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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/19/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 2/25/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Corey Baxter et al. (US 20190375126 A1 – hereinafter Baxter) in view of Douglas
McGuffin-Noll et al. (US 20170232628 A1 – hereinafter McGuffin-Noll) and Michael Eifert
(US 20140090497 A1 – hereinafter Eifert).
Regarding claim 1, Baxter teaches a cutting head of a cutting machine, the cutting head
comprising: a pair of mounting blocks (Fig. 2, Mounting Blocks 34) spaced apart from each
other; a slicing unit (Fig. 2, Slicing Unit 26) mounted with the pair of mounting blocks, the
slicing unit comprising a knife (Fig. 2, Knife 20) having a cutting edge configured to produce
product slices ([0007]); an adjustable gate (Fig. 2, Adjustable Gate 40) mounted with the pair of
mounting blocks, the adjustable gate defining a gate opening between the cutting edge of the
knife and a trailing edge of the adjustable gate, the adjustable gate being adjustable by moving
the trailing edge thereof relative to the cutting edge ([0007]); and an adjustment unit (Fig. 3,
adjustment unit comprising Adjustment Screw 44) comprising a housing (Fig. 3, outer portion of
Mounting Block 34 which houses Adjustment Screw 44), an adjustment screw (Fig. 3,
Adjustment Screw 44) disposed in a bore of the housing and threadably received in a threaded
bore in a first mounting block (Fig. 3, lower Mounting Block 34) of the pair of mounting blocks.
Baxter does not teach a spring disposed in the bore of the housing, an indicator disposed
in the bore of the housing and surrounding a head of the adjustment screw, and a scale along a
perimeter of the indicator, the adjustment screw having splines and the indicator having splines
that are complementary to each other, the spring being arranged within the bore of the housing so
that the splines of the adjustment screw and the splines of the indicator are engaged with each
other under a biasing influence of the spring and the splines of the indicator disengage from the
splines of the adjustment screw by compressing the spring.
However, McGuffin-Noll teaches an indicator (Fig. 5, Handle 600) disposed in a bore of
the housing (Fig. 5, Housing 200) and a scale (Fig. 5, numbering along the lower edge of Handle
600) along a perimeter of the indicator. McGuffin-Noll does not teach that the indicator is
surrounding a head of the adjustment screw however it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
location of the indicator as it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different
location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the
device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,
188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Baxter to include the
features of claim 1 above as taught by McGuffin-Noll. Doing so is beneficial as it translates a
rotation of the indicator to a change in distance of a moveable part which controls slice thickness
(McGuffin-Noll; [0038]).
Additionally, Eifert teaches a spring (Fig. 2A, Spring 68) disposed in the bore of the
housing (Fig. 2A, Spindle 32), the adjustment shaft (Fig. 3B, Shaft 14) having splines (Fig. 3B,
Splines 36) and the item surrounding the head of the shaft (Fig. 3B, Output Gear 22) having
splines that are complementary to each other, the spring being arranged within the bore of the
housing so that the splines of the adjustment shaft and the splines of the item surrounding the
head of the shaft are engaged with each other under a biasing influence of the spring and the
splines of the item surrounding the head of the shaft disengage from the splines of the adjustment
shaft by compressing the spring (Fig. 3A and 3B, [0050]-[0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Baxter and McGuffin -
Noll to include the features of claim 1 above as taught by Eifert. Doing so is beneficial as
indicator can be selectively engaged or disengaged via manual force of the user (Eifert; [0033]).
Regarding claim 6, Baxter further teaches the cutting head of claim 1, wherein the
adjustable gate is adjustable by forcibly deflecting the trailing edge thereof relative to the cutting
edge of the knife ([0007]).
Regarding claim 7, Baxter further teaches the cutting head of claim 6, wherein the
adjustment screw has a distal end that bears against the adjustable gate to forcibly deflect the
trailing end ([0007]).
Regarding claim 8, Baxter already teaches the cutting head of claim 7, wherein the
adjustment screw is threadably received in the threaded bore in the first mounting block such that
rotating the adjustment screw in first and second directions cause the distal end thereof to force
the trailing edge to move inward and outward, respectively, to yield product slices that are
relatively thinner and relatively thicker, respectively (See the rejections of claims 1 and 7 above
– the screw is threaded into the mounting block, so rotating in a first or second direction moves
the screw forward or backward. As the end of the screw deflects the gate it is in contact with it,
and so moves the distal end inward or outward with the forward or backward movement of the
screw).
Regarding claim 9, the existing combination of Baxter, McGuffin-Noll, and Eifert
already teaches the cutting head of claim 1, wherein the scale has a zero calibration mark
(McGuffin-Noll; Fig. 2, “0” mark on 600), a first set of calibration marks increasing in value in a
first direction from the zero calibration mark (McGuffin-Noll; Fig. 2, moving clockwise from the
“0” mark, numbers ascend from 1), and a second set of calibration marks decreasing in value in
an oppositely-disposed second direction from the zero calibration mark (McGuffin-Noll; Fig. 2,
moving counterclockwise from the “0” mark, numbers descend from 19).
Regarding claim 10, the existing combination of Baxter, McGuffin-Noll, and Eifert
already teaches the cutting head of claim 9, wherein there is at least one indicator mark
(McGuffin-Noll; Fig. 2, dot above 600) adapted to be selectively alignable with the zero
calibration mark, the first set of calibration marks, and the second set of calibration marks of the
scale by rotating the indicator (McGuffin-Noll; [0033]). McGuffin-Noll does not teach that the
indicator mark is located on the indicator, however it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
invention of McGuffin-Noll such that the location of the indicator mark and the calibration
marks are switched, resulting in the indicator mark being located on the indicator, as it has been
held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as an obvious matter of design
choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86
USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 11, the existing combination of Baxter, McGuffin-Noll, and Eifert does
not teach the cutting head of claim 1, wherein the housing is secured to the first mounting block
with a fastener (See the rejection of claim 1 above – the housing is integral with the first
mounting block).
However, McGuffin-Noll further teaches wherein housing (Fig. 1, circular plate which
Handle 600 is inserted to) is secured to a first mounting block (Fig. 1, 200) with a fastener.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of McGuffin -Noll to
include the limitations of claim 11 above as it has been held that making a feature separable is
obvious “if it were considered desirable for any reason” In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129
USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). It is well known in the art that it can be desirable to replace an
item such as the housing which is in contact with a moving part, which can cause wear, for
which purpose the blade must be detachable and not integral.
Regarding claim 12, Baxter further teaches a cutting machine (Fig. 1) in which the
cutting head of claim 1 is installed, the cutting machine further comprising an impeller (Fig. 1,
Impeller 14) coaxially mounted within the cutting head for rotation about an axis of the cutting
head in a rotational direction relative to the cutting head ([0004]), wherein the adjustable gate is
adjustable by moving the trailing edge thereof radially inward and radially outward relative to
the axis of the cutting head ([0007]).
Regarding claim 13, Baxter further teaches the cutting machine of claim 12, wherein the
cutting machine is a centrifugal-type cutting machine ([0002]).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corey
Baxter et al. (US 20190375126 A1 – hereinafter Baxter) in view of Douglas McGuffin-Noll
et al. (US 20170232628 A1 – hereinafter McGuffin-Noll) and Michael Eifert (US
20140090497 A1 – hereinafter Eifert) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
Robyn Marie Johnson (US 20130161915 A1 – hereinafter Johnson).
Regarding claim 2, the existing combination of Baxter, McGuffin-Noll, and Eifert does
not teach the cutting head of claim 1, further comprising a locking tab disposed in the bore of the
housing between the spring and the indicator, the locking tab having splines that are
complementary to the splines of the adjustment screw, the spring being arranged within the bore
of the housing so that the splines of the adjustment screw and the splines of the locking tab are
engaged with each other under the biasing influence of the spring and the splines of the locking
tab disengage from the splines of the adjustment screw by compressing the spring.
However, Johnson teaches a locking tab (Fig. 26, Linear Lock 169) disposed in the bore
of the housing (Fig. 26, housing composed of Handle Sections 110 and 111) between the spring
(Fig. 26, Spring 117) and the indicator (Fig. 26, Driver 171), the locking tab having splines (Fig.
26, Spline 120) that are complementary to the splines (Fig. 26, Gaps 121) of the adjustment
screw (Fig. 26, Driver 170), the spring being arranged within the bore of the housing (Fig. 26,
housing composed of Handle Sections 110 and 111) so that the splines of the adjustment screw
and the splines of the locking tab are engaged with each other under the biasing influence of the
spring ([0079]) and the splines of the locking tab disengage from the splines of the adjustment
screw by compressing the spring ([0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Baxter, McGuffin-Noll,
and Eifert to include the limitations of claim 2 above as taught by Johnson. Doing so is beneficial
as the adjustment screw can be locked into any desired set position (Johnson; [0083]).
Regarding claim 3, the existing combination of Baxter, McGuffin-Noll, Eifert, and
Johnson already teaches the cutting head of claim 2, wherein the adjustment screw and the
locking tab are configured so that the splines thereof disengage from each either other by
compressing the spring a first extent (See the rejection of claim 2 above), and the adjustment
screw and the indicator are configured so that the splines thereof disengage from each either
other by compressing the spring a second extent that is greater than the first extent (In the
rejection of claim 2 above, the indicator is shown to be above the locking tab. In the rejection of
claim 1, the indicator is shown to disengage with the splines of the adjustment screw via
compression of the spring. Therefore, since they both move out of alignment with the splines of
the adjustment screw via compression of the spring, the locking tab would inherently travel less
of a distance to disengage with the splines than the indicator, as the indicator is above the locking
tab. A greater distance travelled inherently causes a greater compression of the spring).
Regarding claim 4, the existing combination of Baxter, McGuffin-Noll, Eifert, and
Johnson already teaches that the bore of the housing has a shaped portion (Johnson; Fig. 26,
Linear Slide 118) and the locking tab has an inner perimeter (Johnson; Fig. 26, Core 119) that is
shaped relative to the shaped portion of the bore so that the shaped portion of the bore prevents
the locking tab from rotating within the bore (Johnson; [0079]). Johnson does not teach that the
locking tab portion which is shaped relative to the shaped portion of the bore is an outer
perimeter, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson such that the locking tab has an
outer perimeter rather than an inner perimeter that is shaped relative to a shaped portion of the
bore to prevent rotation as it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different
location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the
device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,
188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 5, the existing combination of Baxter, McGuffin-Noll, Eifert, and
Johnson already teaches the cutting head of claim 4, wherein the outer perimeter of the locking
tab has a shape that is complementary to a shape of the shaped portion of the bore (See the
rejection of claim 1 above – both share a square shape).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that there is no proper motivation given for combining Eifert with Baxter and McGuffin-Noll to teach a spring and spline system which allows a shaft which to selectively engage or disengage with an attached item. Applicant contends that the taught benefit of the modification from Eifert of the ability to selectively engage or disengage the indicator with the use of manual force is only a benefit for Eifert and would not be considered a benefit for the combination of Baxter and McGuffin-Noll. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, there is a teaching in Eifert to include the aforementioned limitations of claim 1 for the benefit that the indicator can be selectively engaged or disengaged via manual force of the user. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as a benefit also in Baxter and McGuffin-Noll, since in the case of the invention of Baxter and McGuffin-Noll it would useful for assigning a desired value to a specific setting.
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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights