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
1. 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.
2. Claims 1, 3-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tilly (2,535,555) in view of Baca (8,469,072). Regarding claim 1, Tilly teaches a multi-function paper cutting device (Fig. 4) comprising: a shell (as the entire housing 1) having a wall 2; wherein the wall 2 has a first end (adjacent tip 19 of the lower end of the wall; Fig. 1) and a second end (defined by opposite end of the first end; Fig. 4) along a length direction of the wall; and a paper cutting structure (7-9, 18) comprising a slit (Fig. 4) and a paper cutting blade 9; wherein the slit is defined in the wall 2 and bounded by an upper part (defined by the upper wall of the slit; Fig. 4) and a lower part 18 of the wall, and the slit extends from the first end of the wall along the length direction of the wall towards the second end, and a free end 19 of the lower part 18 is substantially flush with the first end of the wall 2 (as clearly shown in Fig. 4); the paper cutting blade 9 is arranged on an end of the slit, and a blade edge of the paper cutting blade faces an entrance of the slit (Fig. 4); paper to be cut is configured to be inserted into the slit and cut by the paper cutting blade after passing through the slit. See Figs. 1-7 in Tilly.
Tilly does not explicitly teach a tape cutting assembly arranged on the shell; wherein the tape cutting assembly is configured to rotatably retain a tape roll on the shell and to cut a tape released from the tape roll. However, Baca teaches a multi-function paper cutting device including a tape cutting assembly 20 arranged on a shell 90; wherein the tape cutting assembly 20 is configured to rotatably retain a tape roll 3 on the shell and to cut a tape released from the tape roll. See Fig. 10A-12 in Baca. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Tilly’s shall with the tape cutting assembly, as taught by Tilly, in order to use the paper cutting device for dispensing and cutting adhesive tape.
Regarding claim 3, Tilly teaches everything noted above including a support structure 10 having a contact surface (defined by the contact surface of the guide finger 10); wherein the contact surface is configured to contact a placement surface during paper cutting and to be slidable or rollable relative to the placement surface, and the support structure is further configured to support the shell and enable the shell to move stably on the placement surface.
Regarding claim 4, Tilly teaches everything noted above including a tip 19, correspondingly arranged on the entrance of the slit; wherein the tip has a sloping surface (defined as a slight sloping surface which extends from one end of the tip to end of the slit; Fig. 7), and the sloping surface extends obliquely upward from an end of the tip towards the slit; wherein the tip is configured to, in a case where the paper to be cut is pushed, lift the paper to be cut from the placement surface, enlarge an effective width of the entrance of the slit via the sloping surface, and guide the paper to be cut into the slit.
Regarding claim 5, Tilly teaches everything noted above including a grip portion (defined by embossed or covered cylindrical portion connected to the wall 2 which could be gripped by a user; Fig. 7) connected to the shell for a user to hold.
Regarding claim 6, Tilly, as modified by Baca, teaches everything noted above including that the tape cutting assembly comprises: inherently a tape sleeve shaft connected to the shell (via housing of the tape cutting assembly 20); wherein the tape sleeve shaft is configured to detachably mount the tape roll 3 and allow the tape roll to rotate smoothly around the tape sleeve shaft to release the tape; and a blade fixing member (defined by the vertical wall that holds the blade; Fig. 12 in Baca) arranged on a same side as the tape sleeve shaft and fixedly connected to the shell; wherein a serrated blade (Fig. 12 in Baca) is arranged on the blade fixing member, and the serrated blade is configured to cut the tape released from the tape roll.
Regarding claim 7, Tilly, as modified by Baca, teaches everything noted above including that the blade fixing member is arranged with a smooth surface that is outwardly protruding on a side facing the tape sleeve shaft, and the smooth surface is configured for an end of the tape remaining after cutting to adhere to and be temporarily fixed.
Regarding claim 13, Tilly teaches everything noted above including that the tip 19 protrudes outward relative to the first end of the shell. It should be noted that the tip is separated from the first end of the wall and protrudes downward and outwardly from the first end of the wall.
3. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tilly in view of Baca and in further view of Gullicks et al. (2006/0236550 A1), hereinafter Gullicks, or Anderson et al. (3,859,725), hereinafter Anderson. Regarding claim 2, Tilly teaches everything noted above including a paper pressing vertical plate 14; wherein the paper pressing vertical plate is connected to at least one of an inner wall and an outer wall of the wall, and extends downwards from the upper part on an area corresponding to the slit (Fig. 7); in the length direction, the paper pressing vertical plate 14 at least partially covers the slit, and terminate on a front end of the blade edge; wherein the paper pressing structure 14 is configured to apply a continuous downward pressure on paper located on both sides of the slit, causing the paper guided into the slit to be bent downward, and provide auxiliary positioning.
Tilly does not explicitly teach that the vertical plates extend obliquely
downwards. However, Gullicks teaches a paper cutter including paper pressing vertical plates 28 which include pressing contact surfaces 28a. Gullicks also teaches that the paper pressing vertical plates extend slightly obliquely (as shown in Figs. 1-2) downward from an upper part 25. Anderson, also teaches a cutting tool including pressing vertical members 35 which include pressing contact surfaces. Anderson similarly teaches that the pressing vertical member 38 extend obliquely (as shown in Figs. 1-2) downward from an upper part 13. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to obliquely extend downward the paper pressing vertical plates of Tilly’s device, as modified by Baca, as taught by Gullicks or Anderson, in order to improve pressing engagement and tensioning of the paper during the cutting, thereby enhancing cutting performance.
To the degree that it could be argued that Tilly does not explicitly teach that the tip has a slopping surface, the rejection below is applied.
4. Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tilly in view of Baca and in further view of Borst (2,294,018). Regarding claim 4, Tilly teaches everything noted above including a tip 19, correspondingly arranged on the entrance of the slit; wherein the tip has a sloping surface (as can be seen as a slight sloping surface which extends from one end of the tip to end of the slit; Fig. 7), and the sloping surface extends obliquely upward from an end of the tip towards the slit; wherein the tip 19 is configured to, in a case where the paper to be cut is pushed, lift the paper to be cut from the placement surface, enlarge an effective width of the entrance of the slit via the sloping surface, and guide the paper to be cut into the slit.
However, it could be argued that Tilly does not clearly teach that surface sloped. Borst teaches a paper cutter including a tip (2, 30) having a sloping surface (as shown in Fig. 3), and the sloping surface extends obliquely upward from an end 30 of the tip towards a (defined by the housing 1); wherein the tip is configured to, in a case where the paper to be cut is pushed, lift the paper to be cut from the placement surface, enlarge an effective width of the entrance of the slit via the sloping surface, and guide the paper to be cut into the slit. See Figs. 1-5 in Borst. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tip of Tilly’s device, as modified by Baca, with the sloped surface, as taught by Borst, in order to facilitated insertion of the paper into the slit and toward the cutting blade, thereby improving ease of use and cutting performance.
Regarding claim 13, Tilly teaches everything noted above including that the tip 19 protrudes outward relative to the first end of the shell. See Figs. 6-7 In Tilly. In addition, Borst also teaches that tip (29, 30) protrudes outward relative to a first end of a shell 1. See Fig. 3 in Borst.
5. Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tilly in view of Baca and in further view of Nishikawa (3.991,923). Regarding claim 8, Tilly, as modified by Baca, does not explicitly teach a sliding groove is defined on the shell, and the tape cutting assembly further comprises a protective assembly; the protective assembly is slidably arranged in the sliding groove, and the protective assembly is configured to cover blade teeth of the serrated blade in a case where the serrated blade is in a non-cutting state. However, Nishikawa teaches a sliding groove 10 (Fig. in Nishikawa) is defined on the shell 9 (Fig. 3 in Nishikawa), and the tape cutting assembly further comprises a protective assembly (1, 7, 8, 14-15, 17-18, 20; Fig. 3); the protective assembly is slidably arranged in the sliding groove 10, and the protective assembly is configured to cover blade teeth (Fig. 3 in Nishikawa) of the serrated blade in a case where the serrated blade is in a non-cutting state. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the adhesive tape cutting assembly of Tilly’s device, as modified by Baca, with the protective assembly, as taught by Nishikawa, in order to protect the user from inadvertent connect with the knife’s cutting edge.
Regarding claim 9, Tilly, as modified by Baca and Nishikawa, teaches everything noted above including that the protective assembly comprises: a sliding member 8, slidably arranged in the sliding groove 10; wherein in a case where an external force is applied, the sliding member moves along the sliding groove 10 to expose the blade teeth of the serrated blade for cutting the tape. See Fig. 3 in Nishikawa.
Regarding claim 10, Tilly, as modified by Baca and Nishikawa, teaches everything noted above including that the sliding member 8 is arranged with a slide rail (defined by the edge of the sliding member which is in contact with the sliding groove 10; Fig. 3 in Nishikawa) matching with the sliding groove, and the sliding groove defines a movement range and direction of the sliding member; wherein the protective assembly further comprises: a spring 14 configured to cooperate with the sliding member 8; after the external force is removed, the spring applies a resetting elastic force to the sliding member, driving the sliding member to move back to an initial position, for re-covering the blade teeth of the serrated blade; and a protective member 7 configured to form a shell part of the protective assembly (1, 7, 8, 14-15, 17-18, 20; Fig. 3), for accommodating and installing the sliding member and the spring, and providing support for the spring. See Fig. 3 in Nishikawa.
Regarding claim 11, Tilly, as modified by Baca and Nishikawa, teaches everything noted above except that the sliding member 8 comprises a spring mounting hole for mounting the spring 14. See Fig. 3 in Nishikawa. However, Examiner takes an Official Notice that the use of a hole to as a mounting hole for a spring is old and well known in the art.
6. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tilly in view of Baca and Nishikawa, and in further view of Van Tyle et al. (7,152,650 B2), hereinafter Van. Regarding claim 12, Tilly, as modified above, does not explicitly teach an outer end of the tape sleeve shaft is arranged with a flange extending radially outward, and the flange is configured to restrict the tape roll on the tape sleeve shaft. However, Van teaches a tape dispenser including an outer end of a tape sleeve shaft 14 is provided with a flange 52 extending radially outward, and the flange 52 is configured to restrict a tape roll on the tape sleeve shaft. See Figs. 1-4 in Van. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tape sleeving shaft of Tilly’s multi-function paper cutting device, as modified above, with the flange, as taught by Van, in order to limit the movement of the adhesive tape roll on the shaft.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant argument that amendments to claim 1 overcome the rejection of the claims based on the prior art of the record is unpersuasive. As stated above, Tilly in view of Baca teaches the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Tilly (3,028,670) and Bland (7,805,842 B2) teaches a multi-function paper cutting device.
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
10. 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) 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 May 27, 2026
