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 .
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.
Claim 1-15 are 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 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-15 are rejected for their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim cites “Preferably form a plate-shaped structure, wherein preferably a width of the struts over a width of the cutting-board holder for at least about 50%, preferably for at least about 70% more preferably for at least about 80%” is unclear as the terms “preferably” and “about” do render the claim indefinite, as they metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Additionally, the citation of “for at least about 50%, preferably for at least about 70% more preferably for at least about 80%” renders the claim further unclear which of these limitations are required by the claim.
For the purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “form a plate-shaped structure, wherein a width of the struts over a substantially 50% of the width of the cutting board holder”.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim cites “of between about 5 cm and 20 cm” is unclear as the term “about” renders the claim indefinite, as they metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
For the purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “of between 5 cm and 20 cm”.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim cites “minimum height of less than about 9 cm” is unclear as the term “about” renders the claim indefinite, as they metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
For the purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “minimum height of less than 9 cm”.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim cites “a support arm, preferably extending from the cutting-board holder” and “preferably wherein the support base comprises at least 3 catches.” Which renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if these limitations are actually required by the claim. For the purpose of examination, the word “preferably” will be omitted from the interpretation.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim cites “fabricated from sheet metal, preferably folded sheet metal” which renders the claim indefinite. As it is unclear if the claim requires the apparatus be fabricated from sheet metal or folded sheet metal. For the purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “fabricated from sheet metal.”
Regarding Claim 12, the claim cites “is arranged to support a weight on the cutting-board holder of at least about 20 kg”. The phrase “at least about” is unclear as it is unclear what the meets and bounds of the claim limitation is as there is no definition provided in applicants disclosure to define about as a relative term. For the purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “is arrange to support a weight on the cutting board holder of at least 20 kg”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1-7, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whelan (US 7849789 B1) in view of Kim (WO 2016129971 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Whelan A height-adjustable cutting-board assembly comprising:
A support base (86) being arranged to rest on a work surface, such as a countertop or a table;
A cutting-board holder (88), arranged to receive a cutting-board (82);
At least two struts (90 and 92), said at least two struts connecting the support base with the cutting-board holder (See Fig. 10);
Wherein said at least two struts each comprise a top end and a bottom end, said top end being pivotably connected to the cutting board holder and the bottom end being pivotally connected to the support base (Col 8 Line 8-15 “The scissor legs 87 may each have a first portion 90 and a second portion 92 rotatably coupled together. A first end 89 of the first portion 90 is rotatably coupled to the cutting board receiver 88 and a second end 91 of the first portion 90 is slidably coupled to the base 86. A first end 93 of the second portion 92 is rotatably coupled to the base 86 and a second end 95 of the second portion 92 is slidably coupled to the cutting board receiver 88.”),
whereby said cutting-board holder is height adjustable in relation to the support base by pivoting the struts in relation to the support base and the cutting-board holder (See Col 8 Line 16-25 “The base 86 has at least two apertures 97, each aperture 97 configured to couple to the second end 91 of the first portion 90 of a scissor leg 87, wherein the aperture 97 has a length that defines the range of heights the frame 84 is adjustable between. Additionally, the cutting board receiver 88 has two apertures 94 corresponding to the two apertures 97 of the base 86, wherein each aperture 94 of the cutting board receiver 88 is configured to couple to the second end 95 of the second portion 92 of a scissor leg 87, wherein the aperture 94 has a length that defines the range of heights the frame 84 is adjustable between.”).
But does not explicitly disclose wherein said struts are positioned substantially parallel to each other to form a moveable parallelogram lift.
However, Kim discloses a heigh adjustable surface with multiple embodiments. With a first embodiment utilizing a scissor lift (See Fig. 1 and Para [0059]
“Meanwhile, a rotation axis (150) forming a center of rotation is fitted in the area where the first connecting member (130) and the second connecting member (140) intersect each other. In detail, both ends of the rotation shaft (150) can be fitted into the areas where a plurality of connecting members (130, 140) arranged on both sides intersect each other. To this end, through holes (not shown) corresponding to each other are formed in the area where the first connecting member (130) and the second connecting member (140) intersect so that a rotation shaft (150) can be fitted therein, and both ends of the rotation shaft (150) are fitted into the through holes and fixed. Therefore, the first connecting member (130) and the second connecting member (140) can be rotated relative to each other through the rotation axis (150). In other words, the rotation axis (150) can form an 'X'-shaped central axis formed by the first connecting member (130) and the second connecting member (140).”)
And another embodiment utilizing a parallelogram lift (See Fig. 17) and further discloses parallel linkages as an equivalent method of raising or lowering a surface to a scissor lift (See Para [0060] immediately following [0059] cited above “Meanwhile, the first and second connecting members are not necessarily limited to the illustrated form, and an example in which the two connecting members are arranged parallel to each other may also be considered.
In this case, the two connecting members are hingedly connected at both ends to the top plate and the base, respectively, and the slide guide is omitted.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize a parallelogram lift instead of a scissor lift as they are both known equivalents in the art for the purpose of raising and lowering one surface relative to another as described by Kim in Para [0059] and [0060] as cited above, and it has been held that substituting known equivalents for the same purpose would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.06 II).
Regarding Claim 2, Whelan as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses Wherein the struts (90 and 92) have an elongated width (See Figs 9a and 9b), so that the struts preferably form a plate-shaped structure (See Figs 9a and 9b, showing legs 90 and 92 having a plate structure), and suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein preferably a width of the struts extends over a width of the cutting-board holder for at least about 50% (See Figs. 9a and 9b) preferably for at least about 70%, more preferably for at least 80%.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the width of the struts such that they extend over a width of the cutting-board holder for at least about 50% (See Figs. 9a and 9b) preferably for at least about 70%, more preferably for at least 80% as it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claim device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See MPEP 2144.04 IV A). Finally, Examiner notes that applicant does not assign any criticality to the claimed width of the struts extending over a width of the cutting-board, See Para [0025] of applicants specification “In an embodiment, the struts have an elongated width, so that the struts preferably form a plate-shaped structure, wherein preferably a width of the struts extends over a width of the cutting-board holder for at least about 50%, preferably for at least about 70%, more preferably for at least about 80%.”
Regarding 3, Whelan as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the struts have a length between the top end and the bottom end of the struts of between about 5 cm and 20 cm.
But Whelan discloses a second embodiment with telescoping legs, wherein there are adjustable in length in order to elevate the cutting board to a desired height (Col 3 Line 45-52 “The legs 14 are also adjustable in length to vary the height of the cutting surface 12, the legs 14 including a locking device 28 for releasably locking the legs 14 at a particular length. When the legs 14 are locked at a particular length and in the opened position, the cutting board 10 may be placed on a counter top or other work surface, thereby elevating the cutting surface 12 to a desired height.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the length of the struts in as doing so would allow for the cutting board to be raised to a desired height. Additionally, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claim device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See MPEP 2144.04 IV A). Finally, Examiner notes that Applicant has not assigned any criticality to the claimed length of the Struts, stating only in Para [0027] “The height-adjustable cutting-board assembly of any of the preceding claims, wherein the struts have a length between the top end and the bottom end of the struts of between about 5 cm and 20 cm, preferably of between about 8 cm and 18 cm, more preferably of between about 10 cm and 15 cm, still more preferably of between about 12 cm and 14 cm.”)
Regarding Claim 4, Whelan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the height-adjustable cutting-board assembly has a minimum height of less than about 9 cm.
However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claim device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See MPEP 2144.04 IV A). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the minimum height of the cutting board assembly to be less than 9cm as doing so would increase the range of adjustable heights, increasing the utility of the device. Additionally, Examiner notes that Applicant does not assign any criticality to the claimed minimum height, stating in Para [0029] of Applicants specification “In an embodiment, the height-adjustable cutting-board assembly has a minimum height of less than about 9 cm, preferably of less than about 7 cm, more preferably of less than about 5 cm, still more preferably of less than about 3 cm, most preferably of less than about 2 cm. The minimum height is the distance of the work surface to a supporting surface of the cutting-board holder. That is, the minimum height is the minimum extra elevation of the cutting-board provided by the height-adjustable cutting-board assembly, with respect to placing the cutting-board directly on the work surface.”
Regarding Claim 5, Whelan as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses, wherein the cutting-board holder defines a substantially rectangular shape (See Fig. 9a and 9b), having four peripheral edges (See Annotated Figure A) and suggests but does not explicitly disclose, wherein the cutting-board holder comprises four wall elements, extending upwardly from the peripheral edges of the cutting-board holder (See Annotated Figure A).
PNG
media_image1.png
801
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A (Figs. 9a and 9B)
Regarding Claim 6, Whelan as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the cutting-board holder has a larger width than the support base.
However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claim device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See MPEP 2144.04 IV A). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the cutting-board holder has a larger width than the support base as doing so would increase the range of possible sizes of cutting boards to be placed in the cutting board holder.
Regarding Claim 7, Whelan as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the cutting-board holder (88) comprises at least two notches (Spaces between wall portions (See Annotated Figure A, above)) provided at substantially opposing regions of the periphery of the cutting-board holder (See Annotated Figure A).
Regarding Claim 12, Whelan as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses, wherein the height-adjustable cutting-board assembly is arranged to support a weight on the cutting-board holder of at least 20kg (Col 6 Line 23-26 “Further, particular embodiments of the present invention include an adjustable portable cutting board that may be weight bearing. The cutting board when in use may be able to support weights up to approximately 120 pounds” 120lb = 54.4kg).
Regarding Claim 13, Whelan (as modified in claim 1) discloses a kit of parts comprising:
The height-adjustable cutting-board assembly according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above); and a cutting-board (82).
Regarding Claim 14, Whelan (as modified) discloses a food preparation surface comprising:
The height-adjustable cutting-board assembly according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above); and
A cutting-board (82) provided on the cutting board holder (88) of the height-adjustable cutting-board assembly (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Whelan (As modified) discloses a method of food preparation, comprising the steps of: providing a food preparation surface according to claim 14 (See Rejection of claim 14 above), and
Processing food on the cutting-board (Col 6 Line 23-30 “Further, particular embodiments of the present invention include an adjustable portable cutting board that may be weight bearing. The cutting board when in use may be able to support weights up to approximately 120 pounds. This allows for a variety of food products that may be prepared on the cutting surface. Particularly this allows for heavier products to be prepared or cut, such as, by hunters who need to portion the game they have successfully hunted.”).
Claim(s) 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whelan (US 7849789 B1) in view of Kim (WO 2016129971 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Tice (US 4907789).
Regarding Claim 8, Whelan as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the support base (86) comprises a front edge (98), but does not explicitly disclose and wherein the front edge of the support base comprises a lip extending downwardly from the front edge of the support base.
However, Tice discloses a cutting board with a front edge (at 32 in Fig. 8) comprises a lip (48) extending downwardly from the front edge of the support base (See Fig. 7 and 8 and Col 3 Line 39-53 “Referring to FIGS. 7 and 8, the method of operation of the present invention is shown. It is contemplated that prior to use, bag 36 would be attached to flange 24 by elastomeric band 38. The assembly 10 would then be placed on a counter top shown generally as 42 and slid up against an edge 44 thereof. The inner run 46 of leg 30 on flange 24 would abut edge 44 of counter 42 thereby preventing the cutting board from moving inwardly on counter 42. A friction device such as rubber strips 48 may be attached to the bottom side 26 of cutting board 12 to prevent movement of the cutting board outwardly away from the edge 44 of counter top 42 or from side to side thereon. The entire bottom surface 26 of board 12 rests on the counter to allow for a large area of friction contact.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the support base of the height-adjustable cutting-board assembly to include a lip extending downwardly from the front edge of the support base as advantageously disclosed by Tice as doing so would assist in securing the apparatus to the edge of a counter during operation, keeping the apparatus stable during use by an operator.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whelan (US 7849789 B1) in view of Kim (WO 2016129971 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Gillotti (US 20140360414 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Whelan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses a securing mechanism (ratchet mechanism 110) the securing mechanism comprising a support arm (112), extending from one of the struts of the at least two struts (Col 8 Line 64-66 “The pawl 112 of the ratchet mechanism 110 is coupled to second ends 95 of the second portions 92 of the scissor legs 84.”), wherein the cutting-board holder comprises one or more catches (teeth 114) arranged to receive the support arm (Col 8 Line 63- Col 9 Line 3 “The ratchet mechanism 110 may include a pawl 112 and teeth 114. The pawl 112 of the ratchet mechanism 110 is coupled to second ends 95 of the second portions 92 of the scissor legs 84. The teeth 114 of the ratchet mechanism 110 may be integral with the cutting board receiver 88. The ratchet mechanism 110 further comprises a torsion spring (not shown) coupled to the pawl 112 to automatically engage the pawl 112 with the teeth 114 of the ratchet mechanism 110.”), wherein the cutting-board holder comprises at least 3 catches (See teeth 114 in Figure 10).
But does not disclose the support arm preferably extending from the cutting-board holder, wherein the support base comprises the one or more catches, wherein the support base comprises at least 3 catches.
However, Gillotti discloses a similar elevating surface apparatus comprising a support arm (15), extending from one of the struts (19), wherein the support base (12) comprises the one or more catches (52), wherein the support base comprises at least 3 catches, See Fig. 3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the catches to be located on the support base as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand placing the catches on the support base would be an equivalent method of providing discrete heights to which the height-adjusting platform can be set at. And it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.06 II.
Additionally, Kim discloses an embodiment where a strut (140) doubles as a support arm extending from the elevating surface (111) engaging with catches (121f) in the support base (122, see Fig. 17).
It would be further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the support arm to extend from the cutting board support as doing so would not change the overall operation of the device and would constitute a rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding Claim 10, Whelan as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 9, and in addition discloses Wherein the support arm comprises a laterally extending engagement (See Support arm 15 of Gillotti).
Claim(s) 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whelan (US 7849789 B1) in view of Kim (WO 2016129971 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Kamin (US 2598266 A).
Regarding Claim 11, Whelan as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cutting board holder, the support base, and the struts, are fabricated from sheet metal, preferably folded sheet metal.
However, Kamin discloses a similar height-adjusting surface apparatus with a cutting board holder (22), struts (23) and support base (17) are fabricated from sheet metal (See Col 1 Line 47-52“The table top or extension structure may be of any suitable type or construction. In the illustration given, we provide a shelf or support member 17, formed of metal or other suitable material…”.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to fabricate the cutting-board holder, struts and support base from sheet metal, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that sheet metal as suitable material to construct such an apparatus from as identified in Kamin Col 1 Line 47-52 as cited above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/T.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723