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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 25-26 read “said blade cutout having a blade engagement flat” and “said hub locking extension having a hub engagement flat” should read “said blade cutout having said blade engagement flat” and “said hub locking extension having said hub engagement flat”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 3 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 3 recites the limitation "motorized saw" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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).
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 (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, said locking extensions and said blade cutouts engaging 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).
Holst does not teach a locking extension featuring hub engagement flats and a blade cutout having a blade engagement flat, the said hub engagement flat and said blade cutout engagement flat 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. Holst instead teaches a head with locking extensions (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Holst) below) that extend through blade cutouts (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Holst) below).
Zuzelo teaches a circular saw blade with a central 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 cutout and the locking extension of Holst with the blade cutout and locking extension of Zuzelo and to include the washer of Zuzelo as the modification of the blade cutout and locking extension restricts the orientation of the blade and only allows for blades with the corresponding cutout to be fit on the flanged head and as the washer helps to lock the blade into position.
PNG
media_image1.png
516
1021
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
533
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Holst in view of Zuzelo 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).
Claim 3 is 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmidt (US 2,669,269 A).
Regarding claim 3, Holst in view of Zuzelo teaches the lock nut blade assembly according to claim 1.
Holst in view of Zuzelo does not teach the lock nut blade assembly which includes: said motorized saw including multiple said blade assemblies mounted in a side-by-side gang configuration extending transversely across a food product production line.
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.
Conclusion
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