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 § 112
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 adds a new limitation “wherein the blade groups (111) on each of the plurality of cutting knife members (11) are arranged in rectangle, to produce vegetable or fruit strips of different size depending on a number of layers of the cutting knife members (11).” Which does not make sense. It is not understood what is meant by “are arranged in rectangle.”
Further the clause “to produce vegetable…of different size” is also an incomplete statement of an intended use, method step, or structure, but the actual claimed structure is not clear from the claim. The statement reads as a method step, which is improper “to produce” is an active verb arrangement indicating the production step taking place, which is improper in an apparatus claim. See MPEP 2173.05(p) II, in part: “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)…. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).”). Here, it cannot be ascertained whether the preamble is wrong, or if the positive recitation of the step is wrong, and the inclusion of both method steps and device in a single claim is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant alleges that the inclusion of “wherein the blade groups (111) on each of the plurality of cutting knife members (11) are arranged in rectangle, to produce vegetable or fruit strips of different size depending on a number of layers of the cutting knife members (11).” In claim 1 renders the claims patentable over the art and rejections applied previously. This is not persuasive.
Initially, the clause adds indefiniteness to the claims (see above).
Secondly, the clause as best understood is clearly met by the rejections of record.
As best understood, the rejections previously set forth all still read on the claims -since to the extent “are arranged in rectangle” is understandable, it reads on Popeil as shown—the blades of Popeil are arranged in rectangle—they are shown in parallel formations which terminate so as to exist in rectangular spaces, to be bounded as rectangles, and to make generally rectangular food when food is pressed through—(they are capable of producing vegetables, the most charitable understanding of the clause “to produce…”). Depending on the number of layers in Popeil, the cuts will be different, self -evidently. This clause is a statement of intended use, met by a capability of performance—which is clearly met by Popeil as depicted.
The rejections of record in the Non-Final action dated 1/30/26 are incorporated by reference here, and stand as applied.
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 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
Prosecution Insights