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 Objections
Claims 4, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4: claim 4 depends from claim 3, which has been cancelled. It is presumed to be intended that claim 4 depends from claim 3 and has been treated as such for purposes of examination
Claim 8: at line 5, “cutting frame” should be amended to read “the cutting frame”
Claim 9: it is not explicitly clear what the cutting roller is rotatably coupled to. It is presumed that the cutting roller is rotatably coupled to the cutting frame and has been treated as such for purposes of examination
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrahams (US 20150135925) in view of Weinstein (US 20190037858), and further in view of Gamperling (US 5419224).
Regarding claim 1, Abrahams discloses a cutting apparatus comprising: a cutting roller (rotary die 100; see fig. 1) comprising a cutting body having a cylindrical shape (central body 104 is cylindrical in shape; see fig. 1) and configured to rotate about an axis defined in a leftward/rightward direction (rotary die 100 is rotationally driven to rotate around an axis extending through central hub 106; see paragraph [0015]), and cutting blades (blades 102; see fig. 1) protruding outward in a radial direction of the cutting body (blades 102 protrude from central body 104 in a radial direction; see fig. 5) further than a surface of the cutting body to cut an edible food product provided in a forward/rearward direction (blades 102 protrude out from central body 104 of rotary die 100; see fig. 1); wherein the cutting blades comprise: a forward/rearward cutting blade (see annotated portion of fig. 1 below) extending in a circumferential direction of the cutting body (the forward/rearward cutting blade extends circumferentially along central body 104; see fig. 5); and a leftward/rightward cutting blade (see annotated portion of fig. 1 below) extending in the leftward/rightward direction (the leftward/rightward cutting blade extends along the axis extending through central hub 106; see fig. 1), and wherein a line made by extending the forward/rearward cutting blade and a line made by extending the leftward/rightward cutting blade intersect each other (the forward/rearward cutting blade and the leftward/rightward cutting blade are perpendicular to one another so that they intersect; see annotated portion of fig. 1 below) so that the edible food product is cut by the cutting blade and divided into a plurality of unit products (sheet 400 is cut into a plurality of units; see paragraph [0013] and fig. 5), wherein the cutting blades further comprise a connection cutting blade (see annotated portion of fig. 1 below) disposed at a position at which the forward/rearward cutting blade and the leftward/rightward cutting blade meet together (the connection cutting blade is formed where the forward/rearward cutting blades and the leftward/rightward cutting blades intersect; see annotated portion of fig. 1 below), the connection cutting blade having a curved surface that connects the forward/rearward cutting blade and the leftward/rightward cutting blade (the connection cutting blade has a curved surface; see annotated portion of fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
450
739
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Abrahams does not explicitly disclose a cutting base part disposed at a position facing the cutting roller based on the edible food product to support the edible food product to be cut by the cutting roller.
Weinstein discloses a cutting base part (common conveyor 87; see fig. 1) disposed at a position facing the cutting roller based on the edible food product to support the edible food product to be cut by the cutting roller (common conveyor 87 supports the food product as it moves towards the rollers; see paragraph [0013] and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Abrahams in view of Weinstein to include a cutting base part. Weinstein discloses that the cutting base part (common conveyor 87) supports the food products and moves it forward towards the rollers (see fig. 1). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that including a cutting base part such as that disclosed by Weinstein provides a method of transporting and supporting the work piece between steps. Therefore, it would be obvious to include a cutting base part in Abrahams in order to provide the same benefits.
Abrahams as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the cutting roller further comprises a connection spray hole which is a hole formed in the connection cutting blade outward in the radial direction of the cutting body to spray gas outward in the radial direction of the cutting body, wherein the cutting roller further comprises a spray hole which is a hole formed outward in the radial direction from a center of the cutting body to spray gas outward in the radial direction of the cutting body at a periphery of the cutting blade, and wherein the spray hole is disposed at the periphery of the connection cutting blade in which the connection spray hole is formed.
Gamperling discloses wherein the cutting roller further comprises a connection spray hole (as modified, some of holes 3 can be located on the connection cutting blade) which is a hole formed in the connection cutting blade outward in the radial direction of the cutting body to spray gas outward in the radial direction of the cutting body (as modified to include holes 3 on the connection cutting blade, holes 3 are configured to contact pressure chamber 27 and suction chamber 26, which results in alternating switching from suction air to blast air; see col. 5, lines 36-47), wherein the cutting roller further comprises a spray hole (holes 3; see fig. 3) which is a hole formed outward in the radial direction from a center of the cutting body (holes 3 are formed on cutting cylinder 1 and extend outwardly from the center; see fig. 3) to spray gas outward in the radial direction of the cutting body at a periphery of the cutting blade (holes 3 are configured to contact pressure chamber 27 and suction chamber 26, which results in alternating switching from suction air to blast air; see col. 5, lines 36-47), and wherein the spray hole is disposed at the periphery of the connection cutting blade in which the connection spray hole is formed (holes 3 are located between individual pairs of knives 37; see col. 5, lines 60-61 and fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Abrahams in view of Gamperling to include a spray hole. Gamperling discloses that the device allows for uniform handling of waste strips such that the waste strip is deposited in a specific location (see col. 2, lines 12-15 and 29-37). Including a spray hole on the modified device of Abrahams would yield the same benefits, allowing an operator to accurately and uniformly remove waste to a specified position. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Abrahams in view of Gamperling to include a connection spray hole since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). Gamperling discloses a plurality of holes which allow for uniform waste handling (see col. 2, lines 12-15 and 29-37). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that including a similar structure on the connection cutting blade would result in a larger surface area of the blade being cleaned, and thus more waste removed from the cutting area. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that removing as much waste as possible from the cutting area is beneficial because it will prevent cutting inaccuracies due to waste clinging to the blades. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a connection spray hole on the modified device of Abrahams in order to yield the same results.
Regarding claim 4, Abrahams as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Gamperling further discloses wherein the cutting roller further comprises a blade coupling bolt (holding screws 39; see fig. 3) configured to couple the cutting blade to the cutting body in a direction orthogonal to a direction in which the cutting blade extends (holding screws 39 fix knife holders 38 (and therefore knives 41) perpendicularly to the cutting body; see col. 5, lines 19-21 and fig. 3), and wherein the spray hole is disposed inward of the blade coupling bolt based on the radial direction of the cutting body (holes 3 are disposed at least partially inward of holding screws 39 in a radial direction; see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Abrahams in view of Gamperling to include a blade coupling bolt. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that inclusion of a blade coupling bolt allows for blades to be removable. Making blades removable is beneficial because they can be replaced if damaged or dulled. Therefore, in order to make the blades more easily replaceable, it would be obvious to include a blade coupling bolt into the device of Abrahams as modified.
Regarding claim 15, Abrahams as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Abrahams as modified further discloses wherein the cutting roller is disposed above the cutting base part (as modified, rotary die 100 is located above the cutting base part, which would be located under sheet 400; see fig. 5).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrahams (US 20150135925) in view of Weinstein (US 20190037858), further in view of Gamperling (US 5419224), and further in view of Li (CN 110496824).
Regarding claim 8, Abrahams as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Abrahams as modified does not explicitly disclose a cutting frame comprising a first cutting cover configured to cover the cutting roller so that the cutting roller is positioned in a space formed between the first cutting cover and the cutting base part, the cutting frame being configured such that the cutting base part is coupled to the cutting frame, and the cutting roller is rotatably coupled to cutting frame; and a first cutting suction part connected to a first cover inlet port formed in the first cutting cover to suck particles at a periphery of the cutting roller.
Li discloses a cutting frame (frame 1, which comprises lower bracket 4 and upper bracket 6; see fig. 1) comprising a first cutting cover (upper dust suction hood 5; see fig. 1) configured to cover the cutting roller (as modified, upper dust suction hood 5 is positioned above the cutting roller; see fig. 1) so that the cutting roller is positioned in a space formed between the first cutting cover and the cutting base part (as modified, the cutting roller is located between upper dust suction hood 5 and the cutting base part; see fig. 1), the cutting frame being configured such that the cutting base part is coupled to the cutting frame (as modified, the cutting base part is supported by frame 1 in order to support the work piece as it is moved forward), and the cutting roller is rotatably coupled to cutting frame (pressing roller 13, which corresponds to the cutting roller, is fixed to frame 1 and configured to rotate; see paragraph [0026] and fig. 1); and a first cutting suction part (dust collector; see paragraph [0025]) connected to a first cover inlet port formed in the first cutting cover to suck particles at a periphery of the cutting roller (upper dust suction hood 5 has exhaust pipes which lead to the dust collector such that waste particles are sucked up; see paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Abrahams in view of Li to include a cutting frame, cutting cover, inlet port, and cutting suction part. Li discloses a dust removal system that is capable of removing waste particles from a work piece (see paragraph [0025]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the necessity of having a cutting frame in order to support various elements of the device. Further, as disclosed by Li, the first cutting cover (upper dust suction hood 5), along with a second cutting cover (lower dust suction hood 3) completely surround the workpiece during the dust removal process (see paragraph [0025] and fig. 1). Providing a cover that encloses the workpiece during a cleaning process prevents waste material from escaping, thus improving cleanliness and overall efficiency of the cleaning process. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the above-mentioned parts in the modified device of Abrahams in order to improve cleanliness and efficiency of the cleaning operation.
Regarding claim 9, Abrahams as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Abrahams as modified further discloses an auxiliary roller (rotary anvil 200; see fig. 5) disposed at a position facing the cutting roller based on the edible food product to transfer the edible food product forward and support the edible food product to be cut by the cutting roller (rotary anvil 200 supports sheet 400 during a cutting operation and helps transport it in a forward direction; see fig. 5), the auxiliary roller comprising an auxiliary body (central body 204; see fig. 5) rotatable about an axis defined in the leftward/rightward direction (pressure from rotary die 100 causes rotary anvil 200 to be rotated in a clockwise direction; see paragraph [0015]).
Abrahams as modified does not explicitly disclose a cutting frame to which the cutting base part is coupled, and the cutting roller is rotatably coupled; and the auxiliary body is coupled to the cutting frame.
Li discloses a cutting frame (frame 1, which comprises lower bracket 4 and upper bracket 6; see fig. 1) to which the cutting base part is coupled (as modified, the cutting base part is supported by frame 1 in order to support the work piece as it is moved forward), and the cutting roller is rotatably coupled (pressing roller 13, which corresponds to the cutting roller, is fixed to frame 1 and configured to rotate; see paragraph [0026] and fig. 1); and the auxiliary body is coupled to the cutting frame (as modified, the auxiliary roller is coupled to frame 1; see fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Abrahams in view of Li to include a cutting frame. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the necessity of including some type of frame so that various machine elements, such as the cutting and auxiliary rollers, are supported. Without a frame holding the structures in place relative to one another, the device would not be capable of operating as disclosed. Therefore, it would be an obvious modification to include a frame in the modified device of Abrahams.
Regarding claim 10, Abrahams as modified discloses the limitations of claim 9 as described in the rejection above.
Li further discloses wherein the cutting frame comprises a second cutting cover (lower dust suction hood 5; see fig. 1) configured to cover the auxiliary roller (as modified, lower dust suction hood 3 is positioned above the auxiliary roller; see fig. 1) so that the auxiliary roller is positioned in a space formed between the second cutting cover and the cutting base part (as modified, the auxiliary roller is located between lower dust suction hood 3 and the cutting base part; see fig. 1), and wherein the cutting apparatus further comprises a second cutting suction part (dust collector; see paragraph [0025]) connected to a second cover inlet port formed in the second cutting cover to suck particles at a periphery of the auxiliary roller (upper dust suction hood 5 has exhaust pipes which lead to the dust collector such that waste particles are sucked up; see paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Abrahams in view of Li to include a cutting frame, cutting cover, inlet port, and cutting suction part. Li discloses a dust removal system that is capable of removing waste particles from a work piece (see paragraph [0025]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the necessity of having a cutting frame in order to support various elements of the device. Further, as disclosed by Li, the first cutting cover (upper dust suction hood 5), along with a second cutting cover (lower dust suction hood 3) completely surround the workpiece during the dust removal process (see paragraph [0025] and fig. 1). Providing a cover that encloses the workpiece during a cleaning process prevents waste material from escaping, thus improving cleanliness and overall efficiency of the cleaning process. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the above-mentioned parts in the modified device of Abrahams in order to improve cleanliness and efficiency of the cleaning operation.
Examiner notes that the same structure is cited for both the first and second cutting suction parts. Per paragraph [79] of the instant application, the first cutting suction part and the second cutting suction part may be a single common cutting suction blower. Therefore, it is interpreted that these two terms may refer to the same structure.
Regarding claim 11, Abrahams as modified discloses the limitations of claim 9 as described in the rejection above.
Weinstein further discloses wherein an auxiliary opening is formed in the cutting base part (common conveyor 87 has an opening where the rollers are located; see annotated portion of fig. 1 below) and extends in the leftward/rightward direction (the auxiliary opening extends at least partially in the leftward/rightward direction; see annotated portion of fig. 1 below), wherein the auxiliary opening is opened in an upward/downward direction (the auxiliary opening opens in an upward/downward direction; see annotated portion of fig. 1 below), and wherein the auxiliary roller and the cutting roller are disposed at sides opposite to each other based on the auxiliary opening (the rollers are located on opposites sides of the auxiliary opening; see annotated portion of fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
350
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Abrahams in view of Weinstein to include an auxiliary opening. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an auxiliary opening is necessary in order for an auxiliary roller to be capable of interacting with the cutting roller and the work piece. Otherwise, the auxiliary roller would be blocked by the cutting base part. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an auxiliary opening so that the auxiliary roller can interact with the cutting roller during operation.
Regarding claim 12, Abrahams as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Weinstein further discloses wherein the auxiliary roller further comprises an auxiliary groove (see annotated portion of fig. 2 below) recessed inward from the auxiliary body in a radial direction of the auxiliary body (the auxiliary groove is recessed inward towards the center of the auxiliary roller; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below) so that the cutting blade, which protrudes outward in the radial direction of the cutting body further than a surface of the cutting body, is inserted into the auxiliary groove (bead 150 is inserted into the auxiliary groove during a cutting operation; see fig. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
779
672
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Abrahams in view of Weinstein to include an auxiliary groove on the auxiliary roller. Weinstein discloses that the groove, in conjunction with rails 100-105 limit lateral shifting of the food product (see paragraph [0014]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the prevention of lateral shifting during cutting provides improvements to cutting quality, since the food product will be held in place during a cutting operation. If the food product were to shift, cuts would be uneven and the resulting pieces would not be of uniform size and shape. Therefore, in order to ensure improved cutting quality, it would be obvious to include an auxiliary groove.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrahams (US 20150135925) in view of Weinstein (US 20190037858), further in view of Gamperling (US 5419224), and further in view of Richards (US 5377569).
Regarding claim 13, Abrahams as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Abrahams as modified does not explicitly disclose an air knife disposed to face the cutting blade to spray air to the cutting blade.
Richards discloses an air knife (blower assembly 42, which includes blower 44 and air diversion bracket 46; see fig. 3) disposed to face the cutting blade (blower assembly 42 faces upper knife unit 30; see fig. 3) to spray air to the cutting blade (air from blower 44 is directed by air diversion bracket 46 to guide waste trimmings 48 into waste chute 40; see col. 6, lines 20-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Abrahams in view of Richards to include an air knife. Richards discloses that the air knife (blower assembly 42) is used to direct air to the cutting blade so that waste trimmings are removed from the blade and guided to a waste chute (see col. 6, lines 20-24). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of removing waste using an air knife including efficient cleaning that can occur during operation. In order to more effectively remove waste from the cutting blades, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include an air knife in the modified device of Abrahams.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrahams (US 20150135925) in view of Weinstein (US 20190037858), further in view of Gamperling (US 5419224), and further in view of Brash (US 5894775).
Regarding claim 14, Abrahams as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Abrahams as modified does not explicitly disclose a cutting guide rail extending in the forward/rearward direction and disposed below a surface of the cutting body to prevent the edible food product from being wound around the cutting roller.
Brash discloses a cutting guide rail (scrapers 70; see fig. 2) extending in the forward/rearward direction and disposed below a surface of the cutting body (scrapers 70 extend in a forward/rearward direction and are at least partially below a surface of the rotary cutter; see fig. 2) to prevent the edible food product from being wound around the cutting roller (scrapers 70 prevent product from sticking to roll 22 as well as the axial faces of blades 56; see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Abrahams in view of Brash to include a cutting guide rail. Brash discloses that the cutting guide rail (scrapers 70) prevent material from sticking to various parts of the cutting assembly (see abstract). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of including the structure disclosed by Brash being that material is prevented from getting caught up in the cutting rollers, which could cause the machine to become clogged. Therefore, it would be obvious to further modify the device of Abrahams to include a cutting guide rail in order to prevent clogs, which could damage the machinery as well as the material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, and 8-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 10974412 to Waterman, drawn to a machine for cutting pouches with shaped perimeter edges; US 20160332315 to Sim, drawn to a super absorbent resin cutting device; US 4599926 to Carlson, Jr., drawn to rotary cutting dies with vacuum assist to cut and clear waste; and US 4276800 to Koppa, drawn to a rotary cutter for scoring dough sheets.
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