DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/10/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/10/2026 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 § 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 Fisher (US 4372184) in view of Luer (US 1239926) and Zabel (US 2474451).
Regarding claim 1, Fisher teaches a hydraulic food cutter having a food travel axis, the hydraulic food cutter comprising:
at least one fluid conduit (see Figure 1);
a blade carrier (28) mounted within the at least one fluid conduit (see Figures 1-2); and
a plurality of blades mounted to the blade carrier,
each of the plurality of blades (76 and 82) defining a corresponding axis (see Figures 1-4).
Fisher fails to teach a plurality of disc blades mounted to the blade carrier, each of the plurality of disc blades defining a corresponding blade rotation axis, each disc blade being rotatable relative to the blade carrier about the corresponding blade rotation axis, the corresponding blade rotation axis of the disc blade being perpendicular to and offset from the food travel axis, each disc blade having a perimeter edge at a constant radius from the corresponding blade rotation axis, 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.
Luer teaches a cutting device including a plurality of disc blades (15 and 27, see Figures 4-5) mounted to the blade carrier (2), each of the plurality of disc blades defining a corresponding blade rotation axis (about one of 11 or 26), each disc blade being rotatable relative to the blade carrier about the corresponding blade rotation axis (see Figure 3-5), the corresponding blade rotation axis of the disc blade being perpendicular to and offset from the food travel axis (see Figures 4-5), each disc blade having a perimeter edge at a constant radius from the corresponding blade rotation axis (see Figures 3-6).
Fisher differs from the claimed device due to Fisher’s blades are stationary, whereas Luer teaches rotational blades. Both Fisher and Luer teach using two tiers of blades set to cut a workpiece into uniform pieces (via the vertical and horizontal cutting lines created by the blades). Such modification will achieve the predictable result of providing securing the cap of the handle, since both blade arrangement of Fisher and Luer are known for the same purpose in the art. See MPEP § 2143 I. (B). Therefore, it would have been an obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Fisher to change the blade arrangement, as taught by Luer, for the same purpose of providing a vertical and horizontal cutting line along the food conveying 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 also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to modify the device of modified Fisher 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 Fisher 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 27 next to other disc, see Figures 3-5 of Fisher).
Regarding claim 3, modified Fisher further teaches the perimeter edge of each disc blade abuts the food travel axis (see Figure Figures 3-5 of Fisher).
Regarding claim 4, modified Fisher further teaches the plurality of disc blades includes a first disc blade (a blade 27) and a second disc blade (a blade 15), and the second disc blade is positioned downstream of the first disc blade (See Figures 3-5 of Fisher).
Regarding claim 5, modified Fisher 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 Fisher further teaches the plurality of disc blades includes a first disc blade, and the first disc blade is drivingly coupled to a rotary driver (drive for 32, , see Figures 3-5 of Fisher).
Regarding claim 12, modified Fisher 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 Fisher further teaches the plurality of disc blades includes at least a first row of disc blades (blades on 226) and a second row of disc blades (blades on the other 26 of Fisher, see Figures 3-5 of Fisher).
Regarding claim 14, modified Fisher 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 Figures 3-5 of Fisher).
Regarding claim 15, modified Fisher 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 Figures 3-5 of Fisher).
Regarding claim 16, modified Fisher 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 Figures 3-5 of Fisher).
Regarding claim 17, modified Fisher 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 other 11), 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 (Figures 3-5 of Fisher), 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 (Figures 3-5 of Fisher), 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 Figures 3-5 of Fisher), 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 Figures 3-5 of Fisher).
Regarding claim 18, modified Fisher 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 Figures 3-5 of Fisher).
Regarding claim 19, modified Fisher further teaches the third and fourth rows of disc blades are positioned downstream of the first and second rows of disc blades (see Figures 3-5 of Fisher).
Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niklason (US 6129624) in view of Gagliardi (US 20100151780 A1) and Zabel (US 2474451).
Regarding claim 1, Niklason teaches a hydraulic food cutter having a food travel axis, the hydraulic food cutter comprising:
at least one fluid conduit (see Figure 8);
a blade carrier (58) mounted within the at least one fluid conduit (see Figure 8); and
a plurality of blades (60) mounted to the blade carrier,
each of the plurality of blades (60) defining a corresponding axis (see Figures 1-4).
Niklason fails to teach a plurality of disc blades mounted to the blade carrier, each of the plurality of disc blades defining a corresponding blade rotation axis, each disc blade being rotatable relative to the blade carrier about the corresponding blade rotation axis, the corresponding blade rotation axis of the disc blade being perpendicular to and offset from the food travel axis, each disc blade having a perimeter edge at a constant radius from the corresponding blade rotation axis, 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.
Gagliardi teaches a cutting device including 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).
Niklason differs from the claimed device due to Niklason’s blades are stationary, whereas Gagliardi teaches rotational blades. Both Niklason and Gagliardi teach using radially spaced apart blade arrangement to cut a workpiece into radial pieces (via centering cutting lines created by the blades). Such modification will achieve the predictable result of providing securing the cap of the handle, since both blade arrangement of Niklason and Gagliardi are known for the same purpose in the art. See MPEP § 2143 I. (B). Therefore, it would have been an obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Niklason to change the blade arrangement, as taught by Gagliardi, for the same purpose of providing centering cutting lines along the food conveying 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 also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to modify the device of modified Niklason 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 Niklason 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 Niklason 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 Niklason 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 Niklason 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 Niklason 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 Niklason 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 Niklason 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 Niklason 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 Niklason 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 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights