DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 13, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by deBretton Gordon (US Pub. No. 2020/0253402 A1).
In regards to claim 1, deBretton Gordon teaches a knife block (20) for containing one or more knives comprising: a block body (22) having a first top (32), a base (36), and a first side (at 28) extending from the first top to the base; a first opening (28) including a first elongate slot (24) formed in the block body and having a depth in a direction from the first top to the base, the first elongate slot extending from the first top along the first side for an entirety of the depth of the first elongate slot (Para. 0021); and a first notch (30) disposed in the first top, the first notch configured to receive and mate with a bolster of a first kitchen knife (Para. 0022), and wherein the first elongate slot is sized and shaped to accommodate the first kitchen knife within the first block body, and wherein the first elongate slot is configured to permit removal of the first kitchen knife from within the block body by sliding a blade of the first kitchen knife out of the first elongate slot through the first side (Para. 0023).
In regards to claim 2, deBretton Gordon teaches the first notch (30) is wider than the first elongate slot (24) (30 extends along the top in Fig. 2).
In regards to claim 3, deBretton Gordon teaches the first notch (30) defines a shelf of the block body, the shelf sized and shaped to receive the bolster.
PNG
media_image1.png
241
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5, deBretton Gordon teaches a second opening (28) including a second elongate slot (24) formed in the block body, the second elongate slot extending from the first top (32) along the first side, wherein the second elongate slot is sized and shaped to accommodate a second kitchen knife within the block body; and a second notch (see annotation above) disposed in the first top, the second notch configured to receive and mate with a bolster of the second kitchen knife, wherein the second elongate slot is configured to permit removal of the second kitchen knife from within the block body by sliding a blade of the second kitchen knife out of the second elongate slot through the first side (Para. 0021-0023).
In regards to claim 10, deBretton Gordon teaches the block body (22) is a monolithic structure with the first elongate slot being cutout therefrom (i.e.; the body is one piece of wood; Para. 0022).
In regards to claim 13, deBretton Gordon teaches a knife block (20) comprising: an elongate block body (22) having a top (32), a base (36), and a plurality of walls (defining 24) extending therebetween, the plurality of walls being disposed substantially vertical when the elongate block body is resting stably on the base thereof; one or more knife (28) openings including: an elongate slot (24) having a depth extending into the elongate block body in a direction from the top to the base, the elongate slot disposed in a first one of the plurality of walls and extending from the top of the elongate block body toward the base along an entirety of the depth of the elongate slot; a notch (see annotation above) in the top of the elongate block body, wherein the notch is configured to receive a bolster of a knife (Para. 0021-0023); and wherein the notch is disposed above a portion of the elongated slot.
In regards to claim 14, deBretton Gordon teaches the knife block (20) is configured to permit removal of the knife (1) entirely from the top; and (2) by lifting the knife upward from the top of the elongate block body to remove the bolster from engagement with the notch and sliding a blade of the knife through the elongate slot through the first one of the plurality of walls (Para. 0023).
In regards to claim 18, deBretton Gordon teaches a knife block (20) comprising: a block body (22) having a top (32), a front (at 28), a base (36), and a back opposite the front; an elongate slot (24) disposed in the block body and having a depth in a direction extending from the top to the base, the elongate slot extending from the top and into the front for the entire depth of the elongate slot (Para. 0021), wherein the elongate slot is configured to receive a blade of a knife; and a notch (see annotation above) disposed in the top of the block body, wherein the notch is configured to receive a bolster of the knife while the blade is inserted within the elongate slot (Para. 0022); wherein the elongate slot is configured to permit removal of the blade from the block by sliding the blade horizontally out of the elongate slot through the front of the block body upon disengagement of the bolster from the notch (Para. 0023).
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 4, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over deBretton Gordon (US Pub. No. 2020/0253402 A1) in view of Labelle (US Pat. No. 4,497,412).
In regards to claims 4 and 16, deBretton Gordon does not teach a magnet located inside the block body to removably secure the first kitchen knife within the block body (claim 4); and at least one elongate slot or notch of the one or more knife openings includes one or more magnetic elements configured to further retain the knife therein (claim 16).
Labelle teaches a magnet (29’) located inside the block body (10) to removably secure a knife within the block body; and the elongate slots (12) including a magnetic element (29) configured to retain a knife therein.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify deBretton Gordon’s knife block such that a magnet is located inside the block body to removably secure the first kitchen knife within the block body (claim 4); and at least one elongate slot or notch of the one or more knife openings includes one or more magnetic elements configured to further retain the knife therein (claim 16). The motivation would be for the purpose of reducing accidental dislodging of knives as taught by Labelle (Col 5, Lines 4-8).
In regards to claim 17, deBretton Gordon is silent to the dimension of the knife block such that the elongate slot has a width of less than 6 mm wide at the first wall. Labelle teaches a knife block (10) having elongate slots (12) having a width (33) of less than 6 mm wide at a first wall (Col 8, Lines 28-34).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to dimension deBretton Gordon’s elongate slot to have a width of less than 6 mm wide at the first wall. The motivation would be for the purpose of choosing a width suitable to accept a wide variety of knives and the like as taught by Labelle (Col 8, Lines 28-34).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over deBretton Gordon (US Pub. No. 2020/0253402 A1) in view of Lu (US Pat. No. 4,966,339).
In regards to claim 6, deBretton Gordon does not teach the first notch is larger than the second notch. Lu teaches a knife block having different sized notches (16) as illustrated in Fig. 1.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify deBretton Gordon’s notches such that the first notch is larger than the second notch. The motivation would be for the purpose of sizing the notches to fit specific bolsters (22 of Lu) as illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4A of Lu.
In regards to claim 15, deBretton Gordon does not teach the notch of each of the one or more knife openings has a bottom that extends between 15-22mm from the top of the elongate block body.
Lu teaches a knife block having notches (16) of a plurality of knife opening having a bottom (161) that extends a heigh (H, Fig. 4A) from the top of the elongate block body by approximately the height of the bolster (22) of the knife. Although Lu is silent to the dimension of H, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed 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 (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the height H is dimensioned relative to the particular knife used such that the handle (21) is raised up only by the height H (Col 2, Lines 41-52). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify deBretton Gordon’s notches such that the notch of each of the plurality of knife openings has a bottom that extends between 15-22mm from the top of the elongate block body. The motivation would be for the purpose of dimensioning the notch based on the particular knife handle design to better position the knife as taught by Lu (Col 2, Lines 33-40).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over deBretton Gordon (US Pub. No. 2020/0253402 A1) in view of McDonald (US Pub. No. 2013/0180938 A1).
In regards to claim 7, deBretton Gordon does not teach an accessory block coupled to the block body and having a second top; and a second opening formed in the accessory block, the second opening configured to enable a second kitchen knife to pass into and out of the second opening through the second top.
McDonald teaches an accessory block (102) coupled to another block body (102) and having a second top (i.e.; relatively to the knife openings); and a second opening (110) formed in the accessory block, the second opening configured to enable a second kitchen knife (114) to pass into and out of the second opening through the second top (Para 0017).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify deBretton Gordon’s knife block to include an accessory block coupled to the block body and having a second top; and a second opening formed in the accessory block, the second opening configured to enable a second kitchen knife to pass into and out of the second opening through the second top. The motivation would be for the purpose of accommodating various desire of size for the holder as taught by McDonald (Para 0018).
In regards to claim 8, in modifying deBretton Gordon, McDonald teaches a base (McDonald: 116, Fig. 3) that couples together the block body and the accessory block.
In regards to claim 9, in modifying deBretton Gordon, McDonald teaches a first magnet embedded in the block body; and a second magnet embed in the accessory block, wherein the second magnet couples to the first magnet to couple together the block body and the accessory block (i.e.; there are corresponding magnets inserted into the blocks; Claim 4 of McDonald).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over deBretton Gordon (US Pub. No. 2020/0253402 A1) in view of Conner (US Pat. No. 5,850,784).
In regards to claim 11, deBretton Gordon does not particularly teach the block body is formed from a plurality of smaller blocks secured to the base, and wherein the first elongate slot is formed by a gap between two of the plurality of smaller blocks. However, deBretton Gordon teaches the body portion can be fashioned from one or more pieces (Para. 0022).
Conner teaches a knife block with smaller blocks (11A, C) secured to a base (35).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify deBretton Gordon’s knife block to have the block body formed from the plurality of smaller blocks secured to a base, and wherein the first elongate slot is formed by a gap between two of the plurality of smaller blocks. The motivation would be for the purpose of using a carousel base to allowing the block to rotate in various positions (e.g.; with carousel 35 of Conner).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,042,070 in view of deBretton Gordon (US Pub. No. 2020/0253402 A1). Claims 1-18 and 20 of the instant application are fully encompassed by the subject matter of claim 1-14 of the patent, except for the language regarding the depth of the elongate slot, and the elongate slot extending from the top along the first side for an entirety of the depth of the elongate slot (see claims 1, 13 and 19). deBretton Gordon teaches the elongate slot extending from the top along the first side for an entirety of the depth of the elongate slot as discussed with respect to the rejections above. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify the elongate slot such that it extends from the top along the first side for an entirety of the depth of the elongate slot as taught by deBretton Gordon. The motivation would be for the purpose of allowing the blade of the knife the fit within the depth of the slot without interference, therefore preventing dulling of the knife.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner now relies on the references as discussed with respect to the claims above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and with a timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d).
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 STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571)272-8227. 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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631