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 . 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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2024 and 09/22/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 08/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 27-36 are withdrawn. Examiner notes it appears claim 19 was inadvertently noted as Withdrawn given the Election of Group I, that includes claim 19. For the purposes of examination, the response is treated as a Bonafide response and claims 19-26 will be examined below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract exceeds the total word length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Appropriate correction is required.
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Unteregger (US9,770,134).
Regarding claim 19, Unteregger teaches a food processor to process a food item into a diced food item Abstract; Figure 1), the food processor having:
a vessel (2) having a floor (7), sidewalls (9a) extending upwardly from the floor to define a space for receiving the diced food item (Figure 1);
a blade (5,32,35) mounted to the vessel so as to be rotatable about a drive axis the food item;
a drive shaft for driving the blade about the drive axis to slice the food item in a first direction (Col. 3, Lines 47-59); and
a dicing grid (8,16) mounted to the vessel below the blade for sectioning the sliced food item to create the diced food item, wherein the dicing grid includes a circular track and the blade includes at a perimeter thereof a cam (33) that is engageable with the track such that a force path exists from the blade to the dicing grid (Figure 1 and Col. 5, Lines 36-49; Examiner notes the cam engageable with the track in a slot that is not shown in the Figures).
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 20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unteregger (US9,770,134) in view of Koch (US 2020/0376703).
Regarding claim 20 Unteregger teaches the food processor of claim 19, but does not provide wherein a bottom surface of the blade is non-parallel to the dicing grid to create a gap between a leading edge of the blade and the dicing grip, such that the sliced food item is urged into the dicing grid by the bottom surface of the blade as the blade is rotated by the drive shaft.
Koch teaches a cutting blade (1) wherein a bottom surface of the blade is non-parallel (Figures 2 and 3A; Noting the angled shape of the bottom surface 6a as being non-linear).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Unteregger to incorporate the teachings of Koch to provide an angled bottom surface of the blade. In doing so, it allows for the blade to contact the workpiece at a variety of different angles and orientations to slice the workpiece as desired.
Thus, Unteregger in view of Koch provides a bottom surface of the blade is non-parallel to the dicing grid to create a gap between a leading edge of the blade and the dicing grip (Unteregger Figure 1 and Koch Figure 2), such that the sliced food item is urged into the dicing grid by the bottom surface of the blade as the blade is rotated by the drive shaft (Examiner notes the blade is capable of urging the food item into the dicing grid) as the blade is rotated).
Regarding claim 22 Unteregger teaches the food processor of claim 19, wherein the blade has a leading edge that first engages the food item for slicing (Figure 1), but does not appear to provide wherein the leading edge has a negative angle of attack relative to a radius of the blade to reduce the force imparted from the food item on the blade as the blade slices the food item.
Koch teaches it is known in the art of food slicing blades to provide wherein the blade has a leading edge (1a) that first engages the food item for slicing (Figure 3a), wherein the leading edge has a negative angle of attack relative to a radius of the blade to reduce the force imparted from the food item on the blade as the blade slices the food item (See annotated Figure 3a below in Reference to Figure 6 of the application noting the cutting edge and angles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Unteregger to provide the leading edge has a negative angle of attack relative to a radius of the blade. In doing so, it allows for the workpiece to be sliced as desired
PNG
media_image1.png
602
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, the modified device of Unteregger teaches the food processor of claim 22, wherein the leading edge is continuously curved relative to the radius of the blade in a spiral shape such that the perimeter of the blade forms a single continuous leading edge (Koch Figure 3A; Paragraph 0009).
Regarding claim 24, the modified device of Unteregger teaches the food processor of claim 23, but does not specifically provide wherein the spiral shape is a Fibonacci spiral.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Unteregger to have the spiral shape is a Fibonacci spiral.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Unteregger to provide the blade shape as a Fibonacci spiral. In doing so, it allows for the workpiece to be sliced as desired. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
In the instant case, the device of Unteregger would not operate differently with the claimed shape and since the blade shape is intended to reside within the vessel and rotate the device would function appropriately having the claimed Fibonacci spiral. Further, applicant places no criticality on the shape, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be the spiral shape is a Fibonacci, or in a preferred embodiment a logarithmic, spiral (specification pp. [0046]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unteregger (US9,770,134) in view of Koch (US 2020/0376703) as applied to claims 19-20 above, and further in view of Mueller (US2007/0028742).
Regarding claim 21, the modified device of Unteregger teaches the food processor of claim 20 but does not wherein the bottom surface of the blade has a helical shape.
Mueller teaches it is known in the art of food slicing to provide a blade as circular, helical, and crescent shaped (Paragraph 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Unteregger to incorporate the teachings of Mueller to provide the blade as helical. In doing so, it allows for a variety of shaped blades to be used to slice the workpiece as desired.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unteregger (US9,770,134) in view of Krasznai (US 8,602,335).
Regarding claim 25, Unteregger teaches the food processor of claim 19, but does not provide wherein the blade includes a lift aperture to allow access for a finger of a user to lift the blade from the vessel.
Krasznai teaches it is known in the art of food slicers to incorporate a disc body including a lift aperture (16) to allow access for a finger of a user to lift the disc body (Figure 1; Col. 3, Lines 26-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Unteregger to incorporate the teachings of Krasznai to provide a lift aperture. Doing so provides a safer means to remove elements from the device to facilitate overall handling.
Regarding claim 26, Unteregger teaches the food processor of claim 25, wherein the lift aperture is located adjacent the drive shaft (Unteregger Figure 1 and Krasznai Figure 1 noting the location adjacent a drive shaft).
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references A-I on page 1 establish the state of the art with a variety of portable dicing and slicing machines with varying drive mechanisms, as well as various blades and cutting blade shapes and designs for creating different workpiece shapes/sizes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 09/25/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
