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 .
Claim Interpretation
1. 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.
2. 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 rotating cutting device” and “a first drive device” recited in claims 1 and
18;
“a storage device” recited in claim 8;
“a warning device” recited in claim 9;
“a pivoting device or a displacement device” recited in claims 10 and 18; and
“a second drive device” recited in claim 12.
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
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-18 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the phrase “a rotating cutting device which is driven by means of a first drive device in rotary movement about an axis of rotation, is arranged on one side of the gap and has at least one cutting blade protruding radially outwards from a boundary surface of the rotating cutting device that is a cutting drum having at least one cutting blade protruding radially outwards from a jacket surface of the cutting drum” is grammatically unclear and fails to clearly define the relationship between the “rotating cutting device” and the “cutting drum.” It is unclear whether the rotating cutting device is the cutting drum or whether the cutting drum is a separate component.
It should also be noted that the same issue discussed above exists in claim 18.
Claim 4 is indefinite because the phrase “a maximum value of an overpressure” fails to particularly point out the claimed subject matter. The term “overpressure” is vague and lacks a clear meaning in the context of the claim. It is unclear what pressure is being referenced and relative to what baseline the “overpressure” is determined.
Claim 13 is indefinite because the limitation “the first and/or second drive device the cutting drum and/or of the counter-drum, is formed by a servomotor” is grammatically incomplete and fails to clearly recite the structural relationship between the drive devices and the cutting drum and/or counter-drum.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.64
6. Claims 1-18, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klapper et al. (WO 2021/063685 A1), hereinafter Klapper, in view of Obear et al. (4,091,698), hereinafter Ober. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Klapper teaches a cutting apparatus for cutting segments for energy cells from a continuous web (metal strip 9, 10, 31) fed into a gap in a cutting plane, comprising: a rotating cutting device (cutting roller 32) which is driven by means of a first drive device in rotary movement about an axis of rotation, is arranged on one side of the gap and has at least one cutting blade (34) protruding radially outwards from a boundary surface of the rotating cutting device that is a cutting drum (32) having at least one cutting blade (34) protruding radially outwards from a jacket surface of the cutting drum (32), and at least one counter-blade (knife body 52, 152.1-152.3) arranged on the other side of the gap, wherein the cutting blade (34) and the counter-blade (52) each have a cutting edge, wherein the cutting edge of the cutting blade (34) slides in punctiform contact on the cutting edge of the counter-blade (52) during the rotary movement of the cutting drum (32), during the cutting of the continuous web (9, 10, 31). See, e.g., Figs. 2a-4 and corresponding description of cutting roller 32 cooperating with suction roller 36 and knife body 52. Klapper further teaches that the cutting roller and suction roller may be driven by separate directly driving and position-regulated or speed-regulated drives.
It should be noted that Klapper teaches rotary knife (34) engaging opposing knife body/support body (52/50). The rotary shear cutting inherently produces a localized engagement zone or punctiform contact at the moment of cutting because only a small region of the blade contacts the counter element during rotation.
Klapper does not explicitly disclose that the first drive device is torque-controlled at least during the sliding of the cutting edge of the cutting blade on the cutting edge of the counter-blade. Obear discloses a motor (14) driving blade (10); a current transformer (40) sensing motor load current; a comparator (48) comparing sensed load to a reference (54); a servo valve (34) controlling hydraulic cylinder (26); and automatic adjustment of cutting force/feed based on motor load. See Col. 4-6 and Figs. 1-3. Obear therefore teaches torque/load control of a cutting system and feedback regulation during cutting in order to maintain constant material removal rate, reduce blade wear, and maintain uniform cutting conditions.
It would have been obvious to incorporate the load-based torque control system of Obear into Klapper’s rotary cutting roller system in order to reduce blade wear, compensate for changing cutting loads, improve cutting consistency, and maintain controlled cutting engagement between the cutting blade and counter-blade during operation.
Regarding claim 2, Klapper, as modified by Obear, teaches everything noted above including that the drive torque of the first drive device is regulated or controlled depending on the position of the cutting blade relative to the counter-blade. Obear teaches that blade position is continuously monitored by position reference signal generator (116), amplifier (122), comparator (138), and sample-and-hold circuit (124), while cutting load is simultaneously regulated through comparator (48) and servo valve (34). See Fig. 3 and Col. 5-6. Klapper further teaches position-regulated drives for the cutting roller (32) and suction roller (36). Accordingly, the combined references teach regulating drive torque based on the relative cutting position between the cutting blade and counter-blade during cutting engagement.
Regarding claim 3, Klapper, as modified by Obear, teaches everything noted above including that the position of the cutting blade is controlled or regulated by means of the first drive device depending on a position of a predetermined first contact point of the counter-blade. Obear teaches storing and utilizing a reference blade position using position reference signal generator (116), sample-and-hold circuit (124), latch circuit (96), and comparator (138), wherein blade position is controlled relative to the workpiece during the beginning and completion of a cut. See Col. 5-6 and Fig. 3. Klapper further teaches movable knife bodies (52) and cutting knives (34) movable relative to one another along the axes of rotation. Accordingly, the combined references teach controlling the cutting blade position relative to a predetermined contact position associated with the counter-blade.
Regarding claim 4, Klapper, as modified by Obear, teaches everything noted above including that the drive torque of the first drive device is regulated such that a maximum value of an overpressure of the cutting blade relative to the counter-blade is not exceeded during cutting. Obear teaches maintaining motor load at a predetermined reference level (54) using comparator (48), servo valve (34), and sensed current from transformer (40), thereby preventing excessive cutting force and blade loading during cutting operations.
Regarding claim 5, Klapper, as modified by Obear, teaches everything noted above including that the drive torque of the first drive device is regulated as a function of a predetermined cutting edge contact pressure force exerted by the cutting blade on the counter-blade. Obear teaches regulating blade feed and cutting engagement in response to sensed cutting load/current in order to maintain a constant material removal rate and controlled cutting pressure. See Col. 4-5.
Regarding claim 6, Klapper, as modified by Obear, teaches everything noted above including that the cutting edge contact pressure force is between 5 and 100 N. It would have been obvious that the claimed force range represents a result-effective variable that would have been optimized depending on blade dimensions, strip material, and desired cutting quality.
Regarding claim 7, Klapper, as modified by Obear, teaches everything noted above including that at least two counter-blades are provided. Klapper teaches multiple knife bodies (52, 152.1-152.3) arranged sequentially and/or adjacent one another on suction roller (36). See Figs. 2-4. Klapper further teaches multiple cutting knives (34) arranged one behind another and adjacent one another along the rotational axis. Obear teaches regulating cutting load and blade position during engagement. Accordingly, the combined references teach regulating drive torque individually depending on the position of the cutting blade relative to successive counter-blades.
Regarding claim 8, Klapper, as modified by Obear, teaches everything noted above including a storage device with a data set representing a curve of drive torque and/or predetermined first contact points of the counter-blades in relation to the cutting movement of the cutting blade relative to the counter-blades. Obear teaches storing and utilizing reference position information using sample-and-hold circuit (124), comparator (138), latch circuit (96), and reference signal circuitry. It would have been obvious to implement stored control profiles or torque curves for successive cutting engagements in an automated rotary cutting system.
Regarding claim 9, Klapper, as modified by Obear, teaches everything noted above including a warning device emitting or displaying a warning signal depending on exceeding predetermined tolerances of alignment and/or shape of the cutting blades relative to the counter-blades and/or incorrect alignment of the counter-blades. Obear teaches monitoring cutting load deviations from predetermined reference values using comparator circuitry (48, 70), whereby abnormal load conditions indicative of misalignment or improper cutting conditions are detected.
Regarding claim 10, Klapper teaches everything noted above including a pivoting or displacement device with which the cutting drum can be displaced relative to the counter-blades. Klapper expressly teaches that the cutting roller (32) and suction roller (36), and/or knife bodies (52) and cutting knives (34), are movable relative to one another along their axes of rotation, in particular linearly.
Regarding claim 11, Klapper teaches everything noted above including a counter-drum (suction roller 36), wherein the counter-blade(s) are formed by one or more cutting edges arranged on the counter-drum, including knife body (52) and knife bodies (152.1-152.3).
Regarding claim 12, Klapper teaches everything noted above including a second drive device driving the counter-drum (36) in rotary movement about an axis of rotation, wherein the axis of rotation of the counter-drum is aligned parallel to the axis of rotation of the cutting drum (32), and the direction of rotation of the counter-drum is opposite to the direction of rotation of the cutting drum. See Figs. 2a-2b.
Regarding claim 13, Klapper teaches everything noted above including that separate directly driving and position-regulated or speed-regulated drives are provided for the cutting roller (32) and suction roller (36). It would have been obvious that such directly controlled drives include servomotors.
Regarding claim 14, Klapper, as modified by Obear, teaches everything noted above including differing inertial characteristics between the cutting drum and counter-drum. It would have been obvious to dimension the rotating cutting drum with substantially lower inertia than the counter-drum in order to improve dynamic response and cutting control.
Regarding claim 15, Klapper, as modified by Obear, teaches a method for controlling a cutting apparatus including generating data associated with drive torque and/or blade position during cutting operations. Obear teaches storing blade position information using sample-and-hold circuit (124) and regulating cutting engagement according to stored reference information. Accordingly, the combined references teach generating and utilizing a data set associated with rotational position and cutting torque.
Regarding claim 16, Klapper, as modified by Obear, teaches everything noted above including providing different stored control values corresponding to different cutting conditions and cutting loads. Obear teaches varying control response based on reference load values (54) and sensed motor current.
Regarding claim 17, Klapper, as modified by Obear, teaches everything noted above including detecting improper cutting conditions through sensing systems. Obear teaches monitoring cutting load through current transformer (40), comparator circuitry (48, 70), and associated control circuitry for detecting abnormal cutting conditions.
Regarding claim 18, Klapper, as modified by Obear, teaches a method for controlling a cutting apparatus including controlling displacement or repositioning of the cutting apparatus based on sensed cutting conditions, cutting load, and operational state. Obear teaches automatic repositioning and withdrawal of blade (10) using servo valve (34), comparator circuitry (48, 70), delay circuit (76), and stored position reference information (116, 124, 138).
Response to Arguments
7. Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s argument that the “rotating cutting device” is, in fact, the “cutting drum” is not persuasive. Although the Applicant asserts that a person skilled in the art would understand the intended relationship, the claim language itself recites “a rotating cutting device” and subsequently states that the rotating cutting device “that is a cutting drum” has at least one cutting blade, while also reciting that the cutting blade protrudes from both a “boundary surface of the rotating cutting device” and a “jacket surface of the cutting drum.” This construction introduces ambiguity as to whether the rotating cutting device and cutting drum are the same structural element or whether the cutting drum is a component of, or otherwise distinct from, the rotating cutting device. The mere assertion that the two elements are intended to be the same does not cure the lack of clear claim language defining their structural relationship.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant’s argument that the term “maximum value of an overpressure” is a predefined value described in the specification and that “overpressure” represents a threshold intended to prevent damage to the cutting blade and counter-blade is not persuasive. While the Applicant identifies portions of the specification allegedly discussing overpressure, the claim itself does not define what constitutes the claimed “overpressure,” what pressure is being measured, or the reference pressure relative to which the overpressure is determined. Further, merely stating that the maximum value is a threshold that should not be exceeded does not establish an objective boundary for determining when the claimed overpressure has been reached. The cited specification passages may provide a general discussion of the operating principle, but they do not, without more, provide reasonable certainty as to the scope of the limitation as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant’s assertion that claim 13 clearly specifies that the first and second drive devices may be formed by a servomotor is not persuasive because the claim language does not clearly establish the structural relationship between the drive devices and the cutting drum and counter-drum. The claim recites “the first and/or second drive device of the cutting drum and/or of the counter-drum, is formed by a servomotor,” which grammatically leaves unclear whether the phrase “of the cutting drum and/or of the counter-drum” modifies the first and/or second drive device, and whether the first drive device corresponds to the cutting drum and the second drive device corresponds to the counter-drum. Although claim 12 identifies drive devices associated with the cutting drum and counter-drum, the indefinite grammatical construction of claim 13 itself does not clearly specify which drive device is formed by the servomotor or how the alternatives are to be applied.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant’s amendments to claim 18 do not overcome the definiteness issue because claim 18 continues to recite the same ambiguous relationship between the “rotating cutting device” and the “cutting drum” identified in claim 1. Specifically, claim 18 recites a “rotating cutting device” having a cutting blade and then defines the rotating cutting device as “a cutting drum” having a cutting blade, without clearly establishing whether the rotating cutting device and cutting drum are the same component or whether the cutting drum is a separate component of the rotating cutting device. The subsequent recitation that the cutting apparatus is “formed according to claim 11” does not clarify this structural relationship.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 over Klapper in view of Obear are not persuasive.
With respect to the alleged distinction concerning “punctiform contact,” Klapper teaches a cutting roller 32 having cutting knives 34 that cooperate with knife bodies 52 of the suction roller 36 to sever a metal strip into metal strip sections. Klapper expressly describes the cutting knife 34 entering the groove-shaped recess 38 of the suction roller 36 and cooperating with the knife body 52, the knife body forming a cutting edge at the groove flank. See, e.g., Fig. 2a-2b and the corresponding description. During the relative rotary movement of the cutting roller 32 and suction roller 36, the cutting edge of the cutting knife engages the cutting edge of the knife body at a localized region and progresses along the respective cutting edges as the cutting operation proceeds. Therefore, the claimed punctiform sliding contact does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from Klapper. Furthermore, Applicant has not identified any structural limitation in the claim that would require a particular blade geometry or contact arrangement different from the rotary shear-cutting engagement disclosed by Klapper. Applicant’s reliance on In re Ratti is likewise unpersuasive because the proposed modification does not change Klapper’s fundamental principle of operation: the apparatus would continue to use a rotating cutting roller and cooperating counter-cutting element to sever the continuous metal strip. The modification concerns the manner in which the drive is controlled during cutting and does not require abandonment or alteration of Klapper’s rotary cutting mechanism.
Applicant’s arguments concerning torque control are also not persuasive. Although Klapper does not expressly state that the drive of the cutting roller is torque-controlled during the cutting-edge engagement, Klapper expressly teaches that the cutting roller and suction roller may be provided with separate directly driving, position-regulated or speed-regulated drives. Obear provides an explicit teaching of feedback control of a rotary cutting blade based on the load imposed on the motor driving the blade. Particularly, Obear discloses motor 14 driving rotary cutting blade 10, current-transformer pickup 40 sensing the current supplied to motor 14, rectifier 44 producing a signal proportional to the motor current, comparator 48 comparing the sensed motor load with an adjustable load reference 54, and a servo control system responding to deviations in motor load to regulate the cutting operation. Obear further explains that the system senses changes in load on the rotating blade during cutting and automatically adjusts the cutting operation to maintain a desired cutting load. Therefore, Obear provides the skilled artisan with a known feedback-control technique for controlling a rotary cutting system in response to the load experienced by the blade. It would have been obvious to apply this load-responsive control technique to Klapper’s separately driven cutting roller in order to compensate for variations in cutting load, reduce blade wear, and maintain substantially uniform cutting conditions. Such a modification would merely replace or supplement Klapper’s disclosed position/speed regulation with a load-responsive control parameter while retaining Klapper’s same rotary cutting structure and operation. Accordingly, the combination provides an articulated reason to employ load/torque-responsive control in Klapper with a reasonable expectation of success, and the Applicant’s assertions under In re Gordon and In re Dow Chemical do not overcome the prima facie case because the rejection is not based merely on the possibility that Klapper could be modified, but on the express load-feedback teachings of Obear and the recognized benefits of applying such control to a rotary cutting apparatus.
To the extent Applicant argues that Obear does not disclose “torque control,” the argument is not persuasive because the claimed torque control is recited functionally rather than by a particular torque-control circuit or algorithm. Obear expressly senses the current supplied to the motor 14 driving the rotary cutting blade 10, generates a signal proportional to the motor current, compares that signal with a predetermined load reference, and automatically controls the cutting operation in response to deviations in the sensed motor load. Motor current is a direct indication of the torque/load demanded by the motor under the disclosed cutting conditions, and Obear therefore teaches regulating the drive operation in response to the torque/load experienced during cutting. Accordingly, applying Obear’s load-responsive feedback control to Klapper’s directly driven cutting roller would have provided a known means for controlling the drive in response to cutting load and would have reasonably resulted in the claimed torque-controlled operation. At minimum, the Examiner’s rationale does not require that Obear use the exact terminology “torque-controlled”; it is sufficient that Obear teaches the relevant functional relationship between the cutting load experienced by the blade and control of the motor-driven cutting operation.
Conclusion
8. All claims are either identical to or patentably indistinct from claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) . 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights