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 .
Specification
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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of its improper use of legal phraseology “means for” in line 4. 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arikita (United States Patent US 7,669,278 B2) in view of Graf (International Patent Application WO 2009065617A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Arikita discloses A device for assembling a modular cutting support element on a cutting support batten of a conveyor cutting machine for cutting sheet materials, (Column 1, lines 13-16: "The present invention relates to an improvement of a brush mounting structure for a cut-support surface of a cutting table of an automatic cutting machine for cutting a sheet material, such as a knitted fabric and a woven fabric, to a desired form.")comprising: a cutting support batten intended to be secured to a conveyor of the cutting machine,(Figure 3: Brush mount 5) at least one modular cutting support element comprising a plurality of bristles each having a foot secured to a baseplate and a head opposite to the foot on which a sheet material to be cut is intended to rest, (Figure 3: Brush 7).
However, Arikita does not disclose means for vertically holding by magnetism at least part of the baseplate of the modular cutting support element on at least part of the cutting support batten.
Graf discloses a similar device for receiving materials to be cut comprises and means for vertically holding by magnetism at least part of the baseplate of the modular cutting support element on at least part of the cutting support batten.(Paragraph 0041: " The support elements 42 preferably have a rod-shaped body 48. A support surface 49 is provided on an upper side of the support element 42, which engages an underside of the at least one support band 19. In particular, an edge area of the support strip 19 rests on the support surface 49 of the support element 42. To position the support elements 42 in an upper end position 51 for positioning at least one support band 19 in the support plane of the support table 14, an end position fixation 52 is provided. This end position fixing 52 includes a holding force that acts between the sliding body 46 and the support element 42 or the carrier 44 and the support element 42. For example, according to Figure 3 and in particular according to Figure 4a, the support element 42 can have a stop 54 in which a holding magnet 55 is provided. When the support element 42 is moved into the end position 51, the magnetic holding force acts so that the support element 42 is held independently in the end position 51. As soon as the support element 42 When the support element 42 is moved out of the end position 51 or lowered downwards over a predetermined distance, the magnetic holding force no longer acts, and the support element 42 can be moved up and down virtually without force")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Arikita to include the magnets as taught by Graf. The motivation for the modification would have been to allow for a wear free arrangement that is simple and cost effective while providing a proper holding force (Paragraph 0012).
Regarding Claim 14, Arikita in view if Graf discloses the device according to claim 13, as seen above. Arikita further discloses wherein the cutting support batten comprises at a first lateral end a hook and the baseplate of the modular cutting support element comprises at a first lateral end a hook able to cooperate with the hook of the cutting support batten to ensure the lateral and vertical holding of the modular cutting support element on the cutting support batten.(Figure 3: Projection 18a and holding surface 15a)
Regarding Claim 15, Arikita in view if Graf discloses the device according to claim 14, as seen above. Arikita further discloses further comprising means for laterally holding a second lateral end of the baseplate of the modular cutting support element against a second lateral end of the cutting support batten.(Figure 3: Engaging surface 19a)
Regarding Claim 16, Arikita in view if Graf discloses the device according to claim 15, as seen above. Arikita further discloses wherein the second lateral end of the baseplate of the modular cutting support element comprises a protruding lug and the second lateral end of the support batten comprises a protruding abutment able to cooperate with the lug of the baseplate of the modular cutting support element so as to allow lateral holding of the second lateral end of the baseplate of the modular cutting support element against the second lateral end of the cutting support batten.(Figure 3: Engaging surface 19a and engaging surface 16a)
Regarding Claim 17, Arikita in view if Graf discloses the device according to claim 15, as seen above. Arikita further discloses wherein the second lateral end of the baseplate of the modular cutting support element comprises a recessed notch and the second lateral end of the support batten comprises a protruding abutment able to cooperate with the notch of the baseplate of the modular cutting support element so as to allow lateral holding of the second lateral end of the baseplate of the modular cutting support element against the second lateral end of the cutting support batten.(Figure 3: Engaging surface 19a and engaging surface 16a)
Regarding Claim 18, Arikita in view if Graf discloses the device according to claim 14, as seen above. Graf further discloses wherein the baseplate of the modular cutting support element comprises a magnet positioned at least at a second lateral end and the cutting support batten comprises a metal insert positioned at least at a second lateral end so as to allow vertical holding by magnetism of the second lateral end of the baseplate of the modular cutting support element on the second lateral end of the cutting support batten.(Figure 5: Magnets 55 and metal plates 85)
Regarding Claim 19, Arikita in view if Graf discloses the device according to claim 18, as seen above. Graf further discloses wherein the magnet of the baseplate of the modular cutting support element is common for a plurality of adjacent modular cutting support elements.(Figure 5: Magnets 55)
Regarding Claim 20, Arikita in view if Graf discloses the device according to claim 18, as seen above. Graf further discloses wherein the magnet extends between the two lateral ends of the modular cutting support element and is provided with holes for the passage of air.(Figure 5: Shows Magnets 55 separated from one another)
Regarding Claim 21, Arikita in view if Graf discloses the device according to claim 14, as seen above. Graf further discloses wherein the baseplate of the modular cutting support element comprises a metal insert positioned at least at a second lateral end and the cutting support batten comprises a magnet positioned at least at a second lateral end so as to allow vertical holding by magnetism of the second lateral end of the baseplate of the modular cutting support element on the second lateral end of the cutting support batten.(Figure 5: Magnets 55 and metal plates 85)
Regarding Claim 22, Arikita in view if Graf discloses the device according to claim 14, as seen above. Arikita further discloses wherein the first lateral end of the cutting support batten corresponds to an upstream end relative to the direction of advance of the conveyor of the cutting machine.(Figure 3: Projection 18a and holding surface 15a)
Regarding Claim 23, Arikita in view if Graf discloses the device according to claim 14, as seen above. Graf further discloses wherein the first lateral end of the baseplate of the modular cutting support element further comprises contactless identification means.(Paragraph 0046: " At the upper end of the support elements 42 near the support surface 49, a control element 61 is provided, which is designed in particular as a pin- or roller-shaped element. This control element 61 interacts with a cam 63 (Figure 2a) arranged on the beam trapping device 26. During a traversing movement of the beam trapping device 26, for example a groove shaped recess 66 of the cam 63 (Figure 2b) engages the control element 61, causing the support element 42 to undergo a forced lifting movement when passing over the beam trapping device 26. For a lowering movement of the support elements 42, it is only necessary that the holding force in the final position 51 is overcome. Following this, a virtually force free guidance of the control elements 61 in the recess 66 of the cam 63 is provided, with the exception of the self-weight of the support elements 42. Shortly before reaching the final position 51, the holding force acts again, whereby the recess in the cam 63 ensures a controlled transfer of the support elements 42 into the final position.")
Regarding Claim 24, Arikita in view if Graf discloses the device according to claim 13, as seen above. Arikita further discloses wherein the modular cutting support element is a modular comb element or a cutting support block.(Figure 3: Brush 7)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent 5,730,431 (Cattini, Flavio): Cattini discloses a similar block for formation of surfaces for a cutting machine comprising an installation structure, a structure with bristles and connection elements as seen in Figure 7A.
United States Patent 11,845,611 B2 (Balsells, Antoni): Balsells discloses a similar bristle brush and conveyor belt comprising a support plate, flexible bristles, leading edge, trailing edge, and cut outs as seen in Figure 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABBY ALLURA JORGENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:30.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/ABBY A JORGENSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights