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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2026 with respect to the prior art SEB (FR2447704A)1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued the prior art SEB (FR2447704A1) does not disclose “wherein the relief opening is oval with a long axis extending at an angle of less than 30 degrees to a radius starting from the axis of rotation”.
In response to this argument, the Applicant is correct that the prior art of SEB does not disclose “wherein the relief opening is oval with a long axis extending at an angle of less than 30 degrees to a radius starting from the axis of rotation”;
However, the prior art of SEB discloses wherein the relief opening is a circular (fig.7: (13b)); and
the Applicant discloses wherein the relief opening is elliptical, a circular, or hexagonal (Applicant’s drawings figs.3a-3d and Applicant’s specification page 7 last 7 lines);
So, it appears the relief opening of the Applicant can take any shape including a circular;
Further, it is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design to use
oval or Elliptical in order to manage stress concentration and optimize material space;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the desire shape of the relief opening of SEB, including wherein the relief opening is oval with a long axis extending at an angle of less than 30 degrees to a radius starting from the axis of rotation in order to manage stress concentration and optimize material space.
Accordingly, this argument is persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, there is no written description regarding “wherein at least a portion of an edge surrounding the relief opening is rounded in an area of the cutting body that experiences higher material stress during operation”, Instead in the specification submission on 05/02/2024, in in lines 24-25: is described as “The blades shown in Figures 3a to 3d can also be subjected to significantly higher stresses".
The Applicant has not pointed out where the claims are supported in Applicant's specification, nor does there appear to be a written description of the following claim limitations in Applicant’s specification as filed.
Therefore, the applicant does not have written support to show that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing based on the applicant’s original disclosure.
Therein, amended claim 12 has introduced a new matter.
Regarding claim 13, there is no written description regarding “wherein at least a portion of an edge surrounding the relief opening is rounded in an area of the cutting body that experiences higher tensile stresses”, Instead in the specification submission on 05/02/2024, in in lines 24-25: is described as “The blades shown in Figures 3a to 3d can also be subjected to significantly higher stresses".
The Applicant has not pointed out where the claims are supported in Applicant's specification, nor does there appear to be a written description of the following claim limitations in Applicant’s specification as filed.
Therefore, the applicant does not have written support to show that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing based on the applicant’s original disclosure.
Therein, the amended claim 13 has introduced a new matter.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEB (FR2447704A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, SEB discloses a machine blade for food production (fig.1 and paragraphs 0003 and 0006), comprising
a cutting body (fig.1: (11)) and a fastening portion (fig.1: (15)) for fastening the cutting-machine blade to a rotary drive (fig.1: (5)),
wherein the cutting body has a central area defined by two lateral surfaces and edge regions adjacent to the central area (figs.2-4 and 6: the central area of the element (11) between elements (13) and (15)),
wherein a thickness of the cutting body decreases in a respective edge region of the edge regions starting from the central area towards a respective edge of the edge regions of the cutting body (fig.3: the sharpened edge (11a)),
wherein the cutting body has at least one cutting bevel with a cutting edge at a front edge of the cutting body with respect to a direction of rotation intended in operation (fig.3: the sharpened edge (11a) along the arrow (F)),
wherein the machine blade is designed to be driven in operation in rotation about an axis of rotation (figs.1 and 3: (5)) and a radius of the machine blade extends from the axis of rotation to an outer edge of the machine blade (fig.3)), and
wherein the cutting body, starting from the axis of rotation, is free of openings or apertures over ⅗ of the radius (fig.3) and the cutting body has a relief opening (fig.7: (13b)) exclusively in the central area of the cutting body, the relief opening arranged in an outer section of the central area which extends beyond ⅗ of the radius (figs.3 and 7).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5, 10-11 SEB does not disclose wherein the relief opening is oval with a long axis extending at an angle of less than 30 degrees to a radius starting from the axis of rotation; wherein at least a portion of an edge surrounding the relief opening is rounded designed to minimize stress; wherein the relief opening is elliptical; wherein the relief opening has an elliptic shape and the long axis has a length of approximately 1/3 to 1/5 of a distance from the axis of rotation to the outer edge of the machine blade; and wherein the long axis is three to five times longer than a short axis of the relief opening.
However, the prior art of SEB discloses wherein the relief opening is a circular (fig.7: (13b)); and
the Applicant discloses wherein the relief opening is a circular (Applicant’s drawings fig.3b and Applicant’s specification page 7 paragraph 25);
So, it appears the relief opening of the Applicant can take any shape including a circular;
Further, it is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design to use
oval or Elliptical in order to manage stress concentration and optimize material space;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the desire shape of the relief opening of SEB, including wherein the relief opening is oval with a long axis extending at an angle of less than 30 degrees to a radius starting from the axis of rotation; wherein at least a portion of an edge surrounding the relief opening is rounded designed to minimize stress; wherein the relief opening is elliptical; wherein the relief opening has an elliptic shape and the long axis has a length of approximately 1/3 to 1/5 of a distance from the axis of rotation to the outer edge of the machine blade; and wherein the long axis is three to five times longer than a short axis of the relief opening; in order to manage stress concentration and optimize material space.
Regarding claim 2, SEB discloses wherein at least a portion of an edge surrounding the relief opening is rounded designed to minimize stress (fig.7: (13b) the circle having a rounded edge).
Regarding claim 4, SEB discloses wherein in the cutting body has a front edge region which extends in the direction of rotation towards the front edge with the cutting edge, and in that a grinding area is provided between the central area and the front edge region forming the cutting bevel (figs.3-9),
SEB does not explicitly disclose in which the thickness of the cutting body does not initially decrease when the machine blade is still unused, the grinding area being provided so that the thickness of the cutting body in the grinding area, which is part of the central area, can decrease by grinding for resharpening the machine blade;
However, resharpening is the known routine procedure that used for any blade that become blunt and does not make any contribution over any prior arts and inherent disclosed by the prior arts of SEB (if the part become not sharp due to the continuous operation, then verification and maintains of the blade by resharpening in order to maintain the cutting geometry).
Regarding claim 7, SEB discloses wherein the relief opening (fig.7: (13b)) is arranged along a respective blade contour.
Regarding claim 8, SEB does not explicitly disclose wherein a smallest cross-sectional dimension of the relief opening is at least 10 mm;
However, the applicant does not disclose that “wherein a smallest cross-sectional dimension of the relief opening is at least 10 mm” solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose; and
Having the openings in specific size would have resulted from routine engineering practices and it therefore not patentable and would be obvious because there is no unexpected result;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the size of the relief opening as desired, including wherein a smallest cross-sectional dimension of the relief opening is at least 10 mm, as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 9, SEB discloses wherein the relief opening (fig.7: (13b)) is one of the up to 15 relief openings.
Regarding claim 14, SEB discloses wherein the cutting body has a taper toward the rear edge (figs.2-3).
Regarding claim 15, SEB discloses wherein the taper is formed in one of the two lateral surfaces (figs.2-3).
Regarding claim 16, SEB discloses wherein the relief opening is formed in a position such that the radius of the machine blade extends from the axis of rotation, through the fastening portion, through the cutting body, through the relief opening, and out of the cutting body through the outer edge (figs.2-3).
Claims 1 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEB (FR2447704A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Ehrle (US5996917A).
Regarding claim 1, SEB discloses a machine blade for food production (fig.1 and paragraphs 0003 and 0006), comprising
a cutting body (fig.1: (11)) and a fastening portion (fig.1: (15)) for fastening the cutting-machine blade to a rotary drive (fig.1: (5)),
wherein the cutting body has a central area defined by two lateral surfaces and edge regions adjacent to the central area (figs.2-4 and 6: the central area of the element (11) between elements (13) and (15)),
wherein a thickness of the cutting body decreases in a respective edge region of the edge regions starting from the central area towards a respective edge of the edge regions of the cutting body (fig.3: the sharpened edge (11a)),
wherein the cutting body has at least one cutting bevel with a cutting edge at a front edge of the cutting body with respect to a direction of rotation intended in operation (fig.3: the sharpened edge (11a) along the arrow (F)),
wherein the machine blade is designed to be driven in operation in rotation about an axis of rotation (figs.1 and 3: (5)) and a radius of the machine blade extends from the axis of rotation to an outer edge of the machine blade (fig.3)), and
wherein the cutting body, starting from the axis of rotation, is free of openings or apertures over ⅗ of the radius (fig.3) and the cutting body has a relief opening (fig.7: (13b)) exclusively in the central area of the cutting body, the relief opening arranged in an outer section of the central area which extends beyond ⅗ of the radius (figs.3 and 7).
SEB does not disclose wherein the relief opening is oval with a long axis extending at an angle of less than 30 degrees to a radius starting from the axis of rotation.
Ehrle teaches a machine blade for food production (abstract), comprising:
a relief opening (fig.1: (3)) is oval with a long axis extending at an angle (col.4 lines 54-57).
Both of the prior arts of SEB and Ehrle are related to a machine blade for food production;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the relief opening of SEB to be an oval with a long axis extending at an angle as taught by Ehrle in order to reduce heat accumulation and retention in the blade (Ehrle: abstract).
SEB in view of Ehrle does not disclose less than 30 degrees to a radius starting from the axis of rotation;
However, Ehrle teaches the relief opening can be at different configurations and size (col.3 last 4liens);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the desire configuration of the relief opening of SEB in view of Ehrle, including wherein the long axis extending at an angle of less than 30 degrees to a radius starting from the axis of rotation in order to reduce heat accumulation and retention in the blade (Ehrle: abstract).
Regarding claims 17-19, SEB discloses a machine blade for food production (fig.1 and paragraphs 0003 and 0006), comprising
a cutting body (fig.1: (11)) and a fastening portion (fig.1: (15)) for fastening the cutting-machine blade to a rotary drive (fig.1: (5)),
wherein the cutting body has a central area defined by two lateral surfaces and edge regions adjacent to the central area (figs.2-4 and 6: the central area of the element (11) between elements (13) and (15)),
wherein a thickness of the cutting body decreases in a respective edge region of the edge regions starting from the central area towards a respective edge of the edge regions of the cutting body (fig.3: the sharpened edge (11a)),
wherein the cutting body has at least one cutting bevel with a cutting edge at a front edge of the cutting body with respect to a direction of rotation intended in operation (fig.3: the sharpened edge (11a) along the arrow (F)),
wherein the machine blade is designed to be driven in operation in rotation about an axis of rotation (figs.1 and 3: (5)) and a radius of the machine blade extends from the axis of rotation to an outer edge of the machine blade (fig.3)), and
wherein the cutting body, starting from the axis of rotation, is free of openings or apertures over ⅗ of the radius (fig.3) and the cutting body has a relief opening (fig.7: (13b)) exclusively in the central area of the cutting body, the relief opening arranged in an outer section of the central area which extends beyond ⅗ of the radius (figs.3 and 7).
Regarding claims 17-19, SEB does not disclose and wherein at least a portion of an edge surrounding the relief opening is rounded; wherein the relief opening is oval; and wherein the oval relief opening has a long axis extending at an angle of less than 30 degrees to a radius starting from the axis of rotation.
Ehrle teaches a machine blade for food production (abstract), comprising:
a relief opening (fig.1: (3)) is oval with a long axis extending at an angle (col.4 lines 54-57).
Both of the prior arts of SEB and Ehrle are related to a machine blade for food production;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the relief opening of SEB to be an oval with a long axis extending at an angle as taught by Ehrle in order to reduce heat accumulation and retention in the blade (Ehrle: abstract). Thereby having wherein at least a portion of an edge surrounding the relief opening is rounded; wherein the relief opening is oval; and wherein the oval relief opening has a long axis extending at an angle.
SEB in view of Ehrle does not disclose less than 30 degrees to a radius starting from the axis of rotation;
However, Ehrle teaches the relief opening can be at different configurations and size (col.3 last 4liens);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the desire configuration of the relief opening of SEB in view of Ehrle, including wherein the long axis extending at an angle of less than 30 degrees to a radius starting from the axis of rotation in order to reduce heat accumulation and retention in the blade (Ehrle: abstract).
Claims 3, 12-13 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEB (FR2447704A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Egon (DE102015200878A1).
Regarding claim 3, SEB does not disclose wherein at least a portion of an edge surrounding the relief opening is sharp edged, and wherein the sharp-edged portion is configured to act as impacting edge for processing food during operation of the machine blade.
Egon teaches a machine blade for food production (paragraph 0002), comprising:
at least a portion of an edge surrounding a relief opening (fig.1: (14)) is sharp edged (fig.1: (26)), and wherein the sharp-edged portion is configured to act as impacting edge for processing food during operation of the machine blade (paragraph 0037).
Both of the prior arts of SEB and Egon are related to a machine blade for food production;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the relief opening of SEB to have at least a portion of an edge surrounding the relief opening is sharp edged, and wherein the sharp-edged portion is configured to act as impacting edge for processing food during operation of the machine blade as taught by Egon in order to only cut material that is located in the opening (edge: paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 12, Egon teaches wherein at least a portion of an edge surrounding the relief opening is rounded in an area of the cutting body that experiences higher material stress during operation (paragraph 0040: oval).
Regarding claim 13, Egon teaches wherein at least a portion of an edge surrounding the relief opening is rounded in an area of the cutting body that experiences higher tensile stresses (paragraph 0040: oval).
Regarding claims 20-21, SEB discloses a machine blade for food production (fig.1 and paragraphs 0003 and 0006), comprising
a cutting body (fig.1: (11)) and a fastening portion (fig.1: (15)) for fastening the cutting-machine blade to a rotary drive (fig.1: (5)),
wherein the cutting body has a central area defined by two lateral surfaces and edge regions adjacent to the central area (figs.2-4 and 6: the central area of the element (11) between elements (13) and (15)),
wherein a thickness of the cutting body decreases in a respective edge region of the edge regions starting from the central area towards a respective edge of the edge regions of the cutting body (fig.3: the sharpened edge (11a)),
wherein the cutting body has at least one cutting bevel with a cutting edge at a front edge of the cutting body with respect to a direction of rotation intended in operation (fig.3: the sharpened edge (11a) along the arrow (F)),
wherein the machine blade is designed to be driven in operation in rotation about an axis of rotation (figs.1 and 3: (5)) and a radius of the machine blade extends from the axis of rotation to an outer edge of the machine blade (fig.3)), and
wherein the cutting body, starting from the axis of rotation, is free of openings or apertures over ⅗ of the radius (fig.3) and the cutting body has a relief opening (fig.7: (13b)) exclusively in the central area of the cutting body, the relief opening arranged in an outer section of the central area which extends beyond ⅗ of the radius (figs.3 and 7).
Regarding claims 20-21, SEB does not disclose wherein at least a portion of an edge surrounding the relief opening is sharp-edged; and wherein the sharp-edged portion is configured to act as an impacting edge for processing food during operation of the machine blade; and wherein at least a portion of the edge surrounding the relief opening is rounded.
Egon teaches a machine blade for food production (paragraph 0002), comprising:
at least a portion of an edge surrounding a relief opening (fig.1: (14)) is sharp edged (fig.1: (26)), and wherein the sharp-edged portion is configured to act as impacting edge for processing food during operation of the machine blade (paragraph 0037); wherein at least a portion of the edge surrounding the relief opening is rounded (paragraph 0040: the opening (14) having an oval shape)
Both of the prior arts of Egon and Ehrle are related to a machine blade for food production;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the relief opening of SEB to have at least a portion of an edge surrounding the relief opening is sharp edged, and wherein the sharp-edged portion is configured to act as impacting edge for processing food during operation of the machine blade; and wherein at least a portion of the edge surrounding the relief opening is rounded as taught by Egon in order to only cut material that is located in the opening (edge: paragraph 0037).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
