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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on 1-26-2026 and 3-2-2026 were entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: fastening mechanism in Claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,041,056 to Hutton in view of US 2021/0221016 to Dwire, US 5,199,343 to O’Banion, FR 2595611 A1, and US 6,857,347 to Benedict.
In re Claims 1, Hutton teaches a protective box for use with a blade-containing device (see Hutton, Fig. 1, #8), comprising:
a main compartment (see Fig. 1, space in which the food product is located);
a blade guard (#20);
a pusher plate (see Fig. 1, #8/10/12);
a divider plate (see Fig. 1, #28);
a compartment lid (see Fig. 1, #26).
Hutton does not teach:
wherein the pusher plate comprises a plurality of spikes,
wherein the plurality of spikes is configured to pierce contents in the protective box,
wherein the plurality of spikes are configured to secure the contents in the protective box,
wherein the compartment lid comprises a plurality of perforations;
wherein the plurality of perforations are configured to allow a user to view an object placed inside the protective box;
wherein the compartment lid selectively couples to the main compartment; and
wherein the blade guard selectively couples to the main compartment.
However, Dwire teaches that it is known in the art of food cutting to provide a the pusher plate comprises a plurality of spikes (see Dwire, Fig. 3, #62; see also Para. 0020 teaching features #62 may be spikes). In the same field of invention, food slicing structures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add spikes to the pusher plate of Hutton in order to increase the force applied to the food product in contact therewith, to further minimize any potential motion of the food product as it engages the knife edge (see Dwire, Para. 0020).
Adding spikes to the pusher plate of Hutton would provide for wherein the plurality of spikes is configured to pierce contents in the protective box, and wherein the plurality of spikes are configured to secure the contents in the protective box.
However, O’Banion teaches that it is known in the saw art to provide apertures for viewing (see O’Banion, Figs. 1-2). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add apertures to the lid in order for the view to view the workpiece. Doing so allows the user to view the workpiece during use to provide access to the cutting point (see O’Banion, Figs. 1-2). Such a combination would provide a compartment lid comprises a plurality of perforations; wherein the plurality of perforations are configured to allow a user to view an object placed inside the protective box.
Additionally, FR 2595611 A1 teaches that it is known in cutting food art to provide a pivoting lid or top portion (see FR 2595611 A1, Fig. 1, #14/12/13) and well as attaching the blade guard to the main compartment (see Fig. 1, #20/21). In the same field of invention, structures for cutting food with a saw, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pivoting top structure as well as securing the blade guard to the main compartment, as taught by FR 2595611 A1. Doing so gives easy access to the compartment as well as ensuring that the device protects the user during use. In other words, instead of relying on the blade guard being on the saw this ensures that the blade guard is on the workpiece device so that the workpiece device can be used with a saw without a blade guard and the user is protected.
Benedict teaches that blade guards can be made of numerous components attached to a structure (see the blade guard of Fig. 3). The MPEP advises that making sparable is within the level or ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04, V, C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, safety guards for saws, to make the blade guard out of numerous parts in order to be removable. Doing so allows the user to change the blade guard if it gets damaged (as it is adjacent to the blade and may get cut during use), and therefore the user can replace a part of the device and not need to replace the entire device, thereby saving cost to the user.
In re Claim 3, modified Hutton, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the pusher plate includes a first side and a second side (see Hatton, Fig. 8, #8 has two sides) and wherein the first side includes the plurality of protrusions (see Dwire #62 in view of #8 of Hatton), and wherein the second side is flat.
In re Claim 4, modified Hutton, in re Claim 3, does not teach wherein the second side is configured to be coupled with a first removable handle. However, Dwire teaches that it is known in the art of pushers to provide a manual pusher with a removable handle (see Dwire, Fig. 4; see also Para. 0027 and 0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, provide a removable handle to the device of modified Hutton, as taught by Dwire. Doing so provides a non-complex set of structures that can readily be cleaned according to food-safety standards (see Dwire, Para. 0003)
In re Claim 5, modified Hutton, in re Claim 3, teaches wherein the pusher plate is configured to be coupled to the main compartment via a slot and a latch (see Hutton, Fig. 1, #14, and #10).
In re Claim 6, modified Hutton, in re Claim 3, does not teach wherein the divider plate is configured to be coupled with a second removable handle. However, Dwire teaches that it is known in the art of pushers to provide a manual pusher with a removable handle (see Dwire, Fig. 4; see also Para. 0027 and 0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, provide a removable handle to the device of modified Hutton, as taught by Dwire. Doing so provides a non-complex set of structures that can readily be cleaned according to food-safety standards (see Dwire, Para. 0003).
In re Claim 7, modified Holtz, in re Claim 6, teaches wherein the second removable handle is coupled to the main compartment via a fastening mechanism (see Dwire, Fig. 4, Para. 0020 the structure disclosed is a fastening mechanism, under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
In re Claim 9, modified Hutton, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the compartment lid has and open and closed configuration relative to the main compartment (the pivoting lid of modified Hutton, in re Claim 1, would provide an open and closed configuration).
In re Claim 11, modified Hutton, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the main compartment includes a bottom (see Hutton, Figs. 1-6, bottom of #4), a back side (see Hutton, Figs. 1-6, back of #4), and two sides (see Hutton, Figs. 1-6, both sides of #4), and wherein the main compartment further includes an open front (see Hutton, Figs. 1-4, opening near blade).
In re Claim 12, modified Hutton, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the back side and the two sides are perforated.
However, O’Banion teaches that it is known in the saw art to provide apertures for viewing (see O’Banion, Fig. 1-2). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add apertures to the back side and the two sides. Doing so allows the user to view the workpiece during use to provide access to the cutting point (see O’Banion, Figs. 1-2).
In re Claim 13, modified Hutton, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the main compartment is configured to be secured to a band saw table (see Hutton, Figs. 1-6).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,041,056 to Hutton in view of US 2021/0221016 to Dwire, US 5,199,343 to O’Banion, FR 2595611 A1, and US 6,857,347 to Benedict, and further in view of US 4,208.936 to Whitehouse.
In re Claim 2, modified Hutton, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein each of the main compartment, the blade guard, the pusher plate, the divider plate, and the compartment lid are comprised of metal. However, Whitehouse teaches that it is known in the art of slicing structures to make the structure from sheet steel (see Whitehouse, Col. 5, ll. 50-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to make the device of modified Hutton, in re Claim 1, out of steel since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to select a known material to make the device of modified Hutton, from, in order to not have to design an new material. The selection of a known “off-the-shelf” material was within the level of ordinary skill in the art, for efficiency/expediency reasons.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,041,056 to Hutton in view of US 2021/0221016 to Dwire, US 5,199,343 to O’Banion, FR 2595611 A1, and US 6,857,347 to Benedict, and further in view of DE 3902260 A1.
In re Claim 8, modified Holtz, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the compartment lid selectively couples with the main compartment via interlocking with a safety lock. DE 3902260 A1 teaches that tit is known in the art of safety containers to lock a lid (see DE 3902260 A1, abstract and Fig. 1, #9).
Although modified Hutton and DE 3902260 A1 are different containers, both are for safety and a teaching of locking a safety container with a lock will be equally applicable in both areas. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. _____(2007) slip op at 13, which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives … can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability” (emphasis added). DE 3902260 A1 clearly describes the design incentives of providing a lock for a safety container, thereby preventing the device from inadvertently opening. The same rational would apply to modified Hutton, in order to lock the lid to prevent opening during use, which could injury a user or damage the work product.
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,041,056 to Hutton in view of US 2021/0221016 to Dwire, US 5,199,343 to O’Banion, FR 2595611 A1, and US 6,857,347 to Benedict, and further in view of US 2017/0203466 to Barnett.
In re Claim 14, modified Hutton, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the blade guard is configured to be secured onto one of the two sides of the main component (see FR 2595611 A1, Figs. 1-3, #21), but does not teach securing by way of fasteners.
However, Barnett teaches that it is known in the band saw art to secure a blade guard with fasteners (see Barnet Fig. 6, #26 and Para. 0026). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to secure the blade guard to the device of modified Hutton, in re Claim 1, with fasteners. Doing so allows the user to replace the blade guard if the blade guard gets damages with known tools, such as a screwdriver or a socket set. Thereby, the user can replace a component of the device as opposed to having to replace the entire device, thereby saving money for the user.
Claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,041,056 to Hutton in view of US 2021/0221016 to Dwire, US 5,199,343 to O’Banion, FR 2595611 A1, and US 6,857,347 to Benedict, and further in view of US 10,513,047 to Becker.
In re Claim 15, modified Hutton, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein each of the main compartment, the blade guard, the pusher plate, the divider plate, and the compartment lid are comprised of a non-metal, durable material.
However, Becker teaches that it is known in the art to provide a slicing holder/device composed of a stiff, nonstick, low density, solvent resistant (to facilitate cleaning) panel material, which does not absorb meat residue. One suitable panel material is polyethylene (see Becker, Col. 3, ll. 7-12).
In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the device of modified Hutton out of polyethylene, as taught by Becker. Doing so makes the device easy to clean (see Becker, Col. 3, ll. 7-12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
US 2021/0221016 to Dwire teaches that it is known to provide spikes on a plate for cutting food work products.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights