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 amendments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under So and Pysher, and thereby the rejections of all claims dependent upon claim 1, distinguish the claims from the applied prior art. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of So, in view of Wynkoop, and Pysher, in view of Wynkoop.
Furthermore, Examiner has re-mapped an element of claim 11 because of Applicant’s amendment of claim 11 with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC 112(b).
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.
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(s) 1, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So et. al. (US 2008/0017737) hereafter referred to as “So” in view of Wynkoop (US 713,270).
Re Claim 1, So discloses a rotary grater and/or slicer comprising:
a grater body (grater 100), the grater body including a cutter housing portion (barrel 110) and a vertical hopper portion connected to the cutter housing portion (hopper 120), the vertical hopper portion including a first wall and a second wall (see Fig. 7, illustrated below), the second wall of the vertical hopper being spaced apart from the first wall of the vertical hopper portion (see Fig. 7, illustrated below), and the vertical hopper portion of the grater body being configured to hold a workpiece for grating (“Food items are to be introduced into the receptacle through an upper opening 121 of the hopper 120, reaching the upper side of the drum 140” [0042]);
a rotatable cutting device (hollow cylindrical rotary grating drum 140), the rotatable cutting device configured to be rotatably disposed inside the cutter housing portion of the grater body (“The drum 140 is fitted co-axially inside the barrel 110 and is supported thereby for rotation” [0042]), the rotatable cutting device comprising a plurality of blade members for grating the workpiece (“drum 140 which has numerous cutting apertures 141 through its stainless steel cylindrical wall for cutting food items 9” [0042]), the rotatable cutting device (hollow cylindrical rotary grating drum 140) comprising a rotatable drum (hollow cylindrical rotary grating drum 140) with the plurality of blade members (Fig. 8A), the rotatable drum having a first side (see Fig. 7, illustrated below) and a second side (see Fig. 7, illustrated below), the second side of the rotatable drum being opposite to the first side of the rotatable drum (see Fig. 7, illustrated below), and the rotatable drum being rotatable (“The drum 140 is fitted co-axially inside the barrel 110 and is supported thereby for rotation” [0042]) about a rotational axis (see Fig. 7, illustrated below), the rotatable axis being disposed between the first side and the second side of the rotatable drum (see Fig. 7, illustrated below); and
a rotary input device (shaft 173) coupled to the rotatable cutting device (outer gearwheel 174 is mounted on shaft 173 and is coupled to the drum 140), the rotary input device configured to rotate the rotatable cutting device ([0051]);
wherein the vertical hopper portion is configured to serve as a handle for the rotary grater and/or slicer (hopper 120 has a lip at its top which, as currently configured, would constrain a hand that is grasping the hopper, Fig. 1), and the vertical hopper portion is used for feeding the workpiece to the rotatable cutting device (“Food items are to be introduced into the receptacle through an upper opening 121 of the hopper 120, reaching the upper side of the drum 140” [0042]) and
wherein the first wall of the vertical hopper portion is tangent to the first side of the rotatable drum (see Fig. 7, illustrated below),
PNG
media_image1.png
547
1263
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of So, illustrated
So does not disclose that the second wall of the vertical hopper portion is spaced apart from the second side of the rotatable drum by a gap, the second wall of the vertical hopper portion is disposed between the first side and the second side of the rotatable drum, and a centerline of the vertical hopper portion is horizontally offset from the rotational axis of the rotatable drum such that the vertical hopper portion is disposed off-center relative to the rotational axis of the rotatable drum.
Wynkoop teaches that the second wall of the vertical hopper portion is spaced apart from the second side of the rotatable drum by a gap (see Fig. 2 of Wynkoop, illustrated below), the second wall of the vertical hopper portion is disposed between the first side and the second side of the rotatable drum (see Fig. 2 of Wynkoop, illustrated below), and a centerline of the vertical hopper portion is horizontally offset from the rotational axis of the rotational drum such that the vertical hopper portion is disposed off center relative to the rotational axis of the rotatable drum (see Fig. 2 of Wynkoop, illustrated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
936
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Wynkoop, illustrated
So and Wynkoop disclose each element claimed although not in a single reference with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the elements by translating the second wall of So such that it is disposed between the first side and the second side of the rotatable drum such that a centerline of the vertical hopper portion is horizontally offset from the rotational axis of the rotational drum as taught by Wynkoop. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this combination as predictable because each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately.
Re Claim 21, So, in view of Wynkoop, discloses the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by So above), further comprising a plurality of gears (inner gearwheel 172, outer gearwheel 174, gearwheel 143) to provide a mechanical advantage for a user of the rotary grater and/or slicer ([0058]).
Re Claim 22, So, in view of Wynkoop, discloses the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above), wherein one or more outer rims of the rotatable cutting device are provided with one or more of the plurality of gears (“The right end of the drum 140 is closed, on and over which a gearwheel 143 is fixed” [0045]) that engage with a spur gear (outer gearwheel 174) mounted on a crank or crankshaft (shaft 173).
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pysher (US 1,617,499) in view of Wynkoop (US 713,270).
Re Claim 1, Pysher discloses a rotary grater and/or slicer comprising:
a grater body (body 10), the grater body including a cutter housing portion (cylindrical portion of body 10) and a vertical hopper portion (hopper 11) connected to the cutter housing portion (“this body at its upper end being formed to provide a hopper 11” Col. 1, Lines 54-56), the vertical hopper portion including a first wall and a second wall (see Fig. 2, illustrated below), the second wall of the vertical hopper being spaced apart from the first wall of the vertical hopper portion (see Fig. 2, illustrated below), and the vertical hopper portion of the grater body being configured to hold a workpiece for grating (Fig. 2 shows workpieces being held in hopper for grating);
a rotatable cutting device (cylindrical knife carrier 14), the rotatable cutting device configured to be rotatably disposed inside the cutter housing portion of the grater body (“disposed within this portion of the body is a cylindrical knife carrier” col. 2, lines 60-62), the rotatable cutting device comprising a plurality of blade members for grating the workpiece (Fig. 1 shows the cylindrical knife carrier having knife 27 and knife blades 30), the rotatable cutting device (cylindrical knife carrier 14) comprising a rotatable drum (cylindrical knife carrier 14) with the plurality of blade members (Fig. 2), the rotatable drum having a first side (see Fig. 2, illustrated below) and a second side (see Fig. 2, illustrated below), the second side of the rotatable drum being opposite to the first side of the rotatable drum (see Fig. 2, illustrated below), and the rotatable drum being rotatable (“rotatable cylindrical cutter” Col. 1, Line 23) about a rotational axis (spindle 20 runs along rotational axis), the rotatable axis being disposed between the first side and the second side of the rotatable drum (Fig. 1 shows spindle 20 is aligned with inner face of conical portion 18 and Fig. 2 shows 18 is disposed between the first and second sides of the rotatable drum); and
a rotary input device (crank handle 21) coupled to the rotatable cutting device, the rotary input device configured to rotate the rotatable cutting device (“The cone is capped, as at 19, and engaged with these screw-threads is a spindle 20 carrying a crank handle 21 at its outer end” Col. 2, lines 73-76, and cone is integral part of cylindrical knife carrier);
wherein the vertical hopper portion is configured to serve as a handle for the rotary grater and/or slicer (hopper 11 has a flared top that configures it to serve as a handle, fig. 2), and the vertical hopper portion is used for feeding the workpiece to the rotatable cutting device (Fig. 2 shows workpieces being held in hopper for grating); and
wherein the first wall of the vertical hopper portion is tangent to the first side of the rotatable drum (see Fig. 2, illustrated below),
PNG
media_image3.png
628
421
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Pysher, illustrated
Pysher does not disclose that the second wall of the vertical hopper portion is spaced apart from the second side of the rotatable drum by a gap , the second wall of the vertical hopper portion is disposed between the first side and the second side of the rotatable drum, and a centerline of the vertical hopper portion is horizontally offset from the rotational axis of the rotational drum such that the vertical hopper portion is disposed off center relative to the rotational axis of the rotatable drum.
Wynkoop teaches that the second wall of the vertical hopper portion is spaced apart from the second side of the rotatable drum by a gap (see Fig. 2 of Wynkoop, illustrated below), the second wall of the vertical hopper portion is disposed between the first side and the second side of the rotatable drum (see Fig. 2 of Wynkoop, illustrated below), and a centerline of the vertical hopper portion is horizontally offset from the rotational axis of the rotational drum such that the vertical hopper portion is disposed off center relative to the rotational axis of the rotatable drum (see Fig. 2 of Wynkoop, illustrated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
936
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Wynkoop, illustrated
Pysher and Wynkoop disclose each element claimed although not in a single reference with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the elements by translating the second wall of Pysher such that it is disposed between the first side and the second side of the rotatable drum such that a centerline of the vertical hopper portion is horizontally offset from the rotational axis of the rotational drum as taught by Wynkoop. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this combination as predictable because each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately.
Re Claim 2, Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, discloses the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, above), and Pysher further discloses that the rotary input device comprises a crank (crank handle 21) connected to the rotatable drum (“The cone is capped, as at 19, and engaged with these screw-threads is a spindle 20 carrying a crank handle 21 at its outer end” Col. 2, lines 73-76, and cone is integral part of cylindrical knife carrier).
Re Claim 13, Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, discloses the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), and further discloses that blade members on the rotatable drum are arranged such that the workpiece can fully contact the drum between the blade members so that the blade members are able to make clear cuts through the workpiece (Fig. 2 shows that the drum has a large area of no blades where the workpiece can fully contact the drum between the knife 27 and knife blades 30).
Re Claim 14, Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, discloses the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Pysher above), wherein the vertical hopper portion comprises a top lip that is flared to prevent the rotary grater and/or slicer from slipping from a grip of a user (hopper 11 has a flared top that configures it to serve as a handle, fig. 2).
Re Claim 15, Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, discloses the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, above), further comprising a stand (opposed clamping jaws 31 and 32) configured to maintain the vertical hopper portion in a generally vertical orientation when rotary grater and/or slicer is not being used for grating.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pysher (US 1,617,499) in view of Wynkoop (US 713,270) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sundstrand (US 2,137,366).
Re Claim 4, Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, discloses the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, above), but fails to further disclose that the first wall of the vertical hopper portion that is tangent to the rotatable drum or another wall portion beneath the first wall comprises a dam and a cavity in order to discourage grated material from wedging between the rotatable drum and the grater body, the cavity preceding the dam in a direction of rotation.
Sundstrand teaches another wall portion beneath the first wall of the vertical hopper portion that is tangent to the rotatable drum (Fig. 4) comprises a dam (“back wall 15 of the hopper 8 is bent inwardly above the grating cylinder 7, as indicated at 36” Col. 3, Line 50-51) and a cavity (interior of hopper 8) in order to discourage grated material from wedging between the rotatable drum and the grater body (“eliminate likelihood of food getting wedged between the cylinder and the back wall” Col. 3, Line 55-57), the cavity preceding the dam in a direction of rotation.
Pysher, in view of Wynkoop,discloses a rotary grater upon which the claimed invention could be seen as an improvement because grated material is discouraged from wedging. Sundstrand contains a comparable rotary grater where a wall portion comprises a drum preceded by a cavity in order to discourage grated material from wedging between the rotatable drum and the grater body. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the known improvement technique taught in Sundstrand to the device disclosed in Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, and discouraging grated material from wedging between the rotatable drum and the grater body would have been predictable to that person.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pysher (US 1,617,499) in view of Wynkoop (US 713,270) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Silberberg (US 2,804,896).
Re Claim 5, Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, discloses the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, above), but fails to disclose that a wall area of the vertical hopper portion above the tangency is provided with sharp-edged horizontal ridges to prevent the workpiece from rolling.
Silberberg teaches that a wall area of the vertical hopper portion above the tangency is provided with sharp-edged horizontal ridges (inwardly extending deformations 84) to constrain the movement of the plunger (follower member 78)
The prior art includes each element claimed with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the elements by adding the inward extending deformations of Silberberg to the hopper of Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, to achieve the predictable result of a wall area with sharp-edged horizontal ridges on the vertical hopper portion. In combination each claimed element mere performs the same function as it does separately, and they would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pysher (US 1,617,499) in view of Wynkoop (US 713,270) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Grace et. al. (US 2010/0270406), hereafter referred to as “Grace”.
Re Claim 6, Pysher, in view of Wynkoop,discloses the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), but fails to explicitly disclose that the crank is mounted on one edge of the rotatable drum.
Grace teaches that the crank is mounted (crank arm 36) on one edge (Fig. 5) of the rotatable drum (abrader cylinder 23).
Pysher, in view of Wynkoop,contains a device that differs from the claimed invention by the crank be attached to the center of the side of the rotatable drum instead of mounted on one edge of the rotatable drum as claimed. Mounting the crank on one edge of the rotatable drum was known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date could have substituted attaching the crank to the center of the drum for mounting the crank on the edge. The results of the substitution would have been predictable as the device function the same as it did before.
Re Claim 7, Pysher, in view of Wynkoop,, in view of Grace, disclose the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), but Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, fails to disclose that the crank is removably coupled to the rotatable drum such that the crank is able to be mounted interchangeably on a first end or a second end of the rotatable drum, the first end of the rotatable drum being oppositely disposed relative to the second end of the rotatable drum.
Grace teaches that the crank is removably coupled to the rotatable drum such that the crank is able to be mounted interchangeably on a first end or a second end of the rotatable drum (“The preferred design will allow for the retainer 32, or crank ring 34, to be mounted on either side of the barrel to enable a right-handed or left-handed user to manually rotate the crank arm 36” [0021]), the first end of the rotatable drum being oppositely disposed relative to the second end of the rotatable drum (Fig. 5).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pysher, in view of Wynkoop and Grace, to incorporate the teachings of Grace by having the crank be removably couplable to the rotatable drum such that the crank is able to mounted interchangeable on a first side or a second side of the rotatable drum so that either right-handed or left-handed users could rotate the crank arm
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pysher (US 1,617,499) in view of Wynkoop (US 713,270) in view of Grace (US 2010/0270406) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Becker et. al. (US 2004/0090210), hereafter referred to as “Becker”.
Re Claim 8, Pysher, in view of Wynkoop and Grace, discloses the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), discloses that the crank is removably coupled to the rotatable drum but fail to disclose that the crank is removably coupled to the rotatable drum such that the crank is reversible from a first configuration where a handle portion of the crank projects outwardly from the rotary grater and/or slicer to a second configuration where the handle portion of the crank projects inwardly towards a centerline of the rotary grater and/or slicer, the second configuration enabling the rotary grater to be more compact for storage.
Becker teaches that the crank (crank arm 2) is removably coupled (“crank arm 2 has a free end indicated at 3 and its other end is pivotally connected at 4 to a crank 5” [0030]) to the rotatable drum (crank 5) such that the crank is reversible (“the pivot 4 enables the crank arm to be pivoted through substantially 180.degree” [0030]) from a first configuration where a handle portion of the crank projects outwardly from the rotary grater and/or slicer (Fig. 2) to a second configuration where the handle portion of the crank projects inwardly towards a centerline of the rotary grater and/or slicer (Fig. 1), the second configuration enabling the rotary grater to be more compact (“The resulting flashlight is both compact, easy to handle and highly efficient.” [0101]) for storage.
Pysher, in view of Wynkoop and Grace, contain a base device upon which the invention of claim 8 could be seen as an improvement. Becker contains a “comparable” device that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention by having a first configuration where the crank is extended for use and a second configuration where the crank projects in ward towards a centerline of the rotary device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the first and second configuration as done in Becker to the prior art in Pysher, in view of Wynkoop and Grace, to achieve the predictable result of a more compact invention.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pysher (US 1,617,499) in view of Wynkoop (US 713,270) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Popeil et. al. (US 3,610,304), hereafter referred to as “Popeil”.
Re Claim 9, Pysher, in view of Wynkoop,discloses the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), and discloses that that the crank is affixed to the rotatable drum but fails to disclose that the crank is affixed to the rotatable drum by a bayonet mount.
Popeil teaches that the crank is affixed to the rotatable cutting device (disc 20 which contains crescent through holes 92) by a bayonet mount (combination of bayonet lugs 81 and crescent through holes 92).
Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, contains a device that differed from the claimed invention by having the crank affixed to the rotatable drum through threads (Pysher, “The cone is capped, as at 19, and engaged with these screw-threads is a spindle 20 carrying a crank handle 21 at its outer end” Col. 2, lines 73-76, and cone is integral part of cylindrical knife carrier) instead of by a bayonet joint. Popeil teaches a bayonet joint to spin a rotatable cutting device (Popeil, “Thereafter, turning the disc 20 by means of the rotation of the crank handle 12 will always drive the bayonet lug notches 84 of the bayonet lugs 81 against the ends of the crescent through holes 92” Col. 7, Lines 58-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the threads of Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, with the bayonet joint of Popeil to achieve a predictable result as both items serve the same purpose of connecting the crank to the rotatable cutting device.
Re Claim 10, Pysher, in view of Wynkoop and Popeil, discloses the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above), but fails to disclose that the bayonet mount is secured by a protrusion pressing out from the rotatable drum to engage a side of a tooth protruding inwards from a ring affixed to the crank.
Popeil teaches that the bayonet mount (combination of bayonet lugs 81 and crescent through holes 92) is secured by a protrusion (bayonet lugs 81) pressing out from the ring (drive shaft collar 85) affixed (drive shaft collar 85 is attached to drive shaft 28 which is attached to hexagonal-shaped end 26, which is attached to crank handle 12) to the crank (crank handle 12) to engage a side of a tooth protruding inwards (crescent through holes 92) from the rotatable cutting device (disc 20).
Pysher, in view of Wynkoop and Popeil, disclose the claimed invention except for the direction of the bayonet joint. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reversed the direction of the bayonet joint such that the protrusion is positioned on the drum and the tooth protruding inward is positioned on the ring of the crank, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400.
Re Claim 11, Pysher, in view of Wynkoop and Popeil, discloses rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above), but fails to disclose that the bayonet mount is secured by a protrusion pressing out from the rotatable drum to engage a side of a tooth protruding inwards from a bore surrounding an axis of the crank.
Popeil teaches that the bayonet mount (combination of bayonet lugs 81 and crescent through holes 92) is secured by a protrusion (bayonet lugs 81) pressing out from the ring (drive shaft collar 85) affixed (drive shaft collar 85 is attached to drive shaft 28 which is attached to hexagonal-shaped end 26, which is attached to crank handle 12) to a bore (inner surface of crescent through holes 92) surrounding an axis of the crank (crank handle 12) to engage a side of a tooth protruding inwards (crescent through holes 92) from the rotatable cutting device (disc 20).
Pysher, in view of Wynkoop and Popeil, disclose the claimed invention except for the direction of the bayonet joint. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reversed the direction of the bayonet joint such that the protrusion is positioned on the drum and the tooth protruding inward is positioned on the bore of the crank, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pysher (US 1,617,499) in view of Wynkoop (US 713,270) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Perkins et. al. (US 5,660,341), hereafter referred to as Perkins.
Re Claim 12, Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, discloses the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), but fails to disclose that inner edges of lips of the rotatable drum define a narrowed orifice to retain shavings when the rotational axis of the rotatable drum is horizontal.
Perkins teaches a rotatable drum with a lip whose inner edge (ring-like frame member 52) define a narrowed orifice (see Fig. 6 illustrated) to retain shavings when an axis of the rotatable drum is horizontal.
Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, and Perkins discloses each element claimed with the only different between the claimed invention and the prior being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Pysher and Perkins by substituting the inner edges of the lips of Pysher with the narrowed, inner edge of the lip of Perkins and in combination the inner edge of the lip of Perkins and every other claimed element as disclosed in Pysher perform the same function as they do separately. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found the results of this combination to be predictable.
PNG
media_image4.png
649
735
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Perkins, illustrated
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pysher (US 1,617,499) in view of Wynkoop (US 713,270) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beliveau (US 11,096,525).
Re Claim 16, Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, discloses the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, above), but fails to disclose a spring-loaded plunger configured to be received within the vertical hopper portion.
Beliveau teaches a spring-loaded plunger (biasing assembly 13 received within first housing 5) configured to be received within the vertical hopper portion (loading section 9 and attached second housing 7, “a biasing assembly (13) operatively cooperable with the first housing (5) for biasing the product (3) to be grated inside the loading section (9)” Col. 5, Lines 47-49).
Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, contains a rotary grater upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement because it has a spring-loaded plunger. Beliveau contains a rotary grinder that comprises a spring loaded plunger configured to be received within the vertical hopper portion. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the spring-loaded plunger of Beliveau to the rotary grater of Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, and it would be predictable to that person that the plunger would compress the object to be grated against the rotatable cutting device (Beliveau, “biasing assembly operatively cooperable with the first housing for biasing the product to be grated inside the loading section of the second housing towards and against the grating drum” Col. 5, Lines 47-51).
Re Claim 17, Pysher, in view of Wynkoop and Beliveau, discloses the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the plunger is configured to be clipped (Beliveau, interlocking assembly 79) into place within the vertical hopper portion (Beliveau, the biasing assembly 13 is within the loading section 9 when second housing 7 is connected to first housing 5 via interlocking assembly 79).
Re Claim 18, Pysher, in view of Wynkoop and Beliveau, discloses the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above), wherein the plunger is configured to be clipped into place at two or more locations (Fig. 12 shows that the second housing 7 is configured to be clipped at two places) so as to accommodate different workpiece volumes.
Re Claim 19, Pysher, in view of Wynkoop and Beliveau, disclose the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above), and Beliveau further discloses a workpiece engagement face (curved supporting surface 33) of the plunger is provided with sharp-edged ridges parallel to a rotational axis of the rotatable drum (Fig. 101 or Fig. 102) to prevent the workpiece from rolling (“for supporting the product” Col. 7, Line 3).
Re Claim 20, Pysher, in view of Wynkoop and Beliveau, discloses the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16), and Beliveau further discloses that sections of the plunger are held together by a rotatable key (Fig. 9 shows sections of the biasing assembly 13 held together by a screw).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pysher (US 1,617,499) in view of Wynkoop (US 713,270) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Deursen (US 4,386,740).
Re Claim 23, Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, disclose the rotary grater and/or slicer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Pysher, in view of Wynkoop, above), and Pysher further dislcoses comprising a stand (comprising jaws 31, 32 and screw 33, see Fig. 1 of Pysher, illustrated below) and Pysher does not disclose that a stand including a stand spout, the stand configured to hold the rotary grater and/or slicer in an angled position so that processed material grated from the workpiece slides out of the rotatable drum of the rotary grater and/or slicer, and then is guided by the stand spout into a receiving container.
PNG
media_image5.png
991
501
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Pysher, illustrated
Van Deursen teaches a stand (base 10) including a stand spout (spout 30), the stand configured to hold the rotary grater and/or slicer in an angled position (“The axis 18 is aligned in the upper housing portion such that, if extended, it would lie centrally over the leg 12 both along the leg and midway between its edges. Preferably, the axis is slanted down up to 10 DEG below and over the L-portion as seen in FIG. 2.” Col. 2, Lines 56-61) so that processed material grated from the workpiece slides out of the rotatable drum of the rotary grater and/or slicer (“Preferably, the contacting vertical walls between the chute and housing are slanted off the vertical and the motor driven shaft is slanted down an equivalent amount--up to 10 DEG off the horizontal so that the entire device is slightly tilted forward when operating so the processed food more easily exits the outlet.” Col. 2, Lines 12-17), and then is guided by the stand spout into a receiving container (“a formed detachable guiding spout 30 for directing the food downwardly into an adjacent bowl not shown” Col. 3, Lines 9-11).
Pysher contained a rotary grater which differed from the claimed rotary grate by not having a stand comprising a spout that held the grater in an angled position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the stand of Pysher with the stand of Van Deursen and the results of the substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as the stand of Van Duersen was known to be slanted and contain a spout in order to help food exit the grater and direct food into a receiving container, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 13th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued:
“In addition, with respect to claim 8 in the present application, the Applicant respectfully asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Becker with that of Pysher and Grace. The Pysher base reference teaches a vegetable slicer and shredder. Refer to Pysher, title. The Grace reference teaches a grater. Refer to Grace, title and abstract. In stark contrast, Becker teaches a power generator for generating electrical power for a consumer device. See Becker, abstract. As such, the Applicant espectfully asserts that the power generator of Becker is totally unrelated to the vegetable slicer and shredder of Pysher and the grater of Grace. In other words, Becker is clearly non-analogous art. As such, the Applicant respectfully asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art never would have combined the teachings of Becker with that of Pysher and Grace.”
In response to applicant's argument that Becker is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Becker is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. As examiner understands the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, the inventor was presented with a crank, a means for converting circular motion in shaft rotation, that projected outwardly from the grater. In order to make the grater “more compact for storage” (spec. [0023]), the inventor made the crank reversible into a second configuration. It has been held that “In a simple mechanical invention a broad spectrum of prior art must be explored and it is reasonable to permit inquiry into other areas where one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that similar problems exist” Stevenson v. Int'l Trade Comm., 612 F.2d 546, 550, 204 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1979), MPEP 2141.01(a)(IV). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware that the problem of making cranks more compact for storage would exist in flashlights with cranks and personal, emergency generators as (2) those devices convert mechanical motion into power when not connected to electricity, so one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to see cranks, a known means of performing that function, and (2) making items more compact for storage is a design incentive that is common to the mechanical arts.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8 of Applicant’s remarks, filed May 13th, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 4, 10, 11, 12, and 13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8 – 11 of Applicant’s remarks, filed May 13th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 21, and 22 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of So, in view of Wynkoop, and Pysher, in view of Wynkoop.
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 WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 5712701477. 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.
/W.D.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights