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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on 5/11/2026 has been entered.
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 1-18 and 27 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 1 recites the limitation "the side periphery" in the last line of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-18 and 27 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the peripheral extent" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation, “a sharp edge” in line 3. It is unclear whether “a sharp edge” of line 3 is the same or different as “a sharp edge” as recited in line 2 of the claim. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung (U.S. Patent No. 2007/0108087) in view of De Jenlis (FR3069143A1) (with pages referring to machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Leung discloses a storage structure for a food processing device with a bowl for processing food using different accessories (figures 1-6, reference #10; abstract), the storage structure comprising:
a base unit configured to fit within the bowl (abstract; figures 1-6, reference #18; [0025]), and
engagement formations to retain a plurality of the accessories on the base unit for individual removal from the base unit, and replacement into the base unit, without first removing or replacing another of the accessories (figure 4, walls of reference #42 and 48 engage/retain accessories 44 and 50; [0021]),
wherein the base unit has recesses to store the accessories, each of the recesses having at least one of the engagement formations to detachably engage the accessories such that the accessories are stored within the recesses to prevent direct contact of one of the accessories with another of the accessories (figure 4, reference #42 and 48; [0021]), and
wherein the recesses are formed in the side periphery of the base unit (see figure 4, #42 and 48 are shown to be formed in a top side periphery of middle portion 18) (it is noted that a top is still a side periphery of middle portion 18)). Alternatively, to the extent the claims are meant to specify a different side periphery of the base unit, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the recesses to be in a different side of the base of Leung, wherein the recesses are formed in the side periphery of the base unit in order to have an easier and more varied access to the accessories, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed arrangement would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the engagement formations are biased toward detachable engagement with the accessories.
De Jenlis teaches another storage for food processing tools (figure 3). The reference teaches wherein the engagement formations are biased toward detachable engagement with the accessories (reference #135, 145 and 150; see pages 4 and 6 where it discuses those reference numbers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the engagement formations of Leung to be biased toward detachable engagement with the accessories as taught by De Jenlis, because selecting one of known designs for an engagement would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing and because said engagement formation being biased toward detachable engagement with the accessories makes it possible to maintain the tool/accessory in the position in a secure and removable manner (De Jenlis pages 4 and 6).
It is noted that the food processing device and bowl and different accessories are part of the preamble and are intended use of the storage unit, and therefore are not positive structural limitations are not accorded any patentable weight. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 2, Leung in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the engagement formations are biased toward the detachable engagement with corresponding retention indents associated with the accessory (De Jenlis reference #135; see page 4 (“The fixing means 135 are, for example, rounded longitudinal pins configured to fit into a rounded groove of the tool”)).
Regarding claim 3, as stated in the rejection to claim 1, the food processing device is part of the preamble as an intended use of the storage structure and as such is not a positively recited structure of the claims, and therefore the limitations recited in claim 3 which attempt to further limit the food processing device (“the food processing device has a spindle”) are not positive structural limitation that are part of the claim. However, in order to further compact prosecution Leung in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the food processing device has a spindle to engage the accessories for rotation within the bowl (figure 4, reference #50; [0021]), and some of the engagement formations are configured to retain the spindle, such that the spindle is removable from the base unit without requiring removal of any of the accessories stored in the base unit (figure 4, reference #46/48 (shown as reference #48 in figure 4, but described as reference #46 in paragraph [0021]); [0021]).
Regarding claim 4, Leung in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the base unit has a socket to receive the spindle (figure 4, internal space of reference #46/48 (shown as reference #48 in figure 4, but described as reference #46 in paragraph [0021]); [0021]), the socket having a plurality of formations for detachably gripping the spindle during storage and allowing manual removal of the spindle by a user (figure 4, see walls of reference #46/48 (shown as reference #48 in figure 4, but described as reference #46 in paragraph [0021]); [0021]).
Regarding claim 5, Leung in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein at least one of the recesses is configured for storing a designated one of the accessories only (figure 4, reference #42 and 48; [0021]).
Regarding claim 6, Leung in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses a removable mount in the at least one recess (figure 5, reference #20), the removable mount having the formation to detachably engage the accessory for storage within the recess (figure 5, reference #56 and 58; [0024]).
Regarding claim 8, Leung in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses a cover for attachment to the base unit (figures 1-6, reference #16), the cover and the base unit defining at least one slot to retain one of the accessories formed as a disk for rotation in the bowl (figure 2, reference #26 with doted lines to slots, not labeled; figure 3, reference #26).
Regarding claim 9, Leung in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the cover and the base unit define a plurality of the slots to individually retain one of the disks respectively (figure 2, reference #26 and 28 with doted lines to plurality slots, not labeled; figure 3, reference #26 and 28 each in a separate one of a plurality of slots).
Regarding claim 10, Leung in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses an additional unit for detachable engagement with the cover, the additional unit being configured to hold an additional accessory for the food processing device, such that the additional unit does not prevent removal of any of the plurality of accessories stored in the storage structure (figures 2 and 3, reference #22 and 24 engages cover 16 and holds additional accessory 28; [0018]).
Regarding claim 11, as stated in the rejection to claim 1, the bowl is part of the preamble as an intended use of the storage structure and as such is not a positively recited structure of the claims, and therefore the limitations recited in claim 11 which attempt to further limit the bowl are not positive structural limitation that are part of the claim. However, in order to further compact prosecution, Leung in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the bowl has a base with a spindle drive coupling, and the storage structure further comprises a drive coupling cavity for accommodating the spindle drive coupling when the base unit is within the bowl such that the spindle drive coupling does not touch any part of the storage structure or the plurality of accessories (figures 5 and 6, reference #64 and 66; [0009]; [0025]).
Regarding claim 12, Leung in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses a storage structure according to claim 1 configured to be lifted out of the bowl without requiring user contact with any of the accessories (figure 1, reference #14; [0008]).
Regarding claim 13, Leung in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the cover has a lift handle with hinged connection for rotation to an upright orientation to lift the storage structure from the bowl (figure 1, reference #12; [0017]).
Regarding claim 14, Leung in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the additional unit has lift tabs for lifting the storage structure from the bowl (figure 1, reference #15) (it is noted that the additional unit has not been defined beyond calling it an additional unit, and as such, the top wall of reference #16 is considered an additional unit with tabs 15 that are capable of being used for lifting the storage structure from the bowl)).
Regarding claim 15, Leung in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of accessories includes one or more of: a chopping blade; a dough blade; an adjustable slicing disk; and an adjustable shredding disk (reference #26, 28, 44, 58; [0018]; [0021]; [0024]).
Regarding claim 16, Leung in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the additional accessory is a dicing kit ([0006]; [0024]).
Regarding claim 17, as stated in the rejection to claim 1, the food processing device and the bowl are part of the preamble as an intended use of the storage structure and as such are not positively recited structures of the claims, and therefore the limitations recited in claim 17 which attempt to further limit the food processing device and bowl are not positive structural limitation that are part of the claim. However, in order to further compact prosecution Leung in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the food processing device has a lid for the bowl wherein the storage structure is configured to fit in the bowl with the lid on the bowl ([0009] (“food processor can then be closed with the storage caddy inside” means there must be a lid to close the bowl of the food processor with the storage container inside)).
Regarding claim 18, as stated in the rejection to claims 1 and 17, the food processing device and the bowl are part of the preamble as an intended use of the storage structure and as such are not positively recited structures of the claims, and therefore the limitations recited in claim 18 which attempt to further limit the food processing device and bowl are not positive structural limitation that are part of the claim. However, in order to further compact prosecution Leung in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the food processing device has a lid for the bowl wherein the additional unit is configured to receive the lid to cover the additional accessory ([0009]).
Regarding claim 27, Leung discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of accessories comprises a sharp edge, and wherein the corresponding recess to store said accessory comprising a sharp edge being configured such that said sharp edge locates within the peripheral extent of the base unit (figure 4, accessory 44 has sharp edge blades that are located in periphery extent of middle portion 18 delimited by walls of recess 42 that are part of walls of periphery extent of middle portion 18).
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-12, 14-18 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mock et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0225562) (with priority date benefitting from provisional application 63/042,848) in view of De Jenlis.
Regarding claim 1, Mock et al. discloses a storage structure for a food processing device with a bowl for processing food using different accessories (reference #10 and 12; abstract), the storage structure comprising:
a base unit configured to fit within the bowl (abstract; figures 1, reference #12), and
engagement formations to retain a plurality of the accessories on the base unit for individual removal from the base unit, and replacement into the base unit, without first removing or replacing another of the accessories (reference #34, 36 and 38; [0023]-[0025])),
wherein the base unit has recesses to store the accessories, each of the recesses having at least one of the engagement formations to detachably engage the accessories such that the accessories are stored within the recesses to prevent direct contact of one of the accessories with another of the accessories (figures 1-6, reference #16, 26, 30, 32; see spaces around sides of reference #28 in figures 3 and 4, not all labeled; [0023]-[0025]; [0056]); and
wherein the recesses are formed in the side periphery of the base unit (figures 1-6, recess 16, 30, 32 formed in top or middle side periphery wall 22 of base 12; figures 5 and 6, recess 26 formed in bottom or middle side periphery wall 22 of base unit 12; see figures 3 and 4, middle space between periphery walls 198 and 202 surrounding engagement formation #38 formed in side periphery of base 12).
However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the engagement formations are biased toward detachable engagement with the accessories.
De Jenlis teaches another storage for food processing tools (figure 3). The reference teaches wherein the engagement formations are biased toward detachable engagement with the accessories (reference #135, 145 and 150; see pages 4 and 6 where it discuses those reference numbers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the engagement formations of Mock et al. to be biased toward detachable engagement with the accessories as taught by De Jenlis, because selecting one of known designs for an engagement would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing and because said engagement formation being biased toward detachable engagement with the accessories makes it possible to maintain the tool/accessory in the position in a secure and removable manner (De Jenlis pages 4 and 6).
It is noted that the food processing device and bowl and different accessories are part of the preamble and are intended use of the storage unit, and therefore are not positive structural limitations are not accorded any patentable weight. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 2, Mock et al. in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the engagement formations are biased toward the detachable engagement with corresponding retention indents associated with the accessory (De Jenlis reference #135; see page 4 (“The fixing means 135 are, for example, rounded longitudinal pins configured to fit into a rounded groove of the tool”)).
Regarding claim 3, as stated in the rejection to claim 1, the food processing device is part of the preamble as an intended use of the storage structure and as such is not a positively recited structure of the claims, and therefore the limitations recited in claim 3 which attempt to further limit the food processing device (“the food processing device has a spindle”) are not positive structural limitation that are part of the claim. However, in order to further compact prosecution Mock et al. in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the food processing device has a spindle to engage the accessories for rotation within the bowl (figure 2, reference #92; [0030]), and some of the engagement formations are configured to retain the spindle, such that the spindle is removable from the base unit without requiring removal of any of the accessories stored in the base unit (figure 2, reference #38 and 92; figure 3, reference #212; [0053]).
Regarding claim 4, Mock et al. in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the base unit has a socket to receive the spindle (figures 2 and 3, internal space where numeral 223 is pointing), the socket having a plurality of formations for detachably gripping the spindle during storage and allowing manual removal of the spindle by a user (figures 2 and 3, reference #38, 212, and 218; [0048]; [0053]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 5, Mock et al. in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein at least one of the recesses is configured for storing a designated one of the accessories only (figures 1-6, reference #16, 26, 30, 32; see spaces around sides of reference #28 in figures 3 and 4, not all labeled; [0023]-[0025]; [0056]).
Regarding claim 6, Mock et al. in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses a removable mount in the at least one recess (figure 2, reference #46 removable in recess of reference #44), the removable mount having the formation to detachably engage the accessory for storage within the recess (figures 2-4, reference #46, 60 and 210; [0024]-[0025]; [0051]).
Regarding claim 8, Mock et al. in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses a cover for attachment to the base unit (figure 2, reference #184), the cover and the base unit defining at least one slot to retain one of the accessories formed as a disk for rotation in the bowl (figure 2, reference #172; see figure 1, shown below reference #88, but not labeled; [0042]).
Regarding claim 9, Mock et al. in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the cover and the base unit define a plurality of the slots to individually retain one of the disks respectively (see figure 1, lots of slots with multiple disks 62 and other, not labeled between reference #88 and reference #14; [0042]).
Regarding claim 10, Mock et al. in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses an additional unit for detachable engagement with the cover, the additional unit being configured to hold an additional accessory for the food processing device, such that the additional unit does not prevent removal of any of the plurality of accessories stored in the storage structure (figures 1-4, reference #40, 42 and 208; [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 11, as stated in the rejection to claim 1, the bowl is part of the preamble as an intended use of the storage structure and as such is not a positively recited structure of the claims, and therefore the limitations recited in claim 11 which attempt to further limit the bowl are not positive structural limitation that are part of the claim. However, in order to further compact prosecution, Mock et al. in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the bowl has a base with a spindle drive coupling, and the storage structure further comprises a drive coupling cavity for accommodating the spindle drive coupling when the base unit is within the bowl such that the spindle drive coupling does not touch any part of the storage structure or the plurality of accessories (figure 1; figure 2, reference #68 and 122; [0030]; [0038]).
Regarding claim 12, Mock et al. in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses a storage structure according to claim 1, configured to be lifted out of the bowl without requiring user contact with any of the accessories (figure 2, vertical tabs on top of reference #184, not labeled).
Regarding claim 14, Mock et al. in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the additional unit has lift tabs for lifting the storage structure from the bowl (figure 2, vertical tabs on top of reference #184, not labeled) (it is noted that the additional unit has not been defined beyond calling it an additional unit, and as such, the top wall of reference #184 is considered an additional unit with tabs that are capable of being used for lifting the storage structure from the bowl)).
Regarding claim 15, Mock et al. in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of accessories includes one or more of: a chopping blade; a dough blade; an adjustable slicing disk; and an adjustable shredding disk (reference #48, 54, 62; [0037]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 16, Mock et al. in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the additional accessory is a dicing kit (figure 2, reference #172, 174, 176, 182; [0042]).
Regarding claim 17, as stated in the rejection to claim 1, the food processing device and the bowl are part of the preamble as an intended use of the storage structure and as such are not positively recited structures of the claims, and therefore the limitations recited in claim 17 which attempt to further limit the food processing device and bowl are not positive structural limitation that are part of the claim. However, in order to further compact prosecution Mock et al. in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the food processing device has a lid for the bowl wherein the storage structure is configured to fit in the bowl with the lid on the bowl (figure 1, reference #88, with reference #12 shown fitting in bowl 72 with lid 88 on top).
Regarding claim 18, as stated in the rejection to claims 1 and 17, the food processing device and the bowl are part of the preamble as an intended use of the storage structure and as such are not positively recited structures of the claims, and therefore the limitations recited in claim 18 which attempt to further limit the food processing device and bowl are not positive structural limitation that are part of the claim. However, in order to further compact prosecution Mock et al. in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the food processing device has a lid for the bowl wherein the additional unit is configured to receive the lid to cover the additional accessory (figure 1, reference #88, with additional unit, not labeled, inside and below 88).
Regarding claim 27, Mock et al. discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of accessories comprises a sharp edge, and wherein the corresponding recess to store said accessory comprising a sharp edge being configured such that said sharp edge locates within the peripheral extent of the base unit (figure 7, accessory with sharp edge 136; figure 8, accessory with sharp edge 136 that are located in periphery extent of base 12 delimited by walls of recess 30 and 32 that are part of walls of periphery extent of base 12).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung in view of De Jenlis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Unteregger (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0096585).
Regarding claim 7, Leung in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose the connection to be a bayonet connection. It is well known in the art that the connection can have a variety of shapes of configurations, including bayonet with complementary bayonet tabs and apertures, as taught by Unteregger [0008]-[0009]; [0021]-[0022]). The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the connection of Leung to include a bayonet connection with complementary bayonet tabs and apertures between the mount and the recess. An ordinary skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to do the foregoing because a bayonet connection is a particularly simple construction and guarantees a reliable coupling (Unteregger [0008]-[0009]; [0025]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mock et al. in view of De Jenlis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Unteregger.
Regarding claim 7, Mock et al. in view of De Jenlis discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose the connection to be a bayonet connection. It is well known in the art that the connection can have a variety of shapes of configurations, including bayonet with complementary bayonet tabs and apertures, as taught by Unteregger [0008]-[0009]; [0021]-[0022]). The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the connection of Mock et al. to include a bayonet connection with complementary bayonet tabs and apertures between the mount and the recess. An ordinary skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to do the foregoing because a bayonet connection is a particularly simple construction and guarantees a reliable coupling (Unteregger [0008]-[0009]; [0025]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues Leung fails to disclose wherein the recesses are formed in the side periphery of the base unit because cutout portions 42 and 46 are accessed from the top of the middle portion 18. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. The claims have not specifically pointed out what side of the base is required to have the recess, beyond calling it a periphery side. As explained above, the top side of base 18 is still considered a periphery side that reads on the limitation (see figure 4, #42 and 48 are shown to be formed in a top side periphery of middle portion 18) (it is noted that a top is still a side periphery of middle portion 18)). Alternatively, as explained above, it would have been obvious to rearrange the recesses to be in a different side periphery for easier access to the accessories.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant argues Leung does not disclose a removable mount as recited in claim 6. Applicant finds this argument unpersuasive. Item #20 of Leung is considered a mount that is removable from the base 12 as shown in figure 5 and item #20 engages accessory 58 in recess 56.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argues Leung fails to disclose the additional unit as recited in claim 10. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. “Additional unit” is a very broad limitation that the claims do not further limit with any structure. As such, the latch 22 and 24 reads on the limitation since it is capable to detachably engage cover 16 that is described in claim 8, and an additional accessory 28.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues Mock et al. does not disclose the limitation wherein the recesses are formed in the side periphery of the base unit because the periphery surface is #28 which does not have any recesses. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. First, even if wall 28 is the periphery surface, there are recesses 16/20/26 formed in the interior wall of #28 and recesses formed on the exterior portion of #28 as shown in figures 1-6. Second, Applicant’s interpretation is incorrected in view of Mock et al. specifically stating that the base comprises peripheral rims 198 and 202 as explained in paragraphs [0044]-[0045] of Mock’s specification. Therefore, as shown in figures 1-4, there is a recess formed in the side periphery of the base unit between #198 and 202 where engagement formation 38 is located.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant argues Mock et al. does not disclose a removable mount as recited in claim 6. Applicant finds this argument unpersuasive. Comparing figures 3 and 4, #46 is movable and capable to be removed, and paragraph [0090] of Mock states that parts make be removable as separate parts.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant argues Mock et al. does not disclose a cover that defines an opening. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. As shown in figures 1 and 2, cover 184 has a width with a space inside where disc 174 and its parts 182 and 176 fit within. Therefore, cover 184 has a slot for storing dicing blade 182.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argues Mock et al. does not disclose the additional unit as recited in claim 10. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. “Additional unit” is a very broad limitation that the claims do not further limit with any structure. As such, item #40, 42 and 208 read on the limitation because #40 and 42 pass through holes 60 to hold accessories 100 and 102, with the tops #46 in removable contact with cover 172 (figure 2) as shown in figure 1 (cover not labeled but shown above where 46 is pointing).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights