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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
2. Claims 15 and 19-20 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.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “the first position being a use position wherein the cutting unit is mounted adjacent the peripheral opening in the drum,” however the term “the drum” lacks antecedent basis within claim 15 and is not otherwise introduced or defined in the claim, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unclear. Further, the phrase “peripheral opening in the drum” introduces additional ambiguity because neither the structure of the drum nor the nature, location, or configuration of the peripheral opening is defined within the claim, leaving it unclear what structural feature is being referenced or how the cutting unit interfaces with the recited opening. Additionally, claim 15 defines the cutting unit in relation to a “cutting apparatus” and the aforementioned drum-related structures without providing sufficient structural context within the claim itself, such that the spatial and functional relationships between the cutting unit, the cutting apparatus, and the drum cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. As a result, it is unclear what constitutes the claimed “use position,” what structural boundaries define “adjacent” in relation to the peripheral opening, and how the cutting unit is supported and constrained relative to the recited apparatus. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 15 are not reasonably certain, and the claim is therefore indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 14-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Biggar, III (4,413,541), hereinafter Biggar. Regarding claim 1 and 15, as best understood, Walker teaches a cutting apparatus 10 for cutting product into slices, strips or dices, the cutting apparatus comprising: a feed drum 32 to which product to be cut is fed and wherein the product is moved towards a peripheral opening (where the cutting slot 42 is located; Fig. 7) in the drum; a set of cutting tools (20, 22) which are in use mounted at said peripheral opening in the drum and are provided for cutting the product, the set of cutting tools comprising a slicing knife for cutting a slice from the product, a slice guide 16 for guiding the cut off slice, and at least one of a circular cutter 22 and a cross cutter for further cutting the slice into strips or dices, at least a subset 22 of the cutting tools is mounted on a removable cutting tool housing 24. It should be noted that the housing 24 is inherently removably connected to the cutting apparatus 10. Walker also teaches a slice thickness for the cutting apparatus is preset on the cutting unit by means of the distance between the slicing knife 20 and the slice guide 16. See Figs. 1-9 in Walker.
Walker does not explicitly teach that the cutting apparatus further comprises an auxiliary mounting system for supporting the removable cutting tool housing upon installation on and removal from the cutting apparatus, the auxiliary mounting system comprising guide surfaces which allow the removable cutting tool housing to slide between a first position and a second position, the first position being a use position wherein the housing is mounted adjacent the peripheral opening in the drum and the second position being a predefined position on the guide surfaces wherein the housing is spaced from the drum and can be lifted from the guide surfaces. However, Biggar teaches a machine including a removable cutting assembly (die cylinder 14 mounted in bearing blocks 26, 28) and an auxiliary mounting system comprising guide surfaces/guide rods (cross bar 16 and rods 116, and cooperating transfer rods 316) for supporting the removable assembly during installation on and removal from the machine. The guide surfaces allow the removable assembly to slide between a first position, wherein the die cylinder is mounted in its operative position within the machine, and a second predetermined position on the guide surfaces wherein the assembly is spaced from the cooperating cylinder 68 and can be lifted from the guide surfaces for removal and replacement by an operator. See, e.g., Figs. 13-14 and the corresponding description of rods 116, transfer rods 316, bearing blocks 126, and the rapid changeover procedure. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Walker’s cutting apparatus to include the sliding auxiliary mounting arrangement taught by Biggar in order to facilitate the removal and replacement of the removable cutting tool housing, thereby reducing machine downtime and simplifying maintenance and changeover of cutting components while providing predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, Walker teaches a cutting apparatus for cutting product into slices, strips, or dices, wherein a set of cutting tools is provided for cutting the product. Specifically, Walker discloses a slicing knife (20) for cutting a slice from the product, a slice guide (16) for guiding the cut off slice, and further discloses optional additional cutting elements including a circular cutter (22) and/or cross cutting structure for further cutting the sliced product into strips or dices. See, e.g., Walker Fig. 1-9.
Regarding claim 19, walker teaches everything noted above including that the set of cutting tools further comprises the circular cutter 20 and/or the cross cutter for further cutting the slice into strips or dices.
Regarding claim 20, walker teaches everything noted above including a cutting system comprising a cutting apparatus 10 according to claim 1 and/or a cutting unit according to claim 15.
5. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Biggar and in further view of Park (KR 101804821 B1). Regarding claim 2, Walker, as modified by Biggar, fails to explicitly teach that the guide surfaces comprise notches defining the second position for receiving complementary parts of the cutting tool housing. Biggar teaches a sliding and transfer mounting arrangement for a die cylinder supported on guide rods (116) and bearing blocks (26, 28) movable between a first operative position and a second spaced position for removal, however Biggar does not disclose discrete notch structures within the guide surfaces for positively indexing and receiving complementary mounting portions of the removable cutting tool housing. However, Park teaches a cutting apparatus including guide means comprising guide surfaces (120, 163) having notches defining a second position for receiving complementary mounting portions (141, 145) of a removable cutting tool housing (140, 150), wherein the second position provides a predefined indexed location for removal of the housing. See Figs. 1-3 in Park. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the guide surfaces of Walker’s cutting apparatus, as modified by Biggar, to include the notch-based indexing structure taught by Park in order to provide positive location and repeatable positioning of the removable cutting tool housing during installation and removal, thereby improving alignment and ease of assembly.
Regarding claim 3, Walker, as modified by Biggar and Park, teaches everything noted above including that the guide surfaces have a downward slope (defined by the slips that formed one of the notches which receive the mounting shaft 154; Fig. 3 in Park) from the second position towards the first position.
Regarding claim 4, Walker, as modified by Biggar and Park, teaches everything noted above including that the guide surfaces extend substantially perpendicular to a cutting plane which is defined by the slicing knife in use.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 15 have been considered but are not further addressed because the new reference Biggar teaches the amended features set forth in claims 1 and 15.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Klockow et al. (9,604,379 B2) teach a cutting apparatus.
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
July 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights