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 .
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cartwright et al. (US Patent 11,602,869) in view of Tasma (US Patent 2003/0047275).
With respect to claim 1, Cartwright et al. teaches a label cutter, comprising:
a blade (716) having a curved cutting edge (Figures 16-19);
wherein the blade (716) includes opposite first (top side) and second sides (bottom side).
However, Cartwright et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the first and second sides includes a groove or pocket for capturing adhesive. Tasma teaches a blade side includes a groove or pocket (362, Figure 11) for capturing adhesive (Paragraphs 0068, 0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to modify a side of the blade taught by Cartwright et al. since it would require obvious substitution of a known blade with first and second sides with a blade with side that includes a groove or pocket as taught by Tasma for the purpose of collecting adhesive residue where it is redeposited on the medium during subsequent cutting cycles, thus reducing significantly the frequency that the operation must be shut down in order to clean the blades.
Tasma provides a groove or pocket on one side, however does not explicitly disclose a groove or pocket on a second side. It has been held it has been held by the court that mere duplication of the essential working parts is an obvious mechanical expedient and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Particular attention is invited to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide a second groove or pocket to a second side as it would simply require the obvious duplication of parts since such a
modification would result in significantly collecting residue on all sides of the blader, thereby preventing operation shutdown.
With respect to claim 2, Cartwright et al. teaches wherein the blade (716) is configured and arranged for moving towards a platen (712) in order to cut a label material placed between the blade and the platen (Column 14, Lines 50-55, Figure 17).
With respect to claims 3-5, Cartwright teaches a curved cutting edge (Figures 16-19) however does not explicitly disclose that a groove or pocket is disposed below and runs along a majority of a length of the curved cutting edge, each groove or pocket runs along at least seventy percent of the length of the curved cutting edge and each groove or pocket defines an outwardly extending adhesive capture ledge.
Tasma teaches a groove or pocket (362) disposed below and runs along a majority of a length of a cutting edge (Figure 11), each groove or pocket runs along at least seventy percent of the length of the cutting edge (Figure 11) and each groove or pocket defines an outwardly extending adhesive capture ledge (Paragraphs 0068, 0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to modify a curved blade taught by Cartwright et al. to provide a groove or pocket disposed below and running along a majority of a length of a cutting edge, a groove or pocket runs along at least seventy percent of the length of the cutting edge and each groove or pocket defines an outwardly extending adhesive capture ledge as taught by Tasma for the purpose of collecting adhesive residue where it is redeposited on the medium during subsequent cutting cycles, thus reducing significantly the frequency that the operation must be shut down in order to clean the blades.
With respect to claim 6, Cartwright et al. teaches the blade comprises a curved cutting edge (Figures 16-19) and a body portion (17, 19) with opposed side surfaces (top, bottom, left and right sides) that are substantially planar and parallel to each other (Figures 16-19), however does not explicitly disclose the blade comprises a tapered portion with opposed side surfaces that merge at the curved cutting edge.
However, it is noted that the mere change in shape would not patentably
distinguish from the prior art since the size and configuration does not change the
functionality of the stamp. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Also, no criticality
in the change in size and configuration is disclosed in the specification, and the change
in size seems to be merely design choice (see MPEP 2144.04(1V)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to provide a tapered portion since such a modification would result in blade that cuts a medium with less force.
With respect to claims 7-10, Cartwright et al in view of Tasma teaches a groove or pocket (362) with an adhesive captured ledge (Figure 11) as taught by Tasma, however Cartwright et al. in view of Tasma do not explicitly disclose the adhesive capture ledges are located above and/or define an upper limit of at least regions of the body portion, the adhesive capture ledges extend substantially perpendicular to a plane in which the curved cutting edge lies, the adhesive capture ledges form a V-shape with a side surfaces of the grooves or pockets and each adhesive capture ledge extends outwardly and upwardly toward the curved cutting edge.
However, it is noted that the mere change in shape would not patentably
distinguish from the prior art since the size and configuration does not change the
functionality of the stamp. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Also, no criticality
in the change in size and configuration is disclosed in the specification, and the change
in size seems to be merely design choice (see MPEP 2144.04(1V)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to provide multiple adhesive capture ledges designs since such a modification would result in effectively moving residue away form the cutting edge thereby preventing build-up.
With respect to claim 11-13, the limitations “wherein each groove or pocket is machined or cast into the blade”, “wherein each groove or pocket is formed at least in part by a plastic material overmolded onto a metal portion of the blade” and “wherein the plastic material extends through at least one side-to-side through opening of the blade”, appear to indicate a method of manufacturing/method of making, note the claims are apparatus claims and not a method of manufacturing/method of making.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cartwright et al. (US Patent 8,517,618, hereinafter ‘618) in view of Cartwright et al. (US Patent 11,602,869, hereinafter ‘869) and Tasma (US Patent 2003/0047275).
With respect to claim 14, Cartwright et al. (‘618) teaches a printhead (20) and a label travel path (path that 6a travels) past the printhead (20, Figure 5). However, Redman et al. does not explicitly disclose a label cutter positioned below a portion of the label travel path and mounted for movement through the label travel path the label cutter of claim 1 positioned below a portion of the label travel path and mounted for movement through the label travel path.
Cartwright et al. (‘869) teaches the label cutter (700) of claim 1 [a blade (716) having a curved cutting edge (Figures 16-19); wherein the blade (716) includes opposite first (top side) and second sides (bottom side) positioned below a portion of the label travel path and mounted for movement through the label travel path].
However, Cartwright et al. (‘618) does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the first and second sides includes a groove or pocket for capturing adhesive. Tasma teaches a blade side includes a groove or pocket (362, Figure 11) for capturing adhesive (Paragraphs 0068, 0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to modify a side of the blade taught by Cartwright et al. since it would require obvious substitution of a known blade with first and second sides with a blade with side that includes a groove or pocket as taught by Tasma for the purpose of collecting adhesive residue where it is redeposited on the medium during subsequent cutting cycles, thus reducing significantly the frequency that the operation must be shut down in order to clean the blades.
Tasma provides a groove or pocket on one side, however does not explicitly disclose a groove or pocket on a second side. It has been held it has been held by the court that mere duplication of the essential working parts is an obvious mechanical expedient and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Particular attention is invited to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide a second groove or pocket to a second side as it would simply require the obvious duplication of parts since such a
modification would result in significantly collecting residue on all sides of the blader, thereby preventing operation shutdown.
With respect to claim 15, Cartwright et al. (‘618) teaches the label printer is configured as a weighing scale with a weighing station (1, 4a, Column 4, Lines 11-18, Column 11, Lines 7-28).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISSA LIANA FERGUSON SAMRETH whose telephone number is (571)272-2163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/Marissa Ferguson-Samreth/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights