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
Applicant’s submission filed on July 28, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-7, and 9-10 were amended. No new claims newly introduced. Claims 2-3 and 8 were canceled. Claims 1, 4-7, and 9-10 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every drawing objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on June 26, 2025. Claims 1, 4-7, and 9-10 are examined in this action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to, as sustained from the Non-Final Office Action mailed on June 26, 2025, because of “on the vegetable cutting knife frame (3), wherein a detachably” in lines 6-7. Examiner suggests “on the vegetable cutting knife frame (3); wherein a detachably” for more clarity and grammatical continuity, as seen at the ends of other paragraphs in claim 1, lines 5 & 16.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 218428477 U by Yuan in view of CN 204002218 U by Bi et al. (hereinafter “Bi”).
Regarding claim 1, Yuan discloses a vegetable cutter, comprising a vegetable cutter body (Yuan, Fig. 5, base 1), a vegetable cutting pressing plate (Yuan, Fig. 5, pressure cover 2), and a hinged portion arranged between the vegetable cutter body and the vegetable cutting pressing plate (see Examiner annotated Yuan Figure 5, hereinafter “EAYF5”; hinged portion, base 1, & pressure cover 2); the vegetable cutter body, the vegetable cutting pressing plate and the hinged portion are assembled in a detachable manner (see Yuan English Machine Translated Document, hereinafter “YEMTD”; Abstract, para. 1, “The vegetable cutter provided by the utility model has an improved rotating shaft structure and can be installed and disassembled more conveniently”); the vegetable cutter body comprises a vegetable cutting knife frame (Yuan, Fig. 5, knife disc 3); the vegetable cutting pressing plate comprises a material pressing plate for pressing a material on the vegetable cutting knife frame (Yuan, Fig. 5, pressure block 4), wherein the hinged portion comprises a hinged shaft (Yuan, Fig. 5, first and second rotating shafts 5 & 6) and a limiting device (see Examiner annotated Yuan Figure 8, hereinafter “EAYF8”; limiting device) for limiting the hinged shaft (YEMTD, Abstract, “two sides of the driving gear are respectively meshed with the first rack and the second rack, and the driving gear drives the rotating shaft to extend and retract respectively when rotating in different directions”); the vegetable cutter body is provided with a first mounting hole (EAYF5, 1st mounting hole), the vegetable cutting pressing plate is provided with a second mounting hole (EAYF5, 2nd mounting hole), and the hinged shaft is an integrated shaft (Yuan, Fig. 5, rotating shaft seat 10) penetrating through the first mounting hole and the second mounting hole (see Yuan Figs. 1 & 5); wherein the limiting device (EAYF8, limiting device) comprises a first clamping strip (Yuan, Fig. 8, first slide bar 21) and a first clamping groove (EAYF8, 1st clamping groove) arranged in the vegetable cutter body (see Yuan Fig. 7), one end of the first clamping strip is hinged (EAYF7, 1st hinge) with one end of the hinged shaft, the other end of the first clamping strip is provided with a first hook (EAYF8, first hook) for clamping with the first clamping groove (EAYF8, first clamping groove). Yuan does not explicitly disclose that the limiting device is arranged at an end of the hinged shaft.
Bi, however, which is pertinent to the issue of a limiting device for a hinged mechanism comprising a hinged shaft, does teach a limiting device (Bi, Fig. 1, fixed swing arm) arranged at one end of the hinged shaft (Bi, Fig. 1, hinge shaft 1) for limiting the hinged shaft.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the limiting device of Yuan be located relative to the hinged shaft as taught by Bi as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (in this case, substituting the location of the limiting device of Yuan with the location of the limiting device of Bi, both for the purposes of limiting the rotating shaft).
PNG
media_image1.png
721
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
492
395
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Yuan discloses a hole wall of the first mounting hole (Yuan, Fig. 5, rotating shaft seat 10) or the second mounting hole is provided with a third mounting hole (YEMTD, Claim 3, “a through hole for the driving gear to pass through is provided at the bottom of the rotating shaft seat (10)”), the limiting device comprises a groove (see Examiner annotated Yuan Figure 10, hereinafter “EAYF10”; grooves) arranged on the hinged shaft and a clamping block (Yuan, Fig. 10, driving gear 9) movably arranged in the third mounting hole (YEMTD, Claim 1, “the driving gear (9) drives the rotating shaft to extend and retract respectively when rotating in different directions”), and the clamping block is capable of being pressed into the groove (YEMTD, Claim 1, “a driving gear (9) is arranged between the first rack (7) and the second rack (8), the two sides of the driving gear (9) are respectively meshed with the first rack (7) and the second rack (8)”).
PNG
media_image3.png
677
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN218428477U by Yuan in view of CN 204002218 U by Bi, as detailed in the rejections above, and further in view of CN 113669358 B by Cheong et al. (hereinafter “Cheong”).
Regarding claim 5, the Yuan/Bi combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 4 above. Furthermore, Yuan discloses one end of the third mounting hole (15) (YEMTD, Claim 3, “a through hole for the driving gear (9) to pass through is provided at the bottom of the rotating shaft seat (10)”) far away from the hinged shaft (6) is provided a plug (18) (Yuan, Fig. 4, driving knob). Yuan does not explicitly disclose that the plug is detachable.
However, Cheong, which is pertinent to the issue of a hinge structure between two connecting components, does teach one end of the third mounting hole (15) (Cheong, Fig. 3, active cavity 822) far away from the hinged shaft (Cheong, Fig. 2, rotating shaft 4) (6) is detachably (see Cheong English Machine Translated Document, hereinafter “CEMTD”; Claim 2, “the second sleeve is provided with an end cover, and a detachable connection structure is provided between the end cover and the second sleeve”) provided a plug (18) (Cheong, Fig. 2, end cover 83).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the plug of Yuan be detachable as taught by Cheong in order to facilitate resetting the rotating shaft (CEMTD, Description, para. 45, “The ejection assembly 6 includes an operating block 60, a spring 61, a coil 62, and an annular magnet 63… the spring 61 is arranged between the tail end face of the rotating shaft 4 and the end cover 83”; para. 55, “the controller controls the coil 1 of the ejection component to cut off the power, the spring provides elastic force to reset the rotating shaft”).
Regarding claim 6, the Yuan/Bi/Cheong combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 5 above. Furthermore, Yuan does not explicitly disclose a spring.
However, Cheong, which is pertinent to the issue of a hinge structure between two connecting components, does teach a spring (19) (Cheong, Fig. 3, spring 61) is arranged between the plug (18) (Cheong, Fig. 3, end cover 83) and the clamping block (17) (Cheong, Fig. 3, gear structure two 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a spring to the hinge structure of Yuan as taught by Cheong in order to facilitate resetting the rotating shaft (CEMTD, Description, para. 45, “The ejection assembly 6 includes an operating block 60, a spring 61, a coil 62, and an annular magnet 63… the spring 61 is arranged between the tail end face of the rotating shaft 4 and the end cover 83”; para. 55, “the controller controls the coil 1 of the ejection component to cut off the power, the spring provides elastic force to reset the rotating shaft”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN218428477U by Yuan in view of CN 204002218 U by Bi and CN 113669358 B by Cheong as detailed in the rejections above, and further in view of JP H0666519 U by Chikyo.
Regarding claim 7, the Yuan/Bi/Cheong combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 6 above. Furthermore, Yuan does not explicitly disclose a hollow shaft.
However, Chikyo, which is pertinent to the issue of a hinge structure for a lid to a container body, does teach the hinged shaft is hollow (see Chikyo English Machine Translated Document, hereinafter “CEMTD”; Claim 1, “A hollow hinge shaft”), and two ends of the hinged shaft are respectively provided with a block (Chikyo, Fig. 4, fitting portion 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Yuan’s shaft to be hollow as taught by Chikyo as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield a predictable result (in this case, Yuan’s shaft having Chikyo’s hollow characteristic in order to hinge the two connecting components of the device).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN218428477U by Yuan in view of CN 204002218 U by Bi, as detailed in the rejections above, and further in view of US 20190263012 A1 by Aasness et al. (hereinafter “Aasness”).
Regarding claim 9, the Yuan/Bi combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Furthermore, Yuan discloses a vegetable cutter (YEMTD, para. 28, “A vegetable cutter”). Yuan does not explicitly disclose a storage barrel.
Aasness, however, does teach comprising a storage barrel (Aasness, Fig. 3, container 200), wherein the storage barrel is located at a lower end of the vegetable cutter body (Aasness, Fig. 3, blade tray 300) and detachably connected with the vegetable cutter body (Aasness, para. 39, “the container may include a removable bottom section… With the bottom removed, the chopper can be placed directly onto a plate, bowl, or other device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a storage barrel to the vegetable cutter of Yuan as taught by Aasness in order to catch and retain the material after cutting (Aasness, para. 26, “The depth of the reservoir may vary, and is preferably sized to hold a typical expected volume of onions, mushrooms, or other food ingredients that may be used”).
Regarding claim 10, the Yuan/Bi/Aasness combination is as detailed in the rejection of claim 9 above. Furthermore, Yuan does not explicitly disclose anti-skid protrusions.
Aasness, however, does teach a bottom portion of the storage barrel (Aasness, Fig. 3, container 200) is provided with a plurality of anti-skid protrusions (Aasness, para. 29, “The container may optionally include non-skid feet attached to the bottom”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add anti-skid protrusions to the storage barrel of the Yuan/Aasness combination as taught by Aasness in order to help hold the device in place during use (Aasness, para. 39, “The container may optionally include non-skid feet attached to the bottom, formed from silicone or other suitable materials”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102, the Applicant argues beginning under Claim Rejections Under U.S.C. 102 header at page 4 of the Remarks that with the amended claim limitation “the hinge shaft is an integrated shaft penetrating through the first mounting hole and the second mounting hole“, the applied combination of the cited references set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on June 26, 2025 do not anticipate claim 1. Applicant states specifically that the applied combination of prior art does not teach “an integrated shaft”. However, Examiner does not agree with this argument. Merriam-Webster.com defines integrated as “as in incorporated; to make a part of a body or system.” Cambridge.org defines integrated as “combined to form a single thing.” While the hinged shaft of Yuan has multiple components, Yuan does teach that the hinged shaft is incorporated as one part in the apparatus (YEMTD, Claim 1, “first rotating shaft (5) and a second rotating shaft (6) distributed on the left and right… the two sides of the driving gear (9) are respectively meshed with the first rack (7) and the second rack (8), and the driving gear (9) drives the rotating shaft”; Yuan, Figs. 1 & 5, rotating blade seat 10). While Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments, when interpreting the claim limitation of “integrated” given its broadest reasonable interpretation, Yuan does teach an integrated shaft.
Further regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102, the Applicant argues beginning under Claim Rejections Under U.S.C. 103 header at page 7 of the Remarks that with the amended claim limitation “wherein the hinged portion comprises a hinged shaft and a limiting device arranged at one end of the hinged shaft…“, the applied combination of the cited references set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on June 26, 2025 do not anticipate claim 1. While the previously applied combination may not necessarily teach that the limited device is arranged at an end of the hinged shaft, as necessitated by the amendments, a new ground of rejection was made in view of Bi, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 1 and all its dependent claims are rejected as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 218704998 U by Li et al. teaches a rotating hinge mechanism with a shaft comprising of a whole shaft body and a spring in the middle with limiters on both sides, and the cover and storage are detachable.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DEBORAH LIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5936. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 7:30am-5:00pm, every other Friday 7:30am-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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at (571) 270-3818. 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.
/DEBORAH LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724