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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 of claim 1 states “by means of motor”, and should instead read “by means of a motor”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 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 11 recites the limitation "the drive unit" in line 2 before introducing a drive unit in claim 11, or any claim(s) from which claim 11 depends. Additionally, claim 11 recites the limitation “the initial position” in line 3 before introducing an initial position in claim 11, or any claim(s) from which claim 1 depends. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holger Vollrath et al. (DE 102004029430 A1 – hereinafter Vollrath) in view of Robert Jaynes (US 8453548 B2 – hereinafter Jaynes).
Regarding claim 1, Vollrath teaches a cutting apparatus (Fig. 1) for segmenting a tube blister pack (Fig. 3, Film Tube 2. Although the cutting apparatus is not disclosed to segment a tube blister pack, the examiner interprets that the workpiece of a film tube is similar to that of a tube blister pack, and that the cutting apparatus of Vollrath is equally capable of segmenting a tube blister pack), comprising a blade (Fig. 3, Blade 7) that can be moved against an abutment (Fig. 3, Jaw 4), wherein the tube blister pack (Fig. 3) can be guided between the abutment and the blade, characterized in that the blade is held in a cutting unit comprising a blade holder (Fig. 3, Anvil 12), which can be moved back-and-forth (Fig. 1 and 2), and a blade guide (Fig. 1, Jaw 3) which is provided with a cut-out (Fig. 1, cut-out in Jaw 3 in which Blade 7 resides) for the blade to pass through and is coupled to the blade holder (Fig. 1), wherein the blade holder and blade guide are coupled to one another by means of at least one resilient intermediate piece (Fig. 1, Spring 15).
Vollrath does not teach that the blade and blade holder can be moved by means of a motor.
However, Jaynes teaches a cutting apparatus with a blade (Fig. 8, Blade 310) and blade holder (Fig. 8, Blade Carriage 314) which can be moved by means of a motor (Col. 11, lines 43-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Vollrath to include the limitations of claim 1 above as taught by Jaynes as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The invention of Vollrath differed from the claimed device only in the means of moving the blade and blade holder. Vollrath employed a pneumatic cylinder to achieve this movement, while Jaynes used a motor. It is known in the art that both could be used to impart movement, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one for the other to yield the predictable result of imparting linear motion to a blade and blade holder.
Regarding claim 2, Vollrath further teaches the cutting apparatus according to claim 1, characterized in that a cutting edge (Fig. 1, Cutting Edge 9) of the blade is arranged in the cut-out in an initial position (Fig. 3) of the cutting unit, wherein, moreover, when performing a cutting operation, the cutting unit is movable from the initial position towards the abutment until the blade guide abuts against the abutment while fixing the tube blister pack and the blade holder is movable against the blade guide during resilient deformation of the intermediate pieces and, in a cutting setting, the blade edge emerges from the cut-out for performing the cutting operation (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Vollrath further teaches the cutting apparatus according to claim 2, characterized in that the cutting apparatus comprises a releasable locking device (Fig. 1, Adjusting Device 18) in the direction of movement of the cutting apparatus (Page 3, second to last paragraph), which is configured to prevent a movement of the blade holder relative to the blade guide (Page 3, second to last paragraph), to impede the blade edge from emerging from the blade guide (Page 3, second to last paragraph), wherein the locking device is in a locking setting until shortly before the cutting setting and can then be moved into a release setting (Page 3, second to last paragraph).
Claims 4-8 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holger Vollrath et al. (DE 102004029430 A1 – hereinafter Vollrath) in view of Robert Jaynes (US 8453548 B2 – hereinafter Jaynes) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Peter Schmidt (WO 2017009178 A1 – hereinafter Schmidt).
Regarding claim 4, the existing combination of Vollrath and Jaynes does not teach the cutting apparatus according to claim 3, characterized in that the locking device comprises a link, and a ratchet, that can be tilted about a transverse axis, which at one end comprises a guide arm that rests against the link and at the other end comprises a locking arm.
However, Schmidt teaches a cutting apparatus, characterized in that a locking device comprises a link (Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, Bolt 34), and a ratchet (Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, portion of Shaft 23 shown in Fig. 9), that can be tilted about a transverse axis (tilting action shown between Fig. 9 and Fig. 10), is arranged on the blade guide, which at one end comprises a guide arm (Fig. 9, top end of the portion of Shaft 23 shown) that rests against the link and at the other end comprises a locking arm (Fig. 9, bottom end of portion of Shaft 23 shown). Schmidt does not teach that the ratchet is arranged on the blade guide, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the ratchet 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Vollrath and Jaynes to include the limitations of claim 4 above as taught by Schmidt. Doing so is beneficial as it can allow for the blade to be removed (Schmidt; Page 7, Para 8).
Regarding claim 5, the existing combination of Vollrath, Jaynes, and Schmidt already teaches the cutting apparatus according to claim 4, characterized in that the link comprises a locking section (Fig. 9, wider portion of Bolt 34) and a releasing section (Fig. 9, thinner portion of Bolt 34), wherein, in the locking section that starts from the initial position, the ratchet is held in the locked setting (Fig. 10) and, in the releasing section, a movement of the ratchet into the release setting can be effected (Fig. 9, the ratchet is free to rotate), in which the blade edge emerges from the cut-out to perform the cutting operation (Page 7, Para 2-3; the blade edge is properly secured and positioned to perform the cutting operation when in the release setting).
Regarding claims 6, 12, 13, 14, and 15, the existing combination of Vollrath and Jaynes does not teach the cutting apparatus, characterized in that the cutting apparatus comprises a slicing blade for forming a slicing blade slit in the tube blister pack.
However, Schmidt teaches a cutting apparatus which comprises a slicing blade (Fig. 7, leftmost Knife 22 shown) for forming a slicing blade slit in a workpiece (Fig. 1, Film Web 8) in addition to a blade (Fig. 7, rightmost Knife 22 shown).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Vollrath and Jaynes to include the limitations of claims 6, 12, 13, 14, and 15 above as taught by Schmidt. Doing so is beneficial as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a plurality of knives allows for a plurality of cuts to be made in the same motion, improving efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Vollrath, Jaynes, and Schmidt already teaches the cutting apparatus according to claim 6, characterized in that the slicing blade is mounted on the blade holder (See the rejection of claim 6 above – Schmidt teaches that the blade and the slicing blade are located on the same component, and when introducing the slicing blade to the combination of Vollrath and Jaynes would mean that the slicing blade is also located on the blade holder).
Regarding claim 8, the existing combination of Vollrath, Jaynes, and Schmidt does not teach the cutting apparatus according to claim 7, characterized in that the blade guide comprises a second slit for the slicing blade to pass through.
However, Schmidt further teaches that a blade guide (Fig. 6, Bottom Plate 30) comprises a second slit (Fig. 6, Slot 29 below the leftmost Knife 22 shown) for the slicing blade (Fig. 6, the leftmost Knife 22 shown) to pass through.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Vollrath, Jaynes, and Schmidt to include the limitations of claims 6, 12, 13, 14, and 15 above as taught by Schmidt. Doing so is beneficial as it allows the slicing blade to protrude through the blade guide in order to cut the workpiece (Schmidt; Page 7, Para 1-2).
Claims 9, 10, and 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holger Vollrath et al. (DE 102004029430 A1 – hereinafter Vollrath) in view of Robert Jaynes (US 8453548 B2 – hereinafter Jaynes) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of 정래훈 (KR 101503524 B1 – hereinafter 정래훈).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the existing combination of Vollrath and Jaynes does not teach the cutting apparatus, characterized in that the contact surface of the blade guide facing the abutment is provided with a friction-enhancing coating.
However, 정래훈 teaches a cutting apparatus with a contact surface (Fig. 3, outer surface of Friction Member 132) that is provided with a friction-enhancing coating (Page 4, Para 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the contact surface 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Vollrath and Jaynes to include the features of claims 9 and 16 above as taught by 정래훈. Doing so is beneficial as it increases the frictional force between the contact surface and the workpiece (정래훈; Page 4, Para 6).
Regarding claims 10, 18, and 20, the existing combination of Vollrath and Jaynes does not teach the cutting apparatus, characterized in that the contact surface of the abutment facing the blade guide is provided with a friction-enhancing coating.
However, 정래훈 teaches a cutting apparatus with a contact surface (Fig. 3, outer surface of Friction Member 132) that is provided with a friction-enhancing coating (Page 4, Para 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the contact surface 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Vollrath and Jaynes to include the features of claims 10, 18, and 20 above as taught by 정래훈. Doing so is beneficial as it increases the frictional force between the contact surface and the workpiece (정래훈; Page 4, Para 6).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holger Vollrath et al. (DE 102004029430 A1 – hereinafter Vollrath) in view of Robert Jaynes (US 8453548 B2 – hereinafter Jaynes) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim Balahan et al. (CN 103124619 A – hereinafter Balahan).
Regarding claim 11, the existing combination of Vollrath and Jaynes does not teach the cutting apparatus according to claim 1, characterized in that a drive unit comprises a current monitoring unit in order to return the cutting unit to the initial position if a current threshold value is exceeded.
However, Jaynes further teaches a cutting apparatus, characterized in that a drive unit comprises a monitoring unit (Fig. 7A, Sensor 306) in order to return the cutting unit to an initial position if a threshold value is exceeded (Col. 12, lines 16-34 - a pressure value). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Vollrath and Jaynes to include the limitations of claim 11 above as taught by Jaynes. Doing so is beneficial as it allows for a failure in operation to be detected (Jaynes; Col. 12, lines 16-34).
Jaynes does not teach that the monitoring unit is a current monitoring unit, and that the threshold value is a current threshold value.
However, Balahan teaches a cutting apparatus which utilizes a current monitoring unit which measures a current threshold value ([0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Vollrath and Jaynes to include the limitations of claim 11 above as taught by Balahan. Doing so is beneficial as the monitoring unit can be included in the motor (Balahan; [0062]).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holger Vollrath et al. (DE 102004029430 A1 – hereinafter Vollrath) in view of Robert Jaynes (US 8453548 B2 – hereinafter Jaynes) and Peter Schmidt (WO 2017009178 A1 – hereinafter Schmidt) as applied to claims 6 above, and further in view of 정래훈 (KR 101503524 B1 – hereinafter 정래훈).
Regarding claim 17, the existing combination of Vollrath, Jaynes, and Schmidt does not teach the cutting apparatus, characterized in that the contact surface of the blade guide facing the abutment is provided with a friction-enhancing coating.
However, 정래훈 teaches a cutting apparatus with a contact surface (Fig. 3, outer surface of Friction Member 132) that is provided with a friction-enhancing coating (Page 4, Para 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the contact surface 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Vollrath, Jaynes, and Schmidt to include the features of claim 17 above as taught by 정래훈. Doing so is beneficial as it increases the frictional force between the contact surface and the workpiece (정래훈; Page 4, Para 6).
Regarding claim 19, the existing combination of Vollrath, Jaynes, and Schmidt does not teach the cutting apparatus, characterized in that the contact surface of the abutment facing the blade guide is provided with a friction-enhancing coating.
However, 정래훈 teaches a cutting apparatus with a contact surface (Fig. 3, outer surface of Friction Member 132) that is provided with a friction-enhancing coating (Page 4, Para 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the contact surface 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Vollrath, Jaynes, and Schmidt to include the features of claim 19 above as taught by 정래훈. Doing so is beneficial as it increases the frictional force between the contact surface and the workpiece (정래훈; Page 4, Para 6).
Conclusion
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