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 .
Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species IV in the reply filed on 06/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 4 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 4, the claim states “wherein the lifting device is disposed continuously in a longitudinal direction of the roll” in lines 2-3 of the claim. It is unclear if the lifting device is disposed continuously in a longitudinal direction of the roll to infinity, along some finite length, or along the length of the roll. To expedite prosecution the Examiner has best understood the limitation in view of Fig. 3D where the lifting device is disposed continuously in a longitudinal direction of the roll along the length of the roll.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bai (CN 105128155 A).
Regarding claim 1, Bai discloses 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).
Regarding claim 2, Bai discloses 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 discloses 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 5, Bai discloses 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 discloses a plate-shaped body manufacturing apparatus (Bai; Figs. 1-2; P. 0004), comprising: the cutting device according to claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (CN 105128155 A) in view of Baba et al. (WO 2013/108566 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Bai teaches the cutting device according to claim 1.
Bai does not teach wherein the lifting device is disposed continuously in a longitudinal direction of the roll. Bai 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 teaches a cutting device (Baba; Figs. 1-4) wherein the lifting device (Bab; Fig. 1-4; 30) is disposed continuously in a longitudinal direction of the roll (Bab; Fig. 1-4; 16 and 30). This allows for the full width of an end of a plate-shaped body (Baba; Figs. 1-2 and 4; 12) to be fully supported after cutting by the lifting device (Baba; Figs. 1-2 and 4; 12 and 30).
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 was disposed continuously in a longitudinal direction of the roll like the lifting device taught by Baba as this allows for the width of the plate-shaped body to be supported by the lifting device after cutting.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (CN 105128155 A) in view of Niimi et al. (US 2020/0368931 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Bai teaches a cutting device (Bai; Figs. 1-2) according to claim 1.
Bai 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 such take it was a part of a gypsum plate manufacturing apparatus like the apparatus taught by Niimi as this allows for gypsum plate to be shaped and formed before being cut into plates.
Regarding claim 8, Bai 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 does not teach a molded body of gypsum slurry.
Niimi 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 to include a molded body of gypsum slurry like that taught by Niimi as it allows for the body to be cut and shaped into a desirable size.
Conclusion
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