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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04SEP2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner thanks the Applicant for the explanation of the motivation to develop the apparatus claimed, however Examiner notes such motivation may not be the basis for claim of novelty in view of prior art.
Examiner notes, as is stated by the Applicant, Shuler is not explicit to diverging cutting planes, other than as illustrated in the figures, and this illustration is interpreted by the Examiner as explicit notice of such planes.
Applicant argues that omission of a textual disclosure in Shuler of such diverging cutting planes is the basis for the inclusion and combination of Tamminga with Shuler as the basis of rejection under 35 USC 0103. Examiner disagrees and notes that Tamminga is explicitly used to add context to the disclosure of Shuler as is clearly stated in the rejection. Examiner has not previously made, nor has made in the rejection below, an assertion that prior art Shuler fails to disclose or fairly suggest diverging cutting planes.
Applicant further argues combined Shuler/Tamminga fails to teach, for example,
1) "the bale slicer being positioned adjacent to the cutting knife in a position above the cutting knife so that the slicer edge of the bale slicer extends over the knife edge of the cutting knife when the assembly is mounted on the flighting of the auger" (Examiner notes, as stated in the previous rejections and the rejection below, this is illustrated in Shuler, Fig.s 7&8 where knife [107] is angled upward from blade [100])
nor,
2) "the cutting knife is formed by a plate and the bale slicer is formed by a plate, the plates of the bale slicer and the cutting knife being in a stacked arrangement" (Examiner notes as illustrated in Shuler, Fig 7, knife [100] and slicer [107] appear to be made from plate and are stacked one upon the other)
nor,
3) "the plate of the bale slicer is stacked on the plate of the cutting knife such that the slicer edge of the bale slicer is positioned above the knife edge of the cutting knife so that the slicer edge of the bale slicer extends over the knife edge of the cutting knife when the assembly is mounted on the flighting of the auger" (Examiner notes as illustrated in Shuler, Fig 7, knife [100] and slicer [107] appear to be made from plate and are stacked one upon the other).
Applicant further argues prior art Tamminga would fail to suggest the arrangement claimed, but rather a different arrangement. Examiner notes the possibility of multiple arrangements suggest to a PHOSITA may indeed exist, however Applicant has provided no proof on the record to support the inclusion of one arrangement exclusive of any other, and as such the arguments made are moot.
Applicant further argues prior art Tamminga teaches a different arrangement of elements than that claimed and this precludes the consideration of prior art Tamminga to teach the structure claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that nothing in prior art Tamminga precludes such arrangement as has been interpreted by the Examiner.
Applicant further argues prior art Tamminga teaches a requirement for separate mounting holes for individual elements. Examiner notes nothing in the teaching of prior art Tamminga requires this interpretation and only Claim 22 requires any structural relationship between mounting holes and the mounted elements and then only requires that a plurality of holes exist and that they align with the knife mounting holes and the auger mounting holes, without requiring the holes to be used for both simultaneously. Examiner further notes, as is stated in the 35 USC 112(b) the auger is not positively claimed and therefore may not be relied upon as a basis for arguing against the rejections made of the stated claims.
Applicant is encouraged to focus the amended claim language on structural elements of the actual apparatus, as opposed to claiming notional reference planes or other elements not structurally integrated with the claimed apparatus.
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.
Claims 1-7, 20-32, 34 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 34, Ln 3-4, 13-14, the limitation "tub" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether the tub is an element of the bale cutting assembly or an incidental element not integral to the bale cutting assembly. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claims to mean the tub is not required.
Regarding Claims 1, 34, Ln 12-14, the limitation "plant material" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether the plant material is an element of the bale cutting assembly or an incidental element not integral to the bale cutting assembly. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claims to mean the plant material is not required.
Regarding Claims 1, Ln 25-26, and 34, Ln 34-35, the limitation "increases when the bale cutting assembly is mounted on the flighting" is indefinite for requiring a method step in an apparatus claim. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claims to mean the limitation is intended use of the bale cutting assembly.
Regarding Claims 1-2, 6, 25, 27-30, the limitation "portion" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim what exactly comprises a portion, and therefore the metes and bounds of the claims are indistinct. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean that any part of an element referred to as a portion may be considered as a part of the element.
Regarding Claim 5, Applicant's amendment annotations appear to suggest that no amendments have been offered, since Claim 5 is marked "(Previously presented)", however Applicant's amendment annotations appear to remove and add limitations to the claims. . In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean that struck through text has been REMOVED from the claims and underlined text has been ADDED to the claims.
Regarding Claim 7, Applicant's amendment annotations appear to REMOVE Claim 6 from the dependency of Claim 7, based upon comparison with Applicant's amendment notations for example, Claim 4, without amending a new dependency. The preamble of Claim 7 appears to require a dependency. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean that Claim 7 is dependent upon Claim 6.
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 1-7, 21-32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler, (US 5,601,362), hereinafter Schuler, in view of Tamminga (US 2010/0108794), hereinafter Tamminga.
Claim interpretation:
Examiner notes neither the bale slicer nor auger are explicitly claimed in the preamble of Claims 1 nor 34, and neither is therefore interpreted to be an element of which the bale cutting assembly is comprised.
Regarding Claim 1, Schuler discloses a bale cutting assembly (94) (Col 4, Ln 19; as illustrated in Fig 7) for mounting on flighting of an auger (42) of an agricultural mixer apparatus (Col 3, Ln 4-6; Fig.s 1-3) to be moved by rotation of the auger about a rotation axis in an interior of a tub of the apparatus (Fig.s 1-3), the tub being characterized by having a perimeter wall (14) (Col 2, Ln 57) and the flighting being characterized by having an upper surface and an outer edge (as illustrated in at least Fig 3), the bale cutting assembly comprising:
a cutting knife (100) (Col 4, Ln 30-31) having a knife edge (blade of 100),
the knife edge extending in a knife plane, the cutting knife being configured to mount on the flighting of the auger to extend from the outer edge of the flighting such that the knit e plane of the cutting knit e is oriented substantially parallel to a plane defined by the flighting at a location at which the bale cutting assembly is mounted on the flighting to contact plant material located in the interior of the tub between the outer edge of the flighting and the perimeter wall of the tub (Col 4, Ln 30-40; as illustrated in Fig.s 3, 5 and 7); and
a bale slicer (107) (Col 4, Ln 49-51) having a slicer edge (disclosed as knives), the slicer edge extending in a slicer plane (as illustrated in at least Fig 7), the bale slicer being positioned adjacent to the cutting knife in a position above the cutting knife so that the slicer edge of the bale slicer extends over the knife edge of the cutting knife when the assembly is mounted on the flighting of the auger,
wherein the bale slicer is supported with respect to the cutting knit e such that the slicer plane of the slicer edge is angled upwardly with respect to the knife plane such that the slicer plane and the knife plane of the knife edge diverge as a distance from the outer edge the flighting increases when the bale cutting assembly is mounted on the flighting (as illustrated in at least Fig.s 7 & 8 where knit e [107] is angled upward from blade [100]).
Shuler is not explicit to diverging cutting planes, other than as illustrated in the figures.
Tamminga teaches a vertical auger with cutting knives and slicers blades for mixing and cutting feedstock (Para.s [0001] & [0002]1; as illustrated in at least Fig.s 1 & 2). Tamminga further teaches the advantage of diverging cutting planes in that "[a]s the auger 20 rotates, bulk material is mixed and cut. However, bridging may occur as the loosened fibrous bulk material, such as hay, is forced upwards and tends towards the outer perimeter of the mixing chamber (100) as well as toward the top of the auger (20). To reduce and/or mitigate this problem, an angled knife (300) is mounted to the auger (20) along an outside edge and oriented so that the angled knife (300) is more upright than the cutting knives (240). Typically, the angled knife (300) is oriented to angle upward relative the adjacent flighting to which the angled knit e (300) is mounted. The angled knife (300) may be mounted behind one of the cutting knives (240). The angled knife 300 may be mounted above the lower flight of the auger (20) as will be explained in more detail below with reference to FIGS. 2, 4 and 5. The angled knit e (300) is positioned at a suitable location on the auger (20) to cut a hole in the bridging fibrous bulk material allowing the material to drop down into the auger (20). This allows the cutting knives (240) to go be exposed to the fibrous bulk material more quickly and more often during rotation of the auger (20) thereby increasing cutting of the fibrous bulk material by the cutting knives (240)." (Para 0075],Ln 15-35. Critically, Tamminga further teaches "To reduce and/or mitigate this problem (i.e., the bulk material moving towards the outer perimeter of the auger enclosure and away from the cutting elements), an angled knife (300) is mounted to the auger (20) along an outside edge and oriented so that the angled knife (300) is more upright than the cutting knives (240)" (Para [0075] , Ln 21-22).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bale cutting assembly as disclosed by Shuler, such that the bale slicer is supported with respect to the cutting knife such that the slicer plane of the slicer edge is angled upwardly with respect to the knife plane such that the slicer plane and the knife plane diverge and the slicer edge is angled upwardly with respect to the flighting to contact plant material moving laterally outward with respect to the rotation axis and relative to the upper surface of the flighting, as taught by Tamminga in order to reduce and/or mitigate the bulk material moving towards the outer perimeter of the auger enclosure and away from the cutting elements.
Regarding Claim 2, combined Schuler/Tamminga teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Schuler further discloses the cutting knife has a first face oriented upwardly when the bale cutting assembly is mounted on the flighting of the auger, at least a portion of the bale slicer being located above the first face of the cutting knife when the assembly is mounted on the flighting of the auger (as illustrated in at least Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 3, combined Schuler/Tamminga teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Schuler further discloses the cutting knife is formed by a plate and the bale slicer is formed by a plate, the plates of the bale slicer and the cutting knife being in a stacked arrangement (as illustrated in Fig 7, knife [100] and slicer [107] appear to be made from plate and are stacked one upon the other).
Regarding Claim 4, combined Schuler/Tamminga teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Schuler is not explicit to an angle measurement of the knife plane.
Examiner notes the knife plane has been interpreted as being the plane that a cut element of the bale would follow, once impacting the knife edge, generally following the material thickness from the knife edge to the opposite extreme edge of the knife body. Schuler appears to disclose and angle between the knit e plane and other edges of the auger (as illustrated in at least Fig 2).
A skilled Artisan would recognize the angle of the knife plane to any material being cut as a result affected variable which would depend upon several factors, including the sharpness of the cutting edge, the angle of attack of the cutting edge to the material begin cut, the amount of force exerted against the material, to name but a few. Tamminga further teaches the angled knife (300) is oriented to angle upward relative the adjacent flighting to which the angled knife (300) is mounted (Examiner notes the limitation "is mounted upward" has been interpreted as about 30 degrees to about 90 degrees).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bale cutting assembly for mounting on flighting of an auger of an agricultural mixer apparatus, as taught by combined Schuler/Tamminga, to include a knife plane which diverges from the slicer plane at a slicer angle of about 30 degrees to about 90 degrees, as taught by Tamminga, in order to match the cutting surface to the required cutting action of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 5, combined Schuler/Tamminga teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Schuler further discloses the bale cutting assembly has an inward end for positioning toward the rotation axis when the assembly is mounted on the flighting of the auger and an outward end for positioning away from the rotation axis, the plane of the slicer edge of the bale slicer converging toward the plane of the knife edge of the cutting knife toward the inward end of the bale cutting assembly and the plane of the slicer edge diverging away from the plane of the knife edge toward the outward end of the bale cutting assembly (Col 3, Ln 1-4; as illustrated in at least Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 6, combined Schuler/Tamminga teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Schuler further discloses the bale slicer has:
a base portion (98) (Col 4, Ln 30-31; as illustrated in at least Fig 7) configured to mount on the flighting of the auger in a plane oriented substantially parallel to the knife plane of the cutting knife (the flight of the auger the knit e is mounted onto, as illustrated in at least Fig 7); and
a slicer portion forming the slicer edge and being oriented in the slicer plane at a slicer angle with respect to the base portion (Examiner notes the outward edge of the auger, away from the axis of rotation is oriented at an angle).
Regarding Claim 7, combined Schuler/Tamminga teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Schuler is not explicit to an insert pocket.
Tamminga teaches the bale slicer includes a with an insert seat forming a pocket (330), the slicer element being removably mounted on the mount element and at least partially inserted in the pocket of the insert seat of the mount element (as illustrated in at least Fig.s 3A/3B).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bale cutting assembly for mounting on flighting of an auger of an agricultural mixer apparatus as taught by combined Schuler/Tamminga, to include an insert seat forming a pocket, the slicer element being removably mounted on the mount element and at least partially inserted in the pocket of the insert seat of the mount element, as taught by Tamminga, in order to facilitate replacement of cutting elements as wear proceeds during use.
Regarding Claim 21, combined Schuler/Tamminga teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Schuler further discloses the slicer edge is serrated and terminates at a tip (as illustrated in at least Fig 7). Examiner further notes that slicing, which has been interpreted as separating the individual elements of a fodder bale, may be executed by any edge of the auger, including the knife edge, which Schuler explicitly discloses as a cutting edge, as stated above.
Regarding Claim 22, combined Schuler/Tamminga teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Schuler further discloses the slicer edge includes a plurality of edge segments arrayed between inboard and outboard ends of the slicer edge ( as illustrated in at least Fig 7).
Regarding Claim 23, combined Schuler/Tamminga teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Schuler further discloses the slicer edge is substantially linear between the inboard and outboard ends such that the edge segments are oriented substantially parallel to each other ( as illustrated in at least Fig 7).
Regarding Claim 24, combined Schuler/Tamminga teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Schuler further discloses the slicer edge is substantially arcuate between the inboard and outboard ends such that the edge segments are oriented at angles with respect to each other ( as illustrated in at least Fig 7).
Regarding Claim 25, combined Schuler/Tamminga teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Schuler further discloses at least a portion of the slicer edge tapers thinner in thickness to a thin thickness for a forwardmost extent of the edge (as illustrated in at least Fig 7). Examiner notes the diminishing width between one longitudinal end and the opposite longitudinal end has been interpreted as a taper.
Regarding Claim 26 combined Schuler/Tamminga teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Schuler further discloses the plate of the bale slicer is stacked on top of the plate of the cutting knife (as illustrated in Fig 7).
Regarding Claim 27, combined Schuler/Tamminga teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Schuler further discloses the base portion of the bale slicer has a first section (98) for positioning adjacent to the flighting when the bale cutting assembly is mounted on the flighting and a second section (100) for extending beyond the outer edge of the flighting when the first section is positioned adjacent to the flighting (as illustrated in at least Fig 5).
Regarding Claim 28, combined Schuler/Tamminga teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Schuler further discloses the slicer portion includes slicer element (116) and a (98) mount element, the slicer element being removably mounted on the mount element (Col 4, Ln 65-67; as illustrated in Fig.s 7 & 8), the slicer element having at least a portion of the slicer edge (Examiner notes that, as stated above, any edge of the auger may perform a slicing action).
Regarding Claim 29, combined Schuler/Tamminga teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Schuler further discloses the mount element forms an inset seat (as illustrated in Fig 7, Examiner has interpreted the communicating lower edge of the slicer [107] to be inset into the upper communicating edge of the vertical mount) for receiving a portion of the slicer element.
Regarding Claim 30, combined Schuler/Tamminga teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Schuler further discloses a portion of the slicer edge is located on the slicer element and a portion of the slicer edge is located on the mount element (as illustrated in Fig 7, the rightmost corner of the slicer edge is located on the vertical surface of the mount element).
Regarding Claim 31, combined Schuler/Tamminga teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Schuler further discloses the slicer element has an entirety of the slicer edge. Examiner notes the knife edge is continuous and has been interpreted as containing an entirety of that slicer edge.
Regarding Claim 32, combined Schuler/Tamminga teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Schuler further discloses the cutting knife includes a plurality of knife mounting holes (102) positioned on the cutting knife (Col 4, Ln 32-34; as illustrated in Fig 7) to align with the mounting holes in the flighting of the auger of the mixer apparatus (as illustrated in Fig 5); and
wherein the bale slicer includes a plurality of slicer mounting holes positioned on the bale slicer to align with the knife mounting holes of the cutting knife and mounting holes in the flighting of the auger of the mixer apparatus (as illustrated in Fig 7).
Regarding Claim 34, Schuler discloses a bale cutting assembly (94) (Col 4, Ln 19; as illustrated in Fig 7) for mounting on flighting of an auger (42) of an agricultural mixer apparatus (Col 3, Ln 4-6; Fig.s 1-3) to be moved by rotation of the auger about a rotation axis in an interior of a tub of the apparatus (Fig.s 1-3), the tub being characterized by having a perimeter wall (14) (Col 2, Ln 57) and the flighting being characterized by having an upper surface and an outer edge (as illustrated in at least Fig 3), the bale cutting assembly comprising:
a cutting knife (100) (Col 4, Ln 30-31) comprising a plate (Fig 7) having a knife edge (blade of 100),
the knife edge extending in a knife plane, the cutting knit e being configured to mount on the flighting of the auger to extend from the outer edge of the flighting such that the knife plane of the cutting knife is oriented substantially parallel to a plane defined by the flighting at a location at which the bale cutting assembly is mounted on the flighting to contact plant material located in the interior of the tub between the outer edge of the flighting and the perimeter wall of the tub (Col 4, Ln 30-40; as illustrated in Fig.s 3, 5 and 7); and
a bale slicer (107) (Col 4, Ln 49-51) comprising a plate (Fig 7) having a slicer edge (disclosed as knives), the slicer edge extending in a slicer plane (as illustrated in at least Fig 7);
wherein the plate of the bale slicer is stacked on the plate of the cutting knife such that the slicer edge of the bale slicer is positioned above the knife edge of the cutting knife so that the slicer edge of the bale slicer extends over the knife edge of the cutting knife when the assembly is mounted on the flighting of the auger (Fig 7); and;
wherein the slicer plane of the slicer edge is angled upwardly with respect to the knife plane of the knife edge so that the slicer plane and the knife plane diverge as a distance from the outer edge of the flighting increases when the bale cutting assembly is mounted on the flighting (as illustrated in at least Fig.s 7 & 8 where knife [107] is angled upward from blade [100]).
Shuler is not explicit to diverging cutting planes, other than as illustrated in the figures.
Tamminga teaches a vertical auger with cutting knives and slicers blades for mixing and cutting feedstock (Para.s [0001] & [0002]1; as illustrated in at least Fig.s 1 & 2). Tamminga further teaches the advantage of diverging cutting planes in that "[a]s the auger 20 rotates, bulk material is mixed and cut. However, bridging may occur as the loosened fibrous bulk material, such as hay, is forced upwards and tends towards the outer perimeter of the mixing chamber (100) as well as toward the top of the auger (20). To reduce and/or mitigate this problem, an angled knife (300) is mounted to the auger (20) along an outside edge and oriented so that the angled knife (300) is more upright than the cutting knives (240). Typically, the angled knife (300) is oriented to angle upward relative the adjacent flighting to which the angled knit e (300) is mounted. The angled knife (300) may be mounted behind one of the cutting knives (240). The angled knife 300 may be mounted above the lower flight of the auger (20) as will be explained in more detail below with reference to FIGS. 2, 4 and 5. The angled knit e (300) is positioned at a suitable location on the auger (20) to cut a hole in the bridging fibrous bulk material allowing the material to drop down into the auger (20). This allows the cutting knives (240) to go be exposed to the fibrous bulk material more quickly and more often during rotation of the auger (20) thereby increasing cutting of the fibrous bulk material by the cutting knives (240)." (Para 0075],Ln 15-35. Critically, Tamminga further teaches "To reduce and/or mitigate this problem (i.e., the bulk material moving towards the outer perimeter of the auger enclosure and away from the cutting elements), an angled knife (300) is mounted to the auger (20) along an outside edge and oriented so that the angled knife (300) is more upright than the cutting knives (240)" (Para [0075] , Ln 21-22).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bale cutting assembly as disclosed by Shuler, such the slicer plane of the slicer edge is angled upwardly with respect to the knife plane of the knife edge so that the slicer plane and the knife plane diverge as a distance from the outer edge of the flighting increases when the bale cutting assembly is mounted on the flighting, as taught by Tamminga in order to reduce and/or mitigate the bulk material moving towards the outer perimeter of the auger enclosure and away from the cutting elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0030758 to Desroschers, et alia teaches an apparatus for cutting feedstock having multiple cutting and slicing elements disposed in diverging planes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred C Hammers whose telephone number is (571)272-9870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0080-1700.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at (571) 270-3818. 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.
/FRED C HAMMERS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724