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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (US 20150343667) in view of Pinchot (US 20100143520).
Regarding claim 1, Robertson discloses a cutter blade comprising: a blade edge part (cutting blade insert 140; see fig. 4) configured to slide along a plate surface of a die plate (knife 30 passes over die plate wear surface 13 of die plate 12; see paragraph [0018] and fig. 1), the plate surface having a hole formed therein (die plate wear surface 13 comprises orifices 16; see fig. 1), and thereby to cut a material extruded from the hole onto the plate surface (knife 30 is configured to cut plastic extrudate 17 as it is extruded through orifices 16; see paragraph [0018] and fig. 1); and a base metal part (knife 130; see fig. 4) to which the blade edge part is bonded by an adhesive (cutting blade insert 140 may be bonded to knife body 131 of knife 130 by adhesive; see paragraphs [0024, 0030]), wherein the blade edge part has a sliding surface configured to slide over the plate surface (wear surface 142 contacts die plate wear surface 13 of die plate 12; see paragraphs [0026, 0031]), the base metal part comprises: an attaching part (mounting shank 135; see fig. 4) configured to be connected to a cutter blade holding part (mounting shank 135 connects to knife mounting recesses 26; see paragraph [0022] and fig. 2) configured to transmit power for sliding the cutter blade along the plate surface (knives 30 are received in knife mounting recesses 26 such that they cut plastic pellets as hub 22 rotates; see paragraph [0021]); and a ridge part (knife body 131; see fig. 4) opposed to the plate surface with the blade edge part interposed therebetween (when assembled, knife body 131 opposes die plate wear surface 13 with cutting blade insert 140 located in the middle; see figs. 2 and 4), the blade edge part being bonded to the ridge part (cutting blade insert 140 is bonded to knife body 131; see paragraphs [0024, 0030] and fig. 4), a peripheral surface of the ridge part is a curved dug-in surface (recess 134 and the angled portion of knife body 131 form a dug-in surface which is curved; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below) and a peripheral surface of the blade edge part is a curved dug-in surface (cutting blade insert 140 comprises a dug-in surface; see annotated portion of fig. 6 below), the curved dug-in surface of the ridge part is connected to the curved dug-in surface of the blade edge part so as to form a continuous curved surface (the dug-in surface of knife body 131 is connected to the dug-in surface of cutting blade insert 140, such that a continuous curved surface is formed; see annotated portion of fig. 4 below), and regarding bonding surfaces between the base metal part and the blade edge part, a bonding surface of the ridge part has a curved shape (mounting surface 138, wherein Examiner interprets that both portions of mounting surface 138 form an overall curved shape; see fig. 4), and a bonding surface of the blade edge part has a curved shape (mounting surface 148, wherein Examiner interprets that both portions of mounting surface 148 form an overall curved shape; see fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
487
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
272
371
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Assuming arguendo, if Applicant does not agree that Robertson as presently interpreted discloses a bonding surface of the ridge part having a curved shape, and a bonding surface of the blade edge part having a curved shape, the following rejection is also presented.
Robertson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described above except that a bonding surface of the ridge part has a curved shape, and a bonding surface of the blade edge part has a curved shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Robertson to make the bonding surface of the ridge part and the bonding surface of the blade edge part each have a curved shape since it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (see In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431). In the instant case, it does not appear that modifying Robertson to have the recited configuration would impede the device of Robertson from performing its intended function. That is, if both bonding surfaces were modified to have a curved shape, the surfaces would still be capable of bonding to each other (provided that the shapes still correspond to one another, as shown in fig. 4). Therefore, such a modification would be obvious since it appears that the specific shape of the bonding surfaces is mere design choice.
Robertson does not explicitly disclose that a bottom surface of the attaching part is flush with the sliding surface.
Pinchot discloses that a bottom surface of the attaching part is flush with the sliding surface (blade 124 includes cutting edge 134 which is configured to slide against die plate 14 – cutting edge 134 is flush with the bottom surface of lower body portion 122; see fig. 4 and annotated portion of fig. 16 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
307
169
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Robertson in view of Pinchot to make the bottom surface of the attaching part flush with the sliding surface. Pinchot discloses a blade configuration wherein the sliding surface of the blade (cutting edge 134) is flush with the bottom surface of the attaching part (lower body portion 122). This allows the blade to rest against the die plate (see fig. 4). As a result, the blade is able to cut extrudate into smaller pieces due to its closer proximity to the die plate. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this provides a more versatile blade since smaller pieces of extrudate may be produced according to different product requirements. Therefore, in order to make the device more versatile in its ability to produce different sizes of extruded pieces, such a modification would be obvious.
Robertson as modified does not explicitly disclose that the bonding surface of the ridge part has a convex shape and a bonding surface of the blade edge part has a concave shape.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Robertson to make the bonding surface of the ridge part have a convex shape and a bonding surface of the blade edge part have a concave shape since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167). Robertson discloses the opposite configuration, where the bonding surface of the ridge part has a concave surface and the bonding surface of the blade edge part has a convex surface. In the instant case, it does not appear that reversing these parts to have the recited configuration would impact the knife’s ability to cut material, since the two mounting surfaces are engaged regardless. Further, the instant specification discloses that as an alternative to the claimed configuration, the bonding surface of the ridge part may have a concave shape and the bonding surface of the blade edge part may have a convex shape (see pg. 10, lines 5-10). Therefore, such a modification would be obvious.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (US 20150343667) in view of Pinchot (US 20100143520), and further in view of Takashi (JP 2002214993).
Regarding claim 5, Robertson as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Robertson as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein regarding the bonding surfaces between the base metal part and the blade edge part, at least one of a bonding surface of the ridge part and a bonding surface of the blade edge part has surface roughness within a microscopic height Rz of 5 to 30 µm.
Takashi discloses wherein regarding the bonding surfaces between the base metal part and the blade edge part, at least one of a bonding surface of the ridge part and a bonding surface of the blade edge part has surface roughness (surface 1a of blade 1 has a rough surface for bonding to support 2; see paragraph [0013]) within a microscopic height Rz of 5 to 30 µm (surface 1a has a surface roughness Rz of 5 to 40 µm; see paragraph [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Robertson in view of Takashi to make the surface roughness of the bonding surface within 5 to 30 µm since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, Takashi further discloses that a surface roughness lower than 5 µm will negatively affect the bonding capability of the adhesive, whereas exceeding 40 µm can have a negative impact on the blade structure (see paragraph [0008]). Further, it appears Applicant places no criticality on the claimed range, instead indicating that the surface roughness “may” be within 5 to 30 µm (see instant specification paragraph [0036]). Therefore, such a modification would be obvious in order to further improve the bonding strength between the blade edge part and the ridge part of Robertson as modified.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (US 20150343667) in view of Pinchot (US 20100143520), and further in view of Vlasova (EP 3501773).
Regarding claim 17, Robertson discloses a cutter blade comprising: a blade edge part (cutting blade insert 140; see fig. 4) configured to slide along a plate surface of a die plate (knife 30 passes over die plate wear surface 13 of die plate 12; see paragraph [0018] and fig. 1), the plate surface having a hole formed therein (die plate wear surface 13 comprises orifices 16; see fig. 1), and thereby to cut a material extruded from the hole onto the plate surface (knife 30 is configured to cut plastic extrudate 17 as it is extruded through orifices 16; see paragraph [0018] and fig. 1); and a base metal part (knife 130; see fig. 4) to which the blade edge part is bonded by an adhesive (cutting blade insert 140 may be bonded to knife body 131 of knife 130 by adhesive; see paragraphs [0024, 0030]), wherein the blade edge part comprises: a sliding surface configured to slide over the plate surface (wear surface 142 contacts die plate wear surface 13 of die plate 12; see paragraphs [0026, 0031]); an upper surface opposed to the sliding surface (mounting surface 148 is located opposite wear surface 142; see fig. 4); an inclined surface connected to the upper surface of the blade edge part (rake face 144 is connected to mounting surface 149; see fig. 4) and inclined with respect to the upper surface of the blade edge part (rake face 144 is inclined with respect to mounting surface 149; see fig. 4); and a curved dug-in surface (cutting blade insert 140 comprises a dug-in surface; see annotated portion of fig. 6 above) opposed to the inclined surface of the blade edge part and connected to the sliding surface (the dug-in surface is opposite rake face 144 and is connected to wear surface 142; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above), the base metal part comprises: an attaching part (mounting shank 135; see fig. 4) configured to be connected to a cutter blade holding part (mounting shank 135 connects to knife mounting recesses 26; see paragraph [0022] and fig. 2) configured to transmit power for sliding the cutter blade along the plate surface (knives 30 are received in knife mounting recesses 26 such that they cut plastic pellets as hub 22 rotates; see paragraph [0021]); and a ridge part (knife body 131; see fig. 4) opposed to the plate surface with the blade edge part interposed therebetween (when assembled, knife body 131 opposes die plate wear surface 13 with cutting blade insert 140 located in the middle; see figs. 2 and 4), the blade edge part being bonded to the ridge part (cutting blade insert 140 is bonded to knife body 131; see paragraphs [0024, 0030] and fig. 4), the attaching part and the ridge part being connected to each other in a direction in which the blade edge extends (mounting shank 135 and knife body 131 are connected to each other in a direction in which cutting blade insert 140 extends; see fig. 4), the attaching part has a quadrangular prism shape (mounting shank 135 forms a shape that is approximately a quadrangular prism; see fig. 4) including an upper surface and the bottom surface on opposite side of the upper surface (mounting shank 135 comprises an upper surface which is opposite bottom surface 133; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above), the ridge part comprises: an upper surface (top surface 132; see fig. 4) flush with the upper surface of the attaching part (top surface 132 appears to be flush with the upper surface of mounting shank 135; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above); an inclined surface (knife body 131 comprises an inclined surface; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above) inclined with respect to the upper surface of the ridge part (the inclined surface is inclined with respect to top surface 132; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above); a curved dug-in surface (recess 134 and the angled portion of knife body 131 form a dug-in surface which is curved; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above) opposed to the upper surface of the ridge part and the inclined surface of the ridge part (bottom recess 134 is opposite top surface 132 and the inclined surface; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above); bonding surfaces (mounting surfaces 138, 148; see fig. 4) connected to the inclined surface of the ridge part and the dug-in surface of the ridge part (mounting surface 138 is connected to the inclined surface and the dug-in surface; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above); and a rear surface (knife body 131 comprises a rear surface; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above) connected to the dug-in surface of the ridge part and the upper surface of the ridge part (the rear surface is connected to the dug-in surface and top surface 132; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above), and the curved dug-in surface of the ridge part is connected to the curved dug-in surface of the blade edge part so as to form a continuous curved surface (the dug-in surface of knife body 131 is connected to the dug-in surface of cutting blade insert 140, such that a continuous curved surface is formed; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above).
Robertson does not explicitly disclose a bottom surface of the attaching part in the base metal part is flush with the sliding surface.
Pinchot discloses a bottom surface of the attaching part in the base metal part is flush with the sliding surface (blade 124 includes cutting edge 134 which is configured to slide against die plate 14 – cutting edge 134 is flush with the bottom surface of lower body portion 122; see fig. 4 and annotated portion of fig. 16 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Robertson in view of Pinchot to make the bottom surface of the attaching part flush with the sliding surface. Pinchot discloses a blade configuration wherein the sliding surface of the blade (cutting edge 134) is flush with the bottom surface of the attaching part (lower body portion 122). This allows the blade to rest against the die plate (see fig. 4). As a result, the blade is able to cut extrudate into smaller pieces due to its closer proximity to the die plate. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this provides a more versatile blade since smaller pieces of extrudate may be produced according to different product requirements. Therefore, in order to make the device more versatile in its ability to produce different sizes of extruded pieces, such a modification would be obvious.
Robertson as modified does not explicitly disclose the bonding surfaces between the ridge part and the blade edge part are planar surfaces perpendicular to the inclined surface of the ridge part and the inclined surface of the blade edge part.
Vlasova discloses a blade with a planar rear surface (blade 30 includes a planar rear surface; see fig. 4).
As modified to include a blade with a planar rear surface as taught by Vlasova, Robertson as modified discloses the bonding surfaces between the ridge part and the blade edge part are planar surfaces perpendicular to the inclined surface of the ridge part and the inclined surface of the blade edge part (as modified to include a blade with a planar rear surface as taught by Vlasova, mounting surface 138 would be positioned such that it is perpendicular to the inclined surface; see annotated portion of fig. 4 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Robertson in view of Vlasova to make the rear surface of the blade edge part a planar surface as a simple substitution of one known element for another. Robertson discloses a blade edge part with a bonding surface that has an overall convex shape. Vlasova discloses a blade with a planar rear surface (see fig. 4). If the blade edge part of Robertson (cutting blade insert 140) were modified to have a similar rear/bonding surface, the blade edge part would still be bonded to the ridge part in the same way. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the predictable result of a blade edge part that is sufficiently bonded to the ridge part regardless of which shape the bonding surface has. Therefore, since the two configurations of the rear/bonding surface of the blade edge part would provide the same result, such a modification would be obvious as a simple substitution of known elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes the newly applied interpretation of the Robertson reference as necessitated by the amendment. Thus, Robertson as modified above is interpreted to include a ridge part having a curved dug-in surface. The curved dug-in surface of the ridge part and blade edge part thus form one continuous curved surface. Regarding Applicant’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify Robertson in view of Pinchot to make the bottom surface flush with the sliding surface, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Making the bottom surface of the attaching part flush with the sliding surface would allow for material to be cut as soon as it is extruded. Further, Robertson’s self-sharpening characteristics as noted by Applicant appear to be aspects of a different embodiment not relied upon for the rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 6269714 to Sakai, drawn to a cutter knife for a thermoplastic resin pelletizer and production method of said cutter knife.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights