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 with traverse of Group I (including claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 14, and 15) in the reply filed on 1/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the previously applied combination of references is not obvious because the ratio of the blade is independent of its diameter. This is not found persuasive because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference previously applied for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Further, Groups I and III cannot be considered to constitute a single inventive group because each group presents a different improvement, and thus constitutes a different inventive concept.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 fixation device, reinforcement ribs, and spiral outer edge must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). If the fixation device, reinforcement ribs, and spiral outer edge are shown, each feature should be denoted by a reference character. No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3: at lines 2-3, “a spiral an outer edge of the support disc” should be amended to read “a spiral outer edge of the support disc”
Claim 4:
It is not explicitly clear what is meant by the limitation “including the fixation device” – Examiner recommends amending to clarify intended meaning (at least claim 15 requires similar corrections)
“perpendiculars” should be amended to read “perpendicular” (at least claim 15 requires similar corrections)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
• “fixation device” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “fixation”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “fixation” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 12 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.
The term “at least most of” in claims 1 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “at least most of” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how much of the spiral cutting edge must have a ratio of at least thirty (fifteen in claim 12) in order to encompass the term “at least most of”. Does the relevant section need to include at least 75% of the spiral cutting edge? Is 51% considered to be “most of” the spiral cutting edge?
Further regarding claims 1 and 12, claim limitation “fixation device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification appears to be missing the corresponding structure of a fixation device – it is therefore unclear how the blade is releasably attached to a periphery of the support disc. What structure attaches the blade to the support disc? Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 3-4, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tobey (US 3921485) in view of Diamond (US 1973526).
Regarding claim 1, Tobey discloses a cutting assembly for a food product high speed slicing machine, the cutting assembly comprising: a cutter (slicing blades 2a, 2b; see fig. 1A) which is rotative around a central axis (slicing blades 2a, 2b rotate in the direction of arrow 56 around an axis defined by blade slicing shaft 51; see col. 5, lines 18-25 and figs. 1A, 5) and comprises a support disc (blade mounting plates 3a, 3b and hub plates 4a, 4b; see figs. 1A and 1B) with a central shaft concentric with the central axis (the central axis is defined by blade slicing shaft 51; see figs. 1A and 5) to be connected to a drive unit when in use (slicing blades 2a, 2b are driven by means 55; see col. 5, lines 18-25), and a blade releasably attached to a periphery of the support disc by a fixation device (slicing blades 2a, 2b are held to blade mounting plates 3a, 3b by cap screws 7a, 7b, which can be removed to release slicing blades 2a, 2b; see col. 3, lines 2-6 and fig. 1A), the blade having a spiral cutting edge lying in a cutting plane perpendicular to the central axis (slicing blades 2a, 2b have edges 2a’, 2b’ which lie in a cutting plane perpendicular to the central axis; see fig. 1A) and coplanar with a product holder (edges 2a’, 2b’ lie in the same plane as conveyor arrangement 57; see fig. 5); characterized in that the blade is a non-closed curved blade (slicing blades 2a, 2b are both non-closed curved blades; see fig. 1A); and the cutter includes at least one blade (the cutting assembly includes slicing blades 2a and 2b; see fig. 1A), defining at least one independent continuous spiral cutting edge (edges 2a’, 2b’ each define a continuous edge; see figs. 1A and 1B).
Tobey does not explicitly disclose a ratio in at least most of the spiral cutting edge, so that the cut precision is improved.
Diamond teaches a ratio in at least most of the spiral cutting edge, so that the cut precision is improved (the radius of blade 36 gradually increases from smallest point 42 to maximum point 421; see pg. 2, lines 90-94).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tobey in view of Diamond to make the blade have a positive ratio. Tobey discloses blades which have a uniform radius at each point. Diamond discloses blade 36, which increases in radius from a smallest point to a largest point. Tobey discloses that the configuration of the blade having an increasing radius results in the cutting pressure being uniform throughout the rotation of the blade (see pg. 2, lines 92-94). Since the instant specification (see pg. 3, paragraph 6) defines the ratio as the longitude of the cutting edge between two given points divided by the increase of the distance to the central axis between the same two given points, it is understood that Diamond discloses a ratio in the same way. That is, Diamond discloses an increasing radius, or distance to the central axis, between two given points (see fig. 8).
Tobey as modified does not explicitly disclose a ratio of at least thirty.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Tobey to make the ratio at least thirty 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 (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, the device of Tobey as modified would not perform differently if modified to have the claimed ratio – that is, the device of Tobey as modified would still be capable of cutting food products with a uniform cutting pressure which ultimately leads to improved cutting precision.
Regarding claim 3, Tobey as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Tobey as modified further discloses wherein an inner edge of the blade is attached to an outer edge of the support disc (an inner edge of slicing blades 2a, 2b is attached to blade mounting plates 3a, 3b; see figs. 1A and 1B) or to a spiral an outer edge of the support disc.
Regarding claim 4, Tobey as modified discloses the limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above.
Tobey as modified further discloses wherein the support disc includes a circular central portion (hub plates 4a, 4b; see figs. 1A and 1B) and an outer portion (blade mounting plates 3a, 3b; see figs. 1A and 1B) releasably attached around the circular central portion (blade mounting plates 3a, 3b are releasably attached via cap screws U, R, T, C, S at least partially around hub plates 4a, 4b in the cutting plane; see col. 3, lines 6-10 and fig. 1A) and including the fixation device (cap screws 7a, 7b are included as part of blade mounting plates 3a, 3b and hub plates 4a, 4b), the outer edge of the support disc being defined on an outer edge of the outer portion (the outer edge of the support disc is formed as an outer edge of blade mounting plates 3a, 3b; see figs. 1A and 1B); or the support disc includes a circular central portion and an outer portion releasably attached around the circular central portion and including the fixation device, the outer edge of the support disc being defined on an outer edge of the outer portion, and at least the circular central portion includes reinforcement ribs perpendiculars to the cutting plane.
Regarding claim 12, Tobey discloses a cutting assembly for a food product high speed slicing machine, the cutting assembly comprising: a cutter (slicing blades 2a, 2b; see fig. 1A) which is rotative around a central axis (slicing blades 2a, 2b rotate in the direction of arrow 56 around an axis defined by blade slicing shaft 51; see col. 5, lines 18-25 and figs. 1A, 5) and comprises a support disc (blade mounting plates 3a, 3b and hub plates 4a, 4b; see figs. 1A and 1B) with a central shaft concentric with the central axis (the central axis is defined by blade slicing shaft 51; see figs. 1A and 5) to be connected to a drive unit when in use (slicing blades 2a, 2b are driven by means 55; see col. 5, lines 18-25), and a blade releasably attached to a periphery of the support disc by a fixation device (slicing blades 2a, 2b are held to blade mounting plates 3a, 3b by cap screws 7a, 7b, which can be removed to release slicing blades 2a, 2b; see col. 3, lines 2-6 and fig. 1A), the blade having a spiral cutting edge lying in a cutting plane perpendicular to the central axis (slicing blades 2a, 2b have edges 2a’, 2b’ which lie in a cutting plane perpendicular to the central axis; see fig. 1A) and coplanar with a product holder (edges 2a’, 2b’ lie in the same plane as conveyor arrangement 57; see fig. 5); characterized in that the blade is a non-closed curved blade (slicing blades 2a, 2b are both non-closed curved blades; see fig. 1A); and the cutter includes several independent blades (slicing blades 2a, 2b are each independent blades; see fig. 1A) each defining one independent continuous spiral cutting edge (slicing blades 2a, 2b have edges 2a’, 2b’ respectively, which each define an independent, continuous edge; see figs. 1A and 1B).
Tobey does not explicitly disclose a ratio in at least most of the spiral cutting edge, so that the cut velocity is improved.
Diamond teaches a ratio in at least most of the spiral cutting edge, so that the cut velocity is improved (the radius of blade 36 gradually increases from smallest point 42 to maximum point 421; see pg. 2, lines 90-94).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tobey in view of Diamond to made the blade have a positive ratio. Tobey discloses blades which have a uniform radius at each point. Diamond discloses blade 36, which increases in radius from a smallest point to a largest point. Tobey discloses that the configuration of the blade having an increasing radius results in the cutting pressure being uniform throughout the rotation of the blade (see pg. 2, lines 92-94). Since the instant specification (see pg. 3, paragraph 6) defines the ratio as the longitude of the cutting edge between two given points divided by the increase of the distance to the central axis between the same two given points, it is understood that Diamond discloses a ratio in the same way. That is, Diamond discloses an increasing radius, or distance to the central axis, between two given points (see fig. 8).
Tobey as modified does not explicitly disclose a ratio of at least fifteen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Tobey to make the ratio at least fifteen 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 (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, the device of Tobey as modified would not perform differently if modified to have the claimed ratio – that is, the device of Tobey as modified would still be capable of cutting food products with a uniform cutting pressure which ultimately leads to improved cutting precision.
Regarding claim 14, Tobey as modified discloses the limitations of claim 12 as described in the rejection above.
Tobey as modified further discloses wherein an inner edge of the blades is attached to an outer edge of the support disc (the inner edges of slicing blades 2a, 2b are attached to blade mounting plates 3a, 3b; see figs. 1A and 1B) or to a spiral outer edge of the support disc.
Regarding claim 15, Tobey as modified discloses the limitations of claim 12 as described in the rejection above.
Tobey as modified further discloses wherein the support disc includes a circular central portion (hub plates 4a, 4b; see figs. 1A and 1B) and an outer portion (blade mounting plates 3a, 3b; see figs. 1A and 1B) releasably attached around the circular central portion (blade mounting plates 3a, 3b are releasably attached via cap screws U, R, T, C, S at least partially around hub plates 4a, 4b in the cutting plane; see col. 3, lines 6-10 and fig. 1A) and including the fixation device (cap screws 7a, 7b are included as part of blade mounting plates 3a, 3b and hub plates 4a, 4b), the outer edge of the support disc being defined on an outer edge of the outer portion (the outer edge of the support disc is formed as an outer edge of blade mounting plates 3a, 3b; see figs. 1A and 1B), or the support disc includes a circular central portion and an outer portion releasably attached around the circular central portion and including the fixation device, the outer edge of the support disc being defined on an outer edge of the outer portion, and at least the circular central portion includes reinforcement ribs perpendiculars to the cutting plane.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20090126582 to Knecht, drawn to a meat cutter; and US 3799013 to Long, drawn to a block slicer and method.
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