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/Restrictions
Claims 8-12, 14, and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/15/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/2/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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(s) 1-5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi (US 2012/0024124 A1) in view of Blanco Gabella (US 2021/0107303 A1).
The absence of a claim rejection under this heading is not necessarily an indication of allowability over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 1:
Mitsuhashi discloses a recording device comprising:
a recording unit (printing portion 13) configured to perform recording on a medium (paragraph 34 & Fig. 1);
a transport unit (transportation portion 40) configured to transport the medium in a transport direction (paragraph 43 & Fig. 1);
a cutting unit (cutting mechanism 36) including a cutting blade (cutter 39) configured to cut the medium on which recording was performed by the recording unit (paragraph 41), and a carriage (carriage 38) configured to hold the cutting blade and be movable along a cutting direction intersecting the transport direction (paragraph 41 & Fig. 2).
Mitsuhashi does not expressly disclose that the recording device comprises a pressing portion.
However, Blanco Gabella disclose a pressing portion (any of magnets 32) that presses a surface of a medium toward a support surface supporting the medium when a cutting unit cuts the medium (paragraphs 32-37, 48 & Figs. 7-10).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mitsuhashi’s recording device to include a pressing portion, such as that taught by Blanco Gabella.
Regarding claim 2:
Mitsuhashi’s modified recording device comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Mitsuhashi also disclose that the transport unit includes:
a first roller pair (roller pair 21) provided downstream of the recording unit and upstream of the cutting unit in the transport direction (Fig. 1); and
a second roller pair (roller pair 22) provided downstream of the cutting unit in the transport direction (Fig. 1),
wherein the medium is cut by the cutting unit in a state where the medium is nipped by the first roller pair and the second roller pair (paragraphs 59-60 & Figs. 6-7), and
wherein the cutting unit is provided between the first roller pair and the second roller pair in the transport direction (Figs. 1-2).
Blanco Gabella also disclose that the pressing portion is provided with the cutting unit (Figs. 3, 7-10).
Regarding claim 3:
Mitsuhashi’s modified recording device comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Blanco Gabella also disclose that the pressing portion presses a position downstream of a cutting blade in the cutting direction (Figs. 7-10).
Regarding claim 4:
Mitsuhashi’s modified recording device comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Blanco Gabella also disclose that the cutting blade includes a contact portion (e.g. the outer edge of cutting blade 12) configured to come into contact with the medium (Fig. 3), and
the pressing portion presses a position overlapping the contact portion when viewed from the transport direction (Figs. 3, 7-10).
Regarding claim 5:
Mitsuhashi’s modified recording device comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Blanco Gabella also disclose that the pressing portion is provided in the carriage (Figs. 7-10).
Regarding claim 13:
Mitsuhashi’s modified recording device comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Blanco Gabella also disclose that the cutting unit cuts the medium when the carriage moves in the cutting direction (paragraph 42), and then cuts the medium when the carriage moves in a direction opposite to the cutting direction (paragraph 42).
Insofar as Mitsuhashi’s modified recording device does not expressly disclose cutting the medium in different directions, please note that such a limitations is a recitation of intended use for the claimed cutting unit. In an apparatus claim, functional limitations must serve to further define the structure of the apparatus. In this case, because Mitsuhashi’s modified cutting unit is capable of cutting in both directions, as disclosed, Mitsuhashi’s modified cutting unit discloses the structure required by these limitations.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi (US 2012/0024124 A1) in view of Giles et al. (US 2001/0055508 A1).
The absence of a claim rejection under this heading is not necessarily an indication of allowability over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 1:
Mitsuhashi discloses a recording device comprising:
a recording unit (printing portion 13) configured to perform recording on a medium (paragraph 34 & Fig. 1);
a transport unit (transportation portion 40) configured to transport the medium in a transport direction (paragraph 43 & Fig. 1);
a cutting unit (cutting mechanism 36) including a cutting blade (cutter 39) configured to cut the medium on which recording was performed by the recording unit (paragraph 41), and a carriage (carriage 38) configured to hold the cutting blade and be movable along a cutting direction intersecting the transport direction (paragraph 41 & Fig. 2).
Mitsuhashi does not expressly disclose that the recording device comprises a pressing portion.
However, Giles et al. disclose a pressing portion (cutter drive wheel 24) that presses a surface of a medium toward a support surface (upper surface 74 of platen 72) supporting the medium when a cutting unit cuts the medium, so as to enable rotation of the cutting blade (20: paragraph 46 & Fig. 4).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mitsuhashi’s recording device to include a pressing portion, such as that taught by Giles et al.
Regarding claim 5:
Mitsuhashi’s modified recording device comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Giles et al. also disclose that the pressing portion is provided in the carriage (paragraphs 33-34 & Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6:
Mitsuhashi’s modified recording device comprises all the limitations of claim 5, and Giles et al. also disclose that the pressing portion includes a roller (24) rotatable about a rotation shaft (axle 18) along the transport direction (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7:
Mitsuhashi’s modified recording device comprises all the limitations of claim 6, and Giles et al. also disclose that the pressing portion includes a biasing member (compression spring 80) configured to bias the roller toward the medium (paragraph 36 & Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi as modified by Giles et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hinjosa (US 5882128).
Regarding claim 15:
Mitsuhashi’s modified recording device comprises all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose a control unit that executes a first operation at a firs speed and a second operation at a second speed.
However, Hinjosa disclose a recording device comprising a cutting unit including a cutting blade (“cutter blade”) and a carriage (“carriage”: Fig. 5), wherein the recording device controls the cutting unit so as to execute a first operation of moving the carriage to a predetermined position (to 200mm) in a cutting direction at a first speed (5ips: Fig. 16); and a second operation of moving the carriage in the cutting direction at a second speed (30ips) higher than the first speed after the carriage moved to the predetermined position (Fig. 16). Hinjosa teaches that such a series of operations provides satisfactory cutting that enables a pressing portion (“restraint wheel”) to press the paper before cutting (col. 1, lines 29-60).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the operations taught by Hinjosa using Mitsuhashi’s modified recording device, so as to provide satisfactory cutting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Vanetik et al. (US 4691605) disclose a cutting unit comprising a cutting blade (100/128), a carriage (90), and a pressing portion (belt 96 / tension rollers 136, 138).
DeMonet et al. (US 2014/0374980 A1) disclose a cutting unit comprising a cutting blade (13), a carriage (19), and a pression portion (driving wheels 17).
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
SHELBY L. FIDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights