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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claim 1, the cancelation of claim 3, and the addition of claim 4.
Election by Original Presentation
Newly submitted claim 4 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Originally filed claims 1-3, drawn to a lock nut blade assembly, classified in CPC area B27B 5/32.
II. Claim 4, drawn to a method of operating a motorized food product saw assembly, classified in CPC area A21C 15/00.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions Group I and Group II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus of Group I as originally claimed could be used to practice another and materially different process than the method of Group II which would not require additional blades and would not require the slicing of food products. Instead the apparatus as originally claimed could be used for cutting of other materials or substances.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 4 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-2 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 claim 1 the preamble states “[a] lock nut blade assembly for a motorized food product saw with a conveyor belt configured for converying food products through the food product saw, which blade assembly includes” in lines 1-3 of the claim, “said lock nut hub subassembly being connected to a motorized saw including multiple said blade assembles mounted in a side-by-side gang configuration extending transversely across a food product production line” in lines 41-43, “said circular saw blade comprising a first circular saw blade” in lin 44, “a second circular saw blade” in line 45, and “wherein said first circular saw blade may be removed from said lock extension and replaced with said second circular saw blade” in lines 49-50. It is unclear if the preamble is incorrect or if the applicant is attempting to improperly claim a system or method or combination as a part of the subassembly. As best understood and as originally claimed the claim was drawn to the structure of a lock nut blade assembly. As the applicant has not amended the preamble of the claim such as to claim a system or otherwise the scope of claim 1 is rendered indefinite.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holst (US 5,870,827 A) in view of Zuzelo (US 5,477,845 A), Burke (US 2008/0017006 A1), Kobayashi et al. (US 4,428,120 A), Jarby (US 4,497,141 A), Schmidt (US 2,669,269 A).
Regarding claim 1, Holst teaches a lock nut blade (Holst, Fig. 1-3) assembly for a lock nut blade assembly for a motorized food product saw with a conveyor belt configured for conveying food products through the food product saw, the Examiner would note that the preamble appears to include an intended use statement and the instant invention is drawn to “a lock nut blade assembly” with “the assembly for a motorized food product saw with a conveyor belt configured for conveying food products through the food product saw” being a statement of the instant invention’s intended use (see MPEP 2111.02(II)), which blade assembly includes:
a shaft (Holst, Fig. 1-3, 20 and 30) with first and second ends (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Holst) below);
said shaft first end drivingly connected to a motor (Holst, Col. 1, lines 58-60);
a circular saw blade (Holst, Fig. 1-2, 16) including a circumferential cutting edge with saw teeth and a center cutout;
a lock nut hub subassembly (Holst, Fig. 1-2, 10a) configured for mounting said blade on said shaft second end (Holst, Col. 2, lines 41-51), said lock nut hub subassembly including a hub (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Holst) below) receiving said shaft second end;
said blade assembly having an assembled configuration with said blade mounted on said shaft second end and a disassembled configuration with said blade removed from said shaft second end (Holst, Fig. 1-2);
said lock nut hub subassembly including a flanged head (Holst, Fig. 1-2, 22) mounted on said hub and including a locking extension protruding therefore (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Holst) below), said locking extension configured for placement in said blade cutout (Holst, Fig. 2, 18) with said blade assembly in its assembled configuration, each of the said locking extensions and each of the said blade cutouts engages in an anti-rotation relation with said blade assembly in its assembled configuration (Holst, Col. 2, lines 47-49);
said lock nut hub subassembly including: a male-threaded section (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Holst) below) extending from said locking extension; a female-threaded lock nut (Holst, Fig. 1-2, 26) configured for threadably receiving said male-threaded section;
said nut configured for clamping said blade on said lock nut hub assembly with said blade assembly in its assembled configuration (Holst, Col. 2, lines 49-52);
a male-threaded section (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Holst) below) extending from said locking extension; and
a female-threaded nut (Holst, Fig. 1-2, 26) threadably receiving said male-threaded section;
said circular saw blade configured for removing over shaft first end by loosening said locknut from said hub male-threaded section in a direction towards said shaft first end (Holst, Fig. 2, 16);
said second end flange hub head terminating at a relatively flat end positioned in closely-space proximity to a respective saw blade (Holst, Fig. 2, 22);
said circular saw blade (Holst, Fig. 1-2, 16) comprising a first circular saw blade.
As Holst further teaches that the blade is replaceable (Holst, Col. 2, lines 42-52) and such a second blade would have the same structure as the first blade (Holst, Col. 1 line 66 – Col. 2 line 4) Holst also teaches all the structure for the second circular saw blade and the replacement of the first circular saw blade with the second circular saw blade.
Holst does not teach each of the said hub engagement flats and each of said blade cutout engagement flats abutting each other in a fixed, anti-rotation relation with said blade is mounted on said hub subassembly with said blade assembly in its assembled configuration, said cutout comprising a capsule shape having a rounded top edge and rounded bottom edge connected by a first, straight edge comprising a first blade engagement flat, and a second straight edge comprising a second blade engagement flat, a lock extension comprising a corresponding capsule shape to the cutout having a rounded top edge and rounded bottom edge connected by a first straight edge comprising a first hub engagement flat, and a second straight edge comprising a second hub engagement flat, said lock nut hub subassembly being connected to a motorized saw including multiple said blade assemblies mounted in a side-by-side gang configuration extending transversely across a food product production line.
Zuzelo teaches a circular saw blade with a blade cutout (Zuzelo, Fig. 1, 26) with blade engagement flat that mounts to a flanged head (Zuzelo, Fig. 1, 14) with a locking extension (Zuzelo, Fig. 1, 16) that engages with the engagement flats of the blade (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Zuzelo) below) and a washer (Zuzelo, Fig. 1, 28) mounted between the blade (Zuzelo, Fig. 1, 22) and the locking nut (Zuzelo, Fig. 1, 30). Zuzelo teaches at this particular arrangement is useful in that it only allows for blades with this the same blade cutout to be mounted to the shaft (Zuzelo, Col. 1, lines 60-64) and ensures that the blade fits over the blade engagement flats in a particular orientation (Zuzelo, Col. 2 line 67 – Col. 3 line 4). The inclusion of the washer of Zuzelo to space the nut from the blade and lock the blade into position along with the nut (Zuzelo, Col. 3, lines 5-11) while ensuring the blade is held securely between the nut and the second end of the shaft. It should also be noted that in this particular arrangement the engagement flats are abutting each other in a fixed, anti-rotation relation when said blade is mounted on said hub subassembly with said blade assembly in its assembled configuration (see Fig. 2 of Zuzelo).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the blade assembly taught by Holst to include a washer like that taught by Zuzelo as the washer helps to lock the blade into position.
Burke teaches a circular saw blade (Burke, Figs. 1, 12) with a blade cutout (Burke, Figs. 1, 14) and a locking extension (Burke, Figs. 1, 10), wherein the shape of the blade cutout and locking extension may be the same shape (Burke, Figs. 1, 10 and 14) or different shapes (Burke, Figs. 2-4, 10, 20, 32, 42).
Kobayashi teaches a locking extension (Kobayashi, Figs. 2-4, 15) for a blade (Kobayashi, Figs. 2-4, 7) comprising capsule shape to the cutout having a rounded top edge (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Kobayashi) below) and rounded bottom edge (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Kobayashi) below) connected by a first straight edge (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Kobayashi) below) comprising a first hub engagement flat (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Kobayashi) below), and a second straight edge (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Kobayashi) below) comprising a second hub engagement flat (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 4 (Kobayashi) below).
Jarby teaches a circular blade (Jarby, Figs. 1 and 3, 20) comprising a cutout (Jarby, Fig. 3, 21) and a locking extension (Jarby, Figs. 1 and 3, 19) with different shapes (Jarby, Fig. 3, 19 and 21), said cutout comprising a capsule shape having a rounded top edge (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Jarby) below) and rounded bottom edge (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Jarby) below) connected by a first straight edge (Jarby, Fig. 3, 23) comprising a first blade engagement flat (Jarby, Fig. 3, 23), and a second straight edge (Jarby, Fig. 3, 22) comprising a second blade engagement flat (Jarby, Fig. 3, 22).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the blade cutout and the locking extension taught by Holst to have a cutout comprising a capsule shape having a rounded top edge and rounded bottom edge connected by a first, straight edge comprising a first blade engagement flat, and a second straight edge comprising a second blade engagement flat and a lock extension comprising a corresponding capsule shape to the cutout having a rounded top edge and rounded bottom edge connected by a first straight edge comprising a first hub engagement flat, and a second straight edge comprising a second hub engagement flat or for the cutout and locking extension to have any desirable shape as such changes of shape only require a regular level of skill in the art and as evidenced by Zuzelo, Burke, Kobayashi, and Jarby it is not only known in the art to have cutouts and locking extensions with a capsule shape but is also well known in the art to have other geometrical shapes. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.) (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Since Zuzelo, Burke, Kobayashi, and Jarby show that it is known in the art to have both straight and rounded edges that engage each other to hold a blade in place and show that a capsule shape is known in the art of circular blades the designation of a capsule shape does nothing to enhance the patentability of a design. Such a modification of the blade cutout and locking extension also restricts the orientation of the blade and only allows for blades with the corresponding cutout to be fit on the flanged head.
Schmidt teaches a motorized saw (Schmidt, Fig. 1-12) include multiple blade assembles (Schmidt, Figs. 2-5, 66) mounted in a side-by-side gang configuration (Schmidt, Fig. 5, 66) extending transversely across a food product production line (Schmidt, Fig. 5, 10). Such an arrangement allows more efficient halving or slicing of bread or bread products while maintaining uniformity (Schmidt, Col. 1, lines 22-34).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the device taught by Holst in view of Zuzelo to be part of a motorized saw including multiple said blade assemblies mounted in a side-by-side gang configuration extending transversely across a food product production line as taught by Schmidt as doing so allows for more efficient and uniform cutting or slicing of bread or bread products.
PNG
media_image1.png
312
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
341
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
531
508
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
379
495
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Holst in view of Zuzelo, Burke, Kobayashi, Jarby, Schmidt teaches the lock nut blade assembly according to claim 1, which includes: a washer (Zuzelo, Fig. 1, 28) receiving said threaded extension and clamping said blade on said flanged head with said extension in said cutout and said blade assembly in its assembled configuration (Zuzelo, Col. 3, lines 5-11).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant asserts the amendments to claim 1 overcome the claim objections of record. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the claim objections of record.
The Applicant asserts the claim 1 have been amended such that it overcomes the prior art rejection of record. The Examiner agrees, however, as the applicant has amended the claim the Examiner has updated the prior art rejection to account for the amended claim limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 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, 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights