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 .
Priority
The provisional application number is incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In Cross-Reference to Related Application the benefit of priority is claimed to an incorrect U.S. Provisional Patent Application. In Brief Description of the Drawings no description is provided for FIGS. 21B & 21C. In Detailed Description of the Invention Para [0046] - handle 122 is incorrectly listed as connected to the crank (handle grip 126 connects to the crank), (the upper section is pivotally connected to the handle grip 126); Para [0048] and Listing of Drawing Elements - blade edges 116b is incorrectly referenced as 116a, and central hole 116a is incorrectly referenced as 116b; Para [0050] FIG. 19A through FIG.21C show a second set of different grate 114.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 19 & 20 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.
The term “course” in claims 19 & 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “course” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The size and degree in which a piece is cut is not determinable. .
The term “fine” in claim 19 & 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fine” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The size and degree in which a piece is cut is not determinable. .
The term “essentially” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Whether or not the profile consists of the requisite cut pieces is not determinable.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the lengthwise edges" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "the lengthwise edges" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation "the upper chamber" and “the lower chamber” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
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)(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, 2, 5, 19 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kent US 8,985,491 B2. United States patent 8,985,491 B2, to be referred to as the Kent patent, discloses elements of applicant’s device as claimed, thus anticipating the applicant’s claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, Kent discloses an herb cutting tool comprising: a top chamber (Kent-30) having an upper opening and an interior top space sized and configured to hold a selected herb before cutting (Kent Col. 2, Lines 13-14, 17-22: The exemplary nut chopper includes an upper hopper (30)…the hopper is preferably formed in a generally conical or tapered shape, being narrower adjacent the neck and wider at the top. In this configuration, nuts deposited into the hopper are naturally funneled toward the neck of the body of the device for chopping.); a bottom chamber (Kent-40) coupled to the top chamber (Kent-30), the bottom chamber (Kent-40) having an interior bottom space sized and configured to hold the selected herb after cutting (Kent Col. 4, Lines 44-48: If the crank is rotated in the opposite direction, such that the blades pass from the hopper and through the wider half of the openings and then into the container, nuts will be chopped above the wider openings and then pass through into the container); a grate (Kent-50) positioned between the top chamber (Kent-30) and the bottom chamber (Kent-40) (Kent FIG. 4 – 50, grate shown positioned between top and bottom chamber), the grate (50) having a plurality of slots, wherein each slot is parallel to one another and has at least one edge (Kent Col. 2, Lines 46-47: The grate is formed with a plurality of parallel elongated slots or openings); a rotatable rod (28) extending across and above the grate (Kent Col. 3, Lines 38-39: The axle (28) portion of the crank is carried on the body of the chopper, preferably being supported above the grate (50)), wherein the rod (Kent-28) is positioned proximate and perpendicular to the plurality of slots (Kent Col. 3, Lines 41-42: the axle is mounted perpendicularly to the parallel openings in the grate.); a crank (Kent-20) connected to the rod (Kent-28); a handle (Kent-20) connected to the crank, wherein the handle (Kent-20) is configured to transfer a circular motion to the rod (Kent-28) via the crank (The crank connected to the handle is considered a combination of components (this is the same interpretation applicant is using) forming a crank handle (20) – See Kent Col. 4, Lines 27-31: The axle is connected to a crank and a handle to allow the axle, and therefore the blades, to be rotated. Preferably the handle is mounted for manual rotation in either direction. In the preferred version, the axle and crank are formed as a single unitary component, with the handle pivotally secured); a plurality of blades (Kent-21-26) attached to and about the rod (Kent-28) (Kent Col. 3, Lines 22-24: The chopper includes a crank handle (20) supporting a series of parallel blades, for example (21-26), mounted on an axle for rotation (Kent FIG. 3)), wherein the plurality of blades (Kent-21-26) are sized and configured to fit within the plurality of slots (Kent Col. 3, Lines 51-52: As shown, in one version of the invention six blades (21-26) are provided, one for each opening.), and cut the selected herb when the handle (Kent-20), the crank, and the rod (Kent-28) are rotated (Kent Col. 4, Lines 49-50: Thus, by choosing to rotate the crank in either direction the user can selectively chop nuts).
Regarding claim 2, Kent discloses the herb cutting tool of claim 1, wherein the plurality of slots and the plurality of blades (Kent-21-26) have different lengths matched and corresponding with each other (Kent Col. 2 Lines 52-56: Each blade has a length that is slightly shorter than the length of the opening from one side of the grate to the opposite side (with the length of the slots being defined in a direction parallel to the plane of the blade).).
Regarding claim 5, Kent discloses the herb cutting tool of claim 2, wherein the plurality of blades (Kent-21-26) are in a staggered formation about the rod (Kent-28) (Kent Col. 3, Lines 30-37: When a circular grate is used, the blades positioned in the center of the set of blades (for example, blades 23 and 24 as best seen in FIG. 3) will preferably be longer than those at the outside of the set of blades (for example, blades 21 and 26); Kent FIGS. 2 & 3).
Regarding claim 19, Kent discloses the herb cutting tool of claim 1, wherein the selected particle size distribution and coarseness profile ranges from about 20% to 80% course cut pieces and about 20% to 80% fine cut pieces (Kent Col 1, Lines 45-50: Accordingly, rotation of the blades in a first direction such that they pass through the nuts on their way through the narrower grate width will chop the nuts to a finer size, while rotation of the blades in the opposite direction such that they pass through the nuts immediately before passing through the wider side of the grate will chop the nuts to a more coarse size.; Col. 4, Lines 49-51: Thus, by choosing to rotate the crank in either direction the user can selectively chop nuts to either a coarse or fine size.).
Regarding claim 20, Kent discloses the herb cutting tool of claim 1, wherein the selected particle size distribution and coarseness profile consists essentially of about 50% course cut pieces and about 50% fine cut pieces (Kent Col 1, Lines 45-50: Accordingly, rotation of the blades in a first direction such that they pass through the nuts on their way through the narrower grate width will chop the nuts to a finer size, while rotation of the blades in the opposite direction such that they pass through the nuts immediately before passing through the wider side of the grate will chop the nuts to a more coarse size.; Col. 4, Lines 49-51: Thus, by choosing to rotate the crank in either direction the user can selectively chop nuts to either a coarse or fine size.).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent US 8,985,491 B2 as in view of PerDue US 3,976,252. United States patent 3,976,252, to be referred to as the PerDue patent. Kent discloses the invention as claimed, however, Kent fails to disclose the plurality of blades includes a series of scythe-shaped cutting edges.
Referring to claim 3, PerDue teaches wherein each blade of the plurality of blades (Perdue-54) includes a series of scythe-shaped cutting edges (PerDue Col. 3, Lines 20-21: The leading edges of rotatable blades (54) are defined somewhat of scythe shape as at 66; PerDue FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade shape into a scythe shape, as taught by PerDue, given that the scythe shape helps to catch and engage the herb passing through the cutter for chopping into sizes passable through the grate (See PerDue Col. 3, Lines 21-23).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent US 8,985,491 B2 in view of Weiss US 2007/0290087 A1. United States patent application 2007/0290087 A1, to be referred to as the Weiss patent. Kent discloses wherein the grate (Kent-50) is in the form of a flat circular plate (Kent Col. 2, Lines 57-58 - the grate is substantially circular in shape), however, Kent fails to disclose the plurality of blades is serrated.
Weiss teaches wherein each blade of the plurality of blades (Weiss-28) is serrated and has a central hole fitted about the rod (Weiss Para [0030]: Preferably the periphery of the blades is serrated, as illustrated).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Kent with a serrated edge, as taught by Weiss, given that a serrated edged blade improves the cutting performance of the blade (See Weiss Para [0030]).
Claims 6, 9, 10 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent US 8,985,491 B2 in view of Romano US 6,409,107 B1. United States patent 6,409,107 B1, to be referred to as the Romano patent. Kent discloses the invention as claimed, however, Kent fails to disclose a tool wherein at least one edge of each slot is serrated, further wherein each slot is defined by a plurality of cut-outs positioned along a lengthwise edge of each slot. The plurality of cut-outs having a circular-shape, a semi-circle shape, a triangle shape, a diamond shape, a square shape, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 6, Romano teaches wherein the at least one edge (Romano FIG. 4 - 136A, 136B, 136C) of each slot is serrated (Romano Col. 7, Lines 11-12: three grater blades (136A, 136B and 163C). Each is in the form of a transverse serrated slot).
Regarding claim 9, Romano teaches the at least one serrated edge of each slot of the plurality of slots is defined by a plurality of cut-outs (Romano-138) positioned along the lengthwise edges of each slot (Roman Col. 7, Line 9-12: the cutting member also includes three grater blades 136A, 136B and 163C. Each is in the form of a transverse serrated slot whose teeth (138) extend downward from the plane of the panel).
Regarding claim 10, Romano teaches wherein each cut-out of the plurality of cut-outs has a circular-shape, a semi-circle shape, a triangle shape, a diamond shape, a square shape, or a combination thereof (Romano FIG. 4 – the serrated edge includes teeth formed in a triangle shape that run lengthwise alone the edge of the slot).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the lengthwise edge of the slot to be serrated with a triangle shaped cut-outs, as taught by Romano, given the advantageous effect of having a serrated edge. As applied to an edge of a blade, a serrated edged blade improves the cutting performance of the blade as well as effects the grating of foodstuff. It is reasonable to expect that a serrated lengthwise slot edge will have a similar effect such as to improve the grinding of an herb that passes between the slot.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent US 8,985,491 B2 in view of Romano US 6,409,107 B1 as applied to claim 10 above. Kent in view of Romano discloses the invention as claimed, as applied to claim 10.
Kent discloses the herb cutting tool further comprising a plurality of spacers (Kent – 61,62) fitted about the rod (Kent – 28) and separating the plurality of blades (Kent 21-26) from one another along the rod (Kent – 28) (Kent Col. 4 Lines 13-15: The blades are separated from one another by spacers, for example 61, 62, to ensure even distribution of the blades and to allow for alignment and separation from one another).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent US 8,985,491 B2 in view of Mahaffey US 2019/0161923 A1. United States patent application 2019/0161923 A1, to be referred to as the Mahaffey patent. Kent discloses the invention as claimed, however, Kent fails to disclose a tool wherein the blades are offset from each other by about 45°
Mahaffey teaches wherein the blades (Mahaffey – 1201 & 1206) are offset from each other by about 45° (Mahaffey Para [0047]: As shown therein, each shoulder 1204 of an individual blade (1201) comprises a single abrasive section (1206) arranged circumferentially around the outer periphery of blade 1202. It should be appreciated that each abrasive section (1206) may be arranged in an identical orientation to each other, or alternatively may be arranged in an offset orientation from a following/previous abrasive section, such as offset by an angle in the range of 1-45 degrees offset to the left or right of center).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the offset of the blades to be about 45°, as taught by Mahaffey, given that an angular offset to the left or right of center increases the cutting/grinding footprint without increasing the width of the blade (See Mahaffey Para [0047] ).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent US 8,985,491 B2 in view of Jacques US 1,786,346. United States patent 1,786,346, to be referred to as the Jacques patent. Kent discloses the invention as claimed, however, Kent fails to disclose a tool wherein the central hole of each blade has a circular-shape, a semi-circle shape, a triangle shape, a star shape, a diamond shape, or a square shape.
Jacques teaches wherein the central hole of each blade has a circular-shape, a semi-circle shape, a triangle shape, a star shape, a diamond shape, or a square shape. Jacques teaches a cutter/blade (Jacques-18) having a square hole ( Jacques Lines 38-39: Each cutter (18) consists of a central body 19 having a square hole; Jacques-FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the central hole of each blade to a square shape, as taught by Jacques, given that having a square hole therein to receive a shaft prevents relative turning of the blade with respect to the shaft (See Jacques Col. 2, Lines 5-11).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent US 8,985,491 B2 as in view of Romano US 6,409,107 B1 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Champlin US 6,550,702 B2 and Rader US 5,076,628. United States patent 6,550,702 B2, to be referred to as the Champlin patent, and United States patent 5,076,628, to be referred to as the Rader patent. Kent in view of Romano discloses the invention as claimed, however, Kent fails to disclose a tool wherein the grate has top and bottom major surfaces that are substantially flat, and further wherein the lengthwise edges of each slot protrude above and below the top and bottom major surfaces of the grate.
Champlin teaches wherein the grate (Champlin – 80) has top and bottom major surfaces that are substantially flat (Champlin Col. 5, Lines 26-28: the chipper grate comprises a flat plate number (80) (e.g., a circular steel plate) having a plurality of through openings formed therein).
Rader teaches wherein the lengthwise edges of each slot (Rader-26) protrude above and below the top and bottom major surfaces of the grate (Rader Col. 3 Lines 7-11: each of said plate members including a serrated slot, each serrated slot defined by an edge forming a plurality of spaced protrusion means).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the grate substantially flat with lengthwise edges of each slot protruding above and below the top and bottom major surfaces, as taught by Champlin and Rader, in order to engage an herb that is positioned at or near the surface of the grate. The flat surface of the grate allows the protrusions above and below the top and bottom major surface of the grate to be effective in engaging the herb, wherein the protrusion is first to come in contact with the herb to be chopped within the herb cutting tool.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent US 8,985,491 B2 in view of Romano US 6,409,107 B1 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Jones US 4,280,666 and Boster US 3,482,790. United States patent 4,280,666, to be referred to as the Jones patent, and United States patent 3,482,790, to be referred to as the Boster patent.
Regarding claim 13, Kent in view of Romano discloses the invention as claimed, however, Kent fails to disclose a tool further comprising a middle shell and a lower funnel, wherein the grate is positioned between the middle shell and the lower funnel, wherein the lower funnel is nested within the bottom chamber, wherein the middle shell is threadedly engaged to the funnel and the bottom chamber thereby retaining the grate therebetween, wherein the middle shell is positioned between the upper chamber and the lower chamber, and wherein the rod extends through the middle shell.
Jones teaches an herb cutting tool further comprising a middle shell (Jones-10,16) and a lower funnel (Jones-11,19), wherein the grate (Jones-13,14) is positioned between the middle shell (Jones-10,16) and the lower funnel (Jones-11,19), wherein the middle shell (Jones-10,16) is engaged to the funnel (Jones-11,19) and the bottom chamber (Jones-20) thereby retaining the grate (Jones-13,14) therebetween (Jones Col. 3, Lines 1-8, 20-27: A tubular shaped chamber (19) on the side of flange away from the planar surface is of a size to receive a second cylindrical container secontainer (20) having a plurality of lock tabs which pass between the segmented ridge on the inner surface of tubular chamber (19) as the container is inserted, and after having passed ridge perform a locking function as container (20) is turned a part of one revolution; A proper mesh screen for the material to be ground, (13 or 14), is inserted in the shaped chamber between the first and second central flanges, (10) and (11), which are then sealed together with fastening devices.).
Boster teaches wherein the middle shell (Boster-14) is positioned between the upper chamber and the lower chamber, and wherein the rod (Boster-23) extends through the middle shell (Boster-14) (Boster FIGS.1-3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate a middle section between a top chamber and lower chamber, wherein a grate is position between the middle section and the lower chamber, as taught by Jones, in order to allow for removal of the cutting/grating components.
There are many means for connecting components together. Jones teaches using a fastening device (Jones-12) for connecting the middle shell to the funnel. A threaded connection is an art recognized equivalent of the fastening device of Jones. Therefore, because threaded connections and fastening devices were art recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a threaded connection for a fastening device since both are capable of connecting the parts together.
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a threaded connection when connecting various components together such as a middle shell, a lower funnel, and a bottom chamber.
Additionally, Jones teaches the bottom chamber (Jones-20) being inserted into the lower funnel (Jones-11,19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to reverse the order of parts, wherein the lower funnel is inserted into the bottom chamber, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only a routine skill in the art (In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167).
Regarding claim 14, Jones teaches a lid (Jones-25) covering the upper opening of the top chamber (Jones-15,17).
It is common knowledge within the art to use a threaded means of connection when connecting two components to one another. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use threads to connect various components such as a lid, a middle shell, and a top chamber to one another.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent US 8,985,491 B2 in view of Romano US 6,409,107 B1, Jones US 4,280,666, Boster US 3,482,790, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Easysea Flipper™-Foldable Winch Handle publicly disclosed.
Regarding claim 15, Kent discloses elements of applicant’s device as claimed, however, Kent fails to disclose a tool wherein the crank is in the form of a H-shaped frame having a lower section and an upper section, and wherein the lower section is pivotally connected to the rod and the upper section is pivotally connected to the handle.
Easysea Flipper™ teaches a crank in the form of a H-shaped frame having a lower section and an upper section, and wherein the lower section is pivotally connected to the rod and the upper section is pivotally connected to the handle (Flipper picture shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crank in the form of a H-shaped frame, as taught by Easysea, so that the crank can be folded into a compact position when in a closed position. Thus, the handle is not sticking out away from the body of the herb cutting tool, allowing the herb cutting tool to be stored in a smaller area, and removing the need for additional space to accommodate a handle that extends out away from the body of the tool.
Regarding claim 16, Kent discloses the grate (Kent-50) and the plurality of blades (Kent-21-26) are interchangeable with other grates and other blades, respectively (Kent Col. 2, Lines 66-67: In other versions of the invention the grate may be square or have a different perimeter shape.; Kent Col. 3 Lines 24-25: Most preferably, there is a single blade for each opening in the grate.).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent US 8,985,491 B2 in view of Rader US 5,076,628 A, the Rader patent. Kent discloses the invention as claimed, however, Kent fails to disclose a tool wherein each slot of the plurality of slots has lengthwise edges protruding above and below the top and bottom major surfaces of the grate.
Regarding claim 17, Rader teaches wherein each slot of the plurality of slots (Rader-26) has lengthwise edges (Rader-27) protruding above and below the top and bottom major surfaces of the grate (Rader Col. 3 Lines 7-11: each of said plate members including a serrated slot, each serrated slot defined by an edge forming a plurality of spaced protrusion means).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the grate with lengthwise edges of each slot protruding above and below the top and bottom major surfaces, as taught by Rader, in order to engage an herb that is positioned at or near the surface of the grate. The protrusions above and below the top and bottom major surface of the grate are effective in engaging the herb, wherein the protrusion is first to come in contact with the herb to be chopped within the herb cutting tool.
Regarding claim 18, Kent discloses wherein the grate (Kent-50) has a centerline, and wherein the protruding lengthwise edges are symmetric about the centerline (Kent Col. Lines 49-50, 62-66: the parallel openings are all substantially uniform and generally rectangular or oblong in shape; each of the openings formed in the grate extends continuously from the first half to the second half, but at a location generally along the center of the grate the openings are narrower in a first direction and wider in the second direction.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLINGTON N IBEKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-2474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/D.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725