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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/06/2026, 03/28/2025, 02/07/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. This abstract is directed to a cutting control method, however, the disclose is confusing and unclear what steps or procedures for the cutting method be and that is not what the claimed invention is drawn to (see the scope of claims 1-8). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification (39 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-8 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.
The preamble of Claim 1 is directly to a cutting control method, however, in the claim body, there is no step or procedure performed. What is the method used for?
Claim 1, the 1st paragraph “…a cutter that cuts a cutting target medium with a cutter blade based in predetermined design information” is unclear. It is unclear how and whether the predetermined design information from a user or a controller (not claimed)? Another words, where is the predetermined design information coming from? Also, is there any detector or sensor to detect the predetermined design information during cutting (based in predetermined design information). Claim 7 has the same issue.
Claim 1, the 2nd paragraph “in response to the design information …indicating an unnecessary region… after a first cutting” is unclear who or what is responded for the design information.
In claim 1, the 2nd and the 3rd paragraphs, the terms “special cutting” is indefinite. Examiner has reviewed the disclosure, and can find no discussion of the boundaries of the terms “special”. What is the difference between “special” vs “not special” cuttings? Claims 2, 7-8 have the same issue.
Claim 1, the 3rd paragraph “a second method…a first method…” are unclear what the claim is actually being claimed. How the 1st and 2nd methods are in the cutting control method. What is the invention? A broad range (the cutting control method) together with a narrow range that falls within the broad range (in the same claim, the 1st and 2nd methods) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. Claims 3-6 have the same issues.
The scope of claim 3 is unclear how this claim body is performed. Is whether it manually performed or the controller or computer (not claimed)?
Claim 7 “a processor that in response to the design information …” is unclear how the processor is capable of responding it.
The preamble of claim 7 is directly to a cutting device (apparatus), however, in the claim body mentions a second cutting method …a first cutting method” is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p) addresses claims that combine both a product and a process in a single claim. Such a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because it is unclear whether infringement occurs when the product is made or when the process is performed. Claim 8 has the same issue.
The preamble of claim 8 is “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program”. From this preamble, it appears Applicant is seeking protection for the “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” by itself, without the cutting device and a computer as a whole as recited in the 1st paragraph.
However, in the body of claim 7 is the phrase “a cutting device including a cutter…a cutter blade…a computer”. There are two lines of thought on this;
One is that claim should be interpreted as a combination of the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and the cutting device and the computer, which is seemingly not what the preamble suggests.
Two is that it is not a combination, but then it is not clear what structure to give the language in the body of the claim. Would the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that is stored a program, even if there was no teaching of a cutting device and a computer? What structure is being claimed? If the cutting device and the computer are not positively recited, then any prior art held against it would not need to show a cutting device and a computer, it would only need to show the structure of the non-transitory computer-readable storage, right? See Applicant’s Para. 11, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is a storage (Figures 2 and 4).
The scope of claim 8 is unclear. In the first paragraph, it appears that the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that is stored a program causing of …a cutting device. However, the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs mentions a computer to perform it ( not the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium). Therefore, it unclear how to give or consider the language of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. See Applicant’s specification, Para. 18 and Figure 4 that discuss how “a processor that reads and executes programs 531 stored in the storage 53 to perform various types of arithmetic processing, thereby controlling operation of each component of the terminal device 50”.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent 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 1-3, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dotson et al (2020/0282700) hereinafter Dotson.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Dotson a cutting control method (Paras. 3-4 and Figures 4A, 4B, 5) that is performed by a cutting device (Para. 48 “a cutter machine”) including a cutter that cuts a cutting target medium (14) with a cutter blade (Para. 48 “the cutter machine has at least one blade”) based on predetermined design information (Para. 48 “The cutter machine has at least one blade that adapted to cut polymeric surfacing film 14 according to a pattern”), the cutting control method comprising:
in response to the design information including unnecessary region information indicating an unnecessary region (16, Figure 4A) to be removed after a first cutting (1st 20) in which the cutter blade cuts the cutting target medium based on the predetermined design information, controlling (Para. 49) the cutter to perform special cutting (2nd cutting 22) inside the unnecessary region, wherein the special cutting is performed with a second cutting “method” different from a first cutting “method” in which the cutter blade is moved to perform the first cutting (see both cutting shapes are different sizes, Figure 4A).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Dotson teaches that the special cutting is nd cutting 22) that is made one or more times inside the unnecessary region.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Dotson teaches that the first cutting “method” (see the cutting pattern of the 1st cutting 20, Figure 4A) is
evacuating the cutter blade from the cutting target medium, changing an orientation of the cutter blade, and starting to cut on other of the lines of the bent line (see Figure 4A, this step is inherent because the blade has to lift and turn every corner cut and see Para. 48 “The assembly precursor can be iteratively fed through the cutter, going backward and forward”), and
wherein the second cutting “method” is performance if the blade cuts the longitudinal bent line, the blade is not needed to evacuate or lift to change direction).
Regarding Claim 7, Dotson shows a cutting device (Para. 48 “the cutter machine” and see claim 1 above) comprising:
a cutter that cuts a cutting target medium with a cutter blade (Para. 48 “at least one blade”) based on predetermined design information; and
a processor (Para. 49 “a computer processor”) that in response to the design information including unnecessary region information indicating an unnecessary region to be removed after a first cutting in which the cutter blade cuts the cutting target medium based on the predetermined design information, controls the cutter to perform special cutting inside the unnecessary region, wherein the special cutting is performed with a second cutting “method” different from a first cutting “method” in which the cutter blade is moved to perform the first cutting (see the discussion in claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 8, as best understood, Dotson shows a computer including a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program (Para. 48 “The computer processor can be coupled to a memory that includes instructions that are readable by the computer processor which cause it to perform the operations of method 50”) causing, of a cutting device (Para. 48 and see claims 1 and 7 above) including a cutter that cuts a cutting target medium with a cutter blade based on predetermined design information, the computer to:
in response to the design information including unnecessary region information indicating an unnecessary region to be removed after a first cutting in which the cutter blade cuts the cutting target medium based on the predetermined design information, control the cutter to perform special cutting inside the unnecessary region, wherein the special cutting is performed with a second cutting “method” different from a first cutting “method” in which the cutter blade is moved to perform the first cutting (see the discussion in claims 1 and 7 above).
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.
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 Dotson in view of Kobayashi (US 5275077).
Regarding claim 4, Dotson discusses all of the limitations as stated in claim 1 above including a two-layer structure of two layers stacked (layers 14, 12, Figure 2), wherein the first and second cutting “method” are a half-cutting of not completely cutting one of the two layers of the cutting target medium (see Figures 4A, 4B, it cuts a layer 14).
However, Dotson silently discusses that the first cutting method is a cutting method of completely cutting both of the two layers of the cutting target medium.
Kobayashi shows a cutting blade to cut a full cutting and a half cutting on a cutting line 28, Figure 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Dotson to have the first cutting “method” a full cutting and a half cutting, as taught by Kobayashi, in order to allow the connection (30, Kobayashi’s figure 4) helping the unnecessary region stabilized for performing the second cutting “method” inside the unnecessary region.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotson in view of Killian et al (US 2016/0303892) hereinafter Killian.
Regarding claims 5-6, Dotson discusses all of the limitations as stated in claim 1 above including the first cutting “method” and the second cutting “method” are different but it is not in pressure or speed at which the cutter blade cuts the cutting target medium.
Killian discusses “it may be advantageous to cut very slowly during the first pass of the cut and thereafter for subsequent passes, the speed of the cut can be increased” as discussed in Para. 60.
Killian also discusses “the first cut is performed at the starting pressure. After the first cut is completed, the next cut or cuts is performed in increased (or decreased) increments determined by an algorithm (e.g. the preceding exemplary algorithm) until the ending pressure is reached” as discussed in Para. 61.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Dotson to have the first and second cutting “methods” being different in speed and pressure, as taught by Killian, in order to allow cutting the workpiece more efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Logan (US 5026584) shows a first cutting and a second cutting inside the region of the first cutting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-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, 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 8/19/2026
Prosecution Insights