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 Amendment
In applicant’s reply on 10/22/2025, the claims were amended. Based on these amendments, drawing objections are withdrawn. Revised rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 can be found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 17-19 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the snap-fit connection". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the snap-fit connection” will be assumed to refer to the method of connecting the potato peeling disc to the rotatable chopping tool. As claims 18 and 19 depend from claim 17 they are similarly rejected.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the opening” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “the opening” will be assumed to be the same as “a central opening” from line 4 of claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2018/0160839) in view of Garcia (US 8262005 B2), further in view of Kolar (US 2016/0256004 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Thomas teaches a method for peeling potatoes with a food processor (potato peeling accessory adapted to work with a food processor Abstract)
the food processor comprising a food preparation vessel for food preparation (bowl 251 Par. 0035 Fig. 2a)
and a tool rotatable around a central axis (drive spindle 105 Par. 0032 Fig. 1)
wherein the rotatable chopping tool has an outer circumferential surface with an annular groove (male protrusions on accessory 202 engage with spindle features 110 Par. 0034-0035, figures show the spindle has an annular groove to accommodate the male protrusion of the accessory Fig. 2-2a)
the method comprising: attaching a potato peeling disc (potato peeling accessory 100 Par. 0032 Fig. 1)
wherein a surface of the potato peeling disc defines an abrasive structure (abrasive features Par. 0038-0039 Figs 5-7)
from above to the rotatable tool that is located centrally at a bottom of the removable food preparation vessel (Fig. 1-2)
to establish a manually releasable, rotationally coupled connection therebetween (central socket 102, all forms of body are removable Par. 0032 Fig. 1)
such that, during operation, the potato peeling disc rotates at a same rotational speed as the rotational tool (driven by cooperative features 104 Par. 0032 Fig. 1). The coupling visible in Fig. 1 shows that the attachment is coupled statically to the spindle and would therefore move at the same speed.
wherein the potato peeling disk comprises a latch lug (male protrusions on accessory 202 Fig. 2-2a)
such that during attaching the potato peeling disk to the rotatable tool, the latching lug slides axially along the outer circumferential surface of the rotatable tool until the latching lug snaps into the angular groove of the outer circumferential surface of the rotatable tool when the intended axial attaching position is reached (male protrusions on accessory 202 engage with spindle features 110 Par. 0034-0035, figures show the accessory attaches from above and would therefore slide down until the male protrusion is engaged Fig. 1-2a)
adding potatoes into the removable food preparation vessel from above onto the potato peeling disc (opening is above disk Fig. 2, 3; potatoes located within bowl above accessory Par. 0036)
and causing motorized rotation of the rotatable tool in a first direction of rotation and peeling of potatoes with the potato peeling disc inside the food preparation vessel (spindle is driven by a motor Par. 0032; as food processor’s motor is operated, the rotating accessory peels skin of potato Par. 0036)
Thomas does not teach a removable food preparation vessel, a heating element for heating a food in the food preparation vessel, and chopping tool for chopping the food in the removable food preparation vessel, or wherein the potato peeling disc comprises a latch arm, such that during attaching the potato peeling disc to the rotatable chopping tool, the latch arm is displaced radially outward.
Garcia, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a removable food preparation vessel (bowl is removably mountable to housing Col. 1 lines 23-44)
a heating element for heating a food in the food preparation vessel (may include temperature control system such as a heating device Col. 7 lines 37-40)
and a chopping tool for chopping the food in the removable food preparation vessel (chopping blade 306, one or more blade tools may be secured to a blade shaft Col. 5 lines 44-56 Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Thomas with Garcia. One would have been motivated to make this modification to help maintain food (Garcia Col. 7 lines 37-40).
Garcia does not teach wherein the potato peeling disc comprises a latch arm, such that during attaching the potato peeling disc to the rotatable chopping tool, the latch arm is displaced radially outward.
Kolar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an attachment comprising a latch arm, such that during attaching the attachment, the latch arm is displaced radially outward (alignment post 130 Par. 0044, Fig. 1; attachment member includes a flexible material such that the inner wall of the latch body may deform when in contact with a retainer nut Par. 0049; as user presses attachment member the latch proportions may deform/bend Par. 0055).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Thomas and Garcia with the latch arm of Kolar. One would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure the attachment is aligned properly to prevent spilling and/or improper function of the attachment (Kolar Par. 0041, Par. 0005).
Regarding Claim 4, Thomas further teaches the food processor is configured to operate in a potato peeling mode (the rotating accessory peels, chips or abrades the skin of the potato Par. 0036; default is potato peeling mode)
and wherein, upon activation of the potato peeling mode, the food processor causes the rotatable tool to be rotated in the first direction of rotation (as the food processor's motor is operated, the rotating accessory peels, chips or abrades; Par. 0036 direction blade is moving is assumed to be the first direction).
Thomas does not teach the rotatable tool is rotated at a predefined rotational speed.
Garcia teaches the rotatable tool is rotated at a predefined rotational speed (control panel to select functions, functions may include speed Col. 3 lines 31-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing, to further modify the invention of modified Thomas with the rotational speed of Garcia. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for user interaction (Garcia Col. 3 lines 31-37).
Regarding claim 17, modified Thomas teaches the limitations of claim 1. Thomas further teaches wherein the potato peeling disc remains in the intended, axial attaching position due to the snap-fit connection, and/or the potato peeling disc has a central opening formed by an inner contour which extends parallel to the central axis for at least 10 mm when the potato peeling disk is attached to the rotatable chopping tool (interior surface of the accessory has features which are adapted to engage and be driven by cooperating features Par. 0032; male protrusions on accessory 202 engage with spindle features 110 Par. 0034-0035 Fig. 1-2a). Thomas teaches that engaging the accessory to the rotatable tool causes them to cooperate during operation, therefore one can assume this connection causes the attachment to remain engaged during operation.
Thomas does not teach wherein water is flushed upward by the rotating chopping tool from below during operation of peeling potatoes with the potato peeling disk.
Garcia teaches the addition of water (liquid intake port to allow user to pour fluid, e.g. water, into the container Col. 6 lines 58-66). One having ordinary skill in the art would assume that operation of a food processor containing water and having the rotatable chopping tool and potato peeling disk of modified Thomas would produce movement of the water in all directions, including upwards.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Thomas with Garcia. One would have been motivated to make this modification to help maintain food (Garcia Col. 7 lines 37-40).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Thomas teaches the potato peeling disc remains in the intended attached position due to the snap-fit connection, therefore there is no further patentable weight regarding the potato peeling disk having a central opening.
Regarding claim 19, modified Thomas teaches the potato peeling disc remains in the intended attached position due to the snap-fit connection, therefore there is no further patentable weight regarding the inner contour including a U-shaped cut-out that creates the latch arm and/or the latching lug is arranged at a free end of the latch arm.
Regarding claim 20, Thomas further teaches the latch arm springs back radially inward and/or resumes its position oriented parallel to the central axis after latching (male protrusions on accessory 202 engage with spindle features 110 Par. 0034-0035, figures show final resting position once male protrusion is engaged Fig. 1-2a).
Claims 2-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Garcia and Kolar, further in view of Kovach (US 4998467) found in applicant’s IDS filed 06/30/2022.
Regarding Claim 2, Thomas, Garcia and Kolar teach the limitations of claim 1, but do not teach the potato peeling disc attached to the rotatable tool rotates in a second direction of rotation.
Kovach teaches the potato peeling disc attached to the rotatable tool rotates in a second direction of rotation (rotational direction momentarily reversed Col. 2 lines 43-64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing, to modify the invention of modified Thomas with the second rotation direction of Kovach. One would have been motivated to make this modification to expose unpeeled surfaces (Kovach Col. 2 lines 43-64).
Regarding Claim 3, Thomas, Garcia and Kolar do not teach changing multiple times rotation of the rotatable tool between the first direction of rotation and the second direction of rotation.
Kovach teaches changing multiple times rotation of the rotatable tool between the first direction of rotation and the second direction of rotation (rotational direction reversed in alternating sequence, driven in reverse then resumes original rotation Col. 2 lines 43-64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing, to modify the invention of modified Thomas with the change in direction of Kovach. One would have been motivated to make this modification to expose unpeeled surfaces (Kovach Col. 2 lines 43-64).
Regarding Claim 12 Thomas, Garcia and Kolar teach the limitations of claim 1, but do not teach the motorized rotation of the rotatable tool together with the potato peeling disc is initially performed at a first speed for a first peeling time and subsequently the rotatable tool together with the potato peeling disc is rotated in a motorized manner at a second speed for a second peeling time, wherein the second speed differs from the first speed, and wherein the second speed is lower than the first speed.
Kovach teaches the motorized rotation of the rotatable tool together with the potato peeling disc is initially performed at a first speed for a first peeling time and subsequently the rotatable tool together with the potato peeling disc is rotated in a motorized manner at a second speed for a second peeling time (drive potatoes in first direction, rotational direction momentarily reversed Col. 1 lines 44-52). It is noted that though Kovach is silent regarding the specific time and speed of the peeling disk aside from “momentarily” in the second direction, it is assumed they are operating at “a” speed for “a” time.
Kovach does not disclose rotation speeds, so it does not explicitly teach the speeds differ and the second speed is lower than the first speed. However, as the purpose of the first direction is for peeling and the second direction is merely for repositioning (rotational direction momentarily reversed to reposition potatoes Col. 1 lines 44-52), one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a lower speed would be required for repositioning for it to not peel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing, to modify the invention of modified Thomas with the change in direction of Kovach. One would have been motivated to make this modification to peel potatoes uniformly (Kovach Col. 1 lines 44-52).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Garcia and Kolar, further in view of Valance (US 2013/0125763 A1) and Stein (US 2021/0093123 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Thomas teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Thomas further teaches the rotatable tool is rotated in the first direction of rotation for the peeling time (as the food processor's motor is operated, the rotating accessory peels, chips or abrades; Par. 0036 direction blade is moving is assumed to be the first direction)
Thomas does not teach determining, by the food processor, a weight of the potatoes in the food preparation vessel; and determining, by the food processor, a peeling time based on the determined weight.
Garcia does not teach determining, by the food processor, a weight of the potatoes in the food preparation vessel; and determining, by the food processor, a peeling time based on the determined weight.
Kolar does not teach determining, by the food processor, a weight of the potatoes in the food preparation vessel; and determining, by the food processor, a peeling time based on the determined weight.
Valance, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a weight of the food in the food preparation vessel (Fig. 5c, Fig. 6c´)
and determining, by the food processor, a treatment time based on the determined weight (control unit determines cooking parameters as a function of specific surface area, specific surface area estimated from mass Par. 0178; cooking parameters such as cook time Par. 0007).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing, to modify the invention of modified Thomas with the time determination of Valance. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for simultaneous preparation of several ingredients which cook differently (Valance Par. 0072).
Though Valance teaches cooking rather than peeling of the item, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the surface area of potatoes correlate with weight, potatoes of varying weights would need to be treated for different amounts of time.
Valance does not teach the food processor determines the weight of the potatoes.
Stein, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a food processor which can determine the weight of ingredients (scale to weigh ingredients that are brought into food preparation space Par. 0023).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing, to modify the invention of modified Thomas with the integrated scale of Stein. One would have been motivated to make this modification to have an automated operating parameter which updates as ingredients are added to the vessel (Stein Par. 0003).
Regarding Claim 6, Thomas teaches the rotatable tool is rotated in the first direction of rotation for the peeling time (as the food processor's motor is operated, the rotating accessory peels, chips or abrades; Par. 0036 direction blade is moving is assumed to be the first direction)
Thomas does not teach obtaining or determining, by the food processor, a potato size of the potatoes in the food preparation vessel; and determining, by the food processor, a peeling time based on the potato size.
Garcia does not teach obtaining or determining, by the food processor, a potato size of the potatoes in the food preparation vessel; and determining, by the food processor, a peeling time based on the potato size.
Kolar does not teach obtaining or determining, by the food processor, a potato size of the potatoes in the food preparation vessel; and determining, by the food processor, a peeling time based on the potato size.
Valance further teaches obtaining or determining, by the food processor, a potato size of the potatoes in the food preparation vessel (descriptive parameter such as size, small or large Par. 0143)
and determining, by the food processor, a processing time based on the potato size (specific surface area estimated from descriptive parameters Abstract; control unit determines cooking parameters as a function of specific surface area, cooking parameters such as cook time Par. 0007).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing, to modify the invention of modified Thomas with the time determination of Valance. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for simultaneous preparation of several ingredients which cook differently (Valance Par. 0072).
Though Valance teaches cooking rather than peeling of the item, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the surface area of potatoes correlate with size, potatoes of varying sizes would need to be treated for different amounts of time.
Regarding Claim 7, Thomas teaches the rotatable tool is rotated in the first direction of rotation for the peeling time (as the food processor's motor is operated, the rotating accessory peels, chips or abrades; Par. 0036 direction blade is moving is assumed to be the first direction)
Thomas does not teach the food processor determines the peeling time based on the weight and the potato size.
Garcia does not teach the food processor determines the peeling time based on the weight and the potato size.
Kolar does not teach the food processor determines the peeling time based on the weight and the potato size.
Valance further teaches the food processor determines the processing time based on the weight and the potato size (specific surface area estimated from descriptive parameters Abstract; control unit determines cooking parameters as a function of specific surface area, cooking parameters such as cook time Par. 0007; specific surface area estimated from mass Par. 0178).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing, to modify the invention of modified Thomas with the time determination of Valance. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for simultaneous preparation of several ingredients which cook differently (Valance Par. 0072).
Though Valance teaches cooking rather than peeling of the item, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the surface area of potatoes correlate with weight and size, potatoes of varying weights and sizes would need to be treated for different amounts of time.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Garcia, Kolar, Valance and Stein, as evidenced by Cuemath (“Linear Interpolation Formula”).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Thomas teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Thomas does not teach the food processor is equipped with at least two predefined pairs of values, wherein the first pair of values comprises a first peeling time for a first weight and/or for a first potato size, and the second pair of values comprises a second peeling time for a second weight and/or for a second potato size, and wherein the food processor determines the peeling time in the first direction of rotation based on a linear interpolation of the two predefined pairs of values.
Garcia does not teach the food processor is equipped with at least two predefined pairs of values, wherein the first pair of values comprises a first peeling time for a first weight and/or for a first potato size, and the second pair of values comprises a second peeling time for a second weight and/or for a second potato size, and wherein the food processor determines the peeling time in the first direction of rotation based on a linear interpolation of the two predefined pairs of values.
Kolar does not teach the food processor is equipped with at least two predefined pairs of values, wherein the first pair of values comprises a first peeling time for a first weight and/or for a first potato size, and the second pair of values comprises a second peeling time for a second weight and/or for a second potato size, and wherein the food processor determines the peeling time in the first direction of rotation based on a linear interpolation of the two predefined pairs of values.
Valance teaches the food processor is equipped with at least two predefined pairs of values, wherein the first pair of values comprises a first processing time for a first weight and/or for a first potato size, and the second pair of values comprises a second processing time for a second weight and/or for a second potato size (Cooking time according to quantity Par. 0144 Table 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing, to modify the invention of modified Thomas with the time table of Valance. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for simultaneous preparation of several ingredients which cook differently (Valance Par. 0072).
Valance does not teach determining the peeling time in the first direction of rotation based on a linear interpolation of the two predefined pairs of values. For a size/weight that falls between two values in the table of Valance, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use linear interpolation, a method known in the art to find unknown values in tables (Cuemath Pg. 1).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Garcia and Kolar, further in view of Valance and Choi (US 2008/0060533 A1), as evidenced by Cuemath.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Thomas teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Thomas does not teach accessing, by a control device, at least one value corresponding to a weight and/or a potato size of the potatoes in the food preparation vessel; accessing, by the control device, a plurality of predefined pairs of values indicating a peeling time for specific values of the weight, the potato size and/or the rotational speed; receiving, by the control device, a user input for the rotational speed in the first direction of rotation or determining, by the control device, the rotational speed based on the weight and/or the potato size; performing, by the control device, linear interpolation on the basis of on the predefined pairs of values for the rotational speed in the first direction of rotation based on the weight and/or the potato size to determine the peeling time; and causing, by the control device, a drive of the food processor to rotate the rotatable tool at the rotational speed for the peeling time in the first direction of rotation.
Garcia does not teach accessing, by a control device, at least one value corresponding to a weight and/or a potato size of the potatoes in the food preparation vessel; accessing, by the control device, a plurality of predefined pairs of values indicating a peeling time for specific values of the weight, the potato size and/or the rotational speed; receiving, by the control device, a user input for the rotational speed in the first direction of rotation or determining, by the control device, the rotational speed based on the weight and/or the potato size; performing, by the control device, linear interpolation on the basis of on the predefined pairs of values for the rotational speed in the first direction of rotation based on the weight and/or the potato size to determine the peeling time; and causing, by the control device, a drive of the food processor to rotate the rotatable tool at the rotational speed for the peeling time in the first direction of rotation.
Kolar does not teach accessing, by a control device, at least one value corresponding to a weight and/or a potato size of the potatoes in the food preparation vessel; accessing, by the control device, a plurality of predefined pairs of values indicating a peeling time for specific values of the weight, the potato size and/or the rotational speed; receiving, by the control device, a user input for the rotational speed in the first direction of rotation or determining, by the control device, the rotational speed based on the weight and/or the potato size; performing, by the control device, linear interpolation on the basis of on the predefined pairs of values for the rotational speed in the first direction of rotation based on the weight and/or the potato size to determine the peeling time; and causing, by the control device, a drive of the food processor to rotate the rotatable tool at the rotational speed for the peeling time in the first direction of rotation.
Valance teaches accessing, by a control device, at least one value corresponding to a weight and/or a potato size of the potatoes in the food preparation vessel (Fig. 5c, Fig. 6c´)
accessing, by the control device, a plurality of predefined pairs of values indicating a processing time for specific values of the weight, the potato size and/or the rotational speed (Cooking time according to quantity Par. 0144 Table 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing, to modify the invention of modified Thomas with the time table of Valance. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for simultaneous preparation of several ingredients which cook differently (Valance Par. 0072).
Though Valance teaches cooking rather than peeling of the item, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the surface area of potatoes correlate with weight, potatoes of varying weights would need to be treated for different amounts of time.
Valance does not teach receiving, by the control device, a user input for the rotational speed in the first direction of rotation or determining, by the control device, the rotational speed based on the weight and/or the potato size; performing, by the control device, linear interpolation on the basis of on the predefined pairs of values for the rotational speed in the first direction of rotation based on the weight and/or the potato size to determine the peeling time; and causing, by the control device, a drive of the food processor to rotate the rotatable tool at the rotational speed for the peeling time in the first direction of rotation
Choi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving, by the control device, a user input for the rotational speed in the first direction of rotation or determining, by the control device, the rotational speed based on the weight and/or the potato size (bottom plate rotated according to a suitable speed Par. 0031; performance of above mentioned operations based upon size Par. 0036)
and causing, by the control device, a drive of the food processor to rotate the rotatable tool at the rotational speed for the peeling time in the first direction of rotation (control panel sets rotation time of rotation motor between forward and inverse rotation Par. 0020)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing, to modify the invention of modified Thomas with the rotation of Choi. One would have been motivated to make this modification to peel a lot of potatoes in a short time (Choi Abstract).
Choi does not teach performing, by the control device, linear interpolation on the basis of on the predefined pairs of values for the rotational speed in the first direction of rotation based on the weight and/or the potato size to determine the peeling time. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the table method of Valence (Cooking time according to quantity Par. 0144 Table 3) to organize the rotational speeds based on size of Choi. With this in mind, for a size/weight that falls between two values in the table, it would be obvious to use linear interpolation, a method known in the art to find unknown values in table (Cuemath Pg. 1).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Garcia and Kolar, further in view of Karasawa (US 2009/0090255A1).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Thomas teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Thomas does not teach the rotational speed for the first direction of rotation is at least 450 rpm and/or at most 1200 rpm.
Garcia does not teach the rotational speed for the first direction of rotation is at least 450 rpm and/or at most 1200 rpm.
Kolar does not teach the rotational speed for the first direction of rotation is at least 450 rpm and/or at most 1200 rpm.
Karasawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the rotational speed for the first direction of rotation is at least 450 rpm and/or at most 1200 rpm (rotational speed of the rotary member is preferably about 700 rpm to 1,400 rpm Par. 0053).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing, to modify the invention of modified Thomas with the rotational speed of Karasawa. One would have been motivated to make this modification to improve peeling efficiency and accuracy (Karasawa Par. 0053).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Thomas teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Thomas does not teach for peeling potatoes the rotatable tool is rotated at about 500 rpm or about 800 rpm or about 1100 rpm in the first direction of rotation.
Garcia does not teach for peeling potatoes the rotatable tool is rotated at about 500 rpm or about 800 rpm or about 1100 rpm in the first direction of rotation.
Kolar does not teach for peeling potatoes the rotatable tool is rotated at about 500 rpm or about 800 rpm or about 1100 rpm in the first direction of rotation.
Karasawa teaches for peeling potatoes the rotatable tool is rotated at about 500 rpm or about 800 rpm or about 1100 rpm in the first direction of rotation. (peeling apparatus for potatoes Abstract; rotational speed of the rotary member is preferably about 700 rpm to 1,400 rpm Par. 0053).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing, to modify the invention of modified Thomas with the rotational speed of Karasawa. One would have been motivated to make this modification to improve peeling efficiency and accuracy (Karasawa Par. 0053).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues one would not combine the teachings of Thomas and Garcia because Garcia is not directed to an apparatus for improving speed, like Thomas. Thomas discloses a potato peeler for use with a food processor, while Garcia discloses a food processing apparatus. These inventions are in the same field of endeavor with overlapping scope, which would lead one having ordinary skill in the art to try to combine the references.
Applicant argues an entire reconstruction of Thomas would need to be performed to include a rotatable chopping tool in addition to the potato peeling accessory. The cutting tool (chopping blade 306) of Garcia is being applied to the existing rotating tool (spindle 105) of Thomas. It is the examiners assertion that it would be within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the blades of Garcia to the spindle of Thomas, resulting in a rotatable chopping tool in addition to a potato peeling disk.
Applicant argues that modification of Thomas with the claimed lug and groove connection would render it unusable. Thomas even states that there are many ways of coupling the accessory to the motor that drives it (Par. 0032, 0051). Thomas merely teaches a preferred embodiment but even the reference itself recognizes that there are other methods of coupling, including the combination of references in the rejection of claim 1 above.
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 ARIEL M RODGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-7857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 5712703475. 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.
/A.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792