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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a respective edge region” should be changed to “a respective edge region of the edge regions”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “all of which are arranged” should be changed to “the one or more relief openings of which are arranged”.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “the relief opening” should be changed to “the one or more relief openings”.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “the relief opening” should be changed to “the one or more relief openings”.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “the relief opening or the relief openings” should be changed to “the one or more relief openings”.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “the relief opening” should be changed to “the one or more relief openings”.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “the relief opening” should be changed to “the one or more relief openings”.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “the number of relief openings” should be changed to “a number of the one or more relief openings”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 5 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “high material stress” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high material stress” 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;
Further, the phrase “high material stress” render the claim indefinite because:
the stress of rotational body is depended on the operation parameters such as the rotational speed, the type of the material of the rotational body and the type of the material to be cut;
Therefore, the claim is unclear and indefinite, proper clarification is required in the replying to this office action. Thus, no prior art rejection is provided for claim 2 in this office action.
The term “low material stresses” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low material stresses” 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.
Further, the phrase “low material stress” render the claim indefinite because:
the stress of rotational body is depended on the operation parameters such as the rotational speed, the type of the material of the rotational body and the type of the material to be cut;
Therefore, the claim is unclear and indefinite, proper clarification is required in the replying to this office action. Thus, no prior art rejection is provided for claim 3 in this office action.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the smallest" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “the smallest cross-sectional dimension of a respective relief opening” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a respective relief opening” is the same as or different from “one or more relief openings” that recited in claim 1 which claim 8 depends from;
Further, if “a respective relief opening” is the same as “one or more relief openings”, it is unclear how “one relief opening” can have “the smallest cross-sectional dimension”.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “a respective relief opening” is the same as or different from “one or more relief openings” that recited in claim 1; and claim 1 having “more than one relief openings”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the number" 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 1, 5, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SEB (FR2447704A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation).
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 thereto (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 starting from the central area towards a respective edge 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 in that the cutting body has one or more relief openings (fig.7: (13b)) exclusively in the central area of the cutting body, all of which are arranged in an outer section of the central area which extends beyond ⅗ of the radius (figs.3 and 7).
Regarding claim 5, SEB discloses wherein the relief opening or the relief openings (fig.7: (13b)) are round or oval, in particular elliptical.
Regarding claim 7, SEB discloses wherein the relief openings (fig.7: (13b)) are arranged along a respective blade contour.
Regarding claim 9, SEB discloses wherein the number of relief openings (fig.7: (13b)) is at most 15 and preferably not greater than 9.
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 4, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEB (FR2447704A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation)..
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 6, SEB does not explicitly disclose wherein the relief openings are hexagonal;
However; the relief opening or the relief openings (fig.7: (13b));
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 openings of SEB, including wherein the relief openings are hexagonal in order to create the turbulence which emulsifies this food (SEB: paragraph 0004). MPEPE 2144.04.
Regarding claim 8, SEB does not explicitly disclose wherein the relief openings are hexagonal;
However; The applicant does not disclose that “the smallest cross-sectional dimension of a respective 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 the relief openings are hexagonal, as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights