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 .
Response to amendments
The amendments filed 03/24/2026 have been entered. Accordingly claims 5, 15, 18 and 19 remain rejected and claims 1-4, 6, 7, 13, 14 16 and 17 are indicated as allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant firstly argues (page 8-10):
The Examiner has alleged that the claim limitation "retention mechanism" in claim 8 invokes 35 USC 112(f). (Office Action, pages 2-5).
As provided in MPEP 2181(I), "a claim limitation that does not use the term "means" or "step" will trigger the rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph does not apply. See, e.g., Phillips v. A WH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1310, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); CCSFitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1369, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1664 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Personalized Media Commc 'ns, LLC v. ITC, 161 F.3d 696, 703-04, 48 USPQ2d 1880, 1886-87 (Fed. Cir. 1998)." In the present case, claim 1 does not use the term "means" or "step", and thus the presumption is that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply.
MPEP 2181(I) further provides that the presumption is only overcome when "the claim term fails to 'recite sufficiently definite structure' or else recites 'function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function."' Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (quoting Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, 161 F. 3d 696, 704 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In the present case, Applicant respectfully-8-
submits that the claim term "an additive injection device configured to add an additive" in claim 1 does, indeed, recite sufficiently definite structure and/or recite function along with structure for performing that function, and thus the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply is not overcome.
In connection with the above, MPEP 2181(I)(A) explicitly provides that:
35 U.S.C. 112(f)...will not apply if persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification understand the term to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the function, even when the term covers a broad class of structures or identifies the structures by their function (e.g., "filters," "brakes," "clamp," "screwdriver," and "locks"). Apex Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc., 325 F.3d 1364, 1372-73, 66 USPQ2d 1444, 1451-52 (Fed. Cir. 2003); CCSFitness, 288 F.3d at 1369, 62 USPQ2d at 1664; Watts v. XL Sys. Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880-81, 56 USPQ2d 1836, 1839 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1888; Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583, 39 USPQ2d 1783, 1786 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("Many devices take their names from the functions they perform.") The term is not required to denote a specific structure or a precise physical structure to avoid the application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) []. See Watts, 232 F.3d at 880, 56 USPQ2d at 1838; Inventio AG v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Americas Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 99 USPQ2d 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the claim terms "modernizing device" and "computing unit" when read in light of the specification connoted sufficient, definite structure to one of skill in the art to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
(Emphasis added).
In view of the above, therefore, what is important is whether the term used is one that is understood to describe structure, although it might not bring to mind any particular structure. For example, the court in Personalized Media Communications v. International Trade Commission, 161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1999), held that the term "detector," although broad, is still structural for purposes of means treatment because it is not a generic structural term such as "means," nor is it a coined term lacking a clear meaning. Similarly, in Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the Federal Circuit held the term "connector assembly" meant a unit that joins, fastens, or links each pair of adjacent support members. The fact that more than one structure may be described by the term "connector assembly," or even that the term may encompass a multitude of structures, did not make it any less structural and somehow transform it into an attempt to functionally claim.
Indeed, MPEP 2181(I) provides a non-exhaustive list of structural terms that have been found not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), which include: "circuit," "detent mechanism," "digital detector," "reciprocating member," "connector assembly," "perforation," "sealingly connected joints," and "eyeglass hanger member."
In view of the mandates of the MPEP and the court cases noted above, it is clear that a limitation will not invoke means plus function treatment if there is a structural modifier that further describes the non-structural term. For example, although a nonstructural term like "mechanism" or "member" standing alone may invoke means plus function treatment, when it is coupled with a function it will not invoke such treatment when it is preceded by a structural modifier (e.g., "detent mechanism").
Applicant again submits that the present case is akin to those highlighted above, specifically "detent mechanism", where 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked. Moreover, as one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the term "retention mechanism" is known, and could readily ascertain the meaning of such term by reading the specification, Applicant respectfully submits that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked; as such these claim terms should not be limited to the corresponding structure described in the specification.
Examiner notes (mootly in view of claim 8 being canceled) that the Applicants specifications provide that action of retention by means/mechanism is achieved by a specific structural form “the body portion 252 of the vertical blade assembly 250 also includes a retention mechanism, in the form of a pin or convex projection 264 located along the lower edge of the body portion 252.” [0073], however retention as an act/result, could be performed by any capable mechanism/means to include magnetic forces for example. Retention mechanism alone does not provide structural means to retention.
Applicant secondly argues (page 10-11):
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the Examiner has alleged that it is unclear how the rounded grating blade as shown in figures 18-24 can be part of the vertical blade embodiment. Applicant respectfully submits, however, that the grating elements are, necessarily, slicing blades that extend vertically above the top surface of the disc body to interact with a food item. This is clearly shown in, for example, FIG. 22.
In view of the above, Applicant respectfully requests that the instant rejections be withdrawn.
However Examiner respectfully disagrees because the grating elements 158 are not referred to as blades, they are different embodiment of cutting system to the vertical blades, the specifications provide that the vertical slicing blades are components 52/358/362 while the grating elements are component 158. The grating elements extend upward (not vertically) in a radial manner (see figure 22) providing a shredding action “the shredding or grating elements 158 grate or shred food items as the disc body 12 is rotated.” [0069]. The vertical slicing blades extend vertically providing vertical slicing action “the plurality of vertical slicing blades extend through the disc body 12 and upwardly therefrom to make vertical cuts through food items,” [0071].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 5, 15, 18 and 19 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.
Claims 5, 15 and 18 provide grating elements to the vertical slicing blades. however the vertical slicing blades are a different feature 52/358/362 than the grating element 158, it is unclear how the rounded grating blade as shown in figures 18-24 can be a features of the vertical slicing blades.
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 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goncalves (20110265664) in view of Cupper (US 2,715,927) and Kuan (US 6213008).
Regarding claim 18, Goncalves discloses (Fig-4) a rotatable slicing disc assembly for use with an electrically powered food processor appliance, comprising:
a disc body (34)
Goncalves is silent regarding having an opening;
an adjustable vertical blade assembly associated with the opening, the vertical blade assembly being rotatable between a slicing position and a retracted position;
wherein the adjustable vertical blade assembly includes a plurality of grating elements; and
herein in the slicing position the first plurality of grating elements of the vertical blade assembly extend above a top surface of the disc body, and in the retracted position the first plurality of grating elements of the vertical blade assembly are positioned below the top surface of the slicing disc.
However Cupper teaches having an opening;
an adjustable vertical blade assembly (5) associated with the opening (blades within opening 15, see figures 1 and 2), the vertical blade assembly being rotatable between a slicing position and a retracted position (slice position as shown in figure 4 having blade raised above disc 2, retracted position shown in figure 5 having blade 5 retracted below disc 2);
wherein the adjustable vertical blade assembly includes a plurality of
wherein in the slicing position the first plurality of
The advantage of having an opening;
an adjustable vertical blade assembly associated with the opening, the vertical blade assembly being rotatable between a slicing position and a retracted position;
wherein the adjustable vertical blade assembly includes a plurality of grating elements; and
herein in the slicing position the first plurality of grating elements of the vertical blade assembly extend above a top surface of the disc body, and in the retracted position the first plurality of grating elements of the vertical blade assembly are positioned below the top surface of the slicing disc, is to provide selection of Julienne mode to operator “The multiblade cutters are depressed in slots 15 with their blades carried by shafts 16 the outer ends of which carry small levers 17 by means of which the blades can be more or less erected or projected (Fig. 4) or retracted (Fig. 5).” (columns 1-2, lines 66-10).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Goncalves and Cupper before him or her, to modify the single cuttings system of Conclaves having a thin and rimed cutting disc to include the auxiliary Julienne blade of Cupper because providing a secondary movable vertical blade system enables a user electable julienne cut to food substrate.
Goncalves as modified is silent regarding grating elements.
However Kuan teaches (Fig-8a/b) the first plurality of blades (41) are grating blade elements (413/412).
The advantage of grating elements, is to provide a shredding function to the food processor “Thus, a treated work piece can be cut into slices, or shreds, or ground as powder. As shown in FIGS. 1, 8A, and 8B, the cutter 41 can be a flat knife 411, or a wavy knife 412, or grinding disk 413 depending on the operation has to be done. Hence, the finished food product has a shape of flat cross section, a wavy shape, or powder shape.” (column 2 ,lines 57-65).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Goncalves as modified and Kuan before him or her, to modify the slicing element of Conclaves as already modified, to include the select-ability of grating element of Kuan because providing grating elements enables the production of shreds.
Regarding claim 19, Goncalves as modified teaches the slicing disc assembly of claim 18, Goncalves as already modified teaches further comprising:
a second opening (88/92) in the disc body (34); and
an adjustable horizontal slicing blade (blade 18, adjustable height relative to disc body 34 “a food slicer assembly for a food processor is disclosed. The food slicer assembly includes a cutting blade having an outer edge, and a rotating disk moveable to a plurality of positions relative to the cutting blade to adjust the distance therebetween.” [0010]) associated with the second opening (“Cut food items, along with other food items small enough to fit within the throat 92, pass from the upper compartment 38 into the lower compartment 40 through the throat 92.” [0036]), the horizontal slicing blade being moveable in a direction perpendicular to the top surface of the disc body to vary a gap between the horizontal slicing blade and the top surface of the disc body (as disclosed above [0010]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 13, 14 16 and 17 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independent claims 1 and 13 are in deemed allowable because the newly cited prior art Ebrahim (US 10,478,986) while teaching the newly amended features of a height position adjustable (at least between retracted and exposed, disclosed below) vertical blade system biased by spring (25) to predetermined positions (retracted/exposed) by means of projections (241) and recesses (335) (“Each of the eccentric cams 33 has a quadrilateral cross section so that rotation of the knobs 32 causes rotation of the eccentric cams 33 to move the blade assembly 2 vertically relative to the food support surface 12 among a first operation position where a first side 331 of each of the eccentric cams 33 abuts against the corresponding notch 24 and the cutting blade 23 is exposed above the food support surface 12 for a first vertical distance (which is 6 mm in this embodiment), a second operating position where a second side 332 of each of the eccentric cams 33 abuts against the corresponding notch 24 and the cutting blade 23 is exposed above the food support surface 12 for a second vertical distance (which is 4 mm in this embodiment),” (column 4, lines 39-61)) and previously cited prior art Kuan teaching a radial biasing spring to vertical blade positioning (spring 33, see Fig-5) are silent along with the previously applied prior arts of record regarding the combination of the present apparatus/method of a body portion having the triangular and rectangular shaping, the closest prior art Candler (as previously applied) teaches a body (40) that while being rectangular and rotatable would require an unreasonable amount of hindsight in applying the triangular shape feature to the previously cited and above cited features and arrive at the present invention. Accordingly the dependent claims 2-4,6 7, 14, 16 and 17 are allowable.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 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 Spencer H Kirkwood whose telephone number is (469)295-9113. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00 am - 9:00 pm Eastern.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached on (571) 270-5095. 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.
/Spencer H. Kirkwood/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights