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
The amendment filed October 27th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 5-10 remain pending in the application. Claims 2-4 have been 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, 5, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarah Peterson et al. (US 7779739 B2 – hereinafter Peterson).
Regarding claim 1, Peterson teaches a connecting structure of a pressing plate in a food
cutter, comprising a material pressing block (Fig. 2, Pusher 60) and a pressing plate (Fig. 2,
Housing 20), wherein a lower end of the material pressing block is provided with two or more
material pressing bulges (Fig. 2, Pusher Projections 62), a lower plate surface of the pressing
plate is provided with a connecting portion I (Fig. 5, connecting portion comprising Projections
22 and 23, and Cylindrical Well 24), an upper end of the material pressing block is provided with
a connecting portion II (Fig. 6, Supports 63 and 64, and Central Pillar 65), and the connecting
portion I and the connecting portion II are rotationally fixed with each other (Examiner interprets rotationally fixed to mean that they are unable to rotate with respect to one another when attached), wherein the connecting portion I comprises a limiting groove I (Fig. 5, groove in Cylindrical Well 24) provided on the lower plate surface of the pressing plate, a groove wall (Fig. 5, bottom wall of 20 connected to the groove, to which Projections 22 and 23 are connected) of the limiting groove I is provided with two or more limiting blocks I (Fig. 5, Projections 22 and 23), the connecting portion II comprises a limiting bump I (Fig. 6, Central Pillar 65) arranged on the upper end of the material pressing block, a side wall of the limiting bump I (Fig. 6, topmost wall of 60, which a wall on the side of 65, on which 63 and 64 are connected) is provided with two or more limiting blocks II (Fig. 6, Supports 63 and 64), the limiting bump I is capable of being inserted into the limiting groove and is rotationally matched with the limiting groove I (Examiner interprets rotationally matched to mean matched such that rotation cannot occur between the two while attached); and the limiting block I is matched with the limiting block II, so as to limit the limiting bump I from pulling away from the limiting groove I.
Peterson does not teach wherein the lower plate surface of the pressing plate is provided with two or more positioning grooves, the upper end of the pressing block is provided with a 1 plurality of positioning bulges corresponding to positions of the positioning grooves one by one, and the positioning bulges are capable of being clamped into the positioning grooves.
However, Peterson does teach two components (Fig. 2, Frame 40 and Blade Tray 50),
one having two or more positioning grooves (Fig. 2, Recessed Region 53) on a lower surface,
and one having a plurality of positioning bulges (Fig. 2, Alignment Tabs 43) corresponding to
the positions of the positioning grooves one by one on an upper end, and the positioning bulges
are capable of being clamped into the positioning grooves.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressing plate and the pressing block
of Peterson to have the features described in claim 1 above as taught by Peterson. Doing so is
beneficial as it ensures that the two items are inserted together in the proper orientation (Col. 3,
lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 5, Peterson further teaches the connecting structure of the pressing
plate in the food cutter according to claim 1, wherein a side wall of the material pressing block
(Fig. 2, top square shaped surface of 60) extends outwards to form a limiting plate (Fig. 2, square
shaped plate in the middle of 60), and a lower end surface of the limiting plate is capable of
being attached to an upper end surface of a cutting tool (Fig. 2, top flat surface of 60 and lower
inside flat surface of 20).
Regarding claim 6, Peterson further teaches the connecting structure of the pressing
plate in the food cutter according to claim 5, wherein a position of a blade in the cutting tool
(Fig. 2, Blades 82) is lower than the upper end surface of the cutting tool (Fig. 2, top surface of
Blade Tray 50).
Regarding claim 7, Peterson further teaches the connecting structure of the pressing
plate in the food cutter according to claim 6, wherein a chamfer is formed between an upper end
surface of the pressing plate (Fig. 2, topmost square surface of 20) and a side wall of the pressing
plate (Fig. 2, front outer side wall of 20).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarah Peterson
et al. (US 7779739 B2 – hereinafter Peterson) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in
view of Mark Fastabend et al. (US 20170190066 A1 – hereinafter Fastabend).
Regarding claim 8, Peterson further teaches a food cutter (Fig. 2, food cutter shown),
comprising the connecting structure of the pressing plate in the food cutter according to claim 1,
further comprising a protective sleeve (Fig. 2, four vertical walls of 20) and an accommodating
barrel (Fig. 1, Container 30 and Frame 40), and the protective sleeve is capable of being sleeved
in the accommodating barrel.
Peterson does not teach that the protective sleeve is mounted between the material
pressing block and the pressing plate.
However, Fastabend teaches a protective sleeve (Fig. 1, Head Receiver 58) which is
mounted between a material pressing block (Fig. 1, Pusher Head 18) and a pressing plate (Fig. 1,
Arm 80).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the food cutter of Peterson to include the missing limitation of claim 8 as taught by Fastabend. Doing so is beneficial as it facilitates
alignment of material pressing block (Fastabend – [0028]).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarah
Peterson et al. (US 7779739 B2 – hereinafter Peterson) in view of Mark Fastabend et al.
(US 20170190066 A1 – hereinafter Fastabend) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in
view of Justin Bagley (US 20180264673 A1 – hereinafter Bagley).
Regarding claim 9, Peterson further teaches the food cutter according to claim 8,
wherein the protective sleeve is provided with a plurality of guide recesses (Fig. 2, arched
cutouts on the sides of 20).
The combination of Peterson and Fastabend does not teach that the accommodating barrel
is provided with guide bulges corresponding to guide recesses one by one.
However, Bagley teaches a food cutter with a protective sleeve (Fig. 3, Pusher 100)
which is provided with a plurality of guide bulges (Fig. 4, Ribs 150 and 151), and an
accommodating barrel (Fig. 3, Housing 200) which is provided with corresponding guide
recesses (Fig. 4, First Channel 251 and Second Channel 252) one by one. It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to modify the guide bulges and guide recesses to swap location in order to be located on the
claimed items, as it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as
an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In re
Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7
(CCPA 1975).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the food cutter of the combination of
Peterson and Fastabend to include the missing limitations of claim 9 as taught by Bagley. Doing
so is beneficial as it allows for proper alignment (Bagley – [0034]).
Regarding claim 10, Peterson further teaches the food cutter according to claim 9,
wherein an upper end of the accommodating barrel is provided with a cutting tool mounting
groove (Fig. 2, groove formed on the inside of 41 and 42), and the cutting tool (Fig. 2, Blade
Tray 50) is mounted in the cutting tool mounting groove.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that since Peterson teaches that the projections are provided on the top end of the housing and extend downwards, and the supports are provided on the surface of the pusher and extend upwards, and the matching manner is to insert the projections into the channels of the supports that Peterson does not disclose “a groove wall of a limiting groove is provided with two or more limiting blocks I” and “a side wall of the limiting bump is provided with two or more limiting blocks II”. Claim 1 only specifies that the limiting blocks I and II are matched with each other, and the insertion of one into the other appropriately teaches this limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation. Further, claim 1 only requires that the limiting blocks I are located on a groove wall (Fig. 5, bottom wall of 20 connected to the groove, to which Projections 22 and 23 are connected. This wall is considered a groove wall as it extends directly from Well 24, which is identified to teach the limiting groove I of the claimed invention) and that the limiting blocks II are provided on the sidewall of the limiting bump (Fig. 6, topmost wall of 60, which a wall on the side of 65, on which 63 and 64 are connected. This is considered a sidewall of the limiting bump 65 since it is a wall which is at the side of 65), which is all taught under broadest reasonable interpretation in Peterson. The invention as claimed in claim 1 does not require that the limiting groove I and limiting blocks I do not extend downwards or that the limiting blocks II do not extend upwards. Therefore, the rejection with the use of Peterson as stated teaches all claimed limitations regarding the arrangement and position of all elements of the claimed invention.
Applicant also argues that the limiting blocks I and II contact and abut against each other after the rotational matching of the limiting bump and the limiting groove, which is not taught in Peterson. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the aforementioned features) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is intended to be used in a manner which facilitates the mounting and dismounting of the pressing plate and material pressing block, and that this intended use does not match the intended use of the device of Peterson. In response to applicant's argument, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Applicant asserts that there is no rotational matching in Peterson, however according to broadest reasonable interpretation rotationally matched to means matched such that rotation cannot occur between the two items while they are attached, which is clearly shown between the limiting bump I (Fig. 6, Central Pillar 65) and the limiting groove I (Fig. 5, groove in Cylindrical Well 24) of Peterson. Peterson discloses all structure and intended use of all structure as claimed in claim 1, and therefore teaches all limitations of claim 1.
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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Boyer Ashley 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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724