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 . 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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15, 17-19, 21-23 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-9, 12,13 and 15, 17-19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shulski (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0040041) in view of Mayer (U.S. Patent No. 6,375,114).
Regarding claim 1, Shulski teaches a method for cutting chewing gum, the method comprising: providing a chewing gum sheet (Paragraph 0041) to at least one cutting device (60, 62, 64, 76, 78) (Figure 5) and cutting said chewing gum sheet via said at least one cutting device (Figures 2-3 and 5-6).
Shuslki provides compressed air pockets within the roller to reduce adhesion of the confectionary product and cutting device (paragraph 0009 and 0076) but Shulski does not provide separating chewing gum from said at least one cutting device via a directing of compressed air onto at least one cutting surface said at least one cutting device.
Mayer teaches it is known in the art of rotary cutting to incorporate at least one cutting device (Figure 1) and separating a workpiece from the cutting device via a directing of compressed air (40) onto at least one cutting surface of the at least one cutting device (Figure 1 and Col. 7, Lines 32-67 and Col. 8, Lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Shulski to incorporate the teachings of Mayer to provide a compress air delivery unit providing compressed air onto the cutting element. In doing so, it allows for the workpiece to be removed from the cutting device.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Shulski teaches the method of claim 1, and wherein said at least one cutting surface of said at least one cutting device has non-stick properties (Shulski Paragraph 0009).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Shulski teaches the method of claim 1, and wherein said at least one cutting device is at least one upper cutting device (62,76) disposed at a relatively upper surface of said gum sheet and at least one lower cutting device (64,78) disposed at a relatively second surface of said gum sheet, said compressed air being directed onto both of said upper cutting device and said lower cutting device (Shulski Figure 5; Mayer Figure 1and Col. 7, Lines 45-57).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Shulski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said at least one cutting device is at least one roller (62) including a plurality of ring knives (76) configured for said cutting of said gum sheet in a direction parallel to a direction of gum flow towards said at least one cutting device (Shulski Figure 5, Figure 2D and 2E noting lateral and longitudinal scoring).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Shulski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said at least one cutting device is at least one roller (62,64) including a plurality of lateral knives (76,78) configured for said cutting of said gum sheet in a direction perpendicular to a direction of gum flow towards said at least one cutting device (Shulski Figure 5, Figure 2D and 2E noting lateral and longitudinal scoring).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Shulski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said at least one cutting device is at least one roller (62) including a plurality of ring knives (76) configured for said cutting of said gum sheet in a direction parallel to a direction of gum flow towards said at least one cutting device and at least one roller (64)including a plurality of lateral knives (78) configured for said cutting of said gum sheet in a direction perpendicular to a direction of gum flow towards said at least one cutting device, said compressed air being directed onto both of said at least one roller including said plurality of ring knives and said at least one roller including said plurality of lateral knives (Shuslki Figure 5, Figure 2D and 2E noting lateral and longitudinal scoring and Mayer Figure 1and Col. 7, Lines 45-57
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Shulski teaches the method of claim 6, wherein said at least one roller including said plurality of ring knives is at least one upper roller including a plurality of ring knives disposed at a relatively upper surface of said chewing gum sheet and at least one lower roller including a plurality of ring knives disposed at a relatively lower surface of said chewing gum sheet (Shuslki Figure 5, Figure 2D and 2E noting lateral and longitudinal scoring), said compressed air being directed onto both of said upper roller including said plurality of ring knives and said lower roller including said plurality of ring knives (Mayer Figure 1and Col. 7, Lines 45-57).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Shulski teaches the method of claim 7, wherein said at least one roller including said plurality of lateral knives is at least one upper roller including a plurality of lateral knives disposed at a relatively upper surface of said chewing gum sheet and at least one lower roller including a plurality of lateral knives disposed at a relatively lower surface of said chewing gum sheet, said compressed air being directed onto both of said upper roller including said plurality of lateral knives and said lower roller including said plurality of lateral knives (Shuslki Figure 5, Figure 2D and 2E noting lateral and longitudinal scoring and Mayer Figure 1and Col. 7, Lines 45-57).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Shulski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said at least one cutting device is an at least one reciprocating cutting device including a reciprocating knife (76) and a cutting surface (78), wherein said reciprocating device is configured for said cutting of said gum sheet in a direction perpendicular to a direction of gum flow towards said at least one cutting device (Shuslki Figure 5, Figure 2D and 2E noting lateral and longitudinal scoring).
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Shulski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said chewing gum sheet has a temperature (Paragraph 0052; Examiner notes the product may be heated to a desired temperature, but is silent as to the specific temperature or range).
Thus, the modified device of Shulski does not provide the chewing gum sheet has a temperature of 25 degrees Celsius to 45 degrees Celsius.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make have the workpiece temperature between 25-45 degrees Celsius because discovering a workable workpiece temperature would have been a mere design consideration based on the desired confectionary product to be made. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s) as Shulksi provides it is known to heat the workpiece to a desired temperature. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Shulski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said chewing gum sheet is a pellet gum sheet with a thickness of 4.5 millimeters to 5.5 millimeters (Shuslki Paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Shulski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said cutting of said chewing gum sheet is a scoring through an incomplete height of said gum sheet (Figures 4A and 4B).
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Shulski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said cutting of said chewing gum sheet is a cut through a complete height of said chewing gum sheet, separating said chewing gum sheet into chewing gum sections or pieces (Shulski Paragraphs 0058-0059, Figures 4A-4B)
Regarding claim 18, the modified device of Shulski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said cutting of said chewing gum sheet is a cut through a complete height of said chewing gum sheet along at least one edge of chewing gum sheet, and said separating is a reducing of adherence ((Mayer Col. 7, Lines 45-57) between said chewing gum sheet and said at least one cutting device while said chewing gum sheet moves across said at least one cutting device at said edge of said chewing gum sheet (Shulski Paragraphs 0058-0059, Figures 4A-4B).
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of Shulski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said separating is a reducing of adherence between said chewing gum sheet and said at least one cutting surface of said at least one cutting device while said chewing gum sheet moves across said at least one cutting device (Shulski Paragraphs 0058-0059; Figures 4A-4B and Mayer Col. 7, Lines 45-57).
Regarding claim 21, Shulski teaches a method for cutting chewing gum, the method comprising: providing a chewing gum sheet (Paragraph 0041) at a temperature (Paragraph 0051) cutting said chewing gum sheet via said at least one cutting device (60, 62, 64, 76, 78) (Figure 5); separating said chewing gum from said at least one cutting device (Shulski Figures 2-3 and 5-6).
Shuslki provides compressed air pockets within the roller to reduce adhesion of the confectionary product and cutting device (paragraph 0009 and 0076) but Shulski does not provide separating chewing gum from said at least one cutting device via a directing of compressed air onto at least one cutting surface said at least one cutting device.
Mayer teaches it is known in the art of rotary cutting to incorporate at least one cutting device (Figure 1) and separating a workpiece from the cutting device via a directing of compressed air (40) onto at least one cutting surface of the at least one cutting device (Figure 1 and Col. 7, Lines 32-67 and Col. 8, Lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Shulski to incorporate the teachings of Mayer to provide a compress air delivery unit providing compressed air onto the cutting element. In doing so, it allows for the workpiece to be removed from the cutting device.
Regarding claim 21, the modified device of Shulski teaches providing a chewing gum sheet with a temperature to at least one cutting device (Paragraph 0052; Examiner notes the product may be heated to a desired temperature, but is silent as to the specific temperature or range).
The modified device of Shulski does not provide the chewing gum sheet has a temperature of 25 degrees Celsius to 45 degrees Celsius.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make have the workpiece temperature between 25-45 degrees Celsius because discovering a workable workpiece temperature would have been a mere design consideration based on the desired confectionary product to be made. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s) as Shuksli provides it is known to heat the workpiece to a desired temperature. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 22, the modified device of Shulski does not specifically provide the temperature further ranging from 30 degrees Celsius to 40 degrees Celsius.
Regarding claim 22: Shulski discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. Shulski further discloses it is known to heat a confectionary product to a desired temperature. However, Shulski does not expressly disclose the temperature further ranging from 30 degrees Celsius to 40 degrees Celsius.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Shulski to have the temperature further ranging from 30 degrees Celsius to 40 degrees Celsius since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, the device and method of Shulski would not operate differently with the claimed workpiece at the claimed range and since the device of Skulski is intended to cut heated confectionary products and the device would function appropriately having the claimed workpiece temperature range. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the chewing gum “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0016]).
Regarding claim 23, Shulski teaches a method for cutting chewing gum, the method comprising: providing a chewing gum sheet (Paragraph 0041) to at least one cutting device (60, 62, 64, 76, 78) (Figure 5) and separating chewing gum from said at least one cutting device (Figures 2-3 and 5-6); (Notes the compressed air pockets within the roller to reduce adhesion of the confectionary product and cutting device (paragraph 0009 and 0076) but Shulski does not provide separating chewing gum from said at least one cutting device via a directing of compressed air).
Shulski does not provide separating chewing gum from said at least one cutting device via a directing of compressed air onto at least one cutting surface of said at least one cutting device, wherein said separating is a reducing of adherence between said chewing gum sheet and said at least one cutting surface of said at least one cutting device while said chewing gum sheet moves across said at least one cutting device.
Mayer teaches it is known in the art of rotary cutting to incorporate at least one cutting device (Figure 1) and separating a workpiece from the cutting device via a directing of compressed air (40) onto at least one cutting surface to reduce adhesion of the workpiece (Figure 1 and Col. 7, Lines 32-67 and Col. 8, Lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Shulski to incorporate the teachings of Mayer to provide a compress air delivery unit providing compressed air onto the cutting element. In doing so, it allows for the workpiece to be removed from the cutting device.
Thus, Shulski in view of Mayer provides separating chewing gum from said at least one cutting device via a directing of compressed air onto at least one cutting surface of said at least one cutting device, wherein said separating is a reducing of adherence between said chewing gum sheet and said at least one cutting surface of said at least one cutting device while said chewing gum sheet moves across said at least one cutting device (Shulski Figures 5-6 and Mayer Figure 1 and Col. 32-65).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shulski (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0040041) in view of Mayer (U.S. Patent No. 6,375,114) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wayne (U.S. Patent. No. 3,301,454).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Shulski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said at least one cutting device is at least one roller including a plurality of ring knives (76) configured for said cutting of said gum sheet in a direction parallel to a direction of gum flow towards said at least one cutting device, said compressed air being directed onto both of said least one roller including said plurality of ring knives and said at least one reciprocating cutting device (Shulski Figures 4A, 4B and 5 and Mayer Figure 1and Col. 7, Lines 45-57).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Shulski does not provide an at least one reciprocating cutting device including a reciprocating knife and a cutting surface, wherein said reciprocating device is configured for said cutting of said gum sheet in a direction perpendicular to a direction of gum flow towards said at least one cutting device.
Wayne teaches it is known in the art of cutting confectionary products to provide a cutting device with a at least one reciprocating knife (82) and a cutting surface (24), wherein said reciprocating device is configured for said cutting of a workpiece (22) in a direction perpendicular to a direction of workpiece flow towards said at least one cutting device (Figure 2A, Col. 4, lines 17-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Shulski to incorporate the teachings of Wayne to provide a reciprocating knife and cutting surface. In doing so, it allows for multiple lateral scores to be made as desired in the workpiece.
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Shulski teaches the method of claim 10, wherein said at least one roller including said plurality of ring knives is at least one upper roller (62) including a plurality of ring knives disposed at a relatively upper surface of said chewing gum sheet and at least one lower roller (64) including a plurality of ring knives disposed at a relatively lower surface of said chewing gum sheet, said compressed air being directed onto both of said upper roller including said plurality of ring knives and said lower roller including said plurality of ring knives 9 (Shulski Figures 4A, 4B and 5 and Mayer Figure 1and Col. 7, Lines 45-57).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shulski (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0040041) in view of Mayer (U.S. Patent No. 6,375,114) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jani (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0287091).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Shuslki teaches the method of claim 1, but does not provide cooling the chewing gum at least one of before said cutting and after said cutting.
Jani 091 teaches it is old and well known in the art of cutting chewing gum to incorporate cooling a gum product before and after a cutting process (Figure 2; Paragraphs 0039-0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Shulski to incorporate the teachings of Jani ‘091 to provide cooling of the product before and after cutting. In doing so, it allows for the product to be at the correct temperature and state (not sticky) for further processing (Paragraph 0022).
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references B-C on page 1 establish the state of the art with a variety of cutting mechanisms and fluid delivery systems.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the current combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 06/22/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights