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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hui-hui Wang et al. (CN 115533983 A – hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a kitchen slicing device, comprising comprises a base (Fig. 1, base comprising Movable Slide 2), a blade (Fig. 1, Cutting Knife 19) and a blade holder (Fig. 1, blade holder comprising Mounting Plate 16), wherein the base is provided with an object receiving portion (Fig. 1, top portion of Movable Slide 2), the blade is mounted on the blade holder, and the blade holder is slidably connected to the base to allow the blade to slide towards the object receiving portion to complete cutting (Fig. 4; Page 5 Para 4).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui-hui Wang et al. (CN 115533983 A – hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 2, Wang does nor teach the kitchen slicing device according to Claim 1, wherein the blade is detachably connected to the blade holder.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang to include the features of claim 2 above as it has been held that making a feature, such as the blade of claim 2, separable is obvious “if it were considered desirable for any reason” In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). It is well known in the art that it can be desirable to replace a blade when it becomes dull, for which purpose the blade must be detachable.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui-hui Wang et al. (CN 115533983 A – hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kun-ning Pi (CN 109352698 A – hereinafter Pi).
Regarding claim 3, Wang further teaches the kitchen slicing device according to Claim 1, wherein the object receiving portion (Fig. 1, top portion of Movable Slide 2) is in the form of a V-shaped groove with an opening facing upwards.
Wang does not teach that the V-shaped groove is provided with anti-skid stripes.
However, Pi teaches the use of anti-skid stripes (Page 2, second from last paragraph) on a portion (Fig. 1, Pad 19) of a slicing device which contacts the workpiece.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang to include the
features of claim 3 above as taught by Pi. Doing so is beneficial as it improves the friction force between the food and the surface it contacts (Pi; Page 4 Para 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui-hui Wang et al. (CN 115533983 A – hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ki Wook Song (KR 102547367 B1 – hereinafter Song).
Regarding claim 4, Wang does not teach the kitchen slicing device according to Claim 1, wherein a guide rail is arranged on the base, and the blade holder is mounted on the guide rail and is able to slide along the guide rail.
However, Song teaches a kitchen slicing device wherein a guide rail (Fig. 6, leftmost Guide Rod 35) is arranged on a base (Fig. 3b, base comprising Processing Unit Casing 30), and a blade holder (Fig. 7, left half of cutter base 52) is mounted on the guide rail and is able to slide along the guide rail.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang to include the features of claim 4 above as taught by Song. Doing so is beneficial as worker injuries can be minimized by the alternate structure indicated in claim 4 above (Song; Page 2 Para 5).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui-hui Wang et al. (CN 115533983 A – hereinafter Wang) in view of Ki Wook Song (KR 102547367 B1 – hereinafter Song) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Mang-yun Tang (CN 112157685 A – hereinafter Tang)
Regarding claim 5, the existing combination of Wang and Song does not teach the kitchen slicing device according to Claim 4, wherein two said blade holders are arranged in parallel, two said guide rails are arranged in parallel correspondingly, and two ends of the blade are mounted on the two blade holders respectively; and the kitchen slicing device further comprises an inverted U-shaped pull rod, and two ends of the inverted U-shaped pull rod are connected to the two blade holders respectively.
However, Song further teaches wherein two said blade holders (Fig. 7, left and right halves of cutter base 52) are arranged in parallel, two said guide rails (Fig. 6, leftmost and rightmost Guide Rod 35) are arranged in parallel correspondingly, and two ends of the blade (Fig. 6, Blade 55) are mounted on the two blade holders respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang and Song to include the features of claim 4 above as taught by Song as it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Additionally, Tang teaches a kitchen slicing device further comprising an inverted U-shaped pull rod (Fig. 3, Pull Rod 702), and two ends of the inverted U-shaped pull rod are connected to the two blade holders (Fig. 3, left and right halves of Pressing Component 7) respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang and Song to include the features of claim 4 above as taught by Tang. Doing so is beneficial as it allows the user to manipulate the movement of the blade by hand (Tang; Page 4, second to last paragraph).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui-hui Wang et al. (CN 115533983 A – hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chung Ryul Lee (KR 20240048188 A – hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 6, Wang does not teach the kitchen slicing device according to Claim 1, further comprising a positioning rod and an adjusting mechanism, wherein the positioning rod is slidably connected to the base to slide in a direction perpendicular to the sliding direction of the blade, and the adjusting mechanism is used to adjust sliding of the positioning rod.
However, Lee teaches a kitchen slicing device further comprising a positioning rod (Fig. 1, Guide Body 310) and an adjusting mechanism (Fig. 3, adjustment mechanism comprising Thickness Adjustment Protrusion 211b), wherein the positioning rod is slidably connected to a base (Fig. 1, Portion 211) to slide in a direction perpendicular to the movement direction of a blade (Fig. 1, Cutting Blade 220), and the adjusting mechanism is used to adjust sliding of the positioning rod.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang to include the features of claim 6 above as taught by Lee. Doing so is beneficial as the thickness of a slice to be cut can be set (Lee; Page 6 Para 9).
Regarding claim 7, the existing combination of Wang and Lee already teaches the kitchen slicing device according to Claim 6, wherein the adjusting mechanism comprises a threaded rod (Lee; Fig. 3, threaded shaft of Thickness Adjustment Protrusion 211b) and a rotary knob (Lee; Fig. 3, head of Thickness Adjustment Protrusion 211b), the threaded rod is rotatably connected to the base (Lee; Fig. 3, Portion 211), an internal threaded hole is formed (Lee; Fig. 3, internal threaded hole formed in nuts interacting with 211b), and the threaded rod has an end connected to the rotary knob and an end screwed into the internal threaded hole (Lee; Fig. 3). The existing combination of Wang and Lee does not teach that the internal threaded hole is formed in the positioning rod, however it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui-hui Wang et al. (CN 115533983 A – hereinafter Wang) in view of Chung Ryul Lee (KR 20240048188 A – hereinafter Lee) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of 정운조 (KR 19990014918 U – hereinafter 정운조).
Regarding claim 8, the existing combination of Wang and Lee does not teach the kitchen slicing device according to Claim 6, wherein a sliding rod is arranged on the base, a sliding hole is formed in the positioning rod, and the sliding hole is fitted on the sliding rod to slidably connect the positioning rod to the base.
However, 정운조 teaches wherein a sliding rod (Fig. 2, Guide Rod 16) is arranged on a base (Fig. 2, Device Body 11), a sliding hole is formed in a positioning rod (Fig. 2, Plate 21), and the sliding hole is fitted on the sliding rod to slidably connect the positioning rod to the base (Page 3, third to last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang and Lee to include the features of claim 8 above as taught by 정운조. Doing so is beneficial as it is well known in the art that having a guide such as the sliding rod can assist in holding in place an item which is later to be screwed into place, such as the positioning rod.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui-hui Wang et al. (CN 115533983 A – hereinafter Wang) in view of Chung Ryul Lee (KR 20240048188 A – hereinafter Lee) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Xuan Li (CN 112476508 A – hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wang and Lee further teaches the kitchen slicing device according to Claim 6, further comprising a push plate (Wang; Fig. 1, Push Plate 3), wherein the push plate is slidably connected to the object receiving portion to slide towards the positioning rod (Lee teaches the positioning rod located near the blade, and Wang teaches sliding the push plate towards the blade, where the positioning rod would also be located).
The existing combination of Lee and Wang does not teach a spring, and the spring is connected between the base and the push plate, having a pre-tightening force for driving the push plate to slide towards the positioning rod.
However, Li teaches a slicing device with a spring (Fig. 6, Elastic Member 63) which is connected between a base (Fig. 6, Box 51) and a push plate (Fig. 6, Push Plate 61), having a pre-tightening force for driving the push plate to slide towards the blade (Page 8 Para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang and Lee to include the features of claim 9 above as taught by Li. Doing so is beneficial as the food piece is driven towards the cutting area (Li; Page 8 Para 2).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui-hui Wang et al. (CN 115533983 A – hereinafter Wang) in view of Chung Ryul Lee (KR 20240048188 A – hereinafter Lee) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Scott Zeeb et al. (US 20070044605 A1 – hereinafter Zeeb).
Regarding claim 10, the existing combination of Wang and Lee does not teach the kitchen slicing device according to Claim 6, further comprising a scale, wherein the scale is arranged on the base and is used for indicating a sliding distance of the positioning rod.
However, Zeeb teaches a kitchen slicing device with a scale (Fig. 3, scale at the bottom of Thickness Adjustment Mechanism 32), the scale is used for indicating a sliding distance of the positioning rod (Fig. 3, Gage Plate 28). Zeeb does not teach that the scale is located on the base, however it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang and Lee to include the features of claim 10 above as taught by Zeeb. Doing so is beneficial it is well known in the art that a scale allows for repeatable settings for moving parts such as the positioning rod.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm 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, 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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724