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
The remarks mailed 5/29/2026 regarding the restriction requirement have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Backus (U.S. Patent 5,324,185).
Regarding claim 1, a cutting device configured to couple to an extruder outlet (figure 3 is considered the cutting device, the extruder outlet is considered intended use of the cutting device and not considered positively claimed), the cutting device comprising: a blade (item 46) operatively coupled to a biasing member (column 3 teaches a helical spring, which is operatively coupled to item 46 by the gears 82, 84, and item 30); a motor (column 1 lines 63-65 teaches a motor); and a charging chamber (chamber in which item 30 is housed) having a charging member arranged to be rotated by the motor (item 30 screw is considered reading on a charging member and is driven by the motor), and a release feature positioned on the charging member (see paragraph 3 lines 12-20, ball bearing and pinion gear 82, 84 are positioned on the end of item 30), wherein the motor drives forward movement of the charging member within the charging chamber until the release feature reaches a release point within the charging chamber (see column 3 lines 12-20 which teaches a slip clutch configuration which shows the motor shaft disengages the flat at a specific torque), and at the release point the biasing member is mechanically released to drive movement of the blade (column 3 lines 12-20, the biasing member, the spring, presses up against the ball bearing, and once the ball bearing is forced upward, and the biasing member is considered released since this configuration allows the motor shaft to shaft within the pinion gear); wherein the blade is arranged to move in at least a first direction in response to the mechanical release of the biasing member (rotating cutting arm 46 is rotated by the motor 24).
Regarding claim 2, Backus teaches wherein the blade has two cutting surfaces facing opposing directions (item 46 is considered comprising two surfaces, one facing item 30, and the outer side facing item the outside of the enclosure).
Regarding claim 3, Backus teaches the rotation being both right to left, or left to right rotation (see column 8 lines 52-54 teaches two rotational directions, and therefore considered having a component being right to left, and a component being left to right rotation).
Regarding claim 4, Backus teaches the rotation being both top to bottom and bottom to top direction (see column 8 lines 52-54 teaches two rotational directions, and therefore considered having a component being top to bottom rotation and a component having bottom to top rotation).
Regarding claim 10, Backus teaches wherein the cutting device is configured to cut extrudate from the extruder into portions of extrudate having an approximate same length (item 46 is considered capable of cutting extrudate at approximately the same length based on the rotation of item 46, which is considered intended use of the cutting device).
Regarding claim 11, Backus teaches a method of using a cutting device having a blade (figure 3, item 46 is considered the cutting device and has a blade), the method comprising: attaching the cutting device to an outlet of an extruder (item 46 is at the outlet of the chamber housing item 30); selecting a setting for the cutting device correlating to an amount of time between cutting movements of the blade (column 10 lines 34-37 teaches an electronic control system that is used at a preset or user set interval which would inherently have a specific time between cutting movements), wherein the cutting movements of the blade alternate directions (see rotational directions 34 and 36); operating the extruder to extrude one or more food ingredients (column 1 line 12-14 teaches extruding dough); and operating the cutting device to cut the one or more food ingredients released from the extruder with the blade at regular time intervals (item 46 cuts the dough as it exits chamber housing item 30, column 10 lines 34-37 teaches preset or user set intervals which would inherently have a specific intervals for the blade cutting food ingredients being released).
Regarding claim 15, Backus teaches further comprising selecting a first setting for the cutting device corresponding to a first amount of time between movements of the blade (column 10 lines 34-37 teaches preset or user set intervals which would inherently have a specific time for the blade cutting moving).
Regarding claim 16, Backus teaches further comprising selecting a second setting for the cutting device corresponding to a second amount of time between movements of the blade, wherein the first amount of time is not equal to the second amount of time (column 9 teaches reversing the motor rotation direction, which is considered inherently having a second setting, the instant at which the motor reverses is considered a second time which is not equal to the first time of a preset or user set interval).
Regarding claim 18, Backus teaches wherein the blade is arranged to cut the one or more food ingredients released from the extruder from left to right and from right to left (see column 8 lines 52-54 teaches two rotational directions, and therefore considered having a component being right to left, and a component being left to right rotation).
Regarding claim 19, Backus teaches wherein the blade is arranged to cut the one or more food ingredients released from the extruder from top to bottom and from bottom to top (see column 8 lines 52-54 teaches two rotational directions, and therefore considered having a component being top to bottom rotation and a component having bottom to top rotation).
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backus (U.S. Patent 5,324,185).
Regarding claim 17, while Backus teaches various preset intervals of operation (column 10 lines 34-37), Backus is silent to a third amount of time between movements being different from the first and second times. Regarding claim 17, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the times to produce the desired food product since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103) as being unpatentable over Backus (U.S. Patent 5,324,185) in view of Zani (U.S. Patent 4,332,539).
Regarding claim 7, Backus is silent to the locking feature. Regarding claim 7, Zani teaches a locking feature to securely fasting the cutting device to the extruder (note the extruder is not considered positively claimed, item 25 is used to lock item 10 to the chamber). Regarding claim 7, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the blade configuration of Backus with the cover configuration of Zani in order to better secure the blade to the charging chamber.
Regarding claim 8, Backus is silent to the guard configuration. Regarding claim 8, Zani teaches a guard sized and positioned to at least partially cover the blade (item 25 partially covers the central most portion of item 10). Regarding claim 8, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the blade configuration of Backus with the cover configuration of Zani in order to better secure the blade to the charging chamber.
Backus is silent to the language of claim 9. Regarding claim 9, Zani teaches wherein the guard includes one or more interlocks, and the cutting device is prevented from moving the blade unless the one or more guard interlocks are engaged (when item 25 is removed, item 10 can be removed from the chamber which prevents the blade from moving). Regarding claim 9, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the blade configuration of Backus with the cover configuration of Zani in order to better secure the blade to the charging chamber.
Regarding claim 12, Backus is silent to the guard configuration. Regarding claim 12, Zani teaches placing a guard over the blade of the cutting device (item 25 partially covers the central most portion of item 10). Regarding claim 12, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the blade configuration of Backus with the cover configuration of Zani in order to better secure the blade to the charging chamber.
Backus is silent to the language of claim 13. Regarding claim 13, Zani teaches further comprising manually engaging a safety feature on the guard to permit operation of the cutting device (when item 25 is removed, item 10 can be removed from the chamber which prevents the blade from moving, when item 25 is attached, item 10 can rotate). Regarding claim 13, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the blade configuration of Backus with the cover configuration of Zani in order to better secure the blade to the charging chamber.
Backus is silent to the language of claim 14, Regarding claim 14, Zani teaches further comprising locking the cutting device onto the extruder (item 25 is used to lock item 10). Regarding claim 14, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the blade configuration of Backus with the cover configuration of Zani in order to better secure the blade to the charging chamber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of a food processing device comprising the extruder with auger and the cutting device with the blade, biasing member, motor, charging chamber, charging member, release feature, and the guard partially covering the blade including one or more interlocks.
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a cutting device with the with the combination of the blade, biasing member, motor, charging chamber, charging member, release feature configuration, and wherein a voltage needed to charge the biasing member is variable and an amount of time needed to charge the biasing member can be adjusted.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights