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 Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1 and 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (CN 105128155 A) in view of Baba et al. (WO 2013/108568 A1) and Niimi et al. (US 2020/0368931 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bai teaches a cutting device (Bai; Figs. 1-2) for cutting a plate-shaped body (Bai; Fig. 1; 3) being conveyed, the cutting device comprising:
a rotary cutter (Bai; Fig. 1; 5, 41, 42, 43, 51, 52 and 53) including a lower unit (Bai; Fig. 1; 5, 51, 52 and 53), the lower unit being disposed below the plate-shaped body and including a roll (Bai; Fig. 1; 53) and a lower blade (Bai; Fig. 1; 51) attached to the roll; and
a lifting device (Bai; Fig. 1; 5 and 54) that is disposed on the lower unit and lifts up the plate-shaped body (Bai; Fig. 1; 3 and 5), and
wherein the cutting device further comprises a conveying roll (Bai; Fig. 1; 2) disposed immediately downstream of the rotary cutter (Bai; Fig. 1; 5, 41, 42, 43, 51, 52 and 53).
Bai does not teach wherein the lifting device is composed of multiple members arranged along an outer periphery of the roll, and wherein the cutting device further comprises a single conveying roll disposed immediately downstream of the rotary cutter, and the conveying roll is configured to rotated in a direction opposite to a conveying direction of the plate-shaped body.
Baba teaches a cutting device (Baba; Figs. 1-14D) wherein the lifting device (Baba; Figs. 8A-8B; 52) is composed of multiple members arranged along an outer periphery of the roll (Baba; Figs. 8A-8B; 52). Such an arrangement allows the lifting device to support the sheet over a longer distance (Baba; Fig. 8B; 52) while using less material than a single larger lifting device (Baba; Fig. 9B; 58).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the lifting device taught by Bai such that the lifting device comprised multiple members like the lifting device taught by Baba as such an arrangement the lifting device to support the sheet over a longer distance while using less material than a single larger lifting device and as the result of providing additional members for the lifting device to provide addition support for the sheet after cutting would have only required a level of ordinary skill in the art as the simple substitution of one known element for another, here the addition of another member for the lifting device, to obtain predictable results is a matter obvious design choice.
Niimi teaches a cutting device (Niimi; Fig. 1; 1) further comprising a single conveying roll (Niimi; Fig. 1; 131a) disposed immediately downstream of the rotary cutter (Niimi; Fig. 1; 12 and 131a; P. 0042), and the conveying roll is configured to rotated in a direction opposite to a conveying direction of the plate-shaped body (Niimi; P. 0043). Such a configuration helps to prevent foreign matter from being transferred from the roll to the sheet (Niimi; P. 0043).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the conveying roll taught by Bai such that the conveying roll was configured to rotated in a direction opposite to a conveying direction of the plate-shaped body like the conveying roll taught Niimi as such an arrangement helps to prevent foreign matter from being transferred from the roll to the sheet.
Regarding claim 2, Bai in view of Baba and Niimi teaches the cutting device according to claim 1, wherein the lifting device (Bai; Fig. 1; 5 and 54) is arranged at a position where the lifting device comes into contact with the plate-shaped body cut by the lower blade (Bai; Fig. 1; 3, 5 and 54), when the roll is rotated (Bai; P. 0024), and a portion of the lifting device that comes into contact with the plate-shaped body is a curved surface (Bai; Fig. 1; 3 and 5; P. 0025).
Regarding claim 3, Bai in view of Baba and Niimi teaches the cutting device according to claim 1, wherein the lifting device (Bai; Fig. 1; 5 and 54) has a columnar shape (Bai; Fig. 1; 5; P. 0025). As the applicant has not defined the term “columnar” the Examiner has best understood this as requiring a circular lifting device having some length which Bai discloses.
Regarding claim 4, Bai in view of Baba and Niimi teaches the cutting device according to claim 1.
Bai in view of Baba and Niimi, as modified, does not teach does not teach wherein the lifting device is disposed continuously in a longitudinal direction of the roll along a length of the roll. Bai as modified only teaches a side profile of the lifting device and does not teach how long the lifting device is or if the lifting device is continuous.
Baba further teaches a cutting device (Baba; Figs. 1-14D) wherein the lifting device (Baba; Figs. 8A-8B; 52) is disposed continuously in a longitudinal direction of the roll along a length of the roll (Baba; Figs. 8A-8B; 50 and 52). This allows for the full width of an end of a plate-shaped body (Baba; Figs. 1-2; 12) to be fully supported after cutting by the lifting device.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the lifting device taught by Bai in view of Baba and Niimi such that the lifting device was disposed continuously in a longitudinal direction of the roll like the lifting device as further taught by Baba as this allows for the width of the plate-shaped body to be supported by the lifting device after cutting.
Regarding claim 5, Bai in view of Baba and Niimi teaches the cutting device according to claim 1, further comprising: a control device (Bai; P. 0029) that controls a rotational speed of the roll (Bai; P. 0029).
Regarding claim 6, Bai in view of Baba and Niimi teaches a plate-shaped body manufacturing apparatus (Bai; Figs. 1-2; P. 0004), comprising: the cutting device according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Bai in view of Baba and Niimi teaches a cutting device (Bai; Figs. 1-2) according to claim 1.
Bai in view of Baba and Niimi, as modified, does not teach a gypsum plate manufacturing apparatus.
Niimi teaches a gypsum plate manufacturing apparatus (Niimi; Fig. 3; 30) comprising a cutting device (Niimi; Fig. 1; 10). This allows for gypsum plate to be shaped and formed immediately before being cut into plates (Niimi; P. 0082 and 0106).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the cutting device taught by Bai in view of Baba and Niimi such that the cutting device was a part of a gypsum plate manufacturing apparatus like the apparatus further taught by Niimi as this allows for gypsum plate to be shaped and formed before being cut into plates.
Regarding claim 8, Bai in view of Baba and Niimi teaches a gypsum plate manufacturing method, comprising: a cutting process of cutting a body (Bai; P. 0004 and 0009), using the cutting device according to claim 1 (Bai; Figs. 1-2).
Bai in view of Baba and Niimi, as modified, does not teach a molded body of gypsum slurry.
Niimi further teaches a gypsum plate manufacturing method (Niimi; Fig. 1; P. 0021-0023) wherein a molded body of gypsum slurry (Niimi; Fig. 1; 11; P. 0080 and 0082) is cut by a cutting process (Niimi, P. 104). This allows for the gypsum plates to be cut and shaped into a desirable size (Niimi, P. 104).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the gypsum plate manufacturing method taught by Bai in view of Baba and Niimi to include a molded body of gypsum slurry like that further taught by Niimi as it allows for the body to be cut and shaped into a desirable size.
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that claim 4 has been amended such that it overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness type rejection of record. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the indefiniteness rejection of record.
The applicant asserts that the amendments to claim 1 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) anticipation prior art rejection of record. The Examiner agrees, however, as the applicant has amended the claim this has necessitated a new prior art rejection of claim 1 as presented above.
The applicant asserts that the prior art of Baba does not teach a blade attached to the roller. The Examiner agrees, however, the Examiner does not modify Bai with the protrusion (26) of Baba or the entire roller taught by Baba. Instead the Examiner is relying on the similar cutting function of the roller (16) taught by Baba and similar function of the lifting device taught by Baba. The prior art of Baba is analogous as while the cutting element and the material of the sheet are different from the instant invention, Baba seeks to provide support to an end of a sheet after cutting using additional structures located about the roller which is similar to the problem the instant invention is attempting to solve.
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 Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 pm.
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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights