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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species A (claims 1-16 and 26-41) in the reply filed on 4/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/27/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “side surface” as set forth in claim 1 and 26 (the specification in paragraph [0039] refers to a “cutting side surface 78”, “leading side surface 76”, “rear side surface 79” but never just a “side surface”, and it is unclear if one of these reference numbers (or all of them) refer to the “side surface” in the claims or a different reference number refers to the side surface in the claims) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “78” has been used to designate both “cutting side surface” in paragraph [0039] and “bottom surface 78” in paragraph [0054].
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “70” has been used to designate both “removable knife” and “cutting knives” and “knife”. To extent they are all the same, consistent nomenclature should be used in the specification and the claims.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraphs [0048] and [0049], serrations is sometimes referred to serrations 72 when it should be serrations 92; in paragraph [0048] refers to serrations 272 when it should be serrations 292. Please make sure all reference numbers match the corresponding structure throughout the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the plurality of arms each include a slot form receipt of a removable knife; each of the plurality of arms removably receives a cutting knife within the slot” in lines 11-14. Both are recited to be inserted in the slot, so, it is unclear whether “a cutting knife” is meant to be the same as “a removable knife” or they are different structures that are each meant to be inserted in the slot. To the extent they are the same structure, the same nomenclature should be used. For examination purposes, the two structures will be interpreted to be the same structure. Claims 2-16 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation, “a hole” in line 4. It is unclear whether “a hole” of line 4 is the same or different as “the plurality of thru holes” as recited in line 1 of the claim and as recited in claim 1. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Claim 31 recites the limitation, “a hole” in line 4. It is unclear whether “a hole” of line 4 is the same or different as “the plurality of thru holes” as recited in line 1 of the claim and as recited in claim 26. Claim 32 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of its dependency on claim 31.
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.
Claim(s) 26-29, 31-37 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bonapace (U.S. Patent No. 2,183,114).
Regarding claim 26, Bonapace discloses an emulsification system (figure 1; column 1, lines 1-11), comprising:
a shaft capable of rotation (figure 1, worm 13 with shaft not labeled, including stud 17 and squared portion 19), and a housing that encloses the shaft (figure 1, body 11);
one or more screens that are disposed about the shaft and within the housing (figure 1, perforated plate 14 disposed about shaft portion 17, within housing 11), each of the plurality of screens are fixed with respect to the housing and remain stationary as the shaft rotates (column 4, lines 5-12), each screen has a plurality of thru holes to allow a food product to pass therethrough (hole 22);
one or more cutting assemblies that are disposed about the shaft and within the housing, the one or more cutting assemblies fixed to the shaft such that each cutting assembly rotates with rotation of the shaft (figure 1, cutter 18 disposed about shaft portion 19 of rotating worm 13 in housing 11; column 1, lines 12-14; column 3, lines 12-15; column 4, lines 1);
each of the one or more cutting assemblies includes a hub (figure 2, square center, not labeled) with a plurality of arms that extend from the hub (figure 2, blades 18), the plurality of arms include a sharpened cutting edge and a side surface, wherein each of the one or more cutting assemblies is positioned with respect to a screen of the plurality of screens with the cutting edge proximate to or in contact with the screen during operation (blade 18 with cutting edge and side surface at 20/21; column 2, lines 1-26; column 3, lines 52-65);
wherein each cutting edge and side surface each form a plurality of serrations along at least a portion of a length thereof (scallops 20; column 2, lines 1-26; column 3, lines 52-65).
Regarding claim 27, Bonapace discloses wherein the plurality of serrations are each a plurality of concave portions (grooves 20), ends of internal concave portions transition with ends of adjacent concave portions at a point (point 21).
Regarding claim 28, Bonapace discloses wherein the plurality of concave portions extends along the side surface from the cutting edge (figures 2 and 6-8, groove 20; column 2, lines 1-14; column 3, lines 52-75).
Regarding claim 29, Bonapace discloses wherein the plurality of concave portions extending along the side surface from the cutting edge each have a uniform concavity along their length along the side surface (figures 2 and 6-8, groove 20; columns 3-4, lines 52-15).
Regarding claim 31, Bonapace discloses wherein the plurality of thru holes on each of the one or more screens are arranged within a portion of the screen that is bounded between an outer circle proximate to an outer edge of the screen and an inner circle that is proximate to a hole in the screen that allows the shaft to pass through (see figures 3 and 6-8, perforated plate 14), wherein the plurality of serrations upon each cutting knife extend upon the cutting knife from a position where a first end of the plurality of serrations aligns with the outer circle and an opposite second end of the plurality of serrations aligns with the inner circle (see figures 3 and 6-8, grooves 20 extend from inner circle to outer circle of pate 14).
Regarding claim 32, Bonapace discloses wherein the plurality of serrations do not extend past the outer circle toward the outer edge of the screen and the plurality of serrations do not extend past the inner circle toward the hole of the screen (see figures 3 and 6-8, grooves 20 within internal and external edges of circle plate 14).
Regarding claim 33, Bonapace discloses wherein the plurality of serrations extend for an entire length of the cutting edge (figures 6-8, grooves 20 extend entire length blade 18; column 2, lines 1-14; columns 3-4, lines 52-15).
Regarding claim 34, Bonapace discloses wherein one or more of the plurality of serrations include straight portions that intersect at a point (apexes/point 21).
Regarding claim 35, Bonapace discloses wherein all of the plurality of serrations include straight portions that intersect at a point (apexes/point 21).
Regarding claim 36, Bonapace discloses wherein each of the plurality of serrations have a width that is about the same as the diameter of each of the thru holes upon a respective screen of the one or more screens that the cutting knife is aligned with (see figure 6, groove 20 where numeral 20 is pointing about same width as diameter of hole 22; column 2, lines 1-7; column 4, lines 2-15).
Regarding claim 37, Bonapace discloses wherein the arms extend radially from the hub (figure 2, blades 18).
Regarding claim 40, Bonapace discloses wherein a bottom surface of each cutting knife is at an oblique angle such that when each cutting knife is installed within the respective arm of the plurality of arms, the bottom surface is not parallel with a face of the respective screen that is proximate to the cutting knife, wherein the cutting edge is closest to the face than a remaining portion of the bottom surface (figure 4; column 3, lines 58-61).
Claim(s) 26-35 and 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walters (U.S. Patent No. 7,461,804).
Regarding claim 26, Walters discloses an emulsification system (figure 4; column 1, lines 1-13), comprising:
a shaft capable of rotation (column 1, lines 23-26; column 3, lines 57-59), and a housing that encloses the shaft (column 3, lines 49-67 (food processor known to have a housing; components within tubular housing);
one or more screens that are disposed about the shaft and within the housing, each of the plurality of screens are fixed with respect to the housing and remain stationary as the shaft rotates, each screen has a plurality of thru holes to allow a food product to pass therethrough (discs 12 and 14 with holes 34/36; discs 112 and 114 with holes 134/136; column 1, lines 17-19; column 4, lines 1-9);
one or more cutting assemblies that are disposed about the shaft and within the housing, the one or more cutting assemblies fixed to the shaft such that each cutting assembly rotates with rotation of the shaft (knife 10; column 1, lines 14-26; columns 1-2, lines 67-4; column 3, lines 54-59);
each of the one or more cutting assemblies includes a hub (hub 18; hub118) with a plurality of arms that extend from the hub (arms 20; arms 120), the plurality of arms include a sharpened cutting edge (disc engaging surface 52/54; disc engaging surface 152/154) and a side surface (surfaces 48/50; surfaces 148/150), wherein each of the one or more cutting assemblies is positioned with respect to a screen of the plurality of screens with the cutting edge proximate to or in contact with the screen during operation (see figure 1a and 4a; column 2, lines 5-15; column 5, lines 43-67);
wherein each cutting edge and side surface each form a plurality of serrations along at least a portion of a length thereof (serrations 56/58; channels 156).
Regarding claim 27, Walters discloses wherein the plurality of serrations are each a plurality of concave portions (serrations 56/58; channels 156), ends of internal concave portions transition with ends of adjacent concave portions at a point (see figure 2, point where each serration 56 contacts another serration 56, not labeled; ridge 157).
Regarding claim 28, Walters discloses wherein the plurality of concave portions extends along the side surface from the cutting edge (see figure 2, serrations 56/58 extend along side surface 48/50; see figure 3, channels 156 extend along surface 148 and 150).
Regarding claim 29, Walters discloses wherein the plurality of concave portions extending along the side surface from the cutting edge each have a uniform concavity along their length along the side surface (figure 2, serrations 56 or 58 each have uniform concavity).
Regarding claim 30, Walters discloses wherein the plurality of concave portions extending along the side surface from the cutting edge have a decreasing concavity along their length as a distance along the side surface from the cutting edge decreases (figures 3, channels 156 decrease in concavity along length from cutting edge to opposite end; column 3, lines 1-9; column 6, lines 14-17).
Regarding claim 31, Walters discloses wherein the plurality of thru holes on each of the one or more screens are arranged within a portion of the screen that is bounded between an outer circle proximate to an outer edge of the screen and an inner circle that is proximate to a hole in the screen that allows the shaft to pass through (figures 4a and 4b, central apertures 122/124; outer edge of 112/114 not labeled), wherein the plurality of serrations upon each cutting knife extend upon the cutting knife from a position where a first end of the plurality of serrations aligns with the outer circle and an opposite second end of the plurality of serrations aligns with the inner circle (see figures 4a and 42, knife 110 with serrations as placed between discs 112/114; column 3, lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 32, Walters discloses wherein the plurality of serrations do not extend past the outer circle toward the outer edge of the screen and the plurality of serrations do not extend past the inner circle toward the hole of the screen (see figures 4a and 42, knife 110 with serrations as placed between discs 112/114; column 3, lines 60-62)
Regarding claim 33, Walters discloses wherein the plurality of serrations extend for an entire length of the cutting edge (figures 3, channels 156).
Regarding claim 34, Walters discloses wherein one or more of the plurality of serrations include straight portions that intersect at a point (see figure 2, serrations 58 intersect at a point, not labeled; see figure 3, channels 156 intersect at point).
Regarding claim 35, Walters discloses wherein all of the plurality of serrations include straight portions that intersect at a point (see figure 2, serrations 58 intersect at a point, not labeled; see figure 3, channels 156 intersect at point).
Regarding claim 37, Walters discloses wherein the arms extend radially from the hub (figure 3, arms 120).
Regarding claim 38, Walters discloses wherein the arms each extend at an offset angle from the hub (figure 2, arms 20).
Regarding claim 39, Walters discloses wherein the arms each extend substantially tangentially from the hub (figure 2, arms 20).
Regarding claim 40, Walters discloses wherein a bottom surface of each cutting knife is at an oblique angle such that when each cutting knife is installed within the respective arm of the plurality of arms, the bottom surface is not parallel with a face of the respective screen that is proximate to the cutting knife, wherein the cutting edge is closest to the face than a remaining portion of the bottom surface (figure 2, disc engaging surface 54; figure 3, disc engaging surface 154).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonapace in view of Witte (U.S. Patent No. 4,180,212) and Schnell (U.S. Patent No. 2,934,120).
Regarding claim 1, Bonapace discloses an emulsification system (figure 1; column 1, lines 1-11), comprising:
a shaft capable of rotation (figure 1, worm 13 with shaft not labeled, including stud 17 and squared portion 19), and a housing that encloses the shaft (figure 1, body 11);
one or more screens that are disposed about the shaft and within the housing (figure 1, perforated plate 14 disposed about shaft portion 17, within housing 11), each of the plurality of screens are fixed with respect to the housing and remain stationary as the shaft rotates (column 4, lines 5-12), each screen has a plurality of thru holes to allow a food product to pass therethrough (hole 22);
one or more cutting assemblies that are disposed about the shaft and within the housing, the one or more cutting assemblies fixed to the shaft such that each cutting assembly rotates with rotation of the shaft (figure 1, cutter 18 disposed about shaft portion 19 of rotating worm 13 in housing 11; column 1, lines 12-14; column 3, lines 12-15; column 4, lines 1);
each of the one or more cutting assemblies includes a hub (figure 2, square center, not labeled) with a plurality of arms that extend from the hub (figure 2, blades 18).
While Bonapace discloses each of the plurality of arms receives a cutting knife, wherein each cutting knife comprises a cutting edge and a side surface (blade 18 with cutting edge and side surface at 20/21; column 2, lines 1-26; column 3, lines 52-65), wherein each cutting edge and side surface each form a plurality of serrations along at least a portion of a length thereof (scallops 20; column 2, lines 1-26; column 3, lines 52-65); However, Bonapace does not explicitly disclose the plurality of arms each include a slot for receipt of a removable knife and the cutting edge is removable received within the slot, the cutting edge and a portion of the side surface extends out of the slot when the knife is installed within the respective slot.
Witte teaches another food comminuting/emulsifier machine (column 1, lines 6-15). Witte teaches the plurality of arms each include a slot for receipt of a removable knife (figures 3-5, arm 96 with slot 118 for replaceable blade 26; column 6-7, lines 29-68) and the cutting edge is removable received within the slot (figures 3-5, replaceable blade 126 in slot 118; column 7, lines 1-68), the cutting edge and a portion of the side surface extends out of the slot when the knife is installed within the respective slot (figure 4, outer surface 126b).
Schnell teaches another emulsifying/comminuting machine for meat (column 1, lines 15-20). Schnell teaches the arm (knife holder 78) includes a slot (groove 82/83) for receipt of a removable knife (cutter 84) and the cutting edge is removable received within the slot (figure 5, cutter 84 with knife edges 97 and 100; column 3, lines 43-51), the cutting edge and a portion of the side surface extends out of the slot when the knife is installed within the respective slot (see figures 2 and 5, cutter 84 extends out of groove 82/83); the cutting edge and the side surface each form a plurality of serrations along at least a portion of a length thereof (serrations 104; column 5, lines 13-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the cutting knife of Bonapace to be a removable knife received in a slot within each of the plurality of arms as taught by Witte and Schnell. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that all references teach food/meat emulsifying/comminuting machines. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because the blades are easily worn down and removable blades permit the blades to be removed and replaced with new blades and a supply of easily removable knifes or cutters allows the knives to be sharpened and readily replaced to maintain high and efficient productivity and low heating (Witte abstract, column 9, lines 1-9; Schnell column 2, lines 9-35), and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 2, Bonapace in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Bonapace as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein the plurality of serrations are each a plurality of concave portions (grooves 20), ends of internal concave portions transition with ends of adjacent concave portions at a point (point 21).
Regarding claim 3, Bonapace in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Bonapace as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein the plurality of concave portions extends along the side surface from the cutting edge (figures 2 and 6-8, groove 20; column 2, lines 1-14; column 3, lines 52-75).
Regarding claim 4, Bonapace in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Bonapace as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein the plurality of concave portions extending along the side surface from the cutting edge each have a uniform concavity along their length along the side surface (figures 2 and 6-8, groove 20; columns 3-4, lines 52-15).
Regarding claim 6, Bonapace in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Bonapace as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein the plurality of thru holes on each of the one or more screens are arranged within a portion of the screen that is bounded between an outer circle proximate to an outer edge of the screen and an inner circle that is proximate to a hole in the screen that allows the shaft to pass through (see figures 3 and 6-8, perforated plate 14), wherein the plurality of serrations upon each cutting knife extend upon the cutting knife from a position where a first end of the plurality of serrations aligns with the outer circle and an opposite second end of the plurality of serrations aligns with the inner circle (see figures 3 and 6-8, grooves 20 extend from inner circle to outer circle of pate 14).
Regarding claim 7, Bonapace in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Bonapace as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein the plurality of serrations do not extend past the outer circle toward the outer edge of the screen and the plurality of serrations do not extend past the inner circle toward the hole of the screen (see figures 3 and 6-8, grooves 20 within internal and external edges of circle plate 14).
Regarding claim 8, Bonapace in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Bonapace as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein the plurality of serrations extend for an entire length of the cutting edge (figures 6-8, grooves 20 extend entire length blade 18; column 2, lines 1-14; columns 3-4, lines 52-15).
Regarding claim 9, Bonapace in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Bonapace as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein one or more of the plurality of serrations include straight portions that intersect at a point (apexes/point 21).
Regarding claim 10, Bonapace in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Bonapace as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein all of the plurality of serrations include straight portions that intersect at a point (apexes/point 21).
Regarding claim 11, Bonapace in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Bonapace as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein each of the plurality of serrations have a width that is about the same as the diameter of each of the thru holes upon a respective screen of the one or more screens that the cutting knife is aligned with (see figure 6, groove 20 where numeral 20 is pointing about same width as diameter of hole 22; column 2, lines 1-7; column 4, lines 2-15).
Regarding claim 12, Bonapace in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Bonapace as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein the arms extend radially from the hub (figure 2, blades 18).
Regarding claim 15, Bonapace in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Bonapace as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein a bottom surface of each cutting knife is at an oblique angle such that when each cutting knife is installed within the respective arm of the plurality of arms, the bottom surface is not parallel with a face of the respective screen that is proximate to the cutting knife, wherein the cutting edge is closest to the face than a remaining portion of the bottom surface (figure 4; column 3, lines 58-61).
Regarding claim 16, Bonapace in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not explicitly disclose the angle of between 2 to about 10 degrees. As the friction and wear on the blades, shearing and clean cutting, and thus efficiency of food cutting and over-processing of the food are variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the angle of contact of the bottom surface of the knife on the screen, the precise angle would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed angle cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have optimized, by routing experimentation, the angle of the bottom surface with respect to the face of the screen that is proximate to the cutting knife of Bonapace to obtain the desired balance between the shearing and clean cutting and friction and wear on the blades for efficient food cutting without overprocessing the food (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters in view of Witte (U.S. Patent No. 4,180,212) and Schnell (U.S. Patent No. 2,934,120).
Regarding claim 1, Walters discloses an emulsification system (figure 4; column 1, lines 1-13), comprising:
a shaft capable of rotation (column 1, lines 23-26; column 3, lines 57-59), and a housing that encloses the shaft (column 3, lines 49-67 (food processor known to have a housing; components within tubular housing);
one or more screens that are disposed about the shaft and within the housing, each of the plurality of screens are fixed with respect to the housing and remain stationary as the shaft rotates, each screen has a plurality of thru holes to allow a food product to pass therethrough (discs 12 and 14 with holes 34/36; discs 112 and 114 with holes 134/136; column 1, lines 17-19; column 4, lines 1-9);
one or more cutting assemblies that are disposed about the shaft and within the housing, the one or more cutting assemblies fixed to the shaft such that each cutting assembly rotates with rotation of the shaft (knife 10; column 1, lines 14-26; columns 1-2, lines 67-4; column 3, lines 54-59);
each of the one or more cutting assemblies includes a hub (hub 18; hub118) with a plurality of arms that extend from the hub (arms 20; arms 120).
While Walters discloses each of the plurality of arms receives a cutting knife, wherein each cutting knife comprises a cutting edge (disc engaging surface 52/54; disc engaging surface 152/154) and a side surface (surfaces 48/50; surfaces 148/150), wherein each cutting edge and side surface each form a plurality of serrations along at least a portion of a length thereof (serrations 56/58; channels 156); However, Walters does not explicitly disclose the plurality of arms each include a slot for receipt of a removable knife and the cutting edge is removable received within the slot, the cutting edge and a portion of the side surface extends out of the slot when the knife is installed within the respective slot.
Witte teaches another food comminuting/emulsifier machine (column 1, lines 6-15). Witte teaches the plurality of arms each include a slot for receipt of a removable knife (figures 3-5, arm 96 with slot 118 for replaceable blade 26; column 6-7, lines 29-68) and the cutting edge is removable received within the slot (figures 3-5, replaceable blade 126 in slot 118; column 7, lines 1-68), the cutting edge and a portion of the side surface extends out of the slot when the knife is installed within the respective slot (figure 4, outer surface 126b).
Schnell teaches another emulsifying/comminuting machine for meat (column 1, lines 15-20). Schnell teaches the arm (knife holder 78) includes a slot (groove 82/83) for receipt of a removable knife (cutter 84) and the cutting edge is removable received within the slot (figure 5, cutter 84 with knife edges 97 and 100; column 3, lines 43-51), the cutting edge and a portion of the side surface extends out of the slot when the knife is installed within the respective slot (see figures 2 and 5, cutter 84 extends out of groove 82/83); the cutting edge and the side surface each form a plurality of serrations along at least a portion of a length thereof (serrations 104; column 5, lines 13-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the cutting knife of Walters to be a removable knife received in a slot within each of the plurality of arms as taught by Witte and Schnell. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that all references teach food/meat emulsifying/comminuting machines. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because the blades are easily worn down and removable blades permit the blades to be removed and replaced with new blades and a supply of easily removable knifes or cutters allows the knives to be sharpened and readily replaced to maintain high and efficient productivity and low heating (Witte abstract, column 9, lines 1-9; Schnell column 2, lines 9-35), and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 2, Walters in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Walter as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein the plurality of serrations are each a plurality of concave portions (serrations 56/58; channels 156), ends of internal concave portions transition with ends of adjacent concave portions at a point (see figure 2, point where each serration 56 contacts another serration 56, not labeled; ridge 157).
Regarding claim 3, Walters in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Walter as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein the plurality of concave portions extends along the side surface from the cutting edge (see figure 2, serrations 56/58 extend along side surface 48/50; see figure 3, channels 156 extend along surface 148 and 150).
Regarding claim 4, Walters in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Walter as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein the plurality of concave portions extending along the side surface from the cutting edge each have a uniform concavity along their length along the side surface (figure 2, serrations 56 or 58 each have uniform concavity).
Regarding claim 5, Walters in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Walter as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein the plurality of concave portions extending along the side surface from the cutting edge have a decreasing concavity along their length as a distance along the side surface from the cutting edge decreases (figures 3, channels 156 decrease in concavity along length from cutting edge to opposite end; column 3, lines 1-9; column 6, lines 14-17).
Regarding claim 6, Walters in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Walter as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein the plurality of thru holes on each of the one or more screens are arranged within a portion of the screen that is bounded between an outer circle proximate to an outer edge of the screen and an inner circle that is proximate to a hole in the screen that allows the shaft to pass through (figures 4a and 4b, central apertures 122/124; outer edge of 112/114 not labeled), wherein the plurality of serrations upon each cutting knife extend upon the cutting knife from a position where a first end of the plurality of serrations aligns with the outer circle and an opposite second end of the plurality of serrations aligns with the inner circle (see figures 4a and 42, knife 110 with serrations as placed between discs 112/114; column 3, lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 7, Walters in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Walter as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein the plurality of serrations do not extend past the outer circle toward the outer edge of the screen and the plurality of serrations do not extend past the inner circle toward the hole of the screen (see figures 4a and 42, knife 110 with serrations as placed between discs 112/114; column 3, lines 60-62)
Regarding claim 8, Walters in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Walter as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein the plurality of serrations extend for an entire length of the cutting edge (figures 3, channels 156).
Regarding claim 9, Walters in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Walter as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein one or more of the plurality of serrations include straight portions that intersect at a point (see figure 2, serrations 58 intersect at a point, not labeled; see figure 3, channels 156 intersect at point).
Regarding claim 10, Walters in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Walter as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein all of the plurality of serrations include straight portions that intersect at a point (see figure 2, serrations 58 intersect at a point, not labeled; see figure 3, channels 156 intersect at point).
Regarding claim 12, Walters in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Walter as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein the arms extend radially from the hub (figures 3, arms 120).
Regarding claim 13, Walters in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Walter as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein the arms each extend at an offset angle from the hub (figure 2, arms 20).
Regarding claim 14, Walters in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Walter as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein the arms each extend substantially tangentially from the hub (figure 2, arms 20).
Regarding claim 15, Walters in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Walter as modified by Witte and Schnell further discloses wherein a bottom surface of each cutting knife is at an oblique angle such that when each cutting knife is installed within the respective arm of the plurality of arms, the bottom surface is not parallel with a face of the respective screen that is proximate to the cutting knife, wherein the cutting edge is closest to the face than a remaining portion of the bottom surface (figure 2, disc engaging surface 54; figure 3, disc engaging surface 154).
Regarding claim 16, Walters in view of Witte and Schnell discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not explicitly disclose the angle of between 2 to about 10 degrees. As the friction and wear on the blades, shearing and clean cutting, and thus efficiency of food cutting and over-processing of the food are variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the angle of contact of the bottom surface of the knife on the screen, the precise angle would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed angle cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have optimized, by routing experimentation, the angle of the bottom surface with respect to the face of the screen that is proximate to the cutting knife of Walters to obtain the desired balance between the shearing and clean cutting and friction and wear on the blades for efficient food cutting without overprocessing the food (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonapace.
Regarding claim 41, Bonapace discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not explicitly disclose the angle of between 2 to about 10 degrees. As the friction and wear on the blades, shearing and clean cutting, and thus efficiency of food cutting and over-processing of the food are variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the angle of contact of the bottom surface of the knife on the screen, the precise angle would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed angle cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have optimized, by routing experimentation, the angle of the bottom surface with respect to the face of the screen that is proximate to the cutting knife of Bonapace to obtain the desired balance between the shearing and clean cutting and friction and wear on the blades for efficient food cutting without overprocessing the food (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters.
Regarding claim 41, Walters discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not explicitly disclose the angle of between 2 to about 10 degrees. As the friction and wear on the blades, shearing and clean cutting, and thus efficiency of food cutting and over-processing of the food are variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the angle of contact of the bottom surface of the knife on the screen, the precise angle would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed angle cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have optimized, by routing experimentation, the angle of the bottom surface with respect to the face of the screen that is proximate to the cutting knife of Walters to obtain the desired balance between the shearing and clean cutting and friction and wear on the blades for efficient food cutting without overprocessing the food (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights