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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-8) and Species
I (Figs. 1-5) in the reply filed on 01/12/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must
show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cutting surface and the height of the blade as set forth in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5)
because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “22” on page 6, line 8 of the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
5. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the specification does not define and disclose “a cutting surface of the blade” as recited in claim 1. The specification defined a cutting edge of the blade; however, a cutting edge is not the same as a cutting surface, and the specification does not describe a cutting surface having s dimension that is less than one fourth of the height of the blade. Additionally, the specification does not disclose what is meant by the “height of the blade.” The specification fails to describe how the height of the blade is measured, including from what portion of the blade the height begins and to what portion it ends.
Regarding claim 1, the specification does not disclose how the bladed portions are distinct from or extend beyond their respective interior walls 52 and 54. As shown in Fig. 2 of the drawings, the interior walls appear to be the same structures as the first and second bladed portions. Therefore, it is unclear what structures define the bladed portions and what structures define the interior walls.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the specification does not disclose that the first bladed portion and the second bladed portion have a height of at least one centimeter, as claimed. The specification describes end walls 36 and 38 as bladed portions of the frame having interior walls 52 and 54; however, the specification does not teach or suggest that the bladed portions 36 and 38 have a height of at least one centimeter. See Fig. 2 of the elected Species I (Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 8, the specification does not disclose that the first and second bladed portions are coupled to one another at a 90-degree angle, as claimed. Instead, the bladed portions 36 and 38 are shown as being parallel to one another and not coupled together at a 90-degree angle, as clearly illustrated in Fig. 2 of the drawings which is part of the elected Species I (Figs. 1-5). Furthermore, the specification does not teach bladed portions in which the two ends (as set forth in claim 1) are coupled together at a 90-degree angle. Instead, the ends of the blade are attached to two bladed portions 36, 38, which are positioned parallel to one another. Accordingly, the specification does not provide written description support for the claimed angular relationship.
6. Claims 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, “the height of the blade” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the cutting surface of the blade is
less than one fourth the height of the blade” is confusing and indefinite. It is unclear what dimensional aspect of the cutting surface is being compared to the height of the blade (e.g., length, depth, or surface area). In addition, the claim does not define how the height of the blade is measured, including from what portion of the blade the height begins and to what portion it ends. As a result, the claimed dimensional relationship cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein the interior is rectangular” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the term “interior” refers to the interior of the frame, the first interior wall, or the second interior wall.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-8, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Valente et al. (4,625,404), hereinafter Valente. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Valente teaches a chopper 10 comprising: a handle 14; a shoulder 13 coupled to the handle 14; a frame 11 coupled to the shoulder 13, wherein the frame 11 defines an interior (Fig. 3) and comprises: a first bladed portion (defined by one of the sides of the frame 11 connected to the shoulder 13 and having a cutting edge 12; or defined by one of the side walls of the frame 11 having a cutting edge 12; Fig. 3) defining a first interior wall; a second bladed portion (defined by another side of the frame connected to the shoulder 13 and having a cutting edge 12; or defined by the another wall of the side walls of the frame 11 having a cutting edge 12; Fig. 3) defining a second interior wall; and a blade 16 comprising: a cutting surface 17; a length; a first end secured to the first interior wall; and a second end secured to the second interior wall; wherein the cutting surface of the blade 16 is less than one fourth the height of the blade. It should be noted that the height (16b) of chamfered surface 17 is clearly less than the one fourth of the height (16a) of the blade 16 which is parallel to the handle 14, as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above. Valente further inherently discloses that the chopper weighs at least one kilogram. It should be noted that the handle includes a metal central piece 18 integrated with a shoulder 13 formed from metal, and the frames and blades 16 are made of stainless steel (col. 2, lines 53–65). In this configuration, the total weight of the chopper is inherently greater than 1 kg. This is because the combined weight of the metal components forming the central piece 18 and the shoulders 13—each with a length of at least 5 inches and a height of at least 1 inch—together with the steel frame and blades, each having a length of 5 to 5¼ inches and a height of at least more than 1 inch, inherently exceeds 1 kg. See below.
Blade dimensions
Length: 5.5 inches (0.1397 m)
Height: 1 inch (0.0254 m)
Thickness (conservative estimate for chopper blades): 0.30 inches (0.00762 m)
Volume of one blade:
Vblade = 0.1397 * 0.0254 * 0.00762 = 2.70 *10^-5 m^3
Weight of one blade:
The density of stainless steel is approximately 8,000 kg/ m^2
Weight = Density * Volume
Wblade = 8,000 * 2.70 *10^-5 = 0.216 kg
Weight of two blades:
Wtwo blades = 0.432 kg
Frame dimensions (four sides)
Each side of the frame is assumed to have:
Length: 5.5 inches (0.1397 m)
Height: 1 inch (0.0254 m)
Thickness: 0.30 inches (0.00762 m)
Volume of one frame side:
Vframe side = 0.1397 * 0.0254 * 0.00762 = 2.70 *10^-5 m^3
Weight of one frame side:
Wframe side = 8,000 * 2.70 *10^ -5 = 0.216 kg.
Weight of four frame sides:
Wframe = 0.864 kg
Total stainless-steel weight
Wtotal = Wtwo blades + Wframe
Wtotal = 0.432 + 0.864 = 1.296 kg
It should be noted that this calculation does not include the weight of the handle and the shoulders which have metal components. In addition, one of the blades 16, which is extending parallel to the handles 14, has a height more than 1 inch. Therefore, the weight of the chopper clearly exceeds 1 kg.
Regarding claim 2, Valente teaches everything noted above including that the length of the blade 16 is at least ten centimeters. It should be noted that the length of each blade is approximately 5 inches with in longer than 10 centimeters.
See Figs. 1-3 and col. 2, lines 53–65 of Valente.
Regarding claim 3, Valente teaches everything noted above including that the blade 16 has a height of at least one centimeter. It should be noted that the height of one of the blades 16 is same as the height of the shoulder or extension 13 (col. 2, lines 45-53). In this case, the height of the blade is approximately a few inches which is more than one cementer.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Valente teaches everything noted above including that the first bladed portion has a height of at least one centimeter. It should be noted that the height of the first bladed portion is at least 0.5 to 1 inch which is more than one cementer.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Valente teaches everything noted above including that the second bladed portion has a height of at least one centimeter. It should be noted that the height of the second bladed portion is at least 0.5 to 1 inch which is more than one cementer.
Regarding claim 6, Valente teaches everything noted above including that the frame 11 defines at least one 90-degree angle. See Fig. 2 in Valente.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Valente teaches everything noted above including that the interior is rectangular. See Fig. 2 in Valente.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Valente teaches everything noted above including that first bladed portion is straight, the second bladed portion is straight and the first bladed portion and second bladed portion are coupled to one another at a 90- degree angle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Valente. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Valente teaches a chopper 10 comprising: a handle 14; a shoulder 13 coupled to the handle 14; a frame 11 coupled to the shoulder 13, wherein the frame 11 defines an interior (Fig. 3) and comprises: a first bladed portion (defined by one of the sides of the frame 11 connected to the shoulder 13 and having a cutting edge 12; or defined by one of the side walls of the frame 11 having a cutting edge 12; Fig. 3) defining a first interior wall; a second bladed portion (defined by another side of the frame connected to the shoulder 13 and having a cutting edge 12; or defined by the another wall of the side walls of the frame 11 having a cutting edge 12; Fig. 3) defining a second interior wall; and a blade 16 comprising: a cutting surface 17; a length; a first end secured to the first interior wall; and a second end secured to the second interior wall; wherein the cutting surface of the blade 16 is less than one fourth the height of the blade. It should be noted that the height (16b) of chamfered surface 17 is clearly less than the one fourth of the height (16a) of the blade 16 which is parallel to the handle 14, as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above.
It should be noted that the handle includes a metal central piece 18 integrated with a shoulder 13 formed from metal, and the frames and blades 16 are made of stainless steel (col. 2, lines 53–65). In this configuration, the total weight of the chopper is inherently greater than 1 kg. This is because the combined weight of the metal components forming the central piece 18 and the shoulders 13—each with a length of at least 5 inches and a height of at least 1 inch—together with the frame and blades, each having a length of 5 to 5¼ inches and a height of at least more than 1 inch, exceeds 1 kg. See the calculation above with respect to claim 1.
In the case, that applicant argues Valente does not explicitly teach that the weight of the chopper is at least 1 kg. It should be noted, that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the weight as at least 1 kg, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, Valente teaches everything noted above including that the length of the blade 16 is at least ten centimeters. It should be noted that the length of each blade is approximately 5 inches with in longer than 10 centimeters.
See Figs. 1-3 and col. 2, lines 53–65 of Valente.
Regarding claim 3, Valente teaches everything noted above including that the blade 16 has a height of at least one centimeter. It should be noted that the height of one of the blades 16 is same as the height of the shoulder or extension 13 (col. 2, lines 45-53). In this case, the height of the blade is approximately a few inches which is more than one cementer.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Valente teaches everything noted above including that the first bladed portion has a height of at least one centimeter. It should be noted that the height of the first bladed portion is at least 0.5 to 1 inch which is more than one cementer. In addition, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the height of the first bladed portion of at least one inch, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Valente teaches everything noted above including that the second bladed portion has a height of at least one centimeter. It should be noted that the height of the second bladed portion is at least 0.5 to 1 inch which is more than one cementer. In addition, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the height of the second bladed portion of at least one inch, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, Valente teaches everything noted above including that the frame 11 defines at least one 90-degree angle. See Fig. 2 in Valente.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Valente teaches everything noted above including that the interior is rectangular. See Fig. 2 in Valente.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Valente teaches everything noted above including that first bladed portion is straight, the second bladed portion is straight and the first bladed portion and second bladed portion are coupled to one another at a 90- degree angle.
To the degree that it could be argued Valente does not explicitly teach that the height of the blade and the bladed portions is at least one centimeter, the rejection below is applied.
11. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Valente in view of Foate (4,998,348). Regarding claims 3-5, it could be argued that Valente does not explicitly teach that the height of the blade and the bladed portions is at least one centimeter, the rejection below is applied. However, Foate teaches a chopper including a blade (13, 14) and first and second bladed portions (defined by opposite portions of the circular frame 10 in which the ends of the blades (13, 14) are attached. Foate also teaches that the height of the frame including the blades and the blades portions is 2 inches. See Figs. 1-3 and the abstract. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the height of the blade, first bladed portion, and second blade portions of Valente’s chopper of one centimeter or more, as taught by Foate, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Hutto (2008/0229938 A1), Price (1,446,767), Klejna (2,502,157), and Berles (2,661,535) teach a chopper.
Gore (0,546,384) teaches a food chopper with a proper weight for chopping food items.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
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 on (571) . 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 January 27, 2026