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 applicant selection of Species A, election of claims 1-6, 8-10, 12, and 14-17, and withdrawal of claims 7, 11, 13, and 18.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the object, the first inclined surface, and the second inclined surface must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “20” has been used to designate both the alignment unit and an alignment sub-unit. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “21” has been used to designate both the inclined guide and the left and right inclined guides. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 lines 2-3 reads “wherein the horizontal movement guide is a horizontal guide rod which provided in the lower portion of the main body and extends horizontally” should read “wherein the horizontal movement guide is a horizontal guide rod which is provided in the lower portion of the main body and extends horizontally”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12, and 14-17 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 1, the claim states “an inclined guide coupled to the alignment unit” in line 9 of the claim. It is unclear how the inclined guide is coupled to the alignment unit as the inclined guide shown in the instant drawings and described in the instant specification are grooves or slots formed in or on the alignment unit. The common definition for couple is to fasten or connect together. No such fastening or connecting is disclosed by the instant disclosure. As such, the scope of this limitation cannot be determined which renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 8, these claims are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim states “wherein the alignment unit includes a left and a right alignment sub-units” in line 3 of the claim. It is unclear from the instant disclosure as to what the applicant considers “left” and “right” as a frame of reference is not provided. Further it is unclear from the instant disclosure as to what the alignment unit is as the specification discloses that the alignment unit may be just reference character 20 or both reference character 20 and 20’. To expedite prosecution the Examiner has best understood the alignment unit as a pair of alignment units and the left and second alignment sub-units as a first and second alignment sub-units.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is rejected as indefinite due to its dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the claim includes the phrases “lower portion”, “front”, “left” and “right”. It is unclear as to what the applicant considers left, right, front or a lower portion as a frame of reference is not provided in the instant disclosure. To expedite prosecution the Examiner has best understood the left and right alignment sub-units as a first and second alignment sub-units and the horizontal movement guide being coupled to the main body. The Examiner has best understood the “front” of the device being the side of the device shown in Fig. 3 of the instant drawings.
Further the claim states “wherein the alignment unit include a left and right alignment sub-units facing to each other” in lines 3-4 and “wherein the left and right alignment sub-units are coupled to a front of the main body and arranged in a side by side manner with each other” in lines 5-6 of the claim. It is unclear how the alignment sub-units both face each other and are arranged in a side by side manner with each other as the term “face” is defined as being positioned to point a front toward while “side by side” would indicate that the sides of the components would face each other instead. As such, it is unclear if the alignment sub-units are orientated such that the front of the alignment sub-units face each other or if the alignment sub-units are oriented such that a side of one of the alignment sub-units face a side of the other alignment sub-units.
Regarding claim 9, the claim includes the phrases “a lower portion”, “an upper portion”, “left”, “right”, “a rear side”, “a front side”, “a center”, “an upper center”, and “a lower center”. It is unclear as to what the applicant considers left, right, front, a lower portion, an upper portion, a rear side, a front side, a center, a upper center, or a lower center as a frame of reference is not provided in the instant disclosure. While these phrases are not inherently indefinite the scope of the instant invention is unclear as the instant disclosure does not make the record clear as to the relative relationship of these components.
Regarding claims 10, 12, and 14-17, these claims are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency on claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the claim states “wherein the rear side of the alignment unit is penetratedly coupled to the horizontal movement guide” in lines 4-5 of the claim. It is unclear what “penetratedly” means. The common definition of penetrate is to pass into or through with force. Penetrated is the paste tense of penetrate and an “ly” suffix usually indicates that the term is an adverb, here it modifies the verb “coupled”. While penetrate or penetrated are known terms in the art the term penetratedly is not thus the scope of the term cannot be determined which renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 12, the claim states “where the left and the right first vertical guide rods are coupled to the upper portion of the main body and extend vertically as being spaced apart from each other” in lines 4-5 of the claim. It is unclear as to what the scope of the limitation “extend vertically as being spaced apart from each other” is.
Regarding claim 14, the claim states “wherein a left and right gripping plates are integrally coupled to or replaceably coupled to a lower front side” in lines 2-3 of the claim. It is unclear as to what the scope of “integrally coupled to” is as this may require the coupling between the gripping plates and the alignment sub-units to be integrally formed on the gripping plate or for the gripping plates to be integrally formed with the alignment sub-units.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0000719 A1) in view of Radohl et al. (US 2024/0189189 A1), hereafter known as Radohl.
Regarding claim 1, Lee (US 2022/0000719 A1) teaches an alignment cutting device (Lee, Fig. 1-14), comprising:
a main body (Lee, Fig. 1-7, 10);
an alignment unit (Lee, Fig. 3-5 and 7-9, 21) which is movably coupled to the main body and grips an object from both sides of the object and aligns the object (Lee, P. 0032);
a cutting unit (Lee, Fig. 1-14, 50) which is movably coupled to the main body and having a cutting blade (Lee, Fig. 6 and 9-11, 52) for cutting the object;
a linkage movement induction unit (Lee, Fig. 4-5 and 10, 30 and 40) which moves the alignment unit in response to movement of a cover to align the object below the cutting blade (Lee, P. 0048);
a guide (Lee, Fig. 4, 12) coupled to the alignment unit; and
an inclined guide corresponding unit (Lee, Fig. 5, 31) coupled to the linkage movement induction unit,
wherein the inclined guide corresponding unit is connectable to the inclined guide (Lee, P. 0044).
Lee does not teach an inclined guide and moving the alignment unit in response to the movement of the cutting unit.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the guide taught by Lee such that it were inclined or vertical or horizontal or any other orientation as such changes of shape of a well-known structure only require a routine level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). While the guides taught by Lee are horizontal it would be reasonable to angle the guides. Or to put it another way, if the device taught by Lee were held at an angle or in an orientation 90 degrees from that shown the angle of the guides would not affect the operation of the device.
Radohl teaches an alignment unit (Radohl, Fig. 3, 24) moving in response to the movement of the cutting unit (Radohl, Fig. 3, 15, P. 0020). This helps to center the object before cutting (Radohl, P. 0021).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the alignment unit taught by Lee such that the alignment unit moved in response to the movement of the cutting unit as taught by Radohl as doing so helps to center the object before cutting.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Radohl teaches the alignment cutting device of claim 1, further comprising: an elastic support unit (Lee, Fig. 6 and 7, 22 and 53), wherein the alignment unit (Lee, Fig. 3-5 and 7-9, 21) includes a left and a right alignment sub-units (Lee, Fig. 3-5 and 7-9, 21), the alignment unit taught by Lee has two sub-units opposite each other that hold an object during cutting, wherein, when the object is aligned by the alignment unit, the elastic support unit (i) elastically supports the left and the right alignment sub-units (Lee, P. 0037).
Lee in view of Radohl as modified does not teach an elastic support unit, wherein, when the object is aligned by the alignment unit, the elastic support unit (ii) moves the left and right alignment sub-units to get farther from each other. Lee instead teaches the elastic support unit moving the left and the right alignment sub-units toward each other (Lee, P. 0037)
Radohl further teaches an elastic support unit (Radohl, Fig. 3, 74), wherein, when the object is aligned by the alignment unit, the elastic support unit (i) elastically supports the left and the right alignment sub-units (Radohl, Fig. 3, 24 and 74) and (ii) moves the left and right alignment sub-units to be farther from each other (Radohl, Fig. 3-4, 74 and 76), as can be seen in Figs. 3-4 of Radohl the elastic support unit taught by Radohl applied elastic force opposite of the cutting and clamping direction and as the blades and alignment unit are connected would thus push the left and the right alignment sub-units away from each other and resets the device for cutting another object (Radohl, P. 0025).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the elastic support unit taught by Lee such that the elastic support unit moved the left and the right alignment sub-units away from each other as taught by Radohl instead of toward each other as doing so allows the sub-units to be returned to their original position to allow for the cutting of another object.
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Radohl teaches the alignment cutting device of claim 1, further comprising: a horizontal movement guide (Lee, Fig. 7, 23 and 24) coupled to a lower portion of the main body (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 7 (Lee) below), wherein the alignment unit (Lee, Fig. 3-5 and 7-9, 21) includes a left and a right alignment sub-units (Lee, Fig. 3-5 and 7-9, 21) facing to each other, wherein the left and the right alignment sub-units are coupled to a front of the main body and arranged in a side by side manner with each other (Lee, Fig. 3-5 and 7-9, 21), wherein each of the left and the right alignment sub-units is coupled with the horizontal movement guide to be linearly movable along the horizontal movement guide (Lee, P. 0039).
PNG
media_image1.png
913
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Radohl teaches the alignment cutting device of claim 1, wherein a first vertical movement guide (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Lee) below) is coupled with the main body, wherein the cutting unit (Lee, Fig. 1-14, 50 and 51) is coupled with the first vertical movement guide to be linearly movable along the first vertical movement guide (Lee, Fig. 10-11, 50, P. 0052-0053).
PNG
media_image2.png
499
651
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Radohl teaches the alignment cutting device of claim 1, wherein the inclined guide (Lee, Fig. 4, 12) is an inclined hole or a inclined groove, wherein the inclined guide corresponding unit (Lee, Fig. 5, 31) is a protrusion which is insertable into the inclined guide (Lee, P. 0044).
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Radohl teaches the alignment cutting device of claim 2, wherein the linkage movement induction unit (Lee, Fig. 4-5 and 10, 30 and 40) is coupled to the cutting unit (Lee, Fig. 1-14, 50) to be movable linearly in a vertical direction, wherein the elastic support unit (Lee, Fig. 6 and 7, 22 and 53) is provided between the cutting unit (Lee, Fig. 1-14, 50) and the linkage movement induction unit (Lee, Fig. 4-5 and 10, 30 and 40).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0000719 A1) in view of Radohl (US 2024/0189189 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Omura et al. (US 2014/0174271 A1), hereafter known as Omura.
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Radohl teaches the alignment cutting device of claim 1.
Lee in view of Radohl does not teach wherein the cutting blade is replaceably connected to the cutting unit.
Omura teaches a alignment cutting device (Omura, Fig. 1(a)-9(d), 20a) wherein the cutting blade (Omura, Fig. 4(a) and 8(a), 41 and 42) is replaceably connected to the cutting unit (Omura, Fig. 4(a) and 8(a), 43 and 44, P. 0190). This allows for the blade to be quickly replaced with new blades (Omura, P. 0210).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the blade taught by Lee such that the connection of the blades to the cutting unit allowed for them to be replaced as taught by Omura as doing so allows for a quick change from old worn blade to new blades and as it is well known in the art to modify a structure that is not removable to be removable for any desirable reason as such a modification requires only a routine level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)). In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose."). Here, Omura teaches that it is desirable to have a connection that allows replacement of the blades as to allow for new blades to be quickly connected.
Claims 9-10, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0000719 A1) in view of Triplett (US 2021/0220223 A1) and Radohl (US 2024/0189189 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches an alignment cutting device (Lee, Fig. 1-14), comprising:
a main body (Lee, Fig. 1-7, 10);
a horizontal movement guide (Lee, Fig. 7, 23 and 24) coupled to a lower portion of the main body (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 7 (Lee) above);
a first vertical linear movement guide (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Lee) above) coupled to an upper portion of the main body;
an alignment unit (Lee, Fig. 3-5 and 7-9, 21) coupled to the lower portion of the main body, wherein the alignment unit includes a left and a right alignment sub-units (Lee, Fig. 3-5 and 7-9, 21) arranged in a symmetrical manner to each other, wherein a rear side of the alignment unit is connected to the horizontal movement guide (Lee, Fig. 7, 23 and 24) of the main body in a horizontally movable manner along the horizontal movement guide (Lee, P. 0039);
a left and a right guides (Lee, Fig. 4, 12) respectively provided on a front side of a alignment sub-unit;
a cutting unit (Lee, Fig. 1-14, 50) coupled to an upper center of the main body, wherein a rear side of the cutting unit is connected to the first vertical linear movement guide in a vertically movable manner (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Lee) above);
a second vertical linear movement guide (Lee, Fig. 10, 54) connected to a front side of the cutting unit;
a cutting blade (Lee, Fig. 6 and 10-12, 52) for cutting an object, wherein the cutting blade is coupled to a lower center of the cutting unit (Lee, Fig. 6 and 10-12, 52);
an elastic unit (Lee, Fig. 6 and 7, 53) provided between the main body and the cutting unit and elastically biases the cutting unit upward (Lee, P. 0054);
a linkage movement induction unit (Lee, Fig. 4-5 and 10, 30 and 40) connected to the second vertical linear movement guide (Lee, Fig. 10, 54) of the cutting unit in a linearly movable manner in a vertical direction (Lee, P. 0055);
an inclined guide corresponding unit (Lee, Fig. 5, 31), wherein the inclined guide corresponding unit includes a left and a right inclined guide corresponding units (Lee, Fig. 5, 31) connected to a lower portion of the linkage movement induction unit (Lee, Fig. 4-5 and 10, 30 and 40), wherein the left and the right inclined guide corresponding units respectively are coupled to the left and the right guides (Lee, Fig. 4, 12); and
an elastic support unit (Lee, Fig. 6 and 7, 53) provided between the cutting unit (Lee, Fig. 1-14, 50) and the linkage movement induction unit (Lee, Fig. 4-5 and 10, 30 and 40), wherein the elastic support unit elastically biases the linkage movement induction unit downward, when the cutting unit of Lee is pressed downward the elastic support unit biases the linkage movement induction unit downward (Lee, Fig. 10-11), to make the object elastically supported by the alignment unit, when the blade contacts the object the object is then elastically supported by the elastic support unit.
Lee does not teach a left and a right inclined guides, wherein each of the left and the right inclined guides extends upwardly and inclinedly toward a center of the main body; wherein the linkage movement induction unit moves the left and the right alignment sub-units to get closer to each other in a symmetrical manner to each other and aligns the object when the cutting unit moves downward.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the guide taught by Lee such that it were inclined or vertical or horizontal or any other orientation as such changes of shape of a well-known structure only require a routine level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). While the guides taught by Lee are horizontal it would be reasonable to angle the guides. Or to put it another way, if the device taught by Lee were held at an angle or in an orientation 90 degrees from that shown the angle of the guides would not affect the operation of the device.
Triplett teaches a left and a right inclined guides (Triplett, Fig. 13, 130) which allows for the alignment unit (Triplett, Fig. 16-17, 160) to move up and down (Triplett, P. 0075). As Lee teaches that it is well known to have a inclined guide provided on a front side of a alignment sub-unit and Triplett teaches that it is well known to have multiple inclined guides it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the device taught by Lee to include a second inclined guide as evidenced by Triplett as doing so is a duplication of parts which has been held to be well within the routine skill of a worker in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). Here, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a second inclined guide could be added opposite the first inclined guide.
Radohl teaches an alignment unit (Radohl, Fig. 3, 24) moving in response to the movement of the cutting unit (Radohl, Fig. 3, 15, P. 0020) to align an object for cutting (Radohl, P. 0021). This helps to center the object before cutting (Radohl, P. 0021).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the alignment unit taught by Lee such that the alignment unit moved in response to the movement of the cutting unit as taught by Radohl as doing so helps to center the object before cutting.
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Triplett and Radohl teaches the alignment cutting device of claim 9, wherein the horizontal movement guide (Lee, Fig. 7, 23 and 24) is a horizontal guide rod (Lee, Fig. 7, 24), at least part of the horizontal movement guide has a rod shape, which provided in the lower portion of the main body (Lee, Fig. 7, 10 and 24) and extends horizontally (Lee, Fig. 7, 24), wherein the rear side of the alignment unit is coupled to the horizontal movement guide (Lee, P. 0039).
Lee in view of Triplett and Radohl does not teach a penetratedly coupled alignment unit and horizontal movement guide. However, Lee does teach a coupling wherein one element (Lee, Fig. 5, 31) is inserted into the other (Lee, Fig. 7, 12) which allow the inserted element to pivot and transition within the other. As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the coupling of the alignment unit to the horizontal movement guide such that one component penetrates the other as doing so allows the elements to pivot and translate with respect to each other.
Regarding claim 14, Lee in view of Triplett and Radohl teaches the alignment cutting device of claim 9, wherein a left and a right gripping plates (Lee, Fig. 7-8, 26) are integrally coupled to or replaceably coupled (Lee, P. 0041) to a lower front side of the left alignment sub-unit and a lower front side of the right alignment sub-unit (Lee, Fig. 7-8, 21), respectively.
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Triplett and Radohl teaches the alignment cutting device of claim 9, wherein each of the left and the right inclined guides (Lee, Fig. 4, 12) is an inclined hole or an inclined groove, as modified in claim 9 the guides taught by Lee are inclined grooves, wherein each of the left and the right inclined guide corresponding units (Lee, Fig. 5, 31) is a protrusion insertable into the left and the right inclined guides (Lee, P. 0044), respectively.
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0000719 A1) in view of Triplett (US 2021/0220223 A1) and Radohl (US 2024/0189189 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ezaki (US 4,386,465 A).
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Triplett and Radohl teaches the alignment cutting device of claim 9, wherein the elastic unit is a coil spring (Lee, Fig. 6 and 7, 53).
Lee in view of Triplett and Radohl does not teach wherein the first vertical linear movement guide includes a left and a right first vertical guide rods, wherein the left and the right first vertical guide rods are coupled to the upper portion of the main body and extend vertically as being spaced apart from each other, wherein the rear side of the cutting unit is penetrated by the first vertical linear movement guide, and wherein the coil spring surrounding surrounds the first vertical linear movement guide.
Ezaki teaches an alignment cutting device (Ezaki, Fig. 1-10) wherein the first vertical linear movement guide (Ezaki, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 5) includes a left and a right first vertical guide rods (Ezaki, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 5), wherein the left and the right first vertical guide rods are coupled to the upper portion of the main body (Ezaki, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 2) and extend vertically as being spaced apart from each other (Ezaki, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 5), wherein the rear side of the cutting unit is penetrated by the first vertical linear movement guide (Ezaki, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 2 and 5), and wherein the coil spring surrounds the first vertical linear movement guide (Ezaki, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 5 and 6). Such first vertical linear movement guide help guide the blade during cutting and ensure the object being cut is firmly held (Ezaki, Fig. 3-4, 5).
It would have been obvious to modify the first vertical linear movement guide taught by Lee in view of Triplett and Radohl such that the first vertical linear movement guide includes a left and a right first vertical guide rods, wherein the left and the right first vertical guide rods are coupled to the upper portion of the main body and extend vertically as being spaced apart from each other, wherein the rear side of the cutting unit is penetrated by the first vertical linear movement guide, and wherein the coil spring surrounding surrounds the first vertical linear movement guide as taught by Ezaki as doing so helps to securely hold the object being cut and to better guide the blade.
Regarding claim 16, Lee in view of Triplett and Radohl teaches the alignment cutting device of claim 9, wherein the elastic support unit is a coil spring (Lee, Fig. 6 and 7, 53).
Lee in view of Triplett and Radohl does not teach wherein the second vertical linear movement guide includes a left and a right second vertical guide rods, wherein the left and the right second vertical guide rods are coupled to a front side of the main body and extend vertically as being spaced apart from each other, wherein the linkage movement induction unit is penetratingly connected to the second vertical linear movement guide, wherein the elastic support unit is penetratingly connected to the second vertical linear movement guide.
While Lee in view of Triplett and Radohl teaches a single second vertical linear movement guide (Lee, Fig. 10, 54) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the device taught by Lee to include multiple second vertical linear movement guide as such a duplication of parts has been held to be well within the routine skill of a worker in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Ezaki teaches an alignment cutting device (Ezaki, Fig. 1-10) featuring vertical guide rods (Ezaki, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 5) that penetrate through a second structure (Ezaki, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 2) and extend vertically as being spaced apart from each other (Ezaki, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 5), and wherein the coil spring is penetratingly connected to the vertical rods (Ezaki, Fig. 1 and 3-4, 5 and 6). Such vertical rods help guide the vertical movement (Ezaki, Fig. 3-4, 5).
It would have been obvious to modify the second vertical linear movement guide taught by Lee in view of Triplett and Radohl such that the second vertical linear movement guide includes a left and a right first vertical guide rods, wherein the left and the right second vertical linear movement guide are penetrate through the linkage movement induction unit and extend vertically as being spaced apart from each other, and wherein the coil spring penetratingly connects to the second vertical linear movement guide as taught by Ezaki as doing so helps to better guide vertical movement.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0000719 A1) in view of Triplett (US 2021/0220223 A1) and Radohl (US 2024/0189189 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Omura et al. (US 2014/0174271 A1), hereafter known as Omura.
Regarding claim 15, Lee in view of Triplett and Radohl teaches the alignment cutting device of claim 9, wherein the cutting blade (Lee, Fig. 6 and 9-11, 52) is connected to a lower center portion of the front side of the cutting unit (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 10 (Lee) above).
Lee in view of Triplett and Radohl does not teach wherein the cutting blade is replaceably connected to the cutting unit.
Omura teaches a alignment cutting device (Omura, Fig. 1(a)-9(d), 20a) wherein the cutting blade (Omura, Fig. 4(a) and 8(a), 41 and 42) is replaceably connected to the cutting unit (Omura, Fig. 4(a) and 8(a), 43 and 44, P. 0190). This allows for the blade to be quickly replaced with new blades (Omura, P. 0210).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the blade taught by Lee in view of Triplett and Radohl such that the connection of the blades to the cutting unit allowed for them to be replaced as taught by Omura as doing so allows for a quick change from old worn blade to new blades and as it is well known in the art to modify a structure that is not removable to be removable for any desirable reason as such a modification requires only a routine level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)). In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose."). Here, Omura teaches that it is desirable to have a connection that allows replacement of the blades as to allow for new blades to be quickly connected.
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