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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Per the Request for Continued Examination filed 23 January 2026, the Amendment filed 7 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 31-62 are pending, of which claims 33-49, 51-53, and 56-59 were withdrawn from consideration, with claims 33-34, 45, and 56-57 being rejoined herein as explained in the Rejoinder section below. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8 October 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Rejoinder
Although neither of claims 31 and 54 constitutes a special technical feature in view of these claims being rejected under 35 USC 103 below, and although claims 33-34, 45, 56-57 are directed to different technical features than those of the elected invention of Group J (see Applicant’s election in the reply of 21 April 2025), the examiner has nonetheless withdrawn the restriction requirement with respect to claims 33-34, 45, and 56-57. The examiner has determined that maintaining the restriction requirement with respect to claims 33-34, 45, and 56-57 would not be reasonable in view of the minimal search effort required to examine these claims. The remainder of the restriction requirement of 17 March 2025 remains in force.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 32 at line 16 should include the word “and” following the semi-colon at the end of the line.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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:
“members for feeding the products” as recited in claim 31 at lines 6-7 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for feeding the products”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
“a sharpening unit adapted to sharpen the at least one cutting blade” as recited in claim 31 at lines 12-13 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “adapted to sharpen the at least one cutting blade”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “sharpening” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit);
“an adjustment system” as recited in claim 31 at line 14 (first, “system” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language at lines 15-19 of the claim; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “adjustment” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the system);
“a contact force detection device” as recited in claim 45 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for detecting contact force between the at least one cutting blade and the sharpening unit”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the name “contact force detection” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device);
“lateral retaining elements” as recited in claim 50 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “retaining” – i.e., in order for an element to be considered as a ‘retaining element’, the element must perform a retaining function; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “lateral” preceding the generic placeholder describes the location, not the structure, of the elements, and a structure can be located laterally of the products without performing the function of retaining the products);
“members for feeding the products” as recited in claim 54 at line 5 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for feeding the products”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function);
“a sharpening unit adapted to sharpen the at least one cutting blade” as recited in claim 54 at lines 9-10 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “adapted to sharpen the at least one cutting blade”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “sharpening” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit); and
“an adjustment system” as recited in claim 54 at line 10 (first, “system” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language at lines 20-23 of the claim; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “adjustment” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the system); and
“lateral retaining elements” as recited in claim 61 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “retaining” – i.e., in order for an element to be considered as a ‘retaining element’, the element must perform a retaining function; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “lateral” preceding the generic placeholder describes the location, not the structure, of the elements, and a structure can be located laterally of the products without performing the function of retaining the products).
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
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.
Claim(s) 32-34, 55-57, and 60-62 is/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 32 recites the limitation "the operation of the drive motor" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 32 indefinite. Claim 31 does introduce “an operation” at line 16, but that operation is “of the cutting machine”. Thus, it is unclear whether claim 32 is introducing some new operation. Alternatively, it is unclear whether claim 32 includes a typographical error, where “of the drive motor” is intended to read – of the cutting machine – since there is an antecedent basis for ‘the operation of the cutting machine’. Alternatively still, claim 32 can be interpreted as referring to the same operation as introduced in claim 31, but further specifying that the operation of the cutting machine is also of a drive motor. In yet another interpretation, claim 32 can be interpreted as introducing an additional operation, and also requiring a new structure of a drive motor. However, if this interpretation is intended, it is unclear whether claim 32 recites “the operation” and “the drive motor”. As such, claim 32 is indefinite.
Claim 33 recites, “a member of the cutting machine”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether claim 33 must be interpreted as introducing a new member, or alternatively whether “a member of the cutting machine” can be interpreted as being any of the previously introduced structures of the cutting machine. For example, can the “member” of claim 33 be the sharpening unit of claim 31, such that the adjustment command is transmitted to the sharpening unit? If claim 33 permits “a member” to refer to a previously introduced structure, then the recitation would be expected to use the term “the” and also to use the name(s) of the previously introduced structure(s). On the other hand, the present specification appears to permit the member to be a previously introduced structure, such that claim 33, interpreted in view of the present specification, suggests that “a member” can be a previously introduced structure despite using “a” and the new name “member”.
Claim 34 recites, “a member of the cutting machine”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether claim 34 must be interpreted as introducing a new member, or alternatively whether “a member of the cutting machine” can be interpreted as being any of the previously introduced structures of the cutting machine. For example, can the “member” of claim 34 be the sharpening unit of claim 31, such that the adjustment command is transmitted to the sharpening unit? If claim 34 permits “a member” to refer to a previously introduced structure, then the recitation would be expected to use the term “the” and also to use the name(s) of the previously introduced structure(s). On the other hand, the present specification appears to permit the member to be a previously introduced structure, such that claim 34, interpreted in view of the present specification, suggests that “a member” can be a previously introduced structure despite using “a” and the new name “member”.
Claim 55 recites the limitation "the operation of the drive motor" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 55 indefinite. Claim 54 does introduce “an operation” at line 19, but that operation is “of the cutting machine”. Thus, it is unclear whether claim 55 is introducing some new operation. Alternatively, it is unclear whether claim 55 includes a typographical error, where “of the drive motor” is intended to read – of the cutting machine – since there is an antecedent basis for ‘the operation of the cutting machine’. Alternatively still, claim 55 can be interpreted as referring to the same operation as introduced in claim 54, but further specifying that the operation of the cutting machine is also of a drive motor. In yet another interpretation, claim 55 can be interpreted as introducing an additional operation, and also requiring a new structure of a drive motor. However, if this interpretation is intended, it is unclear whether claim 55 recites “the operation” and “the drive motor”. As such, claim 55 is indefinite, as are claims 60-62 due to their dependence from claim 55.
Claim 56 recites, “a member of the cutting machine”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether claim 56 must be interpreted as introducing a new member, or alternatively whether “a member of the cutting machine” can be interpreted as being any of the previously introduced structures of the cutting machine. For example, can the “member” of claim 56 be the sharpening unit of claim 54, such that the adjustment command is transmitted to the sharpening unit? If claim 56 permits “a member” to refer to a previously introduced structure, then the recitation would be expected to use the term “the” and also to use the name(s) of the previously introduced structure(s). On the other hand, the present specification appears to permit the member to be a previously introduced structure, such that claim 56, interpreted in view of the present specification, suggests that “a member” can be a previously introduced structure despite using “a” and the new name “member”.
Claim 57 recites, “a member of the cutting machine”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether claim 57 must be interpreted as introducing a new member, or alternatively whether “a member of the cutting machine” can be interpreted as being any of the previously introduced structures of the cutting machine. For example, can the “member” of claim 57 be the sharpening unit of claim 54, such that the adjustment command is transmitted to the sharpening unit? If claim 57 permits “a member” to refer to a previously introduced structure, then the recitation would be expected to use the term “the” and also to use the name(s) of the previously introduced structure(s). On the other hand, the present specification appears to permit the member to be a previously introduced structure, such that claim 57, interpreted in view of the present specification, suggests that “a member” can be a previously introduced structure despite using “a” and the new name “member”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 31-34, 45, 50, 54-57, and 60-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/016667 to Mario Gioni Chiocchetti et al. (hereinafter, “Chiocchetti”) in view of US Pub. No. 2005/0284277 A1 to Casella et al.
Regarding claim 31, Chiocchetti discloses a cutting machine 1 for cutting products 3 made of cellulose material into articles 5 made of cellulose material of smaller longitudinal dimension (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 30), [the cutting machine] comprising:
- at least one feed channel 9 of the products 3 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 32);
- members 11 (including pushing members 13) for feeding the product 3 along the at least one feed channel 9 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 32);
- at least one cutting blade 17 adapted to cut the products 3 into the articles 5 according to cutting planes orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the products 3 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 33; the cutting planes are visible between articles 5 and extend vertically along the plane of the page and into and out of the page relative to Fig. 1, whereas the longitudinal direction of the products is a left-right direction along the plane of the page relative to Fig. 1);
- a sharpening unit 29 adapted to sharpen the at least one cutting blade 17 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 36); and
- an adjustment system 39;
wherein the adjustment system 39 is adapted to: receive in input at least one second piece of information on an operation of the cutting machine 1 (the second piece of information being from the load cell, which is ‘on an operation of the cutting machine’ because the sharpening unit 29 is part of the cutting machine 1; see paragraphs 7, 21, and 38); and to provide, in response to said at least one second piece of information, at least one adjustment command of the cutting machine 1 (the command to control the actuator per paragraph 21; see also paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 32, Chiocchetti discloses that the adjustment system 39 is adapted to: receive in input the at least one second piece of information on the operation of the cutting machine 1, the second piece of information being a parameter concerning an exchange of force between the at least one cutting blade 17 and the sharpening unit 29 (see paragraphs 21 and 57).
Regarding claims 33 and 34, Chiocchetti discloses that the least one adjustment command is automatically transmitted by the adjustment system 39 to a member of the cutting machine 1 (see paragraphs 21, 51, and 57; the adjustment system 39 automatically transmits the adjustment command based on the signal of the load cell 63).
Regarding claim 45, Chiocchetti discloses a contact force detection device 63 for detecting contact force between the at least one cutting blade and the sharpening unit (see Fig. 3 and paragraphs 5-6 and 55-56).
Regarding claim 50, Chiocchetti discloses that said at least one adjustment command is an adjustment command for the sharpening unit 29 (see paragraph 57; the adjustment command is an adjustment command of the actuator 37 of the sharpening unit 29).
Regarding claim 54, Chiocchetti discloses a method for cutting longitudinally extending products 3 made of web material (see paragraph 30), into a plurality of articles 5 of smaller longitudinal dimensions (see Fig. 1), by a cutting machine 1 comprising: at least one feed channel 9 of the products 3 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 32); members 11 (including pushing members 13) for feeding the products 3 along the at least one feed channel 9 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 32); at least one cutting blade 17 adapted to cut the products 3 into the articles 5 according to cutting planes orthogonal to a longitudinal extension of the products 3 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 33; the cutting planes are visible between articles 5 and extend vertically along the plane of the page and into and out of the page relative to Fig. 1, whereas the longitudinal extension of the products is a left-right direction along the plane of the page relative to Fig. 1); a sharpening unit 29 adapted to sharpen the at least one cutting blade 17 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 36); and an adjustment system 39; wherein the method comprises steps of:
feeding the products 3 along the at least one feed channel 9 (see Fig. 1 showing feed direction ‘f3’);
moving the at least one cutting blade 17 cyclically with respect to the product 3 (the cyclic movement including rotation about axis B-B per paragraph 33), said at least one cutting blade 17 having a forward movement and a cutting movement with respect to the products 3 (see paragraph 33; the two movements are a forward movement of the plate 19 about axis B-B and a cutting movement of the blade 17 including rotation about axis A-A; alternatively, the ‘forward movement’ can include a movement of the product 3, since the claim requires ‘relative’ movement);
acquiring at least one second piece of information on an operation of the cutting machine 1 (the second piece of information being from the load cell, which is ‘on an operation of the cutting machine’ because the sharpening unit 29 is part of the cutting machine 1; see paragraphs 7, 21, and 38);
the adjustment system 39 automatically generating an adjustment command for the cutting machine 1 as a function of said at least one second piece of information on the operation of the cutting machine 1 (see paragraphs 21 and 38; the adjustment command including a control of the actuator 37; moreover, Chiocchetti discloses additional adjustment commands that are a function of the second piece of information, including a command to request replacement of the at least one cutting blade per paragraphs 62-63).
Regarding claim 55, Chiocchetti discloses acquiring the at least one second piece of information on the operation of the cutting machine 1 (see paragraphs 21 and 57), and wherein said at least one second piece of information comprises a parameter concerning an exchange of force between the at least one cutting blade 17 and the sharpening unit 29 (see paragraphs 21 and 57).
Regarding claims 56 and 57, Chiocchetti discloses that the least one adjustment command is automatically transmitted by the adjustment system 39 to a member of the cutting machine 1 (see paragraphs 21, 51, and 57; the adjustment system 39 automatically transmits the adjustment command based on the signal of the load cell 63).
Regarding claim 60, Chiocchetti discloses that the adjustment command acts on an operation of the sharpening unit 29 (see paragraph 57; the adjustment command is an adjustment command of the actuator 37 of the sharpening unit 29).
Regarding claim 61, Chiocchetti discloses that the adjustment command is an adjustment command for the sharpening unit 29 (see paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 62, Chiocchetti discloses that the adjustment command is an adjustment command for the sharpening unit 29 (see paragraph 57). Chiocchetti also discloses that the adjustment command of the sharpening unit 29 can be a command to request replacement of the cutting blade 17 (see paragraphs 62-64).
Further, Chiocchetti contemplates that blade sharpening occurs after a given number of cuts (see paragraph 41) and that the cutting blade requires replacement after a period of use (see paragraph 63). However, Chiocchetti fails to explicitly disclose any manner of detecting a number of cuts performed by the cutting blade or any other manner of determining when to sharpen or replace the blade.
Chiocchetti fails to disclose that the adjustment system is adapted to receive at least one first piece of information, wherein the at least one first piece of information is selected from the group consisting of: a parameter correlated to a temperature of the at least one cutting blade; a parameter correlated to mechanical or acoustic vibrations generated by cutting the products; and a parameter concerning a shape of the articles produced by cutting the products, as required by claim 31. Chiocchetti also fails to disclose that the second piece of information is different from the at least one first piece of information as required by claim 32 (since Chiocchetti fails to disclose the at least one first piece of information). Chiocchetti also fails to disclose that the piece of information that is acquired is at least one first piece of information that comprises at least one of the following: a parameter correlated to a temperature of the at least one cutting blade; a parameter correlated to mechanical or acoustic vibrations generated by cutting the products; and a parameter concerning a shape of the articles produced by cutting the products as required by claim 54. Chiocchetti fails to disclose that the second piece of information is different from the at least one first piece of information as required by claim 55 (since Chiocchetti fails to disclose the at least one first piece of information).
Casella teaches an adjustment system (including actuator 20) that is adapted to receive in input at least one first piece of information on an operation of a cutting machine (see Fig. 1 showing a portion of the cutting machine and see Fig. 3 showing that the adjustment system receives a first piece of information from sensor 15; first piece of information includes a deformation of a blade 1 of the cutting machine per paragraph 29, which is ‘information on an operation’ of the cutting machine because the blade 1 deforms due to operation of the cutting machine per paragraphs 36 and 37), and the first piece of information is a parameter correlated to a temperature of the cutting blade 1 (see paragraphs 36 and 37; the blade 1 deforms to a greater degree as the blade 1 heats up, and the blade 1 lessens in deformation as the blade 1 cools down, such that the degree of deformation of the blade 1 is “correlated to” the temperature of the blade; see also paragraphs 3 and 4 disclosing the correlation). Casella also teaches that the adjustment system provides at least one adjustment command of the cutting machine in response to the first piece of information (see paragraph 11, where the adjustment command includes a cessation of cutting to allow the blade to cool). [Claims 31 and 54]. The at least one first piece of information of Casella, being related to a deformation of the cutting blade corresponding to a temperature of the cutting blade, is different from the at least one second piece of information of Chiocchetti, which is a force of a grinding wheel against the cutting blade. [Claims 32 and 55] Casella teaches that providing an adjustment system with a first piece of information on an operation of a cutting machine, where the first piece of information is a parameter correlated to a temperature of a cutting blade of the cutting machine, is advantageous in order to avoid damage to the blade, while also avoiding unnecessarily long stoppages of cutting that permit the blade to cool-down (see paragraph 4). That is, Casella teaches that the cutting blade can become damaged or even break if the blade becomes too hot (see paragraph 4). Casella further teaches that one manner of avoiding overheating of the blade is to lower production by stopping cutting, so that the blade has time to cool (see paragraph 4). Conventionally, when cutting is stopped, Casella notes that the stoppage may be longer than necessary, thus hindering production efficiency (see paragraph 4). However, Casella teaches that by providing the adjustment system with the first piece of information that is a parameter correlated to a temperature of the blade, the blade can avoid overheating while also only being cooled the minimum amount of time necessary (see paragraphs 11 and 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the adjustment system of Chiocchetti with a first piece of information on the operation of the cutting machine, where the first piece of information is a parameter correlated to a temperature of the blade, and to configure the adjustment system of Chiocchetti to provide an adjustment command of the cutting machine in response to the first piece of information, in view of the teachings of Casella. This modification is advantageous because the first piece of information, being correlated to the temperature of the cutting blade, provides the adjustment system with information related to the temperature of the blade, allowing the adjustment system to stop cutting of the products when the blade is at risk of becoming damaged or breaking due to overheating, and also allowing the adjustment system to resume cutting as soon as the blade has cooled sufficiently. This modification is thus advantageous to avoid blade damage, and also to increase cutting efficiency by avoiding longer than necessary stoppages.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 7 January 2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 31 and 54 under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Chiocchetti in view of Maxey have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to claims 31 and 54. That is, since the Applicant has amended claims 31 and 54 to delete the option of the ‘first piece of information’ being a parameter correlated to an operation of a drive motor of the at least one cutting blade correlated to power absorbed by the drive motor, which is the first piece of information taught by Maxey, Applicant’s amendments to claims 31 and 54 have overcome Chiocchetti in view of Maxey. However, upon further consideration necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, a new ground(s) of rejection is made relying on Casella for teaching a first piece of information that is a parameter correlated to a temperature of the at least one cutting blade as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724