DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 4/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10, 12, 14-16, 18-19, 21-22, 24-29 and 31-33 remain pending in the application. Claims 11, 13, 17, 20, 23 and 30 were cancelled. Claims 24-29 were withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“safety feature means” as recited in claim 31 (first, “means” is a generic placeholder; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “safety feature”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “safety feature” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the means).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 33 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.
Regarding claim 33, “one or more of” with the limitation after together is indefinite. If the limitation only require “one of” there would not be any issues, however when the limitation require “or more”, the claim is required to have “a safety pin” in line 5, then require “a safety pin” in line 7. So does the system require one or two safety pin? And does “the safety pin” in line 8 refer to “a safety pin” in line 5 or 7? And other similar issues in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beber (US 20130334352 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Beber teaches a slicer (see Figures 8-9), comprising:
a base (12);
a lower assembly (452) supported by the base (see Figures 8-9);
an upper assembly (454, 448 and 456) moveably coupled to the lower assembly (via 452); and
a knife (30) coupled to the upper assembly, where the knife is rotatable around a rotation axis (axis of 9),
wherein the upper assembly is movable along the rotation axis (via axis of 468), relative to the lower assembly, between an initial position and a static extended position (paragraph 0122 and see Figures 8-9),
wherein the lower assembly includes a lower engagement portion (top portion of 452) and the upper assembly includes an upper engagement portion (bottom portion of 454), and wherein the lower and upper engagement portions are configured to engage each other such that in the initial position the lower engagement portion, the upper engagement portion, and the knife are rotatable around the rotation axis (see Figures 9).
Regarding claim 2, Beber teaches when the upper assembly is in the initial position, the knife is in an operating position (see Figures 8-9), and wherein when the upper assembly is in the extended position, the knife is in a cleaning position (since the blade is exposed and can be claim, under BRI the position is considered as “a cleaning position”, see Figure 8).
Regarding claim 3, Beber teaches the knife moves further away from the lower assembly when the knife moves from the operating position to the cleaning position (as discussed in the position in claim 2, see Figures 8-9).
Regarding claim 4, Beber teaches the upper assembly includes an upper shaft (shaft of 466 and 454), the upper shaft having a top portion and an elongated portion, wherein the elongated portion includes a first groove or detent (groove of 466 ) and a second groove or detent (groove of 458), wherein the first groove or detent is configured to secure the upper assembly to the initial position, and wherein the second groove or detent is configured to secure the upper assembly to the extended position (see Figures 8-9).
Regarding claim 5, Beber teaches the lower assembly includes a lower shaft, the lower shaft including a lumen extending through the lower shaft (space for 468), wherein the elongated portion of the upper shaft extends through at least a portion of the lumen of the lower shaft (see Figures 8-9), and wherein a lower shaft groove or detent (468) is configured to secure the elongated portion of the upper shaft to the lower shaft via the first groove or detent or the second groove or detent of the elongated portion of the upper shaft (paragraph 0026 of the translation).
Regarding claim 10, Beber teaches when the upper assembly is in the initial position, the lower assembly, the upper assembly, and the knife are configured to rotate together (see Figures 8-9).
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 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beber (US 20130334352 A1) in view of Schmidt (US 20210137154 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Beber teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 above.
Beber fails to teach the slicer includes safety feature means to disable a slicing function of the knife when the upper assembly is in the extended position.
Schmidt teaches the slicer includes safety feature means to disable a slicing function of the knife when the upper assembly is in the extended position (paragraph 0086).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Beber to add the safety feature, as taught by Henn, in order to improve the safety of the device (paragraph 0086 of Schmdit).
Regarding claim 31, modified Beber further teaches a motor for rotating the knife (14) , where the safety feature means comprises one or more of: a sensor configured to detect a knife cover position, disposed in communication with a control board of the slicer (as mdofeid, detect the correct condition of the tool, paragraph 0086 of Schmdit).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, Beber teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 4 stated above.
Beber fails to teach a safety pin extending between a first end and a second end, wherein the elongated portion further includes a third groove, and wherein the safety pin is moveable between a locked position, where the first end of the safety pin extends into the third groove, and an unlocked position, where the first end of the safety pin is pulled out of the third groove.
Furthermore, no additional prior art could be found to teach the claimed limitations either alone nor in combination to further modify the device of Beber. Thus claim 6 is allowable, claims 7-9 are allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Claims 12, 14-16, 18-19, 21-22 and 32 are allowed.
Regarding claim 12, Beber teaches a slicer (see Figures 8-9), comprising:
a base (12);
a lower assembly (452) supported by the base (see Figures 8-9);
an upper assembly (454, 448 and 456) moveably coupled to the lower assembly (via 452); and
a knife (30) coupled to the upper assembly, where the knife is rotatable around a rotation axis (axis of 9),
wherein the upper assembly is movable along the rotation axis (via axis of 468), relative to the lower assembly, between an initial position and a static extended position (paragraph 0122 and see Figures 8-9),
wherein the lower assembly includes a lower engagement portion (top portion of 452) and the upper assembly includes an upper engagement portion (bottom portion of 454), and wherein the lower and upper engagement portions are configured to engage each other such that in the initial position the lower engagement portion, the upper engagement portion, and the knife are rotatable around the rotation axis (see Figures 9).
Beber fails to teach wherein the upper assembly includes a latch and a shaft release pin, wherein the latch is configured to releasably couple the upper assembly to the lower assembly, and wherein the shaft release pin is configured to be movable to engage the latch and release the latch from engagement with the lower assembly.
Regarding claim 12, Mullins teaches a slicer (see Figure 1), comprising:
a base (23); a lower assembly (75) supported by the base; an upper assembly (19) moveably coupled to the lower assembly (via 77); and a rotatable knife (17) coupled to the upper assembly, wherein the upper assembly is movable relative to the lower assembly along a longitudinal axis of the upper assembly (via 77 for vertical movement), the upper assembly includes a latch and a shaft release pin (47).
Mullins fails to teach a latch wherein the latch is configured to releasably couple the upper assembly to the lower assembly, and wherein the tool release pin is configured to move the shaft release pin to release the latch from engagement with the lower assembly.
Furthermore, no additional prior art could be found to teach the claimed limitations either alone nor in combination to further modify the device of Beber or Mullins. Thus claim 12 is allowable, claims 14-16 are allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 12. Claims 18-19, 21-22 and 32 are allowable for the same reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 4/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5, 10 and 31 under Schmidt 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 Beber (US 20130334352 A1).
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 4/16/2026
Prosecution Insights