DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 5-17 remain pending in the application. Claims 3-4 were cancelled.
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 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 20180085966 A1) in view of Fowler (US 20200246933 A1), Bertrand (US GB 849397) and Yamada (US 20110212486 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt teaches a food slicer for slicing food items (see Figure 1), comprising:
a slicer body (504);
a slicer knife (14) mounted for rotation relative to the slicer body (see Figure 1), the slicer knife having a peripheral cutting edge with an associated cutting zone, and an associated knife drive motor (paragraph 0025);
a food product carriage (18) mounted to the slicer body for reciprocating movement back and forth past the cutting zone of the slicer knife (see Figure 1);
a knife edge evaluation system (426) configured for evaluate the peripheral cutting edge (paragraph 0029).
Schmidt fails to teach including at least one imaging device positioned and configured for imaging the peripheral cutting edge, wherein the imaging devices comprise a camera, with associated magnification lens system, that captures magnified images of the peripheral cutting edge; wherein the knife edge evaluation system further comprises a controller configured to evaluate the magnified images to determine a sharpness condition of the peripheral cutting edge.
Fowler teaches a knife sharpening device (see Figure 1) with a camera (46) for detecting the sharpness of a knife (paragraph 0033 and 0040).
Bertrand teaches a lens arrangement with an associated eyepiece (2) mounted or mountable on the frame for looking the condition of the blade (see Figure 1 and abstract), wherein the eyepiece could be a microscope (abstract).
Yamada teaches a microscope with associated magnification lens associated with a camera system for look at an object (paragraph 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Schmidt to add the camera to the knife edge evaluation system with associated magnification lens (microscope of Yamada with the controller of Fowler), as taught by Fowler, Bertrand and Yamada, in order to better captured the knife edge (paragraph 0040 of Fowler), and allow a user to view the condition of the blade (see Figure 1 and abstract of Bertrand).
Regarding claim 15, modified Schmidt further teaches the imaging device comprises a digital camera that captures images of the peripheral cutting edge, and the knife edge evaluation system further comprises a display device on which the images are displayable (as modified by Fowler, 46 of Fowler, paragraph 0040-0041 of Fowler and paragraph 0025 of Schmidt).
Regarding claim 14, Schmidt teaches a food slicer for slicing food items,
a slicer knife (14) mounted for rotation relative to the slicer body, the slicer knife having a peripheral cutting edge with an associated cutting zone, and an associated knife drive motor (paragraph 0052);
a food product carriage (18) mounted to the slicer body for reciprocating movement back and forth past the cutting zone of the slicer knife (paragraph 0029).
Schmidt fails to teach at least one imaging device positioned and configured for imaging the peripheral cutting edge; wherein the imaging device comprises a lens arrangement with an associated eyepiece mounted or mountable on the slicer body and through which an operator or maintenance/service personnel can look to view a condition of the peripheral cutting edge.
Modified Schmidt fails to teach the imaging device comprises a lens arrangement with an associated eyepiece mounted or mountable on the slicer body.
Fowler teaches a knife sharpening device (see Figure 1) with a camera (46) for detecting the sharpness of a knife (paragraph 0033 and 0040).
Bertrand teaches a lens arrangement with an associated eyepiece (2) mounted or mountable on the frame for looking the condition of the blade (see Figure 1 and abstract), wherein the eyepiece could be a microscope (abstract).
Yamada teaches a microscope with associated magnification lens associated with a camera system for look at an object (paragraph 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Schmidt to add the camera to the knife edge evaluation system with associated magnification lens (microscope of Yamada with the controller of Fowler), as taught by Fowler, Bertrand and Yamada, in order to better captured the knife edge (paragraph 0040 of Fowler), and allow a user to view the condition of the blade (see Figure 1 and abstract of Bertrand).
Claims 2, 5, 7-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 20180085966 A1) in view of Fowler (US 20200246933 A1), Bertrand (US GB 849397) and Yamada (US 20110212486 A1) and in further view of Leighner (US 9643290 B1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Schmidt teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 above.
Modified Schmidt fails to teach the controller is configured to evaluate the magnified images by running a Canny edge detection algorithm on the magnified images and to further process the magnified images by running a Hough transformation algorithm on the magnified image.
Leighner teaches a blade viewing device with the controller is configured to evaluate the magnified images by running a Canny edge detection algorithm on the magnified images and to further process the magnified images by running a Hough transformation algorithm on the magnified image (see Figure 5A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Schmidt to configure the controller for magnification algorithm, as taught by Leighner, in order to better understand the image (abstract of Leighner).
Regarding claim 5, modified Schmidt further teaches the controller is configured to pre-process the magnified (as modified by Fowler and Leighner, 46 of Fowler, paragraph 0040 of Fowler and paragraph 0029 of Schmidt and col. 3 lines 31-35 of Leighner).
Regarding claim 7, modified Schmidt further teaches the pre-processing involves application of thresholding to pixels of the images (as modified by Fowler, 46 of Fowler, paragraph 0033 and 0040 of Fowler and paragraph 0029 of Schmidt).
Regarding claim 8, modified Schmidt further teaches the controller is configured to zero the images mapping to a vector (paragraph 0025 of Schmidt).
Regarding claim 9, modified Schmidt further teaches the knife edge evaluation system is configured to provide an output to alert an operator that the slicer knife requires sharpening (paragraph 0029 of Schmidt).
Regarding claim 10, modified Schmidt further teaches the knife edge evaluation system is configured to evaluate images of the peripheral cutting edge during knife sharpening to determine a condition of the peripheral cutting edge indicative of the slicer knife being sharp, and to provide an output to alert an operator that the slicer knife is sharp (as modified by Fowler, 46 of Fowler, paragraph 0040 of Fowler and paragraph 0029 of Schmidt and col. 3 lines 31-35 of Leighner).
Regarding claim 11, modified Schmidt further teaches he knife edge evaluation system is configured to evaluate images of the peripheral cutting edge during knife sharpening to determine a condition indicative of the slicer knife not being sharpened, and to provide an output to alert an operator that knife sharpener is not sharpening the slicer knife (as modified by Fowler, 46 of Fowler, paragraph 0040 of Fowler and paragraph 0029 of Schmidt and col. 3 lines 31-35 of Leighner).
Regarding claim 12, modified Schmidt further teaches the knife edge evaluation system is configured to evaluate images of the peripheral cutting edge during knife sharpening to determine a condition indicative of the peripheral cutting edge indicative of the slicer knife having reached an end of useful life, and to provide an output to alert an operator that slicer knife requires replacement (as modified by Fowler, 46 of Fowler, paragraph 0040 of Fowler and paragraph 0029 of Schmidt and col. 3 lines 31-35 of Leighner).
Regarding claim 13, modified Schmidt further teaches the knife edge evaluation system is configured to evaluate images of the peripheral cutting edge to determine a condition of the peripheral cutting edge indicative of the peripheral cutting edge being damaged, and to provide an output to alert an operator that slicer knife is damaged (as modified by Fowler, 46 of Fowler, paragraph 0040 of Fowler and paragraph 0025 of Schmidt and col. 3 lines 31-35 of Leighner).
Regarding claim 16, modified Schmidt further teaches the knife edge evaluation system is configured to capture and evaluate the magnified images of the peripheral cutting edge during rotation of the slicer knife (as modified by Fowler, 46 of Fowler, since the system can take image during rotation, thus the limitation is met, paragraph 0040-0041 of Fowler and paragraph 0025 of Schmidt and col. 3 lines 31-35 of Leighner.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 20180085966 A1) in view of Fowler (US 20200246933 A1), Bertrand (US GB 849397) and Yamada (US 20110212486 A1) and in further view of Leighner (US 9643290 B1) in further view of Taylor (US 20160314609 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Schmidt further teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 5 above.
Modified Schmidt fails to teach the pre-processing involves conversion of images to the HSV space.
Taylor teaches an image processing involves HSV space (paragraph 0177 and 0183).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Schmidt to add the processing step in HSV space, as taught by Taylor, in order to better analyses the image (paragraph 0177 and 0183 of Taylor).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 20180085966 A1) in view of Fowler (US 20200246933 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Schmidt teaches a food slicer for slicing food items, comprising:
a slicer body (504);
a slicer knife (14) mounted for rotation relative to the slicer body, the slicer knife having a peripheral cutting edge with an associated cutting zone, and an associated knife drive motor;
a food product carriage (18) mounted to the slicer body for reciprocating movement back and forth past the cutting zone of the slicer knife (paragraphs 0009 and 0029),
a knife edge evaluation system, during knife rotation to determine a knife end of useful life condition of the peripheral cutting edge, and to provide an output to alert an operator that slicer knife requires replacement (paragraphs 0009 and 0029).
Schmidt fails to teach a knife edge evaluation system, including at least one camera positioned and configured for imaging the peripheral cutting edge; wherein the knife edge evaluation system is configured to capture and evaluate images of the peripheral cutting edge.
Fowler teaches a knife sharpening device (see Figure 1) with a camera (46) for detecting the sharpness of a knife (paragraph 0033 and 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Schmidt to add the camera to the knife edge evaluation system, as taught by Fowler, in order to better captured the knife edge (paragraph 0040 of Fowler).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 5-17 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashley Boyer can be reached at 571-272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 3/05/2026