DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 1/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/30/2026 filed after the filing date of the application on 10/04/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-19 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, “wherein a food item is hydraulically propelled downstream through the fluid conduit along the food travel axis” is indefinite. The claimed limitation appear to claimed “a food item”, which is the work piece that goes thought the system. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." MEPEP 2115.
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 1-6 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR 20130118421 A) in view of Zabel (US 2474451).
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches a food cutter having a food travel axis, the food cutter comprising:
a blade carrier (13) configured for mounting within a fluid conduit of a hydraulic cutting line (as the new limitation does not require any new add structures, therefore under the broadest reasonable interpretation, any blade carrier can be configured for mounting with a fluid conduit of a hydraulic cutting line, thus the structure of Kang meets the limitation); and
a plurality of disc blades (blades on 12 and 20, see Figure 6) mounted to the blade carrier,
each of the plurality of disc blades defining a corresponding blade rotation axis (about one of 11, 11a, 20 or 20a), each disc blade being rotatable relative to the blade carrier about the corresponding blade rotation axis (see Figure 3 and 4), the corresponding blade rotation axis of the disc blade being perpendicular to and offset from the food travel axis (see Figures 4 and 6), wherein a food item is hydraulically propelled downstream through the fluid conduit along the food travel axis (as the food item is not required by the claim, and no additional structure is added in this limitation, the limitation appear to a functional intend use of the device, therefore as the blade carrier can be configured for mounting with a fluid conduit of a hydraulic cutting line, and a food item can be propelled downstream, thus the structure of Kang meets the limitation),
each disc blade having a perimeter edge at a constant radius from the corresponding blade rotation axis (see Figures 3-6).
Kang fails to teach the perimeter edge of each disc blade having a series of alternating peaks and valleys, each peak and valley having an amplitude in a direction parallel to the corresponding blade rotation axis.
Zabel teaches disc blades (31), each having a series of alternating peaks and valleys (see Figures 1-4), each peak and valley having an amplitude in a direction (left and right direction in Figure 3) parallel to the corresponding blade rotation axis (axis of 30, see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to modify the device of Kang to change the shape of the disc blade, as taught by Zabel, in order to cut shapes for decorative purpose (col 2 lines 18-36 of Zabel).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kang further teaches the perimeter edge of each disc blade abuts the perimeter edge of at least one other disc blade (at least the disc of 12 and 22 next to other disc, see Figure 6 of Kang).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kang further teaches the perimeter edge of each disc blade abuts the food travel axis (see Figure 6 of Kang).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kang further teaches the plurality of disc blades includes a first disc blade (a blade on 20) and a second disc blade (a blade on 14), and the second disc blade is positioned downstream of the first disc blade (See Figure 6 of Kang).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kang further teaches each disc blade is freely rotatable relative to the blade carrier about the corresponding blade rotation axis (at least freely rotatable when rotated by hand).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kang further teaches the plurality of disc blades includes a first disc blade, and the first disc blade is drivingly coupled to a rotary driver (25 of Kang, see Figure 4 of Kang).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kang further teaches the perimeter edge of each disc blade has the same number of peaks and valleys (As modified by Zabel, see Figure 1-4 of Zabel).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kang further teaches the plurality of disc blades includes at least a first row of disc blades (blades on 20) and a second row of disc blades (blades on 20a of Kang, see Figure 6 of Kang).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kang further teaches the blade rotation axis of each disc blade in the first row of disc blades is collinear with the blade rotation axis of each other disc blade in the first row of disc blades, and the blade rotation axis of each disc blade in the second row of disc blades is collinear with the blade rotation axis of each other disc blade in the second row of disc blades (see Figure 6 of Kang).
Regarding claim 15, modified Kang further teaches the perimeter edge of each disc blade in the first row of disc blades abuts the perimeter edge of a respective disc blade in the second row of disc blades (see Figure 6 of Kang).
Regarding claim 16, modified Kang further teaches the blade rotation axis of each disc blade in the first row of disc blades is parallel with the blade rotation axis of each disc blade in the second row of disc blades (see Figure 6 of Kang).
Regarding claim 17, modified Kang further teaches the plurality of disc blades includes at least a third row of disc blades (blades on 11) and a fourth row of disc blades (blades on 11a), the blade rotation axis of each disc blade in the third row of disc blades is collinear with the blade rotation axis of each other disc blade in the third row of disc blades (see Figure 6 of Kang), the blade rotation axis of each disc blade in the fourth row of disc blades is collinear with the blade rotation axis of each other disc blade in the fourth row of disc blades (see Figure 6 of Kang), the perimeter edge of each disc blade in the third row of disc blades abuts the perimeter edge of a respective disc blade in the fourth row of disc blades (see Figure 6 of Kang), and the blade rotation axis of each disc blade in the third and fourth rows of disc blades is non- parallel with the blade rotation axis of each disc blade in the first and second rows of disc blades (see Figure 6 of Kang).
Regarding claim 18, modified Kang further teaches the blade rotation axis of each disc blade in the third and fourth rows of disc blades is perpendicular to the blade rotation axis of each disc blade in the first and second rows of disc blades (see Figure 6 of Kang).
Regarding claim 19, modified Kang further teaches the third and fourth rows of disc blades are positioned downstream of the first and second rows of disc blades (see Figure 6 of Kang).
Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagliardi (US 20100151780 A1) in view of Zabel (US 2474451).
Regarding claim 1, Gagliardi teaches a food cutter having a food travel axis, the food cutter comprising:
a blade carrier (assembly of 36) configured for mounting within a fluid conduit of a hydraulic cutting line (as the new limitation does not require any new add structures, therefore under the broadest reasonable interpretation, any blade carrier can be configured for mounting with a fluid conduit of a hydraulic cutting line, thus the structure of Gagliardi meets the limitation); and
a plurality of disc blades (blades on 12 and 20, see Figure 6) mounted to the blade carrier,
each of the plurality of disc blades (32) defining a corresponding blade rotation axis (axis of 38), each disc blade being rotatable relative to the blade carrier about the corresponding blade rotation axis (see Figure 3 and 5A), the corresponding blade rotation axis of the disc blade being perpendicular to and offset from the food travel axis (see Figures 3 and 5A), herein a food item is hydraulically propelled downstream through the fluid conduit along the food travel axis (as the food item is not required by the claim, and no additional structure is added in this limitation, the limitation appear to a functional intend use of the device, therefore as the blade carrier can be configured for mounting with a fluid conduit of a hydraulic cutting line, and a food item can be propelled downstream, thus the structure of Gagliardi meets the limitation),
each disc blade having a perimeter edge at a constant radius from the corresponding blade rotation axis (see Figures 3 and 5A).
Kang fails to teach the perimeter edge of each disc blade having a series of alternating peaks and valleys, each peak and valley having an amplitude in a direction parallel to the corresponding blade rotation axis.
Zabel teaches disc blades (31), each having a series of alternating peaks and valleys (see Figures 1-4), each peak and valley having an amplitude in a direction (left and right direction in Figure 3) parallel to the corresponding blade rotation axis (axis of 30, see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to modify the device of Gagliardi to change the shape of the disc blade, as taught by Zabel, in order to cut shapes for decorative purpose (col 2 lines 18-36 of Zabel).
Regarding claim 2, modified Gagliardi further teaches the perimeter edge of each disc blade abuts the perimeter edge of at least one other disc blade (see Figure 3 of Gagliardi).
Regarding claim 3, modified Gagliardi further teaches the perimeter edge of each disc blade abuts the food travel axis (see Figure 3 of Gagliardi).
Regarding claim 5, modified Gagliardi further teaches each disc blade is freely rotatable relative to the blade carrier about the corresponding blade rotation axis (at least freely rotatable when rotated by hand).
Regarding claim 6, modified Gagliardi further teaches the plurality of disc blades includes a first disc blade, and the first disc blade is drivingly coupled to a rotary driver (28, see Figure 3 of Gagliardi).
Regarding claim 7, modified Gagliardi further teaches the plurality of disc blades includes a circular arrangement of disc blades surrounding the food travel axis (see Figure 3 of Gagliardi).
Regarding claim 8, modified Gagliardi further teaches the circular arrangement of disc blades comprises at least three disc blades (at least six, see Figure 3 of Gagliardi).
Regarding claim 9, modified Gagliardi further teaches the circular arrangement of disc blades are evenly distributed along an imaginary circle that surrounds the food travel axis (see Figure 5A of Gagliardi).
Regarding claim 10, modified Gagliardi further teaches the perimeter edge of each disc blade in the circular arrangement of disc blades is abutting the perimeter edge of each other disc blade in the circular arrangement of disc blades (see Figure 5A of Gagliardi).
Regarding claim 11, modified Gagliardi further teaches the perimeter edge of each disc blade in the circular arrangement of disc blades is abutting the food travel axis (see Figure 5A of Gagliardi).
Regarding claim 12, modified Gagliardi further teaches the perimeter edge of each disc blade has the same number of peaks and valleys (As modified by Zabel, see Figure 1-4 of Zabel).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Kang, Gagliardi and Zabel fails to teach “a blade carrier configured for mounting within a fluid conduit of a hydraulic cutting line”. The examiner disagrees and notes that as the new limitation does not require any new add structures (i.e. what structure in the invention make the device “configure to be mounting within a fluid conduit of a hydraulic cutting line”), therefore under the broadest reasonable interpretation, any blade carrier can be configured for mounting with a fluid conduit of a hydraulic cutting line, thus the structure of Gagliardi meets the limitation. The examiner suggest to claimed the hydraulic cutting system to overcome this interpretation.
Conclusion
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 LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 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, Ashley Boyer 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 3/6/2026