrase “in particular” at line 3. As noted above, the fact that the recitation is recited in the claim suggests that the feature that the second disc is arranged behind the first disc is required, since descriptions of examples or preferences should be set forth in the specification rather than the claims. However, if the feature is required, the effect of the “in particular” is unclear. Thus, claim 29 is indefinite.
Claim 34 recites, “the longitudinal/axial direction” at lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 34 indefinite. For example, it is unclear what structure’s longitudinal or axial direction is being described. Can the direction be any structure’s axial or longitudinal direction, or must the direction be an axial or longitudinal direction of some specific structure? If the latter, which structure?
Claim 36 at line 3 recites, “in particular a rail”. This recitation is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear whether this feature is required or optional. The fact that the recitation is recited in the claim suggests that the feature is required, since descriptions of examples or preferences should be set forth in the specification rather than the claims. However, if the feature is required, the effect of the term “in particular” is unclear. The phrase “in particular” appears to recite an optional feature. Thus, since it is unclear the at least one guide has to be a rail, or whether this feature is merely an example or preference, claim 36 is unclear.
Claim 40 at line 4 recites, “with their axes parallel” in reference to the one or more reels. Claim 40 at line 9 also refers to “the reels”. Claim 40 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim encompasses their being a single reels, and if so claim 40 is further indefinite because it is unclear what is required by “with their axes parallel” when there is only a single reel. The claim appears to expressly encompass there being a single reel (see “one or more corresponding reels” at line 4). However, if there is only one reel, then there are not plural axes, and therefore it is impossible for “their axes in parallel” to be satisfied. Does this feature become optional if there is only one reel? Must the one reel have an axis parallel to some other structure? Why does the final line recite “the reels” in the plural if the claim can be satisfied by a single reel? Since it is unclear whether claim 40 encompasses there being a single reel, and since it is unclear how to determine if “their axes [are] parallel” when there is a single reel, claim 40 is indefinite.
Claim 42 at line 12 recites the limitation “the radial direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the recitation refers to any radial direction, or the radial direction of some specific structure. If the latter is intended, it is unclear which structure’s radial direction is referred to. For example, must “the radial direction” be a radial direction of the cutting blade? Or, is “the radial direction” permitted to be a radial direction of the assembly for translational actuation?
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.
Claim(s) 23, 25, 28, 30, 34, and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2009/0038458 A1 to Ridolfi et al.
Regarding claim 23, Ridolfi discloses an apparatus 1 for controlling and operating a circular blade 19B for cutting rolls R from reels L (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 24), comprising:
- a first support element 53 designed to carry the cutting blade 19B (see Figs. 2A-4), allowing rotation thereof (see paragraph 27);
- first actuating means 55 for rotational actuation of the blade 19A about an axis of rotation B-B with respect to the first support element 53 (see Fig. 2A and paragraphs 26 and 28);
- a second support element 17 arranged to rotate about a longitudinal orbiting axis A-A parallel and axially offset with respect to the axis of rotation B-B of the blade 19B (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 26);
wherein the second rotating support element 17 is coupled to the first support element 53 by means of coupling means (including guide bars 51 and slides on the first support element 53 coupled to the guide bars 51; see Figs. 4 and 5 and paragraph 28) so that the two support elements 53 and 17 rotate together about the orbiting axis A-A (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 33);
- second actuating means (the second actuating means shown in Fig. 1 as motor 21, belt 23, and the structure that transmits rotation of the belt 23 into rotation of the second support element 17; see also paragraph 27) for rotational actuation of the second support element 17 about the orbiting axis A-A such as to move the blade 19B along a predefined circular cutting orbit (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 33);
wherein the first support element 53 is coupled to the second support element 17 so as to allow relative translation between the two support elements 53 and 17 in a radial direction perpendicular to the orbiting axis A-A (see Figs. 2 and 4 and paragraphs 28 and 30; the coupling includes the first support element 53 having slides engaged with guide bars 51);
and in that it comprises an assembly (including threaded bar 77 and female screw 75) for translational actuation of the first support element 53 and therefore of the cutting blade 19B with respect to the second support element 17 (see Fig. 4 and paragraphs 28 and 30) so as to vary the interaxial distance between the orbiting axis A-A and the axis of rotation B-B of the blade 19B depending on a variation in the diameter of the blade 19B (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 30) and/or of the circular cutting orbit.
Regarding claim 25, Ridolfi discloses that the first actuating means for rotational actuation of the blade 19B include a shaft 55 coaxial with the axis of rotation B-B (see Fig. 2A) and connected to a motor 25 by means of a first kinematic chain (see Figs. 1 and 2, where the first kinematic chain includes at least one of belt 27, shaft 28, drive pulley 71, belt 61, and pulleys 63, 65, 67, and 59).
Regarding claim 28, Ridolfi discloses that the first kinematic chain comprises an idle pulley 65 mounted on the first support element 53 and movable translatably therewith (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 30, Ridolfi discloses that the second actuating means for rotational actuation of the second support element 17 comprise an orbiting motor 21 which is connected to the second support element 17 by means of a second kinematic chain (the second kinematic chain shown in Fig. 1 as the belt 23 and the structure that transmits rotation of the belt 23 into rotation of the second support element 17; see also paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 34, Ridolfi discloses that the coup0ling means [sic] (the coupling means including guide bars 51 and slides on the first support element 53 coupled to the guide bars 51; see Figs. 4 and 5 and paragraph 28) for coupling the first support element 53 to the second support element 17 are arranged between the first and second elements53 and 17 in the longitudinal/axial direction (see Fig. 4; in this case, the ‘longitudinal/axial direction’ can be a direction of the reels to be cut).
Regarding claim 36, Ridolfi discloses that the coupling means for coupling together the second support element 17 and the first support element 53 comprise at least one guide 51, in particular a rail (guide 51 is a rail; see Fig. 4), fixed to a front surface of the second support element 17 (see Fig. 4, where the front surface of the second support element 17 faces the first support element 53) and one or more sliding shoes fixed to the rear surface of the first support element 53 and slidable along the guide 51 (see the annotated Fig. 4 below and paragraph 30).
PNG
media_image1.png
601
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 37, Ridolfi discloses an assembly 87 for sharpening the cutting blade 19B (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 32).
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.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2009/0038458 A1 to Ridolfi et al. in view of ES 1 228 384 U to Xifra Rubirola.
Regarding claim 24, Ridolfi discloses that the first support element 53 includes a first plate (see Figs. 2A and 4), the blade 19B being preferably mounted on a spindle 55 rotatably mounted in a peripheral position with respect to a centre of the first plate (see Figs. 2A and 3).
Ridolfi fails to disclose that the plate has a sufficiently round shape to be considered as a ‘disc’, and thus Ridolfi fails to disclose that the first plate is a first disc as required by claim 24.
Xifra Rubirola, though, teaches a cutting apparatus for moving a circular blade 3 in an orbital path (see Figs. 1-3), where the apparatus has a support element 2 to which the circular blade 3 is mounted such that rotation of the support element 2 produces movement of the circular blade 3 about the orbital path (see Figs. 1-3). The support element 2 has a round shape (see Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the plate of the first support element of Ridolfi of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, including a round shape in view of the teachings of Xifra Rubirola. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Moreover, the particular shape of the plate of the first support element of Ridolfi does not alter the function of the first support element, and a round-shaped support element for an orbiting cutting blade is known in the art, such that this modification achieves predictable results (indeed, no function of the apparatus of Ridolfi is changed) and has a reasonable expectation of success (since a change in shape of the first support element does not alter the function of the device). By making the plate of the first support element of Ridolfi round, the plate is a disc (i.e., the plate, prior to modification, has a thin shape, such that a thin, round shape is a disc).
Claim(s) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2009/0038458 A1 to Ridolfi et al. in view of ES 1 228 384 U to Xifra Rubirola.
Regarding claim 26, Ridolfi discloses that the first kinematic chain comprises a rotating shaft 28 extending coaxially with respect to the orbiting axis A-A (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 27 and 30) and connected via transmission means (including at least one of belts 27 and 61) for transmission of the rotary movement to the drive motor (as best understood, transmitting motion from motor 25) and to the shaft 55 which operates the blade 19 (see Figs. 2A and 3; see also paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 27, Ridolfi discloses that the first kinematic chain comprises a drive pulley 71, which receives the rotational movement from the first rotating shaft 28 (see paragraph 29) and in particular is rotationally integral with the front end of said shaft 28 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 29; the drive pulley 71 engages belt 61 in Fig. 1 per paragraph 29), and optionally a second pulley mounted on the second support (the term ‘optionally’ indicates that this recitation is not required; regardless, see second pulley 63 described at paragraph 29 and shown in Fig. 3 ).
Still, Ridolfi fails to disclose that the first kinematic chain comprises a rotating sleeve extending coaxially with respect to the orbiting axis and connecting via transmission means for transmission of the rotary movement to the drive motor and to the shaft, which operates the blade, as required by claim 26, and that the first drive pulley receives the rotational movement from the first rotating sleeve and in particular is rotationally integral with the front end of the sleeve as required by claim 27.
Xifra Rubirola teaches a first kinematic chain (see Fig. 3, where the first kinematic chain transmits rotary motion from motor 32 to shaft 31) that comprising a rotating sleeve (see the annotated Fig. 3 below) extending coaxially with respect to an orbiting axis X1 (see Fig. 3) and connecting via transmission means (including at least one of belts 34 and 35) to the drive motor 32 and a shaft 31, which operates a blade 3 (see Fig. 3) [claim 26] and that a first drive pulley receives rotational movement from the first rotating sleeve and in particular is rotationally integral with the front end of the sleeve (see annotated Fig. 3 below; all of the first drive pulley, the first rotating sleeve, and the shaft 33 rotate together, such that all three of these structures are rotationally integral, in order to transmit rotation from the motor 32 to the blade 3; the first drive pulley is rotationally integral with the entire sleeve, including the front end of the sleeve) [claim 27]. The rotating sleeve transmits rotation from a a belt 43 to a shaft 33.
PNG
media_image2.png
813
1126
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ridolfi fails to explicitly describe any structure that transmits rotation from the belt 27 to the shaft 28. However, Xifra Rubirola teaches that a belt is rotationally connected to a shaft via a rotating sleeve. Therefore, it would have been obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according the known methods to yield predictable results to provide Ridolfi with a rotation sleeve that transmits rotation of the belt from the motor to the shaft in view of the teachings of Xifra Rubirola. Ridolfi and Xifra Rubirola, taken together, teach each claimed element. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known method (in particular, by providing the shaft of Ridolfi with the rotating sleeve as taught by Xifra Rubirola in order to transmit rotation from the belt of Ridolfi to the shaft of Ridolfi) and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately (since Ridolfi fails to explicitly describe how rotation is transmitted from the belt to the shaft, this modification merely provides a structure for achieving the function already implied by Ridolfi). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this combination as being predictable since Xifra Rubirola teaches the predictability of transmitting rotation to from a belt to a shaft using a rotating sleeve in the exact manner proposed by this combination.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2009/0038458 A1 to Ridolfi et al. in view of ES 1 228 384 U to Xifra Rubirola.
Regarding claim 29, Ridolfi discloses that the second support element 17 includes a second plate arranged in a position behind the first support element 53 (see Figs. 1, 2A, and 5), in particular the first disc (as best understood, this feature is optional in view of the ‘in particular’ language), and rotating about the orbiting axis A-A (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 26).
Ridolfi fails to disclose that the second plate has a sufficiently round shape to be considered as a ‘disc’, and thus Ridolfi fails to disclose that the second plate is a second disc as required by claim 29.
Xifra Rubirola, though, teaches a cutting apparatus for moving a circular blade 3 in an orbital path (see Figs. 1-3), where the apparatus has a support element 2 to which the circular blade 3 is mounted such that rotation of the support element 2 produces movement of the circular blade 3 about the orbital path (see Figs. 1-3). The support element 2 has a round shape (see Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the plate of the second support element of Ridolfi of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, including a round shape in view of the teachings of Xifra Rubirola. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Moreover, the particular shape of the plate of the second support element of Ridolfi does not alter the function of the second support element, and a round-shaped support element for an orbiting cutting blade is known in the art, such that this modification achieves predictable results (indeed, no function of the apparatus of Ridolfi is changed) and has a reasonable expectation of success (since a change in shape of the second support element does not alter the function of the device). By making the plate of the second support element of Ridolfi round, the plate is a disc (i.e., the plate, prior to modification, has a thin shape, such that a thin, round shape is a disc).
Claim(s) 40-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2009/0038458 A1 to Ridolfi et al. in view of US Pub. No. 2008/0017003 A1 to Hsu.
Regarding claim 40, Ridolfi discloses a method for cutting rolls R from reels L of greater axial length (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a cutting zone with one or more corresponding reels L with their axes parallel (see Fig. 1 showing one reel L in a cutting zone, where the cutting zone is the zone in which the blades 19A-20B contact the reel L; as best understood, the ‘with their axes parallel’ requirement is optional when the method is only contemplated as being performed on one reel) and each in a position on the inside of a predefined circular cutting orbit (see Fig. 1; the circular orbit is defined by an outer edge of the blades 19B and 20B);
a circular cutting blade 19B mounted on and operated by a control and operating apparatus according to Claim 23 (see the discussion of claim 23 being anticipated by Ridolfi above), so as to rotate about an associated axis of rotation B-B and to orbit along the cutting orbit about the orbiting axis A-A (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 27) so as to cut the rolls R from the reels L arranged in the cutting zone (see Fig. 1; as best understood, this recitation encompasses a single reel).
Regarding claim 41, Ridolfi discloses a method for controlling and operating a cutting blade 19B for cutting rolls R from a reel L of greater axial/longitudinal length (see Fig. 1, where the reel L has a greater axial and longitudinal length than each of the rolls R), comprising the steps of:
- arranging one or more reels L to be cut with their axes parallel to a longitudinal direction (see Fig. 1, where the longitudinal direction extends in a left-right direction along the plane of the page), the one or more reels L being arranged internally with respect to a circular cutting orbit (see Fig. 1, where the reel L is internal with respect to a circular orbit of the blade 18B);
- rotationally actuating a cutting blade 19B about an axis of rotation B-B by means of first actuating means 55 (see Fig. 2A and paragraphs 26 and 28) and causing, by means of second actuating means (the second actuating means shown in Fig. 1 as motor 21, belt 23, and the structure that transmits rotation of the belt 23 into rotation of the second support element 17; see also paragraph 27), an orbiting movement of the blade 19B along the circular orbit about an orbiting axis A-A parallel and axially offset with respect to the axis of rotation -B-B of the blade 19B (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 33), so as to cut the rolls R from the one or more reels L arranged on the cutting orbit (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 33);
- varying the interaxial distance between the axis of rotation B-B and the orbiting axis A-A of the cutting blade 19B depending on a variation in the diameter of the cutting blade 19B (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 30) and/or of the circular cutting orbit.
Regarding claim 42, Ridolfi discloses that the cutting blade 19B is mounted on a first support element 53 so as to be able to rotate about the axis of rotation B-B (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 27), the first support element 53 being rotationally coupled by means of coupling means (the coupling means including guide bars 51 and slides on the first support element 53 coupled to the guide bars 51; see Figs. 4 and 5 and paragraph 28) to a second support element 17 designed to rotate about the orbiting axis A-A (see Figs. 1 and 4; see also paragraph 27); the method comprising: - rotationally actuating the second support 17 about the orbiting axis A-A by means of the second actuating means so as to cause the orbiting movement of the blade 19B along the circular orbit (see paragraphs 27 and 35) and cutting of the rolls R from the one or more reels L arranged on the cutting orbit (see Fig. 1); - varying the interaxial distance between the axis of rotation B-B and the orbiting axis A-A of the cutting blade 19B by means of an assembly (including threaded bar 77 and female screw 75) for translational actuation (see paragraph 30), in the radial direction (the radial direction being a radial direction of the reel L or of the blade 19B), of the first support element 53 and therefore of the blade 19B with respect to the second support element 17, depending a variation in diameter of the cutting blade 19B (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 30) and/or of the circular cutting orbit.
Regarding claim 43, Ridolfi discloses sharpening of the cutting blade 19B (with sharpening unit 87; see Fig. 4 and paragraph 32), said variation in diameter being a reduction in diameter due to the wear and/or sharpening of the blade 19B itself (see paragraph 30).
Ridolfi fails to disclose that the cutting zone includes one or more reel-holder supports arranged so as to arrange one or more corresponding reels each in a position tangential to the predefined circular cutting orbit as required by claim 40. Also, Ridolfi fails to disclose that the one or more reels are arranged tangentially with respect to the circular cutting orbit as required by claim 41, since Ridolfi discloses the reel L shown in Fig. 1 is slightly within a circular orbit of the blade 19B.
Hsu teaches a cutting zone (shown in Figs. 4A and 4B as a zone including holders 224, 228) that includes one or more reel-holder supports 224, 228 arranged so as to arrange one or more corresponding reels each in a position tangential to a predetermined circular cutting orbit (see Fig. 4B, where the ‘reels’ are the left-most and right-most reels, with the figure oriented with the reference characters upright, and where the predefined circular cutting orbit is a solid line shown an orbit of blade 302). [Claim 40] Hsu teaches one or more reels (see the left-most and right-most reels L in Fig. 4B, when the figure is oriented with the reference characters upright) that are arranged tangential with respect to a circular cutting orbit (show by the solid circular path of the blade 302 in Fig. 4B). [Claim 41] Hsu teaches that the supports that arrange the reels in a tangential position to the predefined cutting orbit are advantageous in order to generate a tangential sheering stress on the reels, which reduces frictional contact between the reel and the blade, and thus promotes cutting penetration of the blade through the reels (see paragraph 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutting zone of Ridolfi with one or more reel-holder supports that hold one or more reels tangential to the circular cutting orbit as taught by Hsu. This modification is advantageous to promote cutting penetration of the blade through the reels by reducing frictional contact between the reels and the blade due to the sheering stress being tangential to the reels.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights