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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding Page 4 (line 11), the phrase should recite “than it is when the stop element is in the deployed position.”
Page 10 (line 13), should recite “The cutting device 200 comprises a first plate 210 comprising the”
Page 12 (line 21), should recite “In figures 2 and 4, the cutting device has been illustrated in its first”
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a selecting device for selecting the first cutting position or the second cutting position” in claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9, 11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 9, the phrase “and wherein, considered in the horizontal axis, the end of stroke stop element is located between the end of stroke stop member and the footpad” is indefinite. The phrase “considered in the horizontal axis” is indefinite. It is unclear if Applicant is attempting to define the position of the end of stroke stop element with respect to the horizontal axis? Where is the horizontal axis defined (in other words, with respect to what structure?)? Per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term considered is defined as “to take into account.” It is unclear what structure and/or structural relationship the horizontal axis has with respect to the end of stroke stop member and the footpad.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the phrase “considered in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the footpad has a "U" shaped portion, wherein the cutting member is engaged, the "U" shaped portion being open laterally” is indefinite. The phrase “considered in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis” is indefinite. It is unclear if Applicant is attempting to define the view of the footpad with respect to the longitudinal axis or the plane in which the footpad is disposed? Further, does the engagement of the cutting member have a structural relationship with the U-shaped portion being open laterally? How is the cutting member engaged? What structure permits engagement?
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “wherein the blade preferably has a pointed shape”
The term “preferably” within the context of claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if it is merely “preferred” that the blade has a pointed shape or if the structure of the pointed shape is required by the claim limitation.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the horizontal axis" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 4,667,553 to Gerber et al.
In re claim 1, Gerber teaches a cutting device for performing a cut in a wall of a box, said cutting device extending along a longitudinal axis between a mounting part for a robotic head and a cutting member provided with a blade, the blade having at least one first cutting edge, the cutting device including:
a first part (48) comprising the cutting member (50) and a first support element (see Annotated Figure 1, below);
a second part (see Annotated Figure 1), movable in translation relative to the first part along the longitudinal axis, the second part including a footpad (52) having a bearing surface (as shown in at least Figure 2), so that the footpad is movable in translation relative to the blade along the longitudinal axis;
wherein said cutting device (50) has at least one first and one second cutting positions corresponding to at least two different positions for cutting the wall, the blade (50) (is capable of) protruding axially beyond the footpad (52) when the cutting device is in its first or second cutting position, wherein, in the first cutting position, the footpad is at a first axial distance from the first supporting element, so that the blade extends beyond the footpad over a first length corresponding to a first cutting depth and wherein, in the second cutting position, the footpad is at a second axial distance from the first support element so that the blade extends beyond the bearing surface over a second length corresponding to a second cutting depth, the first cutting depth being greater than the second cutting depth, wherein the cutting device further includes a selecting device (91) for selecting the first cutting position or the second cutting position.
Note, it has been interpreted, compression of springs 106 permit the footpad to have various distances from the first support element during cutting. As the blade enters the workpiece, the distance of the blade from the footpad will be less than the distance of the blade from the first support element when the blade has descended into the full cutting position.
PNG
media_image1.png
855
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 12, wherein the first part (48) is movable in translation relative to the mounting part (40) along the longitudinal axis, and the mounting part (40) is connected to the first part by means of a spring member (62).
In re claim 15, as best understood, considered in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the footpad has a "U" shaped portion, wherein the cutting member is engaged, the "U" shaped portion being open laterally (Col. 4, lines 5-7).
Note, due to the disk shape of the footpad (52), it has been interpreted, that the footpad has a “U” shaped portion (since there are a plurality of U shaped portions forming the contour of the disk shaped footpad).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,303,515 to Etcheparre et al.
In re claim 1, Etcheparre teaches a cutting device for performing a cut in a wall of a box, said cutting device extending along a longitudinal axis between a mounting part for a robotic head and a cutting member provided with a blade, the blade having at least one first cutting edge, the cutting device including:
a first part (18,52) comprising the cutting member (22) and a first support element (52);
a second part (26,58), movable in translation relative to the first part along the longitudinal axis, the second part including a footpad (26) having a bearing surface (as shown in at least Figure 1), so that the footpad is movable in translation relative to the blade along the longitudinal axis;
wherein said cutting device (22) has at least one first and one second cutting positions corresponding to at least two different positions for cutting the wall, the blade (22) (is capable of) protruding axially beyond the footpad (26) when the cutting device is in its first or second cutting position, wherein, in the first cutting position, the footpad is at a first axial distance from the first supporting element, so that the blade extends beyond the footpad over a first length corresponding to a first cutting depth (as shown in at least Figure 13) and wherein, in the second cutting position, the footpad is at a second axial distance from the first support element so that the blade extends beyond the bearing surface over a second length corresponding to a second cutting depth, the first cutting depth being greater than the second cutting depth, wherein the cutting device further includes a selecting device (see Annotated Figure 2 on Page 8, below) for selecting the first cutting position or the second cutting position.
Note, it has been interpreted, footpad can be adjusted to various heights with respect to the first support element in which the blade can extend to cut the workpiece.
PNG
media_image2.png
355
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerber et al. in view of US Patent No. 1,940,483 to Bangser.
In re claim 10, Gerber teaches a footpad, but does not teach the footpad further includes at least one supporting roller to bear against the wall of the box.
Bangser teaches a device having a footpad (1) including at least one supporting roller (6,7) to aid in permitting the operator to move the machine over the work table with ease (Pg. 1, lines 20-25, lines 87-112).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the footpad of Gerger with rollers as taught by Bangser in order to aid in moving the device over the worktable (in conjunction with the gantry) to position the device to obtain the desired cut.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerber et al. in view of FR2982189 to Arikita.
In re claim 11, Gerber teaches a blade (22), but does not teach the blade further includes a second cutting edge which is opposite to the first cutting edge, and wherein the blade preferably has a pointed shape.
Arikita teaches a blade having a first cutting edge (5b, left) and a second cutting edge (5b, right) opposite the first cutting edge and wherein the blade preferably has a pointed shape (as shown in at least Figure 2b). The double edge blade secures a prolonged service life (Page 4, lines 36-37)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Gerber with a double edge blade as taught by Arikita to provide a prolonged service life (Pg. 4, lines 36-37). Providing Gerber with a double edge blade is also an obvious design variant (of a cutting blade).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerber et al. in view of FR3106079 to Ciuch.
In re claim 13, Gerber teaches wherein the cutting member further comprises a blade holder (98), but does not teach the blade holder is provided with controllable jaws, the blade being held by the controllable jaws.
Ciuch teaches a device having a blade holder (3113) with controllable jaws (as shown in at least Figure 6) holding the blade (3112).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Gerber with a blade holder provided with controllable jaws as taught by Ciuch to properly position and secure the blade to prevent unwanted movement, reducing misaligned cuts.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerber et al. in view of US Patent No. 5,573,442 to Morita et al.
In re claim 14, Gerber teaches a first part, but does not teach the first part includes a blade presence sensor.
Morita teaches a device having a first part (51) including a blade presence sensor (60) which aids in detecting the position of the edge of the blade to determine wear (Col. 7, lines 22-42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Gerber with a blade presence sensor as taught by Morita to determine the position of the blade edge to detect the wear of the blade. Detecting wear of the blade reduces miscuts and provide feedback to the operator regarding blade replacement.
In re claim 16, as best understood, modified Gerber teaches wherein, considered in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the footpad (52, Gerber) has a "U" shaped portion, wherein the cutting member (22, Gerber) is engaged, the "U" shaped portion being open laterally, wherein the blade presence sensor is mounted on a first support element, and wherein the "U" shaped portion is open laterally toward the blade presence sensor.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuich in view of Etcheparre et al.
In re claim 17, Cuich teaches an installation for opening boxes, comprising at least:
a conveyor (50) for moving the boxes in the installation in a direction of travel,
a cutting robot (3) comprising a cutting device (31) for performing a cut in a wall of a box, said cutting device extending along a longitudinal axis (as shown in at least Figure 2) between a mounting part (310) for a robotic head and a cutting member provided with a blade (3112), the blade having at least one first cutting edge (3112b,c), the cutting device including:
a first part comprising the cutting member (31) and a first support element (311).
a second part (3111), the second part including a footpad having a bearing surface;
and wherein said cutting robot has a head (30) attached to the mounting head (310) of the cutting device.
Ciuch teaches an installation having a cutting device, but does not teach a second part movable in translation relative to the first part along the longitudinal axis so that the footpad is moveable in translation relative to the blade along the longitudinal axis,
wherein said cutting device has at least one first and one second cutting positions corresponding to at least two different positions for cutting the wall, the blade protruding axially beyond the footpad when the cutting device is in its first or second cutting position, wherein, in the first cutting position, the footpad is at a first axial distance from the first supporting element, so that the blade extends beyond the footpad over a first length corresponding to a first cutting depth and wherein, in the second cutting position, the footpad is at a second axial distance from the first support element so that the blade extends beyond the bearing surface over a second length corresponding to a second cutting depth, the first cutting depth being greater than the second cutting depth, wherein the cutting device further includes a selecting device for selecting the first cutting position or the second cutting position.
Etcheparre et al. teaches a second part (26,58), movable in translation relative to the first part along the longitudinal axis, the second part including a footpad (26) having a bearing surface (as shown in at least Figure 1), so that the footpad is movable in translation relative to the blade along the longitudinal axis;
wherein said cutting device (22) has at least one first and one second cutting positions corresponding to at least two different positions for cutting the wall, the blade (22) (is capable of) protruding axially beyond the footpad (26) when the cutting device is in its first or second cutting position, wherein, in the first cutting position, the footpad is at a first axial distance from the first supporting element, so that the blade extends beyond the footpad over a first length corresponding to a first cutting depth (as shown in at least Figure 13) and wherein, in the second cutting position, the footpad is at a second axial distance from the first support element so that the blade extends beyond the bearing surface over a second length corresponding to a second cutting depth, the first cutting depth being greater than the second cutting depth, wherein the cutting device further includes a selecting device (see Annotated Figure 2 on Page 8, below) for selecting the first cutting position or the second cutting position.
Note, it has been interpreted, footpad can be adjusted to various heights with respect to the first support element in which the blade can extend to cut the workpiece.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Ciuch with a movable second part as taught by Etcheparre in order to provide a device to accommodate and secure workpieces of various thicknesses which increase production flexibility.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Gerber teaches a selection device including a stop element (as set forth by the 112, sixth paragraph interpretation), but does not teach mobility of the stop element that has a deployed position in which the second part supports against the stop element and a retracted position in which the stop element does not limit axial movement of the second part relative to the first part.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent No. 6164177 teaches a cutting device having a footpad. GB2307200 teaches a cutting device having a cutting blade and footpad. US Patent No. 793295 teaches a cutting device having a footpad with rollers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights