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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/18/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 6 and 7 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 6 recites the preamble “The apple slicer of claim 1” and the limitation " the recesses". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as reading the preamble “Claim 5” wherein “recesses” is established the first time.
Claim 7 is a dependent claim which inherits the same issue raised in the rejection of Claim 6 under 112(b) as being indefinite and is thus rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O'Halloran et al. (US-2016-0106140).
Regarding claim 1, O'Halloran discloses an apple slicer (12, the divider, Fig.2, [Paragraphs 0014-0018]) comprising:
a base (20, frame, Fig.2, also see annotated Fig.2) having an inner surface (see annotated Fig.2),
a solid central portion (24, central blade, see Fig.2, also see annotated Fig.2. Although a central portion with a hollow core is shown in Fig.2 of O’Halloran, also shown in Fig. 2 annotated by the examiner, it is solid in the aspect of being made firmly and well enough to absorb the forces of apple slicing. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solid ), and
a plurality of blades (22) radially extending from the solid central portion (24) to the inner surface (See annotated Fig.2, a plurality of radial blades 22 extend from the central circular blade 24 to the inner surface of the base 20 [Paragraph 0015].); and
a gripping portion (marked in grey color in annotated Fig.2) integrally formed with the base (20) (The base 20 and the gripping portion are made from a rigid plastic material [Paragraph 0015], and as shown in Fig.2 of O’Halloran, there is no break line between the base 20 and the gripping portion, indicating to a person having ordinary skill in the art that they are integrally formed).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
873
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of O'Halloran, annotated
Regarding claim 2, O'Halloran discloses wherein the solid central portion (24) is generally circular (See annotated Fig.2, the central blade 24 is in a circular shape [Paragraph 0016].).
Regarding claim 3, O'Halloran discloses wherein the solid central portion is non-removable (See annotated Fig.2; the solid central blade is non removable; all the blades are connected with and positioned within the closed-shaped base, and are configured to be pushed in a cutting direction through a fruit to divide the fruit into sliced segments [Paragraph 0004].).
Regarding claim 4, O'Halloran discloses wherein the solid central portion passes freely through a coreless apple, while the plurality of blades slice through the coreless apple (See annotated Fig.2; the solid central blade 24 surrounds a circular gap 54 [Paragraph 0016], thus can pass freely through a coreless apple, while the plurality of blades slice through the apple).
Regarding claim 5, O'Halloran discloses wherein the gripping portion has recesses (60) on opposed ends thereof (See annotated Fig.2 where the gripping portion is shown in grey color for illustration, the two handles 26, 28 each surrounds an opening 60, leading the gripping portion to have two recesses 60 on opposed ends thereof.).
Regarding claim 6, O'Halloran discloses wherein the recesses (60) are configured to accommodate an apple corer (See annotated Fig.2, the two recesses in the gripping portion are diametrically opposite on another and oriented with distal ends that are raised above the plane of the blades and the rest of the base, thus is able to accommodate an apple corer [Paragraph 0017].).
Regarding claim 7, O'Halloran discloses wherein the apple corer is placed diagonally in relation to the apple slicer (See annotated Fig.2, the two recesses that are configured to accommodate an apple corner are diametrically opposite one another with reference to the slicer, therefore the apple corer placed in the recesses is diagonally in relation to the apple slicer.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zunjing J. Wang whose telephone number is (571)272-0762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/ Zunjing J. Wang /Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761