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 .
This action is in response to the amendment and remarks received on December 2, 2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 2, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of pending remarks (most recently filed), Applicant has argued that DeTORRE discloses a cutting portion having a crosssection defined by the diameter of the cutting blade; thus, fails to disclose a cutting portion that “extends linearly parallel to the separation line”. However, as shown in Diagram I below of DeTORRE figure 3, the cutting blade has a central portion that extends linearly parallel to the separation line formed by the cutting blade. Furthermore, column 3 lines 66-68 of DeTORRE specifically references a linearly extending portion of the cutting blade 32, wherein only the edges of the cutting blade have a curvature based on the diameter of the cutting tool. Thus, Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 16 as anticipated by DeTORRE.
PNG
media_image1.png
362
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Diagram I
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 22 and 23 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 22 recites the limitation “the axis of revolution" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 16, 17, 19, 21, 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeTORRE (US 5,423,240).
In reference to claim 16, DeTORRE discloses a device comprising: at least one cutting tool 31 having a cutting portion (see Diagram I above) extending along a longitudinal axis that extends linearly parallel to the separation line and configured to make a precut groove along the separating line; wherein, viewed in a front view (figure 3) in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the cutting portion comprises a convex profile.
Regarding claim 17, figure 3 of DeTORRE further discloses the convex profile to be symmetrical relative to a transverse axis (parallel to 33 & 34) of the cutting tool.
With respect to claim 19, figure 3 of DeTORRE further discloses the cutting portion 32 of the cutting tool 31 having an inclined face (see Diagram II below)
PNG
media_image2.png
362
553
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Diagram II
In reference to claim 21,figure 4 of DeTORRE further discloses the cutting tool 31 to have a cylindrical (rotating) portion extending in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 22, figures 1 and 2 of DeTORRE further disclose the knowledge in the art to provided threaded holes that extend along (parallel to) an axis of revolution of the cutting tool (12, 31), the threaded holes retaining a screw 15 that secures the cutting tool (12, 31) to a support plate 14.
With respect to claim 25, figures 1-4 of DeTORRE disclose a the cutting tool 12, 31 opposing a secondary cutting tool 16, 35, wherein at least the cutting tool 31 has a convex profile from the front view (figure 3).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeTORRE (US 5,423,240).
In reference to claim 20, figure 3 of DeTORRE discloses an inclined face of the cutting tool 31, but does not disclose whether the incline of the surface extends between 10° and 60°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incline the surface of the cutting tool to an angle between 10° and 60°, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.1
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NICHOLS (US 4,012,888) in view of DeTORRE (US 5,423,240).
Regarding claims 29 and 30, figure 1 of NICHOLS discloses a system (figures 9 and 14) configured to form packaging for an digestible product (column 1 line 5) comprising: a precut device 900 downstream of a lid sealing device 600. However, NICHOLS does not disclose whether the precut device is configured as claimed.
DeTORRE teaches a device comprising: at least one cutting tool 31 having a cutting portion (see Diagram I above) extending along a longitudinal axis that extends linearly parallel to the separation line and configured to make a precut groove along the separating line; wherein, viewed in a front view (figure 3) in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the cutting portion comprises a convex profile. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have provided the precut device of NICHOLS with a cutting tool configured as taught by DeTORRE since the technical field of DeTORRE is that of cutting blades. The selection of the cutting device disclosed by NICHOLS or that of DeTORRE are equally effective in the art of severing a desired material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18, 24 and 26-28 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.
Claim 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached PTO-892 for a notice of references cited and recommended for consideration based on their disclosure of limitations related to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLORIA R WEEKS whose telephone number is (571)272-4473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-2pm & 5pm-7pm 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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
Other helpful telephone numbers are listed for applicant's benefit:
Allowed Files & Publication (888) 786-0101
Assignment Branch (800) 972-6382
Certificates of Correction (703) 305-8309
Fee Questions (571) 272-6400
Inventor Assistance Center (800) PTO-9199
Petitions/special Programs (571) 272-3282
Information Help line 1-800-786-9199
/GLORIA R WEEKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
January 10, 2026
1 In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 198C).