DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Response to Remarks
The remarks filed 6 March 2026 have been fully considered.
The applicant argued with regard to the drawing objection that fig. 2, 4 “clearly show the lever extending through the center of the lid.” However, fig. 2-4 show other features of the adjustment mechanism extending through the center of the lid, not the lever. Note that fig. 3 clearly shows the lever does not extend through the lid.
The amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the prior art rejections set forth in the most recent Office Action. Accordingly, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, the amendments to claims 1 and 3 introduce new matter into the disclosure and are, thus, rejected under § 112(a); and, upon further consideration, new grounds are set forth for claim 5 in view of Beber et al. (US 2011/0139017 A1). See the current rejections below.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Although the rotatable lever 26 is shown (see, e.g., fig. 3), it is not shown to extend “through a center of said lid”, as required in claims 1, 3 and 5. Matter of fact, it does not even extend to a top of the lid. Instead, the adjustment mechanism 28 is illustrated as extending through a center of the lid. Therefore, a rotatable lever that extends through a center of said lid must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office Action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office Action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality: the second instance of “disk body” in the third to last line of the claim should be deleted since it is redundant.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement; any claims not directly addressed are only rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for being dependent on a rejected base claim. The claim(s) contain(s) 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 had possession of the claimed invention.
In re claim 1: no support could be found in the specification or drawings for “said adjustment mechanism includes a plurality of axial lugs configured to interface with a sleeve in said lid through which said adjustment mechanism extends, said lugs corresponding to said plurality of markings in the form of numbers”. In the remarks filed 6 March 2026, the applicant contends that support is to be found in at least fig. 4 and ¶ 18. However, the specification does not discuss any lugs or any feature that could reasonably be interpreted as the claimed lugs, and none of the figures are sufficient in and of themselves to provide the necessary support for the claimed lugs. Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines a lug as “something that projects”, but the features shown in fig. 4 that the applicant is referring to as the lugs can just as well be interpreted as grooves. Further, the specification does not discuss any feature interfacing with the sleeve or that the alleged lugs correspond to the markings/numbers on the lid, and these claimed features also cannot be ascertained strictly from the drawings. For at least these reasons, the newly added limitation of claim 1 enters new matter into the disclosure.
In re claim 3: no support could be found in the specification or drawings for “said adjustment mechanism includes a plurality of axial lugs configured to interface with a sleeve in said lid through which said adjustment mechanism extends”. In the remarks filed 6 March 2026, the applicant contends that support is to be found in at least fig. 4 and ¶ 18. However, the specification does not discuss any lugs or any feature that could reasonably be interpreted as the claimed lugs, and none of the figures are sufficient in and of themselves to provide the necessary support for the claimed lugs. Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines a lug as “something that projects”, but the features shown in fig. 4 that the applicant is referring to as the lugs can just as well be interpreted as grooves. Further, the specification does not discuss any feature interfacing with the sleeve or that the alleged lugs correspond to the markings/numbers on the lid, and these claimed features also cannot be ascertained strictly from the drawings. For at least these reasons, this newly added limitation of claim 3 enters new matter into the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gushwa (US 2013/ 0134245 A1), in view of Wang et al. (US 2015/0144723 A1), Blouse et al. (US 6,929,201 B1), Wilson et al. (US 2012/0006922 A1), and Beber et al. (US 2011/0139017 A1).
In re claim 5: Gushwa discloses a food processor, comprising:
a work bowl 20 having a lid 28 received on top of the work bowl 20 (fig. 1);
a circular slicing assembly 16, said slicing assembly having a blade element 32 and a disk body 34 having a planar separation from one another (fig. 4), said slicing assembly 16 being driven by a motor 14 to slice food pieces off a food item (fig. 3-4), said slicing assembly 16 being positionable between a plurality of slicing positions to produce slices of food pieces of varying thicknesses D (fig. 3-4);
an adjustment mechanism 106 operatively connected to said lid 28, and said adjustment mechanism 106 being operable to move said slicing assembly 16 between said plurality of slicing positions (fig. 3-4), said adjustment mechanism 106 including a rotatable knob 112, 120 accessible from a top of said lid 28 (fig. 3-4);
wherein said rotatable knob 112, 120 is rotatable for selecting one of said plurality of slicing positions (fig. 3-4), such that a user can adjust a thickness of cut food pieces during the operation of said food processor (see D, fig. 3-4);
wherein a portion 120 of said rotatable lever 112, 120 extends through a center of said lid 28 (fig. 3-4); and
wherein said rotatable lever 112, 120 is fully engaged with said adjustment mechanism 106 during operation of said slicing assembly 16 regardless of position of said rotatable lever 112, 120 (fig. 3-4); and
wherein said adjustment mechanism 106 is attached to said disk body 34 (fig. 3-4).
Gushwa is silent regarding the rotatable knob being a lever having a portion that extends toward a peripheral edge of the lid.
However, Wang teaches a food processor comprising an adjustment mechanism including a rotatable lever 222, 224 having a portion 224 extending toward a peripheral edge of a lid 200 (fig. 14, 10, 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gushwa’s knob such that it is a lever, as taught by Wang, because selecting from known types of rotatable grips allowing for sufficient functionality would be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
Modified Gushwa is silent regarding said lid including a plurality of markings corresponding to said plurality of slice thicknesses; wherein said rotatable lever is rotatable between said plurality of markings for selecting one of said plurality of slice thicknesses.
However, Blouse teaches the concept of providing a food grinder/processor having an adjustment mechanism (31, fig. 1) moving axially to adjust the gap between inner and outer grinding members (18, 11). The adjustment mechanism protrudes out of the top/lid of the grinder/processor and includes a plurality of markings/indicia (36) around the adjustment mechanism to indicate a selected position of the grinding members which, in turn, indicates the gap size of the grinding assembly and the coarseness/thickness of the material (col. 2, ln. 59-61; fig. 3-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lid of Gushwa with the plurality of markings viewable from outside of the enclosure, as taught by Blouse, in order to indicate a selected position of the cutter and therefore the gap size of the cutting assembly as desired by the end user, thereby obtaining the benefit of more accurately adjusting the depth position of the cutter to allow for more accuracy and ease of adjustment.
Modified Gushwa does not explicitly teach the plurality of markings are in the form of numbers.
However, Wilson teaches a food processor comprising an adjustment mechanism that can be adjusted to different settings to change the size of product (¶ 38), and the settings can be indicated by numbers (¶ 69). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Gushwa such that the markings are numbers, as taught by Wilson, because selecting from known types of markings allowing for sufficient functionality would be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
Modified Gushwa does not teach said adjustment mechanism is attached to said blade element to move said blade element relative to said disk body.
Beber teaches a food processor (fig. 1) comprising an adjustment mechanism 44 attached to a blade element 32 to move the blade element 32 relative to a disk body 34 (fig. 2-3 and ¶ 42). Beber further teaches an alternative embodiment wherein the disk body 34 is moved relative to the blade element 32 instead (fig. 6-8 and ¶ 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Gushwa in the claimed manner, as taught by Beber, because selecting from known configurations of adjusting mechanisms, blade elements, and disk bodies allowing for sufficient thickness adjusting functionality would be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) set forth in this Office Action. However, note that if said rejections are overcome by deleting the new matter from the claims, then the previous prior art rejections will apply.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In re claim 1, the cited prior art does not teach “said adjustment mechanism includes a plurality of axial lugs configured to interface with a sleeve in said lid through which said adjustment mechanism extends, said lugs corresponding to said plurality of markings in the form of numbers” when these features are combined with all the other limitations of claim 1. And it would not be obvious to modify Gushwa to include these features.
In re claim 3, the cited prior art does not teach “said adjustment mechanism includes a plurality of axial lugs configured to interface with a sleeve in said lid through which said adjustment mechanism extends” when these features are combined with all the other limitations of claim 1. And it would not be obvious to modify Gushwa to include these features.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jared O. Brown whose telephone number is 303-297-4445. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 5:00 (Mountain Time).
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 complete and submit the Automated Interview Request (AIR) form located at the following website: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher (“Chris”) L. Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center; and for information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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 THE USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725