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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a feeder mechanism in claim 1; drive mechanism in Claim 16; and a mechanism for rotating the axel.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In re Claim 14, “wherein thickness of each slice will be a function of speed at which the food is fed to the at least one circular blade,” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. An invention described solely in terms of a method of making and/or its function may lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function. See MPEP 2163, I, A. Here, with the direction of the blades of Applicant’s disclosure, the faster the product moves does not change the thickness of the product. The thickness of the product depends upon the spacing between the blades, which Applicant has not indicated are adjustable. As such, “wherein thickness of each slice will be a function of speed at which the food is fed to the at least one circular blade,” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 2-12 and 13-19 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.
In re Claim 2, “wherein the food slicing device is a stand-alone unit of a conveniently small size which can be placed on a work surface for use,” is indefinite. It is unclear what a “stand-alone unit” means as this is an assembly of parts. Additionally, it is unclear what is a “conveniently small size.” How small does it have to be in order to be conveniently small? The scope of this term depends on the individual reading the claim. A small size for a factory may be a large size for home use. The Examiner notes that work surface is not defined with a special definition and any surface where work can be done is considered a work surface. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 5, “wherein the tapered opening comprises a sliding door that shuts after food is inserted through the tapered opening to be sliced,” is indefinite. It is unclear if applicant is claiming a door capable of being moved between an open configuration and a closed configuration or structure that shuts after food is inserted through the tapered opening to be sliced (is a mechanism, and logic and a sensor for moving the door in response to the food being inserted). The Examiner notes that the claims are apparatus claims and not method of use claims. The claims were interpreted as a door capable of movement between and open and closed configuration. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 6, wherein the left side opening forms an exit opening for expelling sliced food,” is indefinite. The claims are directed to an apparatus and not the method of use. It is unclear how an exit opening for expelling sliced food further modifies the left side opening. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 7, “wherein the exit opening comprises a tray for catching the sliced food, once it has passed through the body component,” is indefinite. It is unclear how an opening can comprise a tray as these appear to be two different structures. As best understood, the claim requires a tray at the exit opening, wherein the tray is configured for catching the sliced food. The claims were examined a best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 8, “wherein the at least one circular blade are disc-like rotary blades, which are secured within the interior via an axle positioned through a center of the at least one circular blade, which attaches by its ends to interior sidewalls,” is indefinite. It is unclear if the claim is changing the number of blades to more than at least one, i.e., requiring a plurality or two blades. Further, it is unclear what is secured within the interior via an axle. Additionally it is unclear what “its” is referring to. The claim was interpreted as “wherein the at least one circular blade are at least two disc-like rotary blades, the at least two disc-like rotary blades are secured within the interior via an axle positioned through a center of the at least two disc-like rotary blades, the axle attaches by its ends to interior sidewalls.” The Examiner notes that all claims that depend from claim 8 were interpreted as “at least two disc-like rotary blades.” The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 9, “it” is indefinite. It is unclear what it is referring to. The claim was interpreted as “wherein the feeder mechanism is a rolling tread, the rolling tread engages the food and moves the food toward the at least one circular blade.” The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 13, “wherein the food slicing device is a stand-alone unit of a conveniently small size which can be placed on a work surface for use,” is indefinite. It is unclear what a “stand-alone unit” means as this is an assembly of parts. Additionally, it is unclear what is a “conveniently small size.” How small does it have to be in order to be conveniently small? The scope of this term depends on the individual reading the claim. A small size for a factory may be a large size for home use. The Examiner notes that work surface is not defined with a special definition and any surface where work can be done is considered a work surface. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 13, “wherein the tapered opening comprises a sliding door that shuts after food is inserted through the tapered opening to be sliced,” is indefinite. It is unclear if applicant is claiming a door capable of being moved between an open configuration and a closed configuration or structure that shuts after food is inserted through the tapered opening to be sliced (is a mechanism, and logic and a sensor for moving the door in response to the food being inserted). The Examiner notes that the claims are apparatus claims and not method of use claims. The claims were interpreted as a door capable of movement between and open and closed configuration. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 13, wherein the left side opening forms an exit opening for expelling sliced food,” is indefinite. The claims are directed to an apparatus and not the method of use. It is unclear how an exit opening for expelling sliced food further modifies the left side opening. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 13, “wherein the exit opening comprises a tray for catching the sliced food, once it has passed through the body component,” is indefinite. It is unclear how an opening can comprise a tray as these appear to be two different structures. As best understood, the claim requires a tray at the exit opening, wherein the tray is configured for catching the sliced food. The claims were examined a best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 13, “wherein the at least one circular blade are disc-like rotary blades, which are secured within the interior via an axle positioned through a center of the at least one circular blade, which attaches by its ends to interior sidewalls,” is indefinite. It is unclear if the claim is changing the number of blades to more than at least one, i.e., requiring a plurality or two blades. Further, it is unclear what is secured within the interior via an axle. Additionally it is unclear what “its” is referring to. The claim was interpreted as “wherein the at least one circular blade are at least two disc-like rotary blades, the at least two disc-like rotary blades are secured within the interior via an axle positioned through a center of the at least two disc-like rotary blades, the axle attaches by its ends to interior sidewalls.” The Examiner notes that all claims that depend from claim 8 were interpreted as “at least two disc-like rotary blades.” The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 13, “it” is indefinite. It is unclear what it is referring to. The claim was interpreted as “wherein the feeder mechanism is a rolling tread, the rolling tread engages the food and moves the food toward the at least one circular blade.” The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 13, “wherein thickness of each slice will be a function of speed at which the food is fed to the at least one circular blade,” is indefinite. The claim is an apparatus claim and not a method claim. As such, it is unclear what structure is being claimed. It is unclear what structural limitation is “a function of speed.” The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 14, “wherein the thickness of each slice will be a function of speed at which the food is fed to the at least one circular blade,” is indefinite. It is unclear how the thickness is a function of the speed of the food being fed to the blade. Feeding the workpiece faster towards the blade seems to simply cut the workpiece faster. As best understood, the spacing between blades is what determines the thickness of each slice. The claims were examined a best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 15, “wherein the at least one circular blade typically rotates at a constant speed,” is indefinite. “Typically” is indefinite. It is unclear what is or is not typically and how often the action must occur to reach the level of “typically.” Additionally, the examiner notes that the claims are directed to the structure of the device and not the method of use. It is unclear how this claim 15 further limits the structure of the food slicing device. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required
In re Claim 16, “suitable drive mechanisms are provided” is indefinite. It is unclear if structure other than a main drive shaft, a timing belt, are being claimed, as the claim appears to claim all “suitable drive mechanisms” including mechanisms not listed in the claim. The claim was interpreted as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20140109582 A
In re Claim 1, KR 20140109582A a teaches a food slicing device (see Figs. 2-6) that cuts food in a thin, uniform manner for cooking (see Figs. 2-6, teaching cutting chicken in a thin, uniform manner capable of being cooked), the food slicing device comprising:
a body component (see Figs. 2-6, mounting stands #100 and table #100 and mounting base #500);
at least one circular blade (see Figs. 2-6, cutter blade #420); and
a feeder mechanism (see Figs. 2-6, feeder mechanism #250);
wherein the body component houses the at least one circular blade (see Figs. 3-6 showing #100/100 housing the at least one circular blade #420) and the feeder mechanism (see Figs. 2-6, showing mounting stands #100 and table #100 and mounting base #500 housing the feeder mechanism #250); and
further wherein the feeder mechanism transports food through the at least one circular blade to be sliced (See Figs. 4 and 6 showing chicken “C” being transported by the feeder mechanism #250 through the at least one circular blade #420/400 to be sliced).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20140109582A in view of US 12,337,496 to Silva.
In re Claim 2, KR 20140109582A teaches wherein the food slicing device is a stand-alone unit (when assembled the unit of KR 20140109582A, is considered stand alone, under the broadest reasonable interpretation); however, KR 20140109582A is silent as to the size, i.e., a conveniently small size which can be placed on a work surface for use.
However, Silva teaches that it is known in the art of slicing food products to design a slicing device that is a conveniently small size which can be placed on a work surface for use (see Silva, Fig. 1, #10, which is a food slicer that is a conveniently small size which can be placed on a work surface for use).
In the same field of invention, food slicers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to make the slicer of KR 20140109582A a conveniently small size which can be placed on a work surface for use. Doing so provides a convention size and location for the user, where the user does not have to bend down or over in order to use the device (see e.g., Fig. 1 of Silva).
In re Claim 3, modified KR 20140109582A, in re Claim 2, teaches the food slicing device of claim 2, wherein the body component is configured in a rectangular shape (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, the body component #500/100100 is in a rectangular shape as it is wider across the length of the cutters #250 than its thickness), with a top surface (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, #500), a bottom surface (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, table top #100), opposing front and back walls (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, each of the mounting stands, #100, is considered a front and back wall), and opposing right and left side openings which form an open interior (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, the combination of both of the mounting stands #100 create opposing right and left openings, which form an interior, and allow the chicken to enter and exit).
In re Claim 4, modified KR 20140109582A, in re Claim 2, teaches wherein the right side opening forms a tapered opening for insertion of the food to be sliced (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, #310/320 created a tapered opening for insertion of the food to be sliced – see also Figs. 4 and 6).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20140109582A in view of US 12,337,496 to Silva, and further in view of US 2009/0031876 to Caputo.
In re Claim 5, modified KR 20140109582A, in re Claim 2, does not teach wherein the tapered opening comprises a sliding door that shuts after food is inserted through the tapered opening to be sliced.
However, Caputo teaches that it is known in the art of conveying food to be cut, to provide a sliding door that shuts after food is inserted through the opening to be cut (see Caputo, Figs. 1 and 5, #6 and Para. 0034). In the same field of invention, structures for cutting a workpiece with a blade, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a transparent sliding door as taught by Caputo to the device of modified KR 20140109582A. Doing so will allow the user to observe the cutting operation while also providing a safety barrier between the cutting operations and the user (see Caputo, Para. 0034 and 0081)
In re Claim 6, modified KR 20140109582A, in re Claim 5, teaches wherein the left side opening forms an exit opening for expelling sliced food (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, the opening created by #100/100 that allows the chicken to be discharged to the discharge conveyer #700).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20140109582A in view of US 12,337,496 to Silva, and US 2009/0031876 to Caputo, and further in view of KR 2004182289 Y1.
In re Claim 7, modified KR 20140109582A, in re Claim 5, does not teach a tray for catching the sliced food, once it has passed through the body component. However, KR 2004182289 Y1 teaches that it is known in the art of slicing food products to provide a tray (see KR 2004182289 Y1, Fig. 2, #300). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add a tray to modified KR 20140109582A, in re Claim 5. Doing so would provide a location for the “finished goods” of the device as opposed to having the sliced workpiece fall on an unsanitary floor or counter. Such a structure would provide a sport or the sliced product that would prevent inadvertent contamination.
In re Claim 8, modified KR 20140109582A, in re Claim 7, teaches wherein the at least one circular blade are disc-like rotary blades (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, #400/420), which are secured within the interior via an axle positioned through a center of the at least one circular blade (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, #420), which attaches by its ends to interior sidewalls (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 3-6, showing the assembly wherein the shaft #420 is attached to interior walls of #500).
In re Claim 9, modified KR 20140109582A, in re Claim 7, teaches wherein the feeder mechanism is a rolling tread which engages the food and moves it toward the at least one circular blade (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, #250 is a belt or rolling tread).
Claims 10-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20140109582A in view of US 12,337,496 to Silva, and US 2009/0031876 to Caputo, and further in view of KR 2004182289 Y1.
In re Claim 10, modified KR 20140109582A, in re Claim 7, teaches further comprising a power button to rotate the at least one circular blade and activate the feeder mechanism to transport food through the body component (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, #131, a control button part 131 on one side thereof, and the control button part 131 is connected to the feed conveyor 200, the rotary cutter 400).
Modified KR 20140109582A, in re Claim 7, does not illustrate a motor. However, Silva teaches that it is known to rotate a slicing blade with a motor (see Silva 42a). In the same field of invention, rotating slicing blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to use a motor to rotate the shafts of modified KR 20140109582A. Doing so is the use of a known structure, an electrical motor, to a known device, shafts for rotating slicing blades to yield a predictable result, rotating the blade (see MPEP 2143, I, D). Using an electrical motor would allow the user to electracy to operate the tool which is a readily available power for the average user.
In re Claim 11. The food slicing device of claim 10, wherein the motor is connected to the at least one circular blade via a drive shaft (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, shaft on which gear #110 is located), which is connected to the axel on the at least one circular blade either directly or indirectly to rotate the at least one circular blade (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, #110 is connected to axel #410 by way of gear #411).
In re Claim 12, modified KR 20140109582A, in re Claim 11, teaches further comprising a controller which controls the motor and the feeder mechanism (see KR 20140109582A, control box #130, the rotary cutter 400 and feeding conveyer #200 is driven by the control box 130).
In re Claim 13, KR 20140109582A teaches a food slicing device that cuts food in a thin, uniform manner for cooking, (see Figs. 2-6, teaching cutting chicken in a thin, uniform manner capable of being cooked) the food slicing device comprising:
a body component configured in a rectangular shape (see Figs. 2-6, mounting stands #100 and table #100 and mounting base #500), with a top surface, a bottom surface, opposing front and back walls, and opposing right and left side openings, which form an open interior(see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, #500, table top #100, each of the mounting stands, #100/100, Figs. 2-6, the combination of both of the mounting stands #100 create opposing right and left openings, which form an interior, and allow the chicken to enter and exit; see also KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, the body component #500/100100 is in a rectangular shape as it is wider across the length of the cutters #250 than its thickness);
at least one circular blade (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, cutter blade #420); and
a feeder mechanism (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, #250);
wherein the right side opening forms a tapered opening for insertion of the food to be sliced (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, #310/320 created a tapered opening for insertion of the food to be sliced – see also Figs. 4 and 6);
wherein the left side opening forms an exit opening for expelling sliced food (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, the opening created by #100/100 that allows the chicken to be discharged to the discharge conveyer #700);
wherein the at least one circular blade are disc-like rotary blades (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, #400/420), which are secured within the interior via an axle positioned through a center of the at least one circular blade (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, #420), which attaches by its ends to interior sidewalls(see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 3-6, showing the assembly wherein the shaft #420 is attached to interior walls of #500);
wherein the feeder mechanism is a rolling tread which engages the food and moves it toward the at least one circular blade (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, #250 is a belt or rolling tread); wherein a power button powers a motor to rotate the at least one circular blade and activate the feeder mechanism to transport food through the body component (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, #131, a control button part 131 on one side thereof, and the control button part 131 is connected to the feed conveyor 200, the rotary cutter 400);
wherein the at least one circular blade via a drive shaft (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, shaft on which gear #110 is located), which is connected to the axel on the at least one circular blade either directly or indirectly to rotate the at least one circular blade (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, #110 is connected to axel #410 by way of gear #411);
wherein a controller controls the motor and the feeder mechanism (see KR 20140109582A, control box #130, the rotary cutter 400 and feeding conveyer #200 is driven by the control box 130); and
further wherein the body component houses the at least one circular blade and the feeder mechanism (see KR 20140109582A, Figs. 2-6, #420 and #250).
KR 20140109582A does not teach:
wherein the food slicing device is a stand-alone unit of a conveniently small size which can be placed on a work surface for use;
wherein the tapered opening comprises a sliding door that shuts after food is inserted through the tapered opening to be sliced;
wherein the exit opening comprises a tray for catching the sliced food, once it has passed through the body component.
Additionally, KR 20140109582A does not illustrate a motor
However, Silva teaches that it is known in the art of slicing food products to design a slicing device that is a conveniently small size which can be placed on a work surface for use (see Silva, Fig. 1, #10, which is a food slicer that is a conveniently small size which can be placed on a work surface for use).
In the same field of invention, food slicers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to make the slicer of KR 20140109582A a conveniently small size which can be placed on a work surface for use. Doing so provides a convention size and location for the user, where the user does not have to bend down or over in order to use the device (see e.g., Fig. 1 of Silva).
Further, Caputo teaches that it is known in the art of conveying food to be cut, to provide a sliding door that shuts after food is inserted through the opening to be cut (see Caputo, Figs. 1 and 5, #6 and Para. 0034). In the same field of invention, structures for cutting a workpiece with a blade, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a transparent sliding door as taught by Caputo to the device of modified KR 20140109582A. Doing so will allow the user to observe the cutting operation while also providing a safety barrier between the cutting operations and the user (see Caputo, Para. 0034 and 0081).
Additionally, KR 2004182289 Y1 teaches that it is known in the art of slicing food products to provide a tray (see KR 2004182289 Y1, Fig. 2, #300). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add a tray to modified KR 20140109582A, in re Claim 5. Doing so would provide a location for the “finished goods” of the device as opposed to having the sliced workpiece fall on an unsanitary floor or counter. Such a structure would provide a sport or the sliced product that would prevent inadvertent contamination.
Additionally, Silva teaches that it is known to rotate a slicing blade with a motor (see Silva 42a). In the same field of invention, rotating slicing blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to use a motor to rotate the shafts of modified KR 20140109582A. Doing so is the use of a known structure, an electrical motor, to a known device, shafts for rotating slicing blades to yield a predictable result, rotating the blade (see MPEP 2143, I, D). Using an electrical motor would allow the user to electracy to operate the tool which is a readily available power for the average user.
In re Claim 16, modified KR 20140109582A. in re Claim 13, teaches using gears and therefore does not teach wherein suitable drive mechanisms are provided including a main drive shaft, which is driven by the motor through a timing belt, wherein the drive shaft extends into a drive box which contains a mechanism for rotating the axel of the at least one cylindrical blade.
However, KR 20080101057 A teaches that it is known in the art of slicing food products to provide a main drive shaft (see KR 20080101057 A, Fig. 2, drive shaft of #42b), which is driven by the motor through a timing belt (see KR 20080101057 A, Fig. 2, belt, #42), wherein the drive shaft extends into a drive box which contains a mechanism for rotating the axel of the at least one cylindrical blade (see KR 20080101057 A, Fig. 2, #44/43/42/41, etc.).
In the same field of invention, slicing device for food products, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the gears of KR 20140109582A with the belt of KR 20080101057 A. Doing so is the substitution of one know rotation transmitting structure for another rotation transmitting structure to rotate the blades (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Replacing a single belt is simpler than replacing a set of two gears when the structures wear out.
In re Claim 17, modified KR 20140109582A, in re Claim 13, is silent as to wherein a power source is a plurality of batteries or a standard electrical outlet plug. However Silva teaches that it is known to power food slicers by a standard electrical outlet plug (see Silva, Fig. 2, #48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, power the unit of modified KR 20140109582A, as taught by Silva. Doing so allows the user to plug the unit into the wall for ease of use.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20140109582A in view of US 12,337,496 to Silva, US 2009/0031876 to Caputo, and KR 2004182289 Y1, and further in view of US 2015/0246458 to Gahler.
In re Claim 14, modified KR 20140109582A. in re Claim 13, is silent regarding wherein thickness of each slice will be a function of speed at which the food is fed to the at least one circular blade. However, Gahler, teaches that it is known in the art of slicing food products that the thickness of the slice depends on the measurement between two cuts (see Gahler, Para. 0024). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to change the distance between two blades in order to change the thickness of the slice, as taught by Gahler. Doing so allows the user to change the size of the sliced workpiece.
In re Claim 15, modified KR 20140109582A. in re Claim 14, is silent as to wherein the at least one circular blade typically rotates at a constant speed. However, Gahler teaches that it is known in the slicing of food art to rotate the blade at a constant speed (see Gahler, Para. 0024).
In the same field of invention, blades for cutting food products, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to rotate the blade at a constant speed, as taught by Gahler. Doing so is the use of a known speed to achieve the result of cutting through food work pieces (see MPEP 2143, I, C).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20140109582A in view of US 12,337,496 to Silva, US 2009/0031876 to Caputo, and KR 2004182289 Y1, and further in view of CN 201030570 Y
In re Claim 17, modified KR 20140109582A, in re Claim 13, is silent as to wherein a power source is a plurality of batteries. However, CN 201030570 Y teaches that it is known in the art to provide a food slicer powered by batteries (see CN 201030570 Y, Fig. 1, #1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to power the device by batteries as taught by CN 201030570 Y. Doing so allows the user to power the tool when he or she is away from a plug in the wall or when the power is out in their home.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20140109582A in view of US 12,337,496 to Silva, US 2009/0031876 to Caputo, and KR 2004182289 Y1, and further in view of US 2,573,860 to Meeker.
In re Claim 18, modified KR 20140109582A. in re Claim 13, does not teach wherein the food slicing device is manufactured of a food-grade material.
However, Meeker teaches that it is known in the art to make slicers out of aluminum. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the structure of modified KR 20140109582A out of aluminum. The examiner notes that aluminum, according to Applicant’s specification, is one of the “food-grade” materials. Doing so reduces the overall weight and keep the machine readily portable (see Meeker, Col. 1, ll. 44-49).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20140109582A in view of US 12,337,496 to Silva, US 2009/0031876 to Caputo, and KR 2004182289 Y1,
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20140109582A in view of US 12,337,496 to Silva, US 2009/0031876 to Caputo, and KR 2004182289 Y1, and further in view of Cuisinart Kitchen Pro Food Slicer, 7.5, Stainless steel, Gray.
In re Claim 19, modified KR 20140109582A, in re Claim 13, does not teach further comprising a plurality of indicia. However, Cuisinart Kitchen Pro Food Slicer, 7.5, Stainless steel, Gray, teaches a plurality of indicia (see annotated Fig. below)
PNG
media_image1.png
724
1374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the same field of invention, food slicers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the brand of the device of modified KR 20140109582 A. Doing so will be advertising the brand of the device to all who use the device.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20140109582 A in view of KR 2004182289 Y1.
In re Claim 20, KR 20140109582 A teaches a method of automatically thinly slicing meat and other foods with ease (see Figs. 2-6), the method comprising the following steps:
providing a food slicing device (see structure of Figs. 2-6) comprising a body component (see Figs. 2-6, #100/500/100/100) with a circular blade (see Figs. 2-6, #420/400) and feeder mechanism (see Figs. 2-6, #200/250);
inserting meat into the body component (see Fig. 4, “C”);
activating the device via the power button (see Fig. 3, #131), which activates the circular blade and feeder mechanism(see Fig. 3, #131, the control button part 131 is connected to the feed conveyor 200, the rotary cutter 400, the discharge conveyor 700); sending the meat through the circular blade for slicing via the feeder mechanism (see Fig. 4, “C” which is sent through the circular blade #400/420 via #250); and expelling the sliced meat from the body component and onto (see Figs. 2-6, #700).
KR 20140109582 A does not teach a tray for catching the sliced food. However, KR 2004182289 Y1 teaches that it is known in the art of slicing food products to provide a tray (see KR 2004182289 Y1, Fig. 2, #300).
In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add a tray to modified KR 20140109582A, in re Claim 5. Doing so would provide a location for the “finished goods” of the device as opposed to having the sliced workpiece fall on an unsanitary floor or counter. Such a structure would provide a sport or the sliced product that would prevent inadvertent contamination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724