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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 18607143, filed on 3/15/2024.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent (US 20230080615 A1) in view of Keeton (US 7434502 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kent teaches a locking structure of a multi-functional vegetable cutter (see Figure 1), comprising a housing (14) and a sliding bracket (assembly of 12 and 68), wherein
the sliding bracket is slidably disposed in the housing (carriage moves up and down, paragraph 0040), an upper end of the sliding bracket is provided with a chute with an opening on a front side (16),
a locking block (see Figure 13) extendable from the housing to lock the sliding bracket (see Figure 17),
when rotating, the locking block to rotate and lock the sliding bracket (lock via 106).
Kent fails to teach a locking block extendable from the opening on the front side is slidably disposed in the chute, a rear side of the locking block is provided with a cam hinged on the sliding bracket, the cam is in abutting connection with a rear end face of the locking block; and when rotating, the cam drives the locking block to slide forward and lock the sliding bracket, and the locking block is connected to a reset mechanism driving the locking block to slide backward.
Keeton teaches a locking block (see Figure 10), a rear side of the locking block is provided with a cam (36), the cam is in abutting connection with a rear end face of the locking block (see Figure 10); and when rotating, the cam drives the locking block to slide forward and lock the sliding bracket (in the position of Figure 10), and the locking block is connected to a reset mechanism (53) driving the locking block to slide backward (see Figure 2, col. 5 lines 33-50).
Examiner notes that replacing the locking arrangement from Kent into Keeton is considered obvious under KSR Rational B. Kent differs from the claimed device due to Asada’s locking mechanism use only a pivot lock, whereas Keeton teaches a cam locking system. Both Kent and Keeton teach a locking arrangement. Such modification will achieve the predictable result of providing securing the cap of the handle, since both technique of Kent and Keeton are known for the same purpose in the art. See MPEP § 2143 I. (B). Therefore, it would have been an obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the pivot locking arrangement, as taught by Kent into the cam locking system, as taught by Keeton for the purpose of providing a lock.
Furthermore, with respect of the location of the lock cam arrangement, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the location of the lock cam parts (from cam on housing into cam on sliding bracket). since the courts have been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
The resulting device of modified Kent teaches a locking block extendable from the opening on the front side is slidably disposed in the chute (as modified by Keeton and change the location), a rear side of the locking block is provided with a cam hinged on the sliding bracket (as modified by Keeton and change the location), the cam is in abutting connection with a rear end face of the locking block (as modified by Keeton and change the location); and when rotating, the cam drives the locking block to slide forward and lock the sliding bracket, and the locking block is connected to a reset mechanism driving the locking block to slide backward (as modified by Keeton, see Figure 6-10 of Keeton).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kent further teaches a rear side of the sliding bracket is provided with a cam seat (as modified by Keeton, see Figure 6-10 of Keeton)., a camshaft is rotatably disposed in the cam seat, the cam is fixedly connected to the camshaft (as modified by Keeton, see Figure 6-10 of Keeton)., the camshaft is further connected to a conversion handle, and a rear end of the conversion handle extends outside the cam seat (as modified by Keeton, see Figure 6-10 of Keeton).
Regarding claim 3, Kent teaches a rear side of the cam seat is detachably connected to a cover plate, and the cover plate and the cam seat enclose a cam mounting chamber (as modified by Keeton, see Figure 6-10 of Keeton).
Regarding claim 4, Kent teaches the cam comprises a long edge and a short edge, a transition between the long edge and the short edge is made through a curved edge, when the long edge abuts against the locking block, the sliding bracket is in an unlocked state, and when the short edge abuts against the locking block, the sliding bracket is in a locked state (as modified by Keeton, see Figure 6-10 of Keeton).
Regarding claim 5, Kent teaches two sides of the locking block extend outward to form a limiting seat, and a limiting structure is formed between the limiting seat and a front side wall of the chute (as modified by Keeton, see Figure 6-10 of Keeton).
Regarding claim 6, Kent teaches the reset mechanism is a reset spring (53 of Keeton), and the reset spring is disposed between the limiting seat and the front side wall of the chute (as modified by Keeton, see Figure 6-10 of Keeton).
Regarding claim 7, Kent teaches an upper end of the housing extends backward to form a flanging, and a lower side surface of the flanging abuts against an upper side surface of the locking block to form a locking structure (flange head of 12 in the lock position, see Figure 1 of Kent).
Regarding claim 8, Kent teaches the upper end of the sliding bracket is provided with a handheld portion exceeding the sliding bracket (head of 12, see Figure 1 of Kent).
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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 9/16/2025