DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-13 and 15-17 remain pending in the application. Claims 3-4 and 14 were cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/05/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 17, “a s circular licer” should be “a circular slicer” to correct a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 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).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt teaches a food slicer for slicing food items (see Figure 1), comprising:
a slicer body (504);
a slicer circular knife (14) mounted for rotation relative to the slicer body (see Figure 1), the slicer knife having a circular 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 sharpness evaluation system (assembly of 426 and 402) configured for evaluate the circular 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 circular 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 circular 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 sharpness 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).
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 circular 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 circular slicer knife (14) mounted for rotation relative to the slicer body, the slicer knife having a circular 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 sharpness evaluation system (assembly of 402 and 426), during knife rotation to determine a knife end of useful life condition of the circular 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 sharpness evaluation system, including at least one camera positioned and configured for imaging the peripheral cutting edge; wherein the knife edge sharpness 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 6/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 6/05/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1 based upon Schmidt in view of Fowler, Bertrad and Yamada as set forth in the last Office action because:
1-4 and 9. Appears to be information about the inventor, thus requires no response.
5. (a-f) Examiner notes that the assembly of 402 and 426 of Schmidt is considered as “a knife edge sharpness evaluation system”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation the sensor 426 of Schmidt record some of kind of data regarding some condition of sharpness of the blade, and controller 402 use the data collected to evaluation whether the blade is still sharp based on a predetermine parameter set up (paragraphs 0053 and 0054), such algorithms of the controller is interpreted as evaluation, thus the assembly of 402 and 426 of Schmidt is considered as “a knife edge sharpness evaluation system”.
5. (g) Regarding the imaging aspect of “a knife edge sharpness evaluation system”, the examiner notes that such details is taught by the combination of Schmidt and Fowler.
6. (a-e) In response to applicant's argument that Fowler 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, the sensor of Fowler Figure out whether something is sharp or not, and the shape for something is sharp or not is determine by the end user, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art can figure out how to determine what is sharp on a circular blade with single bevel. And because Fowler solve the same pertinent problems of figuring out sharpness on a cutting tool, Fowler is considered as analogous art.
7. (a-e) In response to applicant's argument that Bertrand 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, the eye lens of Bertrand is used to look at the condition of the cutting tool, therefore because Bertrand solve the same pertinent problems of figuring out the condition of on a cutting tool, Bertrand is considered as analogous art.
8. (a-c) In response to applicant's argument that Yamada 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, the lens of Yamada is used to better look at the condition of the subject, therefore because Yamada solve the same pertinent problems of figuring out the condition of the subject, Yamada is considered as analogous art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashley Boyer can be reached at 571-272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 6/13/2026
Prosecution Insights