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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
2. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a specific combination of structural features in which each V-shaped blade end portion is removably fastened to a respective blade mount by at least one mounting pin and at least one removable fastener, and wherein the same blade mount overlies both the upstream edge and the downstream edge of the V-shaped blade end portion to inhibit rotation of the V-shaped blade when impacted by food.
The originally filed specification does not provide written description support for this combination. The specification describes the edge-overlying blade mount arrangement in connection with Figs. 7-8 and paragraphs [0059]-[0066]. In this embodiment, the blade mount includes a recess receiving the blade end portion, and the upstream and downstream portions of the blade mount overlie the corresponding upstream and downstream edges of the blade end portion. In this embodiment, a single fastener 210 has been used. See Fig. 7 in the drawings. The specification identifies this structure as the mechanism that inhibits blade rotation caused by torsional loading. Separately, the specification describes the mounting pin and removable fastener arrangement in connection with Figs. 12-14 and paragraphs [0080]-[0082]. In this embodiment, the mounting pin(s) and removable fastener cooperate to provide torsional stability and inhibit rotation of the V-shaped blade. This embodiment does not disclose or depict a blade mount having upstream and downstream portions that overlie both edges of the blade end portion.
The specification does not describe an embodiment in which both rotation-inhibiting structures are provided together. Rather, the specification treats these structures as alternative arrangements for achieving the same function. In particular, where a blade is secured by mounting pins and a removable fastener that cooperate to resist rotation, the specification does not disclose any need for, or use of, the separate edge-overlying mount structure. Conversely, where the blade mount includes portions that overlie both blade edges, the specification does not disclose the additional use of mounting pins and a removable fastener as part of that same mount. Accordingly, the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of a blade mount having the claimed combination of (1) edge-overlying upstream and downstream mount portions (Figs. 7-8) and (2) the use of both mounting pins plus a removable fastener (Figs. 12-14) in a same embodiment as set forth in amended claim 1. The claimed combination therefore lacks written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. Claims 1-6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnoth et al. (5,337,640), hereinafter Arnoth, in view of Happe et al. (3,260,290), hereinafter Happe. Regarding claim 1, Arnoth teaches a blade assembly 10 for cutting food (as vegetables such as carrots and potatoes), the blade assembly comprising: a blade support frame 14 having an upstream end, a downstream end, a food flow path 16 extending from the upstream end to the downstream end, and a plurality of blade mounts (defined by portions of the blade holder 14 which have holes to receive the fasteners) distributed around the food flow path; a plurality of V-shaped blades 18, 28 (with alternative V-shaped blades; col. 5, lines 60-61) removably fastened (by fasteners 43 shown in Fig. 3) to the blade support frame 14, each V-shaped blade having a first end portion (40a) connected to one of the blade mounts, a second end portion (40b) connected to another of the blade mounts, and an intermediate portion (defined by apex portion 42a of the V-shaped blade 18, 28) extending from the first end portion to the second end portion, the intermediate portion extending into the food flow path 16; wherein each V-shaped blade includes an upstream edge and a downstream edge extending from the first end portion to the second end portion. See Figs. 1-10 of Arnoth.
It should be noted that Arnoth teaches that the blades may be in the shape of an untruncated letter “V” (col. 5, lines 60-61). Arnoth recites:
“FIG. 10 is a perspective view of a blade according to the present invention. The blade in FIG. 10 may be either a first blade from the first blade group, or a second blade from the second blade group. In the preferred embodiment, each blade comprises a strip knife having the shape of a truncated letter ‘V’ with a flat bottom. As may be apparent to one skilled in the cutting art, for products in which the core may be utilized in the finished end product and which have relatively small diameters, the shape of the blades for cutting the core may differ from the above description. For instance, the blades may be in the shape of an untruncated letter ‘V.’” See col. 5, lines 32-49 of Arnoth.
In this case, the untruncated V-shaped blades are exactly V-shaped blades that inherently create V-shaped pieces from a food product. If the truncated V-shaped blades produce pieces from the food product which are in the shape of a truncated V (shown in Figs. 6 and 9), then untruncated V-shaped blades naturally produce V-shaped pieces from the food product.
Arnoth does not explicitly teach that each of the first and second end portions of each V-shaped blade is removably fastened to a respective blade mount by at least one mounting pin projecting from the respective blade mount and at least one removable fastener, nor does Arnoth explicitly teach that at the first and second end portions of each V-shaped blade, the respective blade mount overlies both the upstream edge and the downstream edge of the V-shaped blade to inhibit the V-shaped blade from rotating when impacted by food.
However, Happe teaches a saw blade 20 removably received within a blade-receiving slot 24 or 25 formed in a blade-holding member 19. See Figs. 1-4. Happe further teaches that the blade is positioned within the slot by a stop pin 38 and removably secured by a headed screw 36 threaded into insert 37. See Fig. 2 and col. 2, lines 70-75. Because the blade is received within the blade-receiving slot, the opposite side walls defining the slot overlie opposite edges of the end portion of the blade received therein, thereby restraining the blade against rotation relative to the blade-holding member. Thus, Happe teaches that each blade end is removably fastened to the blade mount by at least one mounting pin projecting from the blade mount and at least one removable fastener, while the blade mount overlies both opposite edges of the blade end to inhibit rotation of the blade during use. This is clearly shown in Fig. 2 below. Arnoth discloses removably fastening the ends of the V-shaped blades to blade mounts, and Happe teaches receiving each blade end within a recessed blade mount having side portions that overlie opposite edges of the blade end while securing the blade with a mounting pin and removable fastener. It would have been routine and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Arnoth’s blade mounts to include the recessed mounting arrangement taught by Happe in order to provide improved resistance to blade rotation and increased stability of the blade when subjected to cutting forces, while preserving the removable blade construction of Arnoth.
Regarding claim 2, Arnoth in view of Happe teaches everything noted above including that each of the first and second end portions of each V-shaped blade is received in a recess of the respective blade mount. Happe teaches blade-receiving slots 24 and 25 formed in the blade-holding member 19, each slot constituting a recess that receives the corresponding end portion of the blade. See Figs. 2 and 3. Because each blade end is received within the slot, the blade mount includes an upstream side portion and a downstream side portion defined by the opposite walls of the slot that overlie the respective upstream and downstream edges of the blade end, thereby restraining the blade against rotation.
Regarding claim 3, Arnoth in view of Happe teaches everything noted above including that each of the first and second end portions of each V-shaped blade includes a pin aperture (Fig. 10 of Arnoth; Fig. 2 of Happe) that receives a respective mounting pin 38 of the respective blade mount.
Regarding claim 4, Arnoth in view of Happe teaches everything noted above including that each of the first and second end portions of each V-shaped blade includes a fastener aperture (Fig. 10 of Arnoth; Fig. 2 of Happe) spaced apart from the pin aperture.
Regarding claim 5, Arnoth teaches everything noted above including that the intermediate portion (defined as the apex of blades 18, 28) of each V-shaped blade is unsupported (shown in Fig. 7 of Arnoth).
Regarding claim 6, Arnoth, as modified by Happe, teaches everything noted above including that the blade support frame comprises a plurality of blade support risers spaced apart circumferentially around the food flow path, each blade support riser including a plurality of the blade mounts, and for each V-shaped blade, the first end portion is removably fastened to one of the blade mounts on one blade support riser and the second end portion is removably fastened to another blade mount on the circumferentially adjacent blade support riser. Arnoth teaches that the blade support frame includes a plurality of blade mounts arranged around the food flow path (Figs. 1-3), while Happe teaches the recessed blade-mount structure employing a mounting pin and removable fastener to secure the blade ends and inhibit blade rotation. It would have been obvious to incorporate Happe’s blade-mount configuration into the blade support frame of Arnoth for the reasons discussed above.
5. Claims 1-4 and 6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graziano (US 2004/0194597 A1), hereinafter Graziano, in view of Happe. Regarding claim 1, Graziano teaches a blade assembly 10 for cutting food, the blade assembly comprising: a blade support frame 12 having an upstream end, a downstream end, a food flow path 16 extending from the upstream end to the downstream end, and a plurality of blade mounts (36a-36e) distributed around the food flow path; a plurality of V-shaped blades 18 removably fastened (by fasteners 48 shown in Fig. 1) to the blade support frame 12, each V-shaped blade having a first end portion (24a-24d; Fig. 3) connected to one of the blade mounts, a second end portion (24a-24d) connected to another of the blade mounts, and an intermediate portion (defined by the apex portion of the V-shaped blade 18) extending from the first end portion to the second end portion, the intermediate portion extending into the food flow path 16; wherein each V-shaped blade includes an upstream edge and a downstream edge extending from the first end portion to the second end portion. See Figs. 1-8 of Graziano.
Graziano does not explicitly teach that each of the first and second end portions of each V-shaped blade is removably fastened to a respective one of the blade mounts by at least one mounting pin projecting from the respective blade mount and at least one removable fastener. Graziano also does not explicitly teach that at the first and second end portions of each V-shaped blade, the respective blade mount overlies both the upstream edge and the downstream edge of the V-shaped blade to inhibit the V-shaped blade from rotating when impacted by food.
However, Happe teaches a saw blade 20 removably received within blade-receiving slots 24 or 25 formed in the laterally extended limbs 23 of a blade-holding member 19. See Figs. 1-4. Happe further teaches that the blade is positioned by a stop pin 38 and removably secured by a headed screw 36 threaded into insert 37. See Fig. 2 and col. 2, lines 70-75. Because the blade end is received within the blade-receiving slot, the opposite side walls defining the slot overlie opposite edges of the blade end received therein, thereby restraining the blade against rotation relative to the blade-holding member. Thus, Happe teaches each blade end being removably fastened to the blade mount by at least one mounting pin projecting from the blade mount and at least one removable fastener, while the blade mount overlies both opposite edges of the blade end to inhibit rotation during use. Graziano discloses removably fastening the ends of the V-shaped blades to blade mounts, and Happe teaches a recessed blade-mount arrangement in which the blade end is received within a slot, positioned by a mounting pin, secured by a removable fastener, and laterally supported by the side portions of the blade mount that overlie opposite edges of the blade. This is clearly shown in Fig. 2 below. It would have been routine and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Graziano’s blade mounts to incorporate the recessed mounting arrangement taught by Happe in order to provide improved resistance to blade rotation and increased stability of the blade when subjected to cutting forces, while preserving the removable blade construction of Graziano.
Regarding claim 2, Graziano in view of Happe teaches everything noted above including that each of the first and second end portions of each V-shaped blade is received in a recess of the respective blade mount. Happe teaches blade-receiving slots 24 and 25 formed in the blade-holding member 19, each slot constituting a recess that receives the corresponding end portion of the blade. See Figs. 2 and 3. Because each blade end is received within the slot, the blade mount includes an upstream portion and a downstream portion defined by the opposite walls of the slot that overlie the respective upstream and downstream edges of the blade end, thereby restraining the blade against rotation.
Regarding claim 3, Graziano in view of Happe teaches everything noted above including that each of the first and second end portions of each V-shaped blade includes a pin aperture (Fig. 5 of Graziano; Fig. 2 of Happe) that receives a respective mounting pin 38 of the respective blade mount.
Regarding claim 4, Graziano in view of Happe teaches everything noted above including that each of the first and second end portions of each V-shaped blade includes a fastener aperture (Fig. 5 of Graziano; Fig. 2 of Happe) spaced apart from the pin aperture.
Regarding claim 6, Graziano, as modified by Happe, teaches everything noted above including that the blade support frame comprises a plurality of blade support risers (defined by the stepped structure of frame part 32 shown in Fig. 2 of Graziano) spaced apart circumferentially around the food flow path, each of the blade support risers including a plurality of the blade mounts, and for each of the V-shaped blades, the first end portion is removably fastened to one of the blade mounts on one of the blade support risers, and the second end portion is removably fastened to another of the blade mounts on the circumferentially adjacent blade support riser. Graziano teaches the overall blade support frame and blade arrangement, while Happe teaches the recessed blade-mount configuration employing a mounting pin and removable fastener with the blade mount overlying opposite edges of the blade end to inhibit blade rotation. It would have been obvious to incorporate Happe’s blade-mount configuration into the blade support frame of Graziano for the reasons discussed above.
PNG
media_image1.png
501
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
713
828
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant argues that none of the cited secondary references disclose a blade mount that overlies both the upstream and downstream edges of a V-shaped food cutting blade end portion, and asserts that Blum, Happe, and Bradley were cited only for teaching the use of a pin plus a fastener at a blade end. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection relies on Happe for more than merely teaching the use of a pin and a fastener. As discussed above, Happe teaches a blade-holding member 19 including blade-receiving slots 24 and 25 formed in laterally extended limbs 23, wherein the end portion of the saw blade 20 is received within the slot, positioned by stop pin 38, and removably secured by headed screw 36. See Figs. 2-4 in Happe. Because the blade end is received within the blade-receiving slot, the opposite side walls defining the slot overlie opposite edges of the blade end. Thus, the blade mount physically surrounds and laterally constrains the blade end, thereby inhibiting rotation of the blade relative to the blade mount. Accordingly, Happe teaches the blade mount overlying both opposite edges of the blade end, as presently claimed. This is clearly shown in Fig. 2 above, and it is alos evidenced in Fig. 12 in Sweeney et al. (2,954,808).
Applicant further argues that Happe is directed to a straight saw blade rather than a V-shaped food cutting blade. However, the claims do not require that the blade mount itself be specifically configured for a V-shaped blade or that the overlying portions of the blade mount have any particular geometry corresponding to the V-shape of the blade. Rather, the claims require that the end portions of the V-shaped blade be removably fastened to blade mounts such that the blade mounts overlie both the upstream and downstream edges of the blade end portions. The end portions of Arnoth’s V-shaped blades are generally straight mounting portions that are secured to the blade support frame. Happe teaches a blade-mount configuration for securing blade end portions by receiving the blade end within a recess defined by opposing side walls that overlie opposite edges of the blade end. The teachings of Happe are therefore applicable to the mounting arrangement of Arnoth irrespective of the overall shape of the blade.
Applicant additionally argues that Happe pertains to a different field of endeavor and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to saw blade clamps when seeking to prevent rotation of V-shaped food cutting blades.
This argument is likewise unpersuasive. Happe is not relied upon for the particular application of cutting wood or metal, but rather for its teaching of a mechanical blade-mounting arrangement that positively locates and stabilizes a removable blade using a mounting pin, removable fastener, and recessed blade mount that engages opposite edges of the blade. It is well established that a reference is analogous art if it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor. See MPEP § 2141.01(a). Both Arnoth and Happe address the common mechanical problem of securely mounting a removable blade to resist undesired movement during cutting operations. Accordingly, Happe is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the presently claimed invention.
Applicant further contends that the cited saw blade references rely only on blade tension or face-to-face clamping and do not experience the same rotational loading as the claimed invention. However, Happe expressly employs blade-receiving slots that laterally capture the blade end in addition to the stop pin and headed screw. The opposing walls of the slot provide positive lateral engagement with opposite edges of the blade end rather than relying solely upon frictional clamping. Such engagement inherently resists rotational movement of the blade relative to the blade mount, which is the function recited by the claims. The claims do not require any particular magnitude or source of the rotational forces being resisted.
Finally, Applicant argues that the proposed combination is based upon impermissible hindsight. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection is based upon the express teachings of the references. Arnoth teaches a removable V-shaped blade assembly, while Happe teaches a recessed blade mount including a mounting pin and removable fastener that receives and laterally constrains the blade end by overlying opposite edges thereof. Incorporating Happe’s known blade-mount configuration into Arnoth’s removable blade assembly merely substitutes one known blade attachment arrangement for another predictable blade attachment arrangement to obtain the recognized benefit of improved blade stability and resistance to blade rotation. Such modification would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and does not rely upon Applicant’s disclosure as a template.
Applicant argues that Graziano secures the blades against movement by clamping through the bore in the attachment member and therefore does not disclose that a respective blade mount overlies both the upstream edge and the downstream edge of the V-shaped blade to inhibit rotation. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on Graziano alone for this limitation. Rather, Happe is relied upon for teaching the claimed blade-mount configuration. As discussed above, Happe teaches a blade-holding member 19 including blade-receiving slots 24 and 25 formed in laterally extended limbs 23, wherein the end portion of saw blade 20 is received within the slot, positioned by stop pin 38, and removably secured by headed screw 36. See Figs. 2-4. Because the blade end is received within the blade-receiving slot, the opposite side walls defining the slot overlie opposite edges of the blade end, thereby laterally constraining the blade and inhibiting rotation relative to the blade-holding member. Thus, Happe teaches the claimed structural relationship between the blade mount and the blade end.
Applicant further argues that Happe is directed to a straight saw blade clamp in a non-analogous field and that there is no reason to combine Happe with Graziano to prevent rotation of V-shaped food-cutting blades. This argument is likewise not persuasive. Happe is not relied upon for its intended use as a sabre saw attachment, but for its teaching of a mechanical blade-mounting arrangement in which a removable blade end is received within a recessed blade mount, positioned by a mounting pin, secured by a removable fastener, and laterally constrained by opposing portions of the blade mount. This teaching is reasonably pertinent to the problem of securely mounting a removable blade and inhibiting relative rotation between the blade and its support. Therefore, Happe constitutes analogous art with respect to the particular problem addressed by the claimed invention. Moreover, the claims are directed to a structural relationship between the blade mount and the blade end, rather than to any particular field of use or type of material being cut. The fact that Happe is used with a saw blade rather than a food-cutting blade does not detract from its teaching of the claimed blade-mount structure. Incorporating Happe’s known recessed blade-mount arrangement into Graziano’s removable blade assembly merely substitutes one known blade attachment configuration for another to obtain the predictable benefit of improved blade stability and resistance to blade rotation. Such a modification would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and does not rely upon impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Sweeney et al. (2.954,808) teach a blade mount with a recess having sections overlie an upper edge and a lower edge of a blade.
Mendenhall (6,725,765) teach a mount having a pin and screw or bolt.
8. All claims are either identical to or patentably indistinct from claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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) 27. 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 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights