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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 2 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 are pending, of which claims 11-14 and 16-17 are withdrawn from consideration (see the Election/Restrictions section below for a discussion of claims 16-17 being withdrawn; in short, claims 16-17 are directed to a non-elected invention and have been amended to necessitate a search burden). Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 6 October 2025, with the withdraw of claims 16-17 rendering moot the objection to the drawings related to a failure to illustrate the features of claims 16-17.
Election/Restrictions
Originally filed claims 16 and 17, drawn to a method of cutting food, were subject to restriction in the Restriction Requirement mailed 11 September 2025. The Applicant in the Response received 24 September 2025 elected without traverse the invention of Group II, encompassing claims 1 and 5-9, rather than the invention of Group V, including claims 16 and 17.
Following a search of the elected invention of Group II, the examiner determined that there was no burden to examining originally filed claims 16 and 17 (among others) in addition to the claims of the elected invention. Since originally filed claims 16 and 17 did not present a search burden, the examiner rejoined originally filed claims 16 and 17 for examination in the Non-Final Office action mailed 6 October 2025.
However, the Applicant in the amendment dated 2 February 2026 amended claims 16 and 17 to introduce a search burden. In particular, the Applicant has amended claims 16 and 17 to recite additional features of a tray, including the tray having a shelf set into the peripheral walls. The search of the elected invention of Group II was directed to cutting boards, and the search of the elected invention of Group II did not encompass classifications related to food trays. The amendments to claims 16 and 17 introduce a search burden due to claims 16 and 17 being amended to recite characteristics of the tray. For example, an examination of claims 16 and 17 as amended necessitates a search of A21B3/13 and B65D81/343, and these areas were not required to be searched when searching the elected invention of Group II. The amendments to claims 16 and 17 have thus created a search burden that not was present in claims 16 and 17 as originally filed.
Had claims 16 and 17 as amended been originally presented, the claims would not have been rejoined for examination along with the claims of the elected invention of Group II. As evidence of this, originally filed claims 12-14, which were also subject to restriction in the Restriction Requirement mailed 11 September 2025, were never rejoined because claims 12-14 result in a search burden due to being directed to features of the tray. Claims 16 and 17 as amended include the same feature of the tray having a shelf that previously caused claims 12-14 to not be rejoined.
In summary, while originally filed claims 16 and 17 did not result in a search burden in view of the art cited in the Non-Final Office action mailed 6 October 2025, claims 16 and 17 as amended on 2 February 2026 to recite additional features of the tray do result in a search burden due to necessitating a search in baking tray areas including A21B3/13 and B65D81/343. As a result, claims 16 and 17 as amended are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention, with the amendments to claims 16 and 17 introducing a search burden.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ‘The Patent Pending Lasagna Portion PadL’ by The Portion PadL Nuova Vita Corporation obtained from www.youtube.com on 1 October 2025 (originally published 2 July 2019); hereinafter referred to as ‘Portion PadL’.
Regarding claim 1, Portion PadL discloses a food cutting guide (see, e.g., the screenshot at 0:33/1:06) comprising:
a first body (see the body defining the slots at the screenshot at 0:33/1:06) having
top and bottom surfaces (the top surface facing upward in the screenshot at 0:33/1:06, while the bottom surface faces downward toward lasagna),
a peripheral edge (see the peripheral edge of the body at the screenshot at 0:33/1:06), and
a thickness (see the thickness of the body at the screenshot at 0:33/1:06),
a plurality of cutting slots set in the first body and extending therethrough from the top surface to the bottom surface (see the slots in the body at the screenshot at 0:33/1:06; these slots extend through the body from the top surface to the bottom surface because the cutting spatula shown in the screenshot at 0:37/1:06 is able to cut the lasagna underlying the body);
wherein the first body is configured to rest upon a shelf set within a container (the first body is ‘configured’ as required due being structure as a large plate with a planar perimeter portion; that is, the phrase “configured to” describes a structure of the first body, and “configured to” does not import a method step into an apparatus claim; as such, Portion PadL need not explicitly disclose that the first body is positioned on a shelf set within a container, and Portion PadL need not disclose a container having a shelf – instead, in order to anticipated claim 1, Portion PadL must disclose a cutting guide with a first body that has a structure that enables the first body to rest upon a shelf set within a container; as can be seen in the images of Portion PadL, the first body is a plate-shaped structure, where the plate shape causes the first body to be “configured” as required by claim 1; finally, it is immaterial that Portion PadL does not disclose a container having a shelf, since claim 1 is directed only to a food cutting guide). See the Response to Arguments section below for additional discussion of the first body of Portion PadL being “configured to rest upon a shelf set within a container”.
Regarding claim 2, Portion PadL discloses that the first body is a rigid body (see the screenshot at 0:49/1:06 – the body is sufficiently rigid to support a user’s hand and to resist deformation due to any forces applied to the body by the cutting spatula; moreover, the body is sufficiently rigid to retain its shape when supported only by one edge as the body is placed on the container; these features cause the body to be ‘rigid’, since no particular degree of rigidity is specified by the claim).
Regarding claim 3, Portion PadL discloses that the first body is rectangular (see the screenshot at 0:33/1:06).
Regarding claim 5, Portion PadL discloses that the plurality of slots is parallel and arranged in a first common direction (see the slots in the body at the screenshot at 0:33/1:06; the first common direction is along a length of the body in this screenshot).
Regarding claim 6, Portion PadL discloses a second body having a plurality of parallel slots arranged in a second common direction (see the screenshot at 0:26/1:06 showing the second body), wherein the second common direction is orthogonal to the first common direction (this feature depends on how the first body is positioned relative to the second body; regardless, in use to cut lasagna Portion PadL teaches this feature as is evident from comparing the screenshots at 0:26/1:06 and 0:33/1:06).
Regarding claim 7, Portion PadL discloses that the first body has a major axis and a minor axis perpendicular to the major axis (see the screenshot at 0:33/1:06 – the major axis is parallel to the slots and the minor axis is perpendicular to the slots), wherein the major axis extends in a length direction and the minor axis extends in a width direction (see the screenshot at 0:33/1:06).
Regarding claim 8, Portion PadL discloses that the first common direction is parallel to the major axis (see the screenshot at 0:33/1:06) and the second common direction is parallel to the minor axis (see the screenshot at 0:26/1:06; note that this feature is satisfied for at least one position of the second body, in particular a position of the second body over the lasagna as shown at the screenshot at 0:26/1:06).
Regarding claim 9, Portion PadL discloses that the first common direction is horizontal, and the second common direction is vertical (this limitation is satisfied to the same extent as disclosed in the present application; first, in both Portion PadL and in the present application the first and second bodies are re-arrangeable into a variety of orientations; the examiner interprets claim 9 as being satisfied from the perspective a user of the bodies looking downward onto a food item being cut, where ‘horizontal’ is in a left-right direction parallel to a ground surface and ‘vertical’ is an up-down direction relative to the viewers perspective on the workpiece being cut, where ‘vertical’ in this sense is also parallel to a ground surface but is perpendicular to the ‘horizontal’ direction – i.e., ‘vertical’ as used in claim 9 is not limited to upward being a direction in opposition to gravity and downward being a direction that gravity causes objects to move; since the user in the screenshot of 0:33/1:06 sees horizontal cuts produced with the first body and the user in the screenshot of 0:26/1:06 sees vertical cuts produced with the second body, claim 9 is satisfied).
Regarding claim 15, Portion PadL discloses that each of the cutting slots has a pair of terminal ends (see left and right ends of the slots in the screenshot at 0:33/1:06, where ‘left’ and ‘right’ are used relative to the view of the user) and the first body further comprises a plurality of connective support structures disposed between the terminal ends of the cutting slots and the peripheral edge (see the screenshot at 0:33/1:06 – the connective support structures are the solid portions of the body between the ends of the slots and the peripheral edge of the body, where the connective support structures cause the slots to the not extend all the way to the peripheral edge).
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Portion PadL in view of US Pub. No. 2020/0298433 A1 to Getzinger.
Portion PadL discloses the body is rectangular, and fails to explicitly disclose that the body is square as required by claim 4.
Getzinger, though, teaches a cutting body that is square (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 40). Getzinger teaches that a cutting body can take various shapes including circular, square, rectangular, and any other desired shape (see paragraph 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the body of Portion PadL of any of a circular, a square, or a rectangular, or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Here, Getzinger provides evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art can select from among various shapes, including a square. Moreover, the shape of the cutting body merely depends on the shape of the expected food item to be cut. So, a body designed for cutting square food would benefit from a square body shape.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Portion PadL in view of US Pat. No. 0,892,552 to Rexer.
Portion PadL fails to disclose a transverse slot disposed perpendicular to and intersecting the plurality of cutting slots as required by claim 10.
Rexer, though, teaches a food cutting guide having a plurality of cutting slots and a transverse slot disposed perpendicular to an intersecting the plurality of cutting slots (see the annotated Fig. below). [Claim 10] Providing both a plurality of cutting slots and a transverse slot into a single guide is advantageous because cuts can be made in both length and width directions of the food without having to change cutting guides.
PNG
media_image1.png
769
1057
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the food cutting guide of Portion PadL with at least one transverse slot that is perpendicular to and intersects the plurality of cutting slots in view of the teachings of Rexer. This modification is advantageous because it provides the cutting guide of Portion PadL with additional cutting options. A user of the cutting guide of Portion PadL can continue to form parallel cuts along the plurality of cutting slots, but the user has the additional option of also forming at least one perpendicular cut along the transverse slot, all without having to change to a different cutting guide. This modification therefore offers additional cutting versatility and increases cutting efficiency when cutting perpendicular cuts by avoiding having to exchange cutting guides.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, regarding the objection to the drawings for failing to illustrate the features of claims 16 and 17, this argument is moot in view of claims 16 and 17 being withdrawn.
Second, regarding the rejection of claims 1 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Portion PadL, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Applicant at page 6 of the Remarks states, “The invention requires both the cutting bodies and the tray since the tray keeps the cutting bodies above and away from the food as the cut is made”. This is not an accurate summary of claim 1. Claim 1 only requires a single cutting body, and claim 1 does not require any tray. Claim 1 is directed only to “A food cutting guide”, and a container is introduced only as an unclaimed component with which the claimed cutting guide is usable. Thus, claim 1 does not require a tray.
Further, the Applicant asserts at page 6 of the Remarks that Portion PadL “has slots carved into the underside of the cutting body itself”. However, even assuming arguendo that the Applicant is correct regarding the present of slots, the presence of slots does not preclude the cutting body from also being configured rest upon a shelf set within a container. The present of slots and being configured to rest upon a shelf are not mutually exclusive characteristics.
In response to the Applicant’s argument at page 6 that the cutting guide of Portion PadL is too large to rest upon a shelf set within a container, this argument is not persuasive because the argument is directed only against the container explicitly disclosed by Portion PadL. Claim 1 does not require a container, and is directed only to the cutting guide. The cutting guide of Portion PadL is alternatively usable with a container that is larger than that explicitly disclosed. By providing a larger container (in particular, a container having a perimeter slightly greater than the perimeter of the cutting guide of Portion PadL), the cutting guide of Portion PadL is able to be received within the larger container to rest on a shelf of the larger container. [Note that since claim 1 does not require a container, Portion PadL need not explicitly disclose the larger container in order to anticipate claim 1.]
The inventive cutting guide does not include any structure that is not also disclosed by Portion PadL that allows the inventive cutting guide to rest upon a shelf within a container. That is, the plate-like structure of the inventive cutting guide that allows the inventive cutting guide to rest upon a shelf of a container is likewise disclosed by Portion PadL. As such, Portion PadL discloses the same ‘configuration’ that allows for the first body to rest upon a shelf within a container as the inventive cutting guide.
Finally, Applicant’s arguments against Stephen are moot in view of the reference no longer being relied upon in the present Office action.
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 EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724