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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Popeil (US 3,112,781).
Regarding claim 1, Popeil discloses a labor-saving vegetable cutter (figure 4, figure 5 showing the cut being made), comprising: a pressing block (19, 58, etc.) and a cutting knife assembly (figures 7-9 inter alia). Popeil further discloses wherein the cutting knife assembly (14, 15, figure 7, inter alia) includes a plurality of cutting knife members (16, 17, see figure 12, 13 and 17) stacked together (As shown in figure 12, 13 inter alia), each cutting knife member includes a blade group (e.g. 48 figure 17; other arrangements shown include ‘blade’ groups with either continuous or discontinuous blades embedded in their receiving rings—as shown in figures 7-9, 12-15, inter alia). Popeil further discloses the blade groups on the plurality of cutting knife members are arranged in an offset manner such that when the pressing block presses vegetables or fruits to be cut towards the cutting knife assembly the vegetables or the fruits are sequentially cut by the blade groups (as they are stacked—they are offset—see at least the repositioning and positions available in figures 7-9) on the plurality of cutting knife members (figures 4-5), and the blade groups of the plurality of cutting knife members are interlaced (the use of this term by applicant is incorrect with respect to its plain meaning—and with respect to what applicant has disclosed—the disclosure does not support the term ‘interlaced’ but the idea that the interaction of the blades forms parallelogram cuts is understood) to cut the vegetables or the fruits into strips with a parallelogram cross-section (any of the Figure 7-9 will form parallelogram--- either diamonds in figure 8, or the square/rectangles of figure 9—which are also parallelograms).
Regarding claim 2, Popeil further discloses each blade group (15/16 figure 17) includes a plurality of blades (see discrete blades in 39 Left, Fig. 17; 48/48 fig 17 bottom; etc), and the plurality of blades form at least one of a crisscross mesh structure (Figure 12), a longitudinal parallel mesh structure (figure 7), a transverse parallel mesh structure (figure 10), an inclined parallel mesh structure, and an inclined crisscross mesh structure (figure 8).
Regarding claim 3, Popeil further discloses the pressing block (19) is provided with blade slots (60 are channels formed in 59, figures 1-4; 159, 158/159 figure 20) that cooperate with the blade group (“blade channels 60 are defined by the edges of the extending projections 59 which parallel the configuration of the individual blades 52 in the various configurations shown in FIGURES 7, 8, 9 and 10”).
Regarding claim 4, Popeil further discloses the plurality of cutting knife members (152, for example, figure 19) are fixedly connected to each other (they are shown mounted together on the device).
Regarding claim 5, Popeil further discloses the plurality of cutting knife members (15, 16 are shown detached from each other in figure 17) are detachably connected to each other.
Regarding claim 6, Popeil further discloses the cutting knife member (48 for example, figure 17) includes: a cutting knife frame (11 figure 12) and the blade group (16 figure 14), and the blade group (16, for example) is installed on the cutting knife frame (see figure 13 where at least a blade group is mounted in the frame of the device).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popeil (US 3,112,781) as applied to claims 1-6, above, and further in view of Rowell (US 5,063,674) and Repac (US 2018/0154536).
Regarding claim 7 Popeil lacks one cutting knife frame is provided with insertion columns and another cutting knife frame is provided with insertion slots that cooperate with the insertion columns such that the plurality of cutting knife members are detachably connected to each other. Popeil uses ‘indicia’ 146 to lock the rotation of the blade knife frames—in order to provide for their alignment during use.
In the press through grid blades art (Rowell (US 5,063,674)) —it is known to provide ‘columns’ and ‘slots’ for the engagement between stacked blade frame elements (“The blades (not shown) are trapped between the faces of the teeth 3 and 7 and the faces of teeth 8 and 12 to form two discrete sets of blades.”)—as seen specifically in Rowell (US 5,063,674) at 12 (column) and 8 (castellation showing cooperating insertion slots meant to engage with columns 12 or 7: “This second moulding also has a square window 9 therethrough with upwardly directed teeth 7 provided on two mutually opposite sides 15 of the window 9 and adapted to interengage with the downwardly directed teeth 3 of the first moulding 1. On the other two mutually opposite sides 13 of the window 9 transverse to the direction of the teeth 7, are provided a second set of downwardly directed teeth 8.”
Repac teaches the same things—specifically showing columns in the top of frame 3 figure 12, and insertion slots corresponding thereto at the bottom of frame 2 figure 12. The point of the columns and slots is to fix the relative position of blades in a blade cutting device analogous to applicants, and to Rowell, and to Popeil.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add columns and slots as taught by either or both of Repac and Rowell, since doing so provides the necessary function of locating interrelated blade trays relative to each other for use—which is known to be needed in Popeil (146) and is shown to be known to be accomplished in the same art by Rowell and/or Repac’s teachings of columns and slots. It has been held that the combination of elements known in the prior art to be used in accordance with their known functions is unpatentable as a matter of law absent a showing that the combination has results which are unexpectedly advantageous over the prior art. Please see Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc. U.S. Supreme Court No. 75-110 425 US 273, 189 USPQ 449 (1976), Which states “patent[s] for combination that only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions withdraws what is already known into field of its monopoly and diminishes resources available to skillful men” and [a] patent [which] simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, although perhaps producing a more striking result than in previous combinations…are not patentable under standards appropriate for a combination patent”; also see Anderson’s Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., Inc. U.S. Supreme Court 396 US 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969) which states “while the combination of old elements performed a useful function, it added nothing to the nature and quality of the radiant-heat burner already patented”. Similarly here, there is no change in the function of the locating columns and slots—they are being used as they are known to be used in the same problem or field of use.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. _____(2007) affirmed both Sakraida and Anderson’s requirement that to be patentable a combination needed to provide some synergistic effect. See Slip op. at 13 lines 3-19. Using known elements for their known functions is as a matter of law not patentable, since it removes resources available to skillful men, contrary to U.S. Const., Art. I §8, cl.8. which provides patent monopolies to promote the progress of useful arts. See Slip op. KSR at 24 lines 5-7.
Each of the elements claimed are known as seen in the cited prior art (above); their combination is unpatentable absent a showing that one of ordinary skill would be unable to effect their combination, or their combination provides unexpectedly good results (more than a duplicated effect).
Claim(s) 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popeil (US 3,112,781) as applied to claims 1-6, above, further in view of Bagley (US 10,493,647) and Hoffman et al (US 8,561,529).
Regarding claim 8-13, Popeil does not disclose the same type of “barrel” and ‘inner barrel’ claimed.
In the art of press-through grid type cutters, Bagley shows the same type of barrels that applicant alleges are patentable subject matter in claims 8-13. Bagley shows an outer barrel (200, 260 figure 2), an inner barrel (100), an outer circumference of the inner barrel (100) fits with an inner circumference of the outer barrel (200) so that the inner barrel (100) is inserted into the outer barrel (200; see figure 1).
Bagley shows the cutting knife assembly (241, 242, 243 figure 6) is arranged at a lower end of the outer barrel (200) and passes through a bottom of the outer barrel (200).
The pressing block (100) of Bagley is arranged at a bottom of the inner [[outer]] barrel (100). Bagley therefore is demonstrative of the use of barrel structure for the presser and the cutter in a press cut grid arrangement—but is reversed in attitude with respect to which ‘barrel’ has the blade and which the presser—relative to the present application, which claims, essentially that the knife is in the inner barrel and the presser in the outer barrel.
Note additional evidence: Hoffman et al (US 8,561,529) discloses another push through cutter ring, including inner and outer corresponding elements which are apparently equivalent to applicant’s recited barrels: where the outer barrel 133 has pusher 137 for pressing fruit through a blade 140 held on an ‘inner’ (smaller) barrel.
In the technical problem of how to push through a fixed blade using a pusher—there are a limited number of solutions for the nature which barrels can interact—either the smaller barrel will have the blades, or the pusher—and likewise the outer/larger barrel must have the opposite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Popeil by including inner and outer barrels, since those components hold and constrain the interaction between the pusher and the blade—which is done in Popeil by the alternatively known and equivalent guide bars. In that context, it would not matter whether the inner or outer barrel held the blades and the opposite held the pusher—since both are needed (and seen) according to Popeil’s action, and both are shown with respective barrels in Hoffman and Bagley to effect the same purpose (slicing by the driving of a pusher and a blade mounted to a base).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popeil (US 3,112,781) as applied to claims 1-6, above, and further in view of Rowell (US 5,063,674) and Repac (US 2018/0154536) as applied to claim7 above, and further in view of Bagley (US 10,493,647) and Hoffman et al (US 8,561,529).
Popeil does not disclose the same type of “barrel” and ‘inner barrel’ claimed.
In the art of press-through grid type cutters, Bagley shows the same type of barrels that applicant alleges are patentable subject matter in claims 8-13. Bagley shows an outer barrel (200, 260 figure 2), an inner barrel (100), an outer circumference of the inner barrel (100) fits with an inner circumference of the outer barrel (200) so that the inner barrel (100) is inserted into the outer barrel (200; see figure 1).
Bagley shows the cutting knife assembly (241, 242, 243 figure 6) is arranged at a lower end of the outer barrel (200) and passes through a bottom of the outer barrel (200).
The pressing block (100) of Bagley is arranged at a bottom of the inner [[outer]] barrel (100). Bagley therefore is demonstrative of the use of barrel structure for the presser and the cutter in a press cut grid arrangement—but is reversed in attitude with respect to which ‘barrel’ has the blade and which the presser—relative to the present application, which claims, essentially that the knife is in the inner barrel and the presser in the outer barrel.
Note additional evidence: Hoffman et al (US 8,561,529) discloses another push through cutter ring, including inner and outer corresponding elements which are apparently equivalent to applicant’s recited barrels: where the outer barrel 133 has pusher 137 for pressing fruit through a blade 140 held on an ‘inner’ (smaller) barrel.
In the technical problem of how to push through a fixed blade using a pusher—there are a limited number of solutions for the nature which barrels can interact—either the smaller barrel will have the blades, or the pusher—and likewise the outer/larger barrel must have the opposite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Popeil by including inner and outer barrels, since those components hold and constrain the interaction between the pusher and the blade—which is done in Popeil by the alternatively known and equivalent guide bars. In that context, it would not matter whether the inner or outer barrel held the blades and the opposite held the pusher—since both are needed (and seen) according to Popeil’s action, and both are shown with respective barrels in Hoffman and Bagley to effect the same purpose (slicing by the driving of a pusher and a blade mounted to a base).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
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.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724