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
Applicant’s submission filed on August 6, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 10-11, and 19 were amended. Claims 7 and 17 were canceled. Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-23 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112b rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on March 24, 2025. Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-23 are examined in this action.
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.
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 use the word “means” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and “means” is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “means for delivering” or “the delivering means” in claims 11-12.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this case, the corresponding structure of the delivering means/means for delivering is described in paragraph 5 as “four tubular guides 24 that deliver products to the cutting head 16.”
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11, 13-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20210086387 A1 by Bucks.
Regarding claim 1, Bucks discloses a knife assembly (Bucks, Fig. 1, knife assembly 100) comprising: a corrugated knife (Bucks, Fig. 1, corrugated knife blade 110); a knife holder (Bucks, Fig. 1, holder 120) having a registration surface (see Examiner annotated Bucks Figure 1, hereinafter "EABF1"; registration surface) and an oppositely-disposed knife seat (EABF1, knife seat) that terminate at a leading edge (EABF1, leading edge) of the knife holder, the knife seat (EABF1, knife seat) being mated with a first surface (Bucks, Fig. 3, bottom side 113) of the corrugated knife (Bucks, Fig. 1, knife blade 110), and peaks (see Examiner annotated Bucks Figure 3, hereinafter "EABF3"; holder peak) and valleys (EABF3, holder valley) of the knife holder are present at the knife seat (EABF1, knife seat) and engage, respectively, valleys (EABF3, knife valley) and peaks (EABF3, knife peak) of the corrugated knife (Bucks Fig. 3, knife blade 110) on the first surface (Bucks, Fig. 3, bottom side 113) of the corrugated knife; and a clamp (Bucks, Fig. 1, clamp 140); wherein the leading edge (see Examiner annotated Bucks Figure 6, hereinafter "EABF6"; leading edge) of the knife holder (Bucks, Fig. 6, holder 120) is beveled (EABF6, bevel) on the registration surface (EABF6, registration surface) of the knife holder so that the peaks (see Examiner annotated Bucks Figure 4, hereinafter "EABF4"; holder peak) of the knife holder protrude (EABF4, protrusion) beyond the valleys (EABF4, holder valley) of the knife holder at the leading edge (EABF4, leading edge) of the knife holder, the leading edge of the knife holder is defined by fingers (EABF3, holder finger) at the peaks thereof and notches (EABF3, holder notch) therebetween at the valleys thereof, and the fingers (EABF3, finger) of the knife holder (EABF3, knife holder) engage the valleys (EABF3, knife valley) in the first surface (Bucks, Fig. 3, bottom side 113) of the corrugated knife (Bucks, Fig. 3, knife blade 110); wherein the clamp (Bucks, Fig. 1, clamp 140) is mated with a second surface (Bucks, Fig. 1, top side 112) of the corrugated knife and secures the corrugated knife (Bucks, Fig. 1, knife blade 110) to the knife holder (Bucks, Fig. 1, holder 120), the clamp has a leading edge defined by fingers (EABF1, finger) and notches (EABF1, notch) therebetween, and the fingers (EABF1, finger) of the clamp engage valleys (EABF1, knife valley) on the second surface (Bucks, Fig. 1, top side 112) of the corrugated knife such that the fingers (EABF1, finger) of the clamp (Bucks, Fig. 1, clamp 140) are interdigitated with the fingers of the knife holder (EABF3, holder finger).
As defined by Merriam-Webster, a bevel is “the angle that one surface or line makes with another when they are not at a right angle” or “the slant of such a surface or line.” Cambridge Dictionary defines a bevel as “a sloping edge.” Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the registration surface (EABF6, registration surface) of the knife holder (Bucks, Fig. 6, holder 120) opposite the surface on which the knife (Bucks, Fig. 6, knife blade 110) is seated does have a beveled edge.
PNG
media_image1.png
649
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
474
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
425
542
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
456
640
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bucks discloses a knife assembly of a slicing machine adapted to slice products (Bucks, Fig. 1, knife assembly 100) the knife assembly comprising: a corrugated knife (Bucks, Fig. 1, corrugated knife blade 110) having oppositely-disposed first (Bucks, Fig. 1, bottom side 113) and second surfaces (Bucks, Fig. 1, top side 112) that terminate at a cutting edge 9 (Bucks, Fig. 1, cutting edge 111), the cutting edge and at least portions of the first and second surfaces adjacent thereto being characterized by a pattern of peaks and valleys so that peaks and valleys (EABF3, knife peak & knife valley) are present on the first surface (Bucks, Fig. 3, bottom side 113) and peaks and valleys (EABF1, knife peak & knife valley) are present on the second surface (Bucks, Fig. 1, top side 112); a knife holder (Bucks, Fig. 1, holder 120) having a registration surface (EABF1, registration surface) and an oppositely-disposed knife seat (EABF1, knife seat) that terminate at a leading edge (EABF1, leading edge), the knife seat (EABF1, knife seat) being mated with the first surface (Bucks, Fig. 1, bottom side 113) of the corrugated knife (Bucks, Fig. 1, knife blade 110), the knife seat comprising a pattern of peaks and valleys (EABF3, holder peak & holder valley) complementary to the peaks and valleys (EABF1, knife peak & knife valley) in the first surface (Bucks, Fig. 3, bottom side 113) of the corrugated knife, the leading edge of the knife holder being defined by fingers (EABF3, holder finger; see also EABF4) and notches (EABF3, holder notch) therebetween, the fingers of the knife holder (EABF3, holder finger) engaging at least some of the valleys (EABF3, knife valley) in the first surface (Bucks, Fig. 3, bottom side 113) of the corrugated knife, the notches (EABF3, holder notch) of the knife holder engaging at least some of the peaks (EABF3, knife peak) in the first surface (Bucks, Fig. 3, bottom side 113) of the corrugated knife; and a clamp (Bucks, Fig. 1, clamp 140) mated with the second surface (Bucks, Fig. 1, top side 112) of the corrugated knife and securing the corrugated knife to the knife seat of the knife holder (Bucks, Fig. 1, clamp 140, knife holder 120, knife blade 110), the clamp having a leading edge defined by fingers (EABF1, finger) and notches (EABF1, notch) therebetween that define a pattern complementary to the peaks and valleys (EABF1, knife peak & knife valley) in the second surface (Bucks, Fig. 1, top side 112) of the corrugated knife, the fingers of the clamp (EABF1, finger) engaging at least some of the valleys (EABF1, knife valley) on the second surface of the corrugated knife; wherein the fingers of the clamp (EABF1, finger) are interdigitated with the fingers (EABF3, holder finger) of the knife holder (see also Bucks Figure 2); and wherein the leading edge (EABF6, leading edge) of the knife holder is beveled (EABF6, bevel) on the registration surface (EABF6, registration surface) thereof so that the peaks (EABF4, holder peak) of the knife holder protrude (EABF4, protrusion) beyond the valleys (EABF4, holder valley) of the knife holder at the leading edge of the knife holder (EABF4, leading edge), the fingers (EABF4, holder finger) of the knife holder are at the peaks (EABF4, holder peak) of the knife holder (see also EABF3), and the notches (EABF4, holder notch) of the knife holder are at the valleys (EABF4, holder valley) of the knife holder (see also EABF3).
Regarding claim 3, in the previous Non-Final Office Action, Examiner had initially stated the Julian/Bucks combination did not explicitly teach a periodic pattern. However, after further consideration of the claim limitations and the prior art, Examiner now recognizes that Bucks does teach such a periodic pattern, as detailed below. While Bucks does not explicitly state the pattern of the knife is periodic, it can be seen in Bucks Figures 1 & 3 that the peaks and the valleys of the knife occur in a repetitive pattern across the length of the blade.
Therefore, Bucks discloses the pattern of peaks and valleys (EABF1, knife peak & valley) of the corrugated knife is a periodic pattern (see corrugated knife blade 110 in Bucks Figs. 1 & 3).
Regarding claim 4, Bucks discloses the fingers (EABF1, finger) of the clamp extend beyond the leading edge (EABF1, leading edge) of the knife holder at the notches (EABF4, holder valley; EABF3, holder valley & holder notch) of the knife holder located between the fingers of the knife holder (EABF4, holder finger).
Regarding claim 5, Bucks discloses the fingers (Bucks, Fig. 5, front edge 123) of the knife holder extend beyond the leading edge of the clamp at the notches (see Examiner annotated Bucks Figure 5, hereinafter “EABF5”; clamp notches) of the clamp located between the fingers of the clamp.
PNG
media_image5.png
531
659
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Bucks discloses the registration surface (Bucks, Fig. 4, bottom side 127) of the knife holder comprises a pattern of peaks and valleys complementary to the pattern of peaks and valleys in the knife seat (EABF4, holder peak & holder valley) of the knife holder.
Regarding claim 9, Bucks discloses the knife assembly is secured to a segment of a cutting head (Bucks, para. 13, “Generally, although not necessarily, the holder comprises mounting portions for mounting the knife assembly on the cutting apparatus (e.g. a cutting head or a cutting wheel)”).
Regarding claim 11, Bucks discloses a slicing machine for slicing products (Bucks, para. 90, “which adjusts the gap or gate opening at the subsequent knife blade and sets the slice thickness”), the slicing machine comprising: a cutting head having an annular shape that defines an axis of the cutting head (Bucks, para. 2, “From US 2007/0240550 A1, a cutting apparatus is known which comprises an annular-shaped cutting head and an impeller coaxially mounted for rotation within the cutting head to deliver food products radially outward toward the cutting head”); at least one knife assembly (Bucks, Fig. 1, knife assembly 100) having a corrugated knife (Bucks, Fig. 11, corrugated knife blade 110) oriented axially at a perimeter of the cutting head and extending radially inward into an interior of the cutting head (Bucks, para. 63, “install a new knife blade while the clamp remains in place, by sliding in the new knife blade from the inside of the cutting head”; Bucks, Figs. 17, knife blade 210; see also Bucks Figure 21), the corrugated knife (Bucks, Fig. 1, corrugated knife blade 110) having oppositely-disposed first (Bucks, Fig. 1, bottom side 113) and second surfaces (Bucks, Fig. 1, top side 112) that terminate at a cutting edge 9 (Bucks, Fig. 1, cutting edge 111), the cutting edge and at least portions of the first and second surfaces adjacent thereto being characterized by a pattern of peaks and valleys so that peaks and valleys (EABF3, knife peak & knife valley) are present on the first surface (Bucks, Fig. 3, bottom side 113) and peaks and valleys (EABF1, knife peak & knife valley) are present on the second surface (Bucks, Fig. 1, top side 112); an impeller assembly coaxially mounted within the cutting head for rotation about the axis of the cutting head in a rotational direction relative to the cutting head (Bucks, para. 2, “a cutting apparatus is known which comprises an annular-shaped cutting head and an impeller coaxially mounted for rotation within the cutting head”), the impeller assembly comprising means for delivering products toward the perimeter of the cutting head as the impeller assembly rotates within the cutting head (Bucks, para. 2, “a cutting apparatus is known which comprises an annular-shaped cutting head and an impeller coaxially mounted for rotation within the cutting head to deliver food products radially outward toward the cutting head”); wherein the knife assembly (Bucks, Fig. 1, knife assembly 100) further comprises: a knife holder (Bucks, Fig. 1, holder 120) having a registration surface (EABF1, registration surface) and an oppositely-disposed knife seat (EABF1, knife seat) that terminate at a leading edge (EABF1, leading edge), the knife seat (EABF1, knife seat) being mated with the first surface (Bucks, Fig. 1, bottom side 113) of the corrugated knife (Bucks, Fig. 1, knife blade 110), the knife seat comprising a pattern of peaks and valleys (EABF3, holder peak & holder valley) complementary to the peaks and valleys (EABF1, knife peak & knife valley) in the first surface (Bucks, Fig. 3, bottom side 113) of the corrugated knife, the leading edge of the knife holder being defined by fingers (EABF3, holder finger; see also EABF4) and notches (EABF3, holder notch) therebetween, the fingers of the knife holder (EABF3, holder finger) engaging at least some of the valleys (EABF3, knife valley) in the first surface (Bucks, Fig. 3, bottom side 113) of the corrugated knife, the notches (EABF3, holder notch) of the knife holder engaging at least some of the peaks (EABF3, knife peak) in the first surface (Bucks, Fig. 3, bottom side 113) of the corrugated knife; and a clamp (Bucks, Fig. 1, clamp 140) mated with the second surface (Bucks, Fig. 1, top side 112) of the corrugated knife and securing the corrugated knife to the knife seat of the knife holder (Bucks, Fig. 1, clamp 140, knife holder 120, knife blade 110), the clamp having a leading edge defined by fingers (EABF1, finger) and notches (EABF1, notch) therebetween that define a pattern complementary to the peaks and valleys (EABF1, knife peak & knife valley) in the second surface (Bucks, Fig. 1, top side 112) of the corrugated knife, the fingers of the clamp (EABF1, finger) engaging at least some of the valleys (EABF1, knife valley) on the second surface of the corrugated knife; wherein the fingers of the clamp (EABF1, finger) are interdigitated with the fingers (EABF3, holder finger) of the knife holder (see also Bucks Figure 2); and wherein the leading edge (EABF6, leading edge) of the knife holder is beveled (EABF6, bevel) on the registration surface (EABF6, registration surface) thereof so that the peaks (EABF4, holder peak) of the knife holder protrude (EABF4, protrusion) beyond the valleys (EABF4, holder valley) of the knife holder at the leading edge of the knife holder (EABF4, leading edge), the fingers (EABF4, holder finger) of the knife holder are at the peaks (EABF4, holder peak) of the knife holder (see also EABF3), and the notches (EABF4, holder notch) of the knife holder are at the valleys (EABF4, holder valley) of the knife holder (see also EABF3).
Regarding claim 13, Bucks discloses the pattern of peaks and valleys (EABF1, knife peak & valley) of the corrugated knife is a periodic pattern (see corrugated knife blade 110 in Bucks Figs. 1 & 3).
Regarding claim 14, Bucks discloses the fingers (EABF1, finger) of the clamp extend beyond the leading edge (EABF1, leading edge) of the knife holder at the notches (EABF4, holder valley; EABF3, holder valley & holder notch) of the knife holder located between the fingers of the knife holder (EABF4, holder finger).
Regarding claim 15, Bucks discloses the fingers (Bucks, Fig. 5, front edge 123) of the knife holder extend beyond the leading edge of the clamp at the notches (EABF5, clamp notches) of the clamp located between the fingers of the clamp.
Regarding claim 18, Bucks discloses the registration surface (Bucks, Fig. 4, bottom side 127) of the knife holder comprises a pattern of peaks and valleys complementary to the pattern of peaks and valleys in the knife seat (EABF4, holder peak & holder valley) of the knife holder.
Regarding claim 19, Bucks discloses the knife assembly is secured to a segment of a cutting head (Bucks, para. 13, “Generally, although not necessarily, the holder comprises mounting portions for mounting the knife assembly on the cutting apparatus (e.g. a cutting head or a cutting wheel)”).
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 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210086387 A1 by Bucks in view of US 20170072579 A1 by Reis et al. (hereinafter “Reis”).
Regarding claim 6, Bucks does not explicitly disclose that the knife holder extends beyond the leading edge of the clamp.
Reis, however, does teach that the fingers of the knife holder extend beyond the leading edge of the clamp at the fingers of the clamp (Reis, Fig. 4b, clamp 46, blade holder 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the knife holder of Bucks to extend beyond the leading edge of the clamp as optimizing the blade exposure of the knife assembly as the distance of the leading edges of the knife holder and clamp to the blade directly change the blade exposure and how the knife interacts with the food product.
Regarding claim 16, the Bucks does not explicitly disclose that the knife holder extends beyond the leading edge of the clamp.
Reis, however, does teach that the fingers of the knife holder extend beyond the leading edge of the clamp at the fingers of the clamp (Reis, Fig. 4b, clamp 46, blade holder 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the knife holder of Julian to extend beyond the leading edge of the clamp as optimizing the blade exposure of the knife assembly as the distance of the leading edges of the knife holder and clamp to the blade directly change the blade exposure and how the knife interacts with the food products.
Claim 10, 12, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210086387 A1 by Bucks in view of US 20090202694 A1 by Julian et al. (hereinafter Julian).
Regarding claim 10, Bucks does not explicitly disclose the pattern of the slices produced by the cutting head.
However, Julian, which is pertinent to the art of a slicing knife assembly for a rotating, annular cutting head used with an impeller for cutting foodstuffs, does teach the cutting head is configured so that the knife assembly produces slices or chips of a lattice type (Julian, paras. 2-3, “Deep-fried (“french-fried”) potato products are produced in many shapes and sizes, including rectangular or square julienne-type strips, slices, wedge cuts, helical spirals, and waffle cuts… Waffle cut fries, in particular, are produced by cross-cutting a potato chip at two different angles, generally 90 degrees apart, and with a corrugated pattern”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the cutting head of Bucks to be configured to produce slices or chips of a lattice type as taught by Julian as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. As described in Julian, which has as similar knife assembly to Bucks, a lattice cut is produced by cross-cutting at two different angles with a corrugated knife (Julian, para. 2, “Waffle cut fries, in particular, are produced by cross-cutting a potato chip at two different angles, generally 90 degrees apart, and with a corrugated pattern”). Therefore, one could reasonably improve the slicing device of Bucks by combining the cutting head ability to cross-cut of Julian to the knife assembly of Bucks to produce lattice slices.
Regarding claim 12, Bucks discloses delivering means (Bucks, para. 2, “an impeller coaxially mounted for rotation within the cutting head to deliver food products radially outward toward the cutting head”). Bucks does not explicitly disclose details on the delivering means.
However, Julian, which is pertinent to the art of a slicing knife assembly for a rotating, annular cutting head used with an impeller for cutting foodstuffs, does teach the delivering means (Julian, Fig. 1, impeller tubes 6) rotates about an axis thereof so that products within the delivering means rotate about axes thereof while the impeller assembly rotates about the axis of the cutting head (Julian, para. 4, “The centrifugal force resulting from the rotation of the carriage directs the potatoes into one of four guide tubes that extend radially from the carriage. Longitudinal ribs in the guide tubes hold the potatoes in place while the carriage rotates… to achieve the waffle cut, each guide tube also rotates about its own axis”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the slicing machine of Bucks to have guide tubes as a delivering means as taught by Julian in order to help isolate food products away from the rest of the cutting head and slicing machine (Julian, para. 31, “A substantially solid floor lies immediately below opening 10 and prevents the product from exiting the impeller hub block except through impeller tubes 6”).
Regarding claim 20, Bucks does not explicitly disclose the pattern of the slices produced by the cutting head.
However, Julian, which is pertinent to the art of a slicing knife assembly for a rotating, annular cutting head used with an impeller for cutting foodstuffs, does teach the cutting head is configured so that the knife assembly produces slices or chips of a lattice type (Julian, paras. 2-3, “Deep-fried (“french-fried”) potato products are produced in many shapes and sizes, including rectangular or square julienne-type strips, slices, wedge cuts, helical spirals, and waffle cuts… Waffle cut fries, in particular, are produced by cross-cutting a potato chip at two different angles, generally 90 degrees apart, and with a corrugated pattern”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the cutting head of Bucks to be configured to produce slices or chips of a lattice type as taught by Julian as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. As described in Julian, which has as similar knife assembly to Bucks, a lattice cut is produced by cross-cutting at two different angles with a corrugated knife (Julian, para. 2, “Waffle cut fries, in particular, are produced by cross-cutting a potato chip at two different angles, generally 90 degrees apart, and with a corrugated pattern”). Therefore, one could reasonably improve the slicing device of Bucks by combining the cutting head ability to cross-cut of Julian to the knife assembly of Bucks to produce lattice slices.
Regarding claim 21, Bucks discloses a method of using the slicing machine of claim 11 (Bucks, para. 55, “A first embodiment of a knife assembly according to the invention will be described… in the following documents, which are incorporated herein by reference: WO 2012/139988 A1, “Apparatus and method for cutting products”; WO 2012/139991 A1, “Apparatus and method for cutting products”). Bucks does not explicitly disclose the pattern of the slices produced by the cutting head.
However, Julian, which is pertinent to the art of a slicing knife assembly for a rotating, annular cutting head used with an impeller for cutting foodstuffs, does teach a method of using the slicing machine to produce slices or chips of a lattice type (Julian, para. 15, “A method for slicing potatoes is also provided”; Julian, para. 4, “to achieve the waffle cut”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the cutting head of Bucks to produce slices or chips of a lattice type as taught by Julian as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. As described in Julian, which has as similar knife assembly to Bucks, a lattice cut is produced by cross-cutting at two different angles with a corrugated knife (Julian, para. 2, “Waffle cut fries, in particular, are produced by cross-cutting a potato chip at two different angles, generally 90 degrees apart, and with a corrugated pattern”). Therefore, one could reasonably improve the slicing device of Bucks by combining the cutting head ability to cross-cut of Julian to the knife assembly of Bucks to produce lattice slices.
Regarding claim 22, the Bucks/Julian combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 21 above. Furthermore, Julian discloses the method comprising: rotating the impeller assembly (Julian, para. 15, “The method comprises provided an impeller hub block… the impeller hub block rotates about a central vertical axis”); supplying products to the impeller assembly (Julian, para. 15, “The plurality of potatoes are fed into an opening in the impeller hub block”); delivering the products to the perimeter of the cutting head through action of rotating the impeller assembly and the delivering means (Julian, para. 15, “The impeller hub block rotates about a central vertical axis, causing a first potato and a second potato to be received in one of the impeller tubes in an end-to-end configuration”); and slicing the products with the corrugated knife to produce the slices or chips of the lattice type (Julian, para. 15, “An outside portion of the first potato is cut with the first potato being at a first orientation”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the cutting head of Bucks to produce slices or chips of a lattice type as taught by Julian as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. As described in Julian, which has as similar knife assembly to Bucks, a lattice cut is produced by cross-cutting at two different angles with a corrugated knife (Julian, para. 2, “Waffle cut fries, in particular, are produced by cross-cutting a potato chip at two different angles, generally 90 degrees apart, and with a corrugated pattern”). Therefore, one could reasonably improve the slicing device of Bucks by combining the cutting head ability to cross-cut of Julian to the knife assembly of Bucks to produce lattice slices.
Regarding claim 23, the Bucks/Julian combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 21 above. Furthermore, Bucks discloses the products are food products (Bucks, para. 1, “a knife assembly for a cutting apparatus and further to a cutting apparatus or a part thereof such as a cutting head or system equipped with such a knife assembly for cutting food products and use thereof”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on August 6, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under header Rejections under 35 USC 103 beginning on page 13 argue that with the amended claim limitation “… the leading edge of the knife holder is beveled on the registration surface…,” the previous presented combination of Julian/Bucks does not teach all the limitations of the newly amended claim. However, as necessitated by the claim amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of US 20210086387 A1 by Bucks, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 1 and all its dependent claims are rejected as detailed in the rejections above.
Independent claim 2 and 11 were amended similarly to claim 1 and are similarly rejected as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 4523503 A by Julian et al. discloses a knife holder with fingers and notches that complements a clamp and a corrugated knife blade, each with peaks and valleys as well.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 DEBORAH LIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5936. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 7:30am-5:00pm, every other Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/DEBORAH LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights