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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 28th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-23 remain pending in
the application. Examiner withdraws the objections to the claims previously set forth in the Non -
Final Office Action mailed January 28th, 2025.
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, the lateral portions from claim 1 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 Objections
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 references “a cutting blade” after “a plurality of cutting blades” is already introduced in claim 1 (on which claim 3 depends). It is unclear from the claim language as to whether or not this cutting blade introduced in claim 3 is part of the plurality of cutting blades introduced in claim 1. However, in light of the specification, Examiner interprets that the cutting blade of claim 3 is a part of and included in the plurality of cutting blades of claim 1. Claim 3 should be reworded to make this clear. `
Claim 6 references “the other side” without first introducing “an other side”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “the pressing members press the chambers located at both lateral portions of the container so that the cover film between the chambers is tensioned”. While lateral portions as a feature are mentioned in the specification, there is no included details as to what is considered to be a lateral portion of the container and/or the location of this lateral portion(s). Further, no lateral portion is defined in the drawings. It is unclear as to if this lateral portion is not included in the drawings, or if the lateral portion is included in the drawings and simply not called out. Further, there is not mention in the specification or a depiction in the drawings that the pressing members cause tension in the cover film between the containers.
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 1 is 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 1 recites the limitation "both lateral portions" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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 1-3, 14-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jae Jung Yoon (KR 20190138507 A – hereinafter Yoon).
Regarding claim 1, Yoon teaches a film cutting device for cutting a cover film (Fig. 1,
Film F) attached to a container (Fig. 1, container comprised of Containers 10) including a
plurality of chambers (Fig. 1, Containers 10), the film cutting device comprising: a base frame
(Fig. 3, Driving Plate 610); a pressing module (Fig. 3, Part 300) coupled to the base frame to be
movable in a vertical direction (Fig. 3; Page 6 Para 2), the pressing module including pressing members (Fig. 3, Heater Body 310) configured to press the chambers located at both lateral portions of the container (Fig. 15; Page 6 Para 5); a transfer module (Fig. 12, transfer module comprised of Lifting Drive 240 and Drive Actuator 242); and a cutting module (Fig. 3, cutting module comprised of Cutter Body 510) including a plurality of cutting blades (Fig. 3, those Cutter Body 510 which are located between chambers) that are arranged in a transverse direction (Fig. 3, left to right as shown), wherein the plurality of chambers are arranged in the transverse direction (Fig. 11, left to right as shown), and each of the cutting blades is inserted into the film between two adjacent chambers among the chambers (Fig. 15, it can be seen that the cutting blades are inserted into film which is between two of the chambers), and the cover film between the two adjacent chambers is cut while the pressing members press the chambers located at both lateral portions of the container (Fig. 15; Page 8 Para 2 – the two move down together, and so the pressing module would be held back by contact with the container as the cutting module continues to move down and make a cut. Both lateral portions are defined as the front left and right side portions as seen by the viewer and the back left and right side portions as seen by the viewer which are in contact with the pressing members) so that the cover film between the chambers is tensioned (Fig. 15; Page 8 Para 2 – the two move down together, and so the pressing module would be held back by contact with the container as the cutting module continues to move down and make a cut. Both lateral portions are defined as the front left and right side portions as seen by the viewer and the back left and right side portions as seen by the viewer which are in contact with the pressing members) so that the cover film between the chambers is tensioned (Fig. 15; Page 6 Para 5 – the film is held in close contact with 300 while the cutting action occurs, thereby tensioning the film).
Yoon does not teach that the plurality of chambers are detachably connected to one other, however Yoon does not need to disclose details related to the container or film as the inclusion of the material or article being worked upon by a structure does not impart patentability to the claims In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see MPEP 2115.
Yoon also does not teach that the cutting blades are inserted into gaps between the two containers. However, the cutting blades of Yoon do move downwards such that they penetrate the film, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify Yoon such that the cutting blades final location during the cutting motion places the cutting blades of Yoon further downwards and inwards such that they are located in the gaps between adjacent chambers as it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Yoon additionally does not teach that the cutting module is coupled to the transfer module, wherein the transfer module is configured to move the cutting blade in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 15, vertical direction as shown) to perform the aforementioned cutting action. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify Yoon such that transfer module is configured to move the cutting module relative to the containers instead of the existing setup where the containers are moved relative to the cutting module as it has been held that mere reversal of movement is an obvious modification in re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). This modification would result in the transfer module being coupled to the cutting module, in addition to being configured to move the cutting blades in a longitudinal direction to perform the claimed cutting action.
Regarding claim 2, Yoon further teaches the film cutting device of claim 1, wherein while the cover film is cut, the cutting blades are not overlapped with the pressing members (Fig. 15, the Cutter Body 510 and Heating Body 310 do not overlap when viewed in the head-on direction as shown in Fig. 15 while cutting), and wherein the pressing members are in parallel to each other and each of the pressing members has a bar shape (Merriam-Webster defines bar as “a solid piece or block of material that is longer than it is wide”. Fig. 5 shows 310 as bar-shaped since it is a solid piece which is longer (in the left to right direction) than it is wide (in the vertical direction)).
Regarding claim 3, Yoon further teaches the film cutting device of claim 1, wherein the
cutting module further includes a supporter (Fig. 3, Chamber 100) supporting a plurality of
cutting means, and wherein each of the plurality of cutting means includes: a cutting frame (Fig.
3, Cutter Fixing Part 520) supported from the supporter to be able to move up and down with
respect to the supporter (Page 4 Para 3); and a cutting blade (Fig. 3, Cutter Body 510) supported
from the cutting frame.
Regarding claim 14, Yoon further teaches the film cutting device of claim 3, wherein the
pressing module (Fig. 3, Part 300) includes: the pressing members (Fig. 3, Heater Body 310) spaced apart from each other along the transverse direction (Fig. 11, left to right), the pressing members pressing an upper portion of the cover film (Fig. 15); and a pressing frame (Fig. 3, First Guide Part 320) supporting the pressing members, the pressing frame being configured to be movable in the vertical direction on the base frame (Page 6 Para 5), wherein the pressing members press the cover film attached to the chambers (Fig. 1, Containers 10) located at both lateral portions of the container, when the pressing frame moves down.
Regarding claim 15, Yoon further teaches the film cutting device of claim 14, wherein
the plurality of cutting means (Fig. 3, cutting means comprising Cutter Body 510, the plurality of
cutting means not including the leftmost and rightmost Cutter Body 510) are spaced apart from
each other by a predetermined distance between the plurality of pressing members so that each of
the cutting blades is located between the chambers (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Yoon further teaches the film cutting device of claim 14, wherein
the pressing members extend along the longitudinal direction, and each of the pressing members have a flat shape (Fig. 3, each of the Heater Body 310 is a 3-dimensional object, and therefore extends at least partially in the longitudinal direction. Further, the left and right outer sides of the Heater Body 310 are flat, which examiner interprets to be defining of a flat shape).
Regarding claim 17, Yoon further teaches the film cutting device of claim 3, wherein the
plurality of chambers are arranged in the transverse direction (Fig. 3, where the transverse
direction runs from left to right), and the cutting blade is configured to cut the cover film with a
part of the cutting blade inserted between the plurality of chambers (Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 18, Yoon teaches a method of cutting a cover film of a container, the
method comprising: (a) a preparation step of positioning a container in a film cutting device (Fig.
1, it is inherent that before a cut can be made, Containers 10 must somehow be placed and
positioned inside of the film cutting device); wherein the container includes a plurality of
chambers (Fig. 1, Containers 10), and the film cutting device comprising: a base frame (Fig. 3,
Driving Plate 610); a pressing module (Fig. 3, Part 300) coupled to the base frame to be movable
in a vertical direction (Fig. 3; Page 6 Para 5), the pressing module including pressing members (Fig. 3, Heater Body 310) configured to press the chambers located at both lateral portions of the container (Page 8 Para 2 – the two move down together, and so the pressing module would be held back by contact with the container as the cutting module continues to move down and make a cut); a transfer module (Fig. 12, transfer module comprised of Lifting Drive 240 and Drive Actuator 242); and a cutting module (Fig. 3, cutting module comprised of Cutter Body 510) including a plurality of cutting blades (Fig. 3, those Cutter Body 510 which are located between chambers) that are arranged in a transverse direction (Fig. 3, left to right as shown), wherein the plurality of chambers are arranged in the transverse direction (Fig. 11, left to right as shown), and each of the cutting blades is inserted into film between two adjacent chambers among the chambers (Fig. 15, it can be seen that the cutting blades are inserted into film which is between two of the chambers), and the cover film between the two adjacent chambers is cut while the pressing members press the chambers located at both lateral portions of the container (Fig. 15; Page 8 Para 2 – the two move down together, and so the pressing module would be held back by contact with the container as the cutting module continues to move down and make a cut. Both lateral portions are defined as the front left and right side portions as seen by the viewer and the back left and right side portions as seen by the viewer which are in contact with the pressing members) so that the cover film between the chambers is tensioned (Fig. 15; Page 8 Para 2 – the two move down together, and so the pressing module would be held back by contact with the container as the cutting module continues to move down and make a cut. Both lateral portions are defined as the front left and right side portions as seen by the viewer and the back left and right side portions as seen by the viewer which are in contact with the pressing members) so that the cover film between the chambers is tensioned (Fig. 15; Page 6 Para 5 – the film is held in close contact with 300 while the cutting action occurs, thereby tensioning the film).
Yoon does not teach that the plurality of chambers are detachably connected to one other, however Yoon does not need to disclose details related to the container or film as the inclusion of the material or article being worked upon by a structure does not impart patentability to the claims In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see MPEP 2115.
Yoon also does not teach that the cutting blades are inserted into gaps between the two containers. However, the cutting blades of Yoon do move downwards such that they penetrate the film, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify Yoon such that the cutting blades final location during the cutting motion places the cutting blades of Yoon further downwards and inwards such that they are located in the gaps between adjacent chambers as it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Yoon additionally does not teach that the cutting module is coupled to the transfer module, wherein the transfer module is configured to move the cutting blade in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 15, vertical direction as shown) to perform the aforementioned cutting action. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify Yoon such that transfer module is configured to move the cutting module relative to the containers instead of the existing setup where the containers are moved relative to the cutting module as it has been held that mere reversal of movement is an obvious modification in re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). This modification would result in the transfer module being coupled to the cutting module, in addition to being configured to move the cutting blades in a longitudinal direction to perform the claimed cutting action.
Regarding claim 19, Yoon further teaches the method of claim 18, wherein (c) the
cutting step is performed after (b) the pressing step (Fig. 14 and Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 22, Yoon further teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the
pressing members (Fig. 3, Heater Body 310) are spaced apart from each other along the transverse direction (Fig. 3) of the cutting means, wherein the container includes a plurality of chambers arranged in the transverse direction (Fig. 15), and wherein in (b) the pressing step, the pressing members press the cover film attached to chambers, which is located at both lateral portions of the container, among the plurality of chambers by moving down the pressing members (Fig. 15; Page 8 Para 2 – the two move down together, and so the pressing module would be held back by contact with the container as the cutting module continues to move down and make a cut).
Regarding claim 23, the existing combination of Yoon and Jung already teaches the
method of claim 22, wherein in (c) the cutting step, the transfer module moves the cutting blades between the plurality of pressing members (See the rejection of claim 1 – the cutting
modules of Yoon are located between the Containers 10), and the cutting blades cut the cover
film attached to the container (Fig. 15).
Claims 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jae
Jung Yoon (KR 20190138507 A – hereinafter Yoon) as applied to claims 3 and 20 above, and further in view of Yang-kai Zhan (CN 112549157 A – hereinafter Zhan).
Regarding claim 4, Yoon teaches the film cutting device of claim 3, wherein the
plurality of cutting means (Fig. 15) are spaced apart from each other and are supported from the
supporter (Fig. 3, Chamber 100).
Yoon does not teach that the plurality of cutting means are independently moveable up and down relative to each other.
However, Zhan teaches a cutting device wherein a plurality of cutting means (Fig. 1,
Cutting Knife 89) are independently moveable up and down relative to teach other (Fig. 3, Clamping Block 84 allows for the insertion or removal of each assembly containing Knife 89 via
movement up or down; Page 5, Last Para).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the device of Yoon to include the limitations of claim 4 above as taught by Zhan. Doing so is beneficial as it allows for quick installation and assembly (Zhan; Page 5, Last Para).
Regarding claim 5, Yoon does not teach the film cutting device of claim 3, wherein the cutting module further includes a plurality of elastic member providing a restoring force to the cutting frame so that the cutting blade is pressed toward the container.
However, Zhan teaches a cutting device wherein the cutting module further includes a
plurality of elastic members (Fig. 3, Elastic Piece 85) providing a restoring force to the cutting
frame (Fig. 1, cutting frame comprised of Fixing Piece 88 and Mounting Cylinder 81) so that the
cutting blade is pressed toward the container (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the device of Yoon to include the limitations of claim 5 above as taught by Zhan. Doing so is beneficial as it provides support for the mounting mechanism of the cutting blade (Zhan; Page 5, Last Para).
Regarding claim 6, the existing combination of Yoon and Zhan already teaches a
cutting device wherein one side of the elastic member is supported from a supporter (Fig. 3,
Clamping Block 84), and the other side of the elastic member is supported from the cutting
frame (Fig. 3, Mounting Cylinder 81).
Regarding claim 7, Yoon further teaches the film cutting device of claim 5, wherein a
stopper (Fig. 3, Second Guide Part 530) is provided to at least one of the cutting frame and the
supporter (Fig. 3), and the stopper prevents the cutting frame from being separated from the
supporter (Fig. 3; it can be seen that the structure of Second Guide Part 530 is such that the
cutting frame and support are prevented from separating).
Regarding claim 8, Yoon further teaches the film cutting device of claim 7, wherein the
stopper is protruded upward from the cutting frame (Fig. 3, portion of 530 connected to and
extending upward from Cutter Fixing Part 520), and the stopper is supported from the supporter
(Fig. 3, supported from Chamber 100 via bushing) when the cutting frame is relatively moved
down with respect to the supporter.
Regarding claim 9, Yoon does not teach the film cutting device of claim 3, wherein the cutting blade is supported from the cutting frame so that the cutting blade is rotatable.
However, Zhan teaches a cutting device wherein the cutting blade (Fig. 1, Cutting Knife
89) is support from the cutting frame (Fig. 1, cutting frame comprised of Fixing Piece 88) so that
the cutting blade is rotatable (Fig. 1; Page 6 Para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the device of Yoon to include the limitations of claim 9 above as taught by Zhan. Doing so is beneficial as it avoids the workpiece adhering to the blade (Zhan; Page 6 Para 2).
Regarding claim 10, the existing combination of Yoon and Zhan already teaches the film cutting device of claim 9, wherein the cutting module is moved forward so that the cover
film is cut from a rear end of the cover film (See the rejection of claim 1 above. Examiner defines a rear end of the cover film as the end which is first cut by the cutting module).
Regarding the limitation wherein the cutting blade moves up more when cutting the cover film
between the plurality of chambers than when cutting the rear end of the cover film, the examiner
interprets this to be a recitation of intended use, and finds that the cutting blade of the combination of Yoon and Zhan is capable of being moved up more when cutting the cover film between the plurality of chambers than when cutting the rear end of the cover film.
Regarding claim 11, the existing combination of Yoon and Zhan already teaches wherein while the cutting module is moved forward, the cutting blade cuts a part of the rear end
of the cover film and is rotated by being in contact with an upper end of the chamber (Rejection
of claims 1 and 9 above – examiner interprets this claim to be a recitation of intended use, and
finds that the device of the combination of Yoon, Jung, and Zhan is capable of cutting a rear end
of the cover film while moving forward in addition to being rotated by contact with an upper end
of a chamber).
Regarding claim 12, Yoon further teaches the film cutting device of claim 11, wherein
the cutting blade includes: a cutting edge (Fig. 3, lower cutting edge of Cutter Body 510)
provided at an end of the cutting blade (Fig. 3, Cutter Body 510); and an inclined surface (Fig. 3,
right lower surface of Cutter Body 510 which is inclined) extending from the cutting edge
toward a rotation axis of the cutting blade (Examiner interprets that in combination Zhan with
Yoon to teach a rotating blade, the axis of rotation would remain at the center of the blade in a
vertical direction, towards which the inclined surface of Yoon extends), wherein the inclined
surface is inclined with respect to a direction that is perpendicular to a direction of the rotation
axis (Examiner interprets that the rotation axis of Zhan would remain the rotation axis of Yoon,
being the horizontal direction. The inclined surface of Yoon extends in a vertical direction,
which is perpendicular to the horizontal direction). Examiner interprets that “wherein when the
cutting edge cuts the cover film, the inclined surface is in contact with the upper end of the
chamber” is a recitation of intended use, and that the device of Yoon, Jung, and Zhan is capable
of performing such an action.
Regarding claim 13, the existing combination of Yoon and Zhan does not teach the film cutting device of claim 9, wherein the cutting blade has a circular shape.
However, Zhan further teaches a cutting blade which has a circular shape (Fig. 1, Cutting
Knife 89; ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the device of Yoon and Zhan to include the limitations of claim 13 above as taught by Zhan as 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jae Jung Yoon (KR 20190138507 A – hereinafter Yoon) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Byung Chun Jung (KR 20210097495 A – hereinafter Jung)
Regarding claim 20, the existing combination of Yoon does not teach the method of claim 18, wherein (c) the cutting step includes: a first cutting step where the cutting blades cut a rear end of the cover film; and a second cutting step where the cutting blades cut the cover film between the plurality of chambers, wherein the cutting module is moved forward so that the cover film is cut from the rear end of the cover film, and wherein the cutting blade moves up more in the second cutting step than the first cutting step
However, Jung teaches translation of a cutting blade across a workpiece to cut a film, which in combination with the blades of Yoon which reside between the chambers results in the steps above (Jung teaches a film cutting device which has a transfer module (Fig. 4, transfer
module comprised of Moving Unit 410) coupled to the base frame (Fig. 4, Support Bodies 210),
the cutting module (Fig. 4, Cutting Member 490) being coupled to the transfer module, and the
transfer module is configured to move the cutting module in forward from a rear position (Fig. 4,
direction along the path of Moving Guide Unit 310)), where examiner defines the rear end of the film as the end where the cutting action begins, and wherein the cutting blade moves up more in the second cutting step than the first cutting step (examiner regards this as a recitation of intended use, and finds that the device of Yoon when in combination with Jung would be capable of moving up more in the second cutting step in response to the shape of the film and chambers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the device of Yoon to include the transfer module and movements of Jung described in claim 20 above as taught by Jung. Doing so is beneficial as the force required to cut the film as well as quality defects are reduced (Jung; Page 3, Para 5).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jae Jung Yoon (KR 20190138507 A – hereinafter Yoon) and Byung Chun Jung (KR 20210097495 A – hereinafter Jung) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Yang-kai Zhan (CN 112549157 A – hereinafter Zhan).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Yoon and Jung already teaches the method of claim 20, wherein the cutting blades are spaced apart from the chamber in the first cutting step (examiner interprets that at the beginning of translating forward to perform the act of cutting, most of the cutting blade is not touching nor located between the chambers). The existing combination of Yoon and Jung does not teach the cutting blades are rotated by being in contact with an upper end of the chamber in the second cutting step.
However, Zhan teaches a cutting blade (Fig. 1, Cutting Knife 89) which is rotated by being in contact with the object(s) below the workpiece (Page 6 Para 2), the object(s) below the
workpiece in Yoon during step two including the chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the device of Yoon and Jung to include the limitations of claim 21 above as taught by Zhan. Doing so is beneficial as it avoids the workpiece adhering to the blade (Zhan; Page 6 Para 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach that each of the cutting blades is inserted into a gap defined by two adjacent chambers among the chambers. However, Yoon clearly discloses gaps located between the chambers of Yoon and further shows that the cutting blades are inserted into the film near to the gaps between these chambers. Therefore, the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify Yoon such that the cutting blades final location during the cutting motion places the cutting blades of Yoon further downwards and inwards such that they are located in the gaps between adjacent chambers as it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Applicant additionally argues that the chambers of Yoon needs to be such that
The cutting blades are inserted into a gap defined by the chambers (addressed above)
The cutting operation is performed between the chambers (Fig. 15 shows that the cutting operation takes place between the main defining bodies of the chambers)
The pressing members act on lateral chambers to tension the film (no such lateral chambers are claimed. Rather, lateral portions are claimed, and the pressing members acting on lateral portions in addition to tensioning the film during cutting is taught by Yoon addressed in the rejections of claims 1 and 18 above)
The only structure of the workpiece which was not given patentable weight was the limitation which defines that the chambers are detachably connected to one other, which does not influence in any way the position of the cutting blades, the path of movement, or the tension of the film. All other claimed features of the container have been taught by the recited art.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine Yoon and Jung to teach the missing feature of inserting the blades into the gaps. Yoon is used on its own in conjunction with established case law to teach this missing limitation, and therefore arguments regarding combing Yoon and Jung to teach this limitation are moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights