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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6-10-26.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 14, and 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With regards to claim 1, the first blade is disclosed as “extending along a portion of the frame” while the second and third blades only extend along the frame and do not disclose “a portion”. It is unclear if this is a typo or not.
With regards to claims 3, 5, 14, and 16, each occurrence of the phrase “each of the plurality of blades” should be replaced with “each of the first, second, and third blades”. The “plurality” has been further defined as “first, second, and third”. Using the broad disclosure instead of the narrow disclosure could lead to confusion as it could represent additional unclaimed blades instead of the first, second, and third blades.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to claims 1, 3, 10, and 14, the terms “upper”, “lower”, “right”, and “left” are unclear as they are dependent upon an unclaimed indefinite orientation of the slicer. The slicer is handheld and is capable of being utilized in an infinite number of orientations including ones where the structures do not correspond with the terms. For example, in Figure 5, 139 is the right side in this orientation or point of view. Terms that are true regardless of the orientation must be used. For example, outer and inner can be used for upper and lower.
With regards to claims 1 and 10, the phrase “from at or near the front to back” is unclear. How can something be at or near the “front to back”? It is clear what structure represents the front and what structure represents the back but it is unclear what structure represents the “front to back”. Further definition is needed. It is also noted that all parts of the slicer of the instant invention and of CN 111543456 are all considered “near” to all remaining parts. Claims 5 and 16 have the same issue.
With regards to claims 3 and 14, the phrase “such that the blades maintain substantially continuous contact with a cutting surface when rotationally operated” is indefinite. This limitation is dependent upon the unclaimed indefinite cutting surface. If the cutting surface does not incorporate structure that allows for substantially continuous contact, how does the slicer meet this limitation? Also, it is unclear what can and cannot be considered “rotationally operated”. The slicer can be used in an unorthodox manner than includes rotational movement which would not correspond to the rest of the claimed function.
With regards to claim 8, the phrase “a back of the frame” is unclear. Claim 1 previously discloses the frame has a back. It is unclear if the claim 8 “back” represents the same or a different frame portion with regards to the claim 1 “back”. The claim 8 phrase should be replaced with “the back of the frame”
With regards to claim 9, the phrase “a front of the frame” is unclear. Claim 1 previously discloses the frame has a front. It is unclear if the claim 9 “front” represents the same or a different frame portion in relation to the claim 1 “front”. The claim 9 phrase should be replaced with “the front of the frame”
With regards to claim 10, as written, the frame has a back in a way unrelated to the arms which is not supported. Basically, the frame has a back and separately has the arms. The back must be defined by the arms which is the only way there appears to be support.
With regards to claim 11, adding to the previous issue, it is unclear how claim 10 can disclose the back and the arms as separate parts of the frame and then disclose that the arms form the back. Claim 10 needs to disclose the arms define the back because that is the only way there is support.
With regards to claim 13, the phrases “extends along the second arm at an angle of between approximately 25 to 45 degrees” and “extends along the third arm at an angle of between approximately 25 to 45 degrees” is unclear. It is unclear how the blades extend along their arm at this angle. It is believed that the angle represents the offset between the first blade and the second and third blade and has nothing to do with the second blade and the second arm and the third blade and the third arm. The “extends along the second/third arm” portions of the phrases should be moved to the end of the claim to prevent this confusion.
With regards to claim 13, the phrase “approximately 25 to 45 degrees” is unclear in light of the specification using different language. Paragraph [0034] discloses “about” 25 to 45 degrees. Without any disclosure saying “approximately” and “about” are the same thing, the phrase is unclear. The specification or the claim needs to be amended to match the other to prevent any confusion.
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, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 111543456. It is noted that the copy of CN 111543456 provided included a machine translation. This translation is referenced below. Please see the Figure below for Examiner added reference labels.
With regards to claims 1 and 2, CN 111543456 discloses the same invention including a multi-blade food slicer (Fig. 1, background) having a frame (1) having an upper side (u), a lower side (L), a front (f), and a back (b), a plurality of blades coupled to the lower side of the frame (42a, 42b, 42c), the blades having a first blade extending along a portion of the frame near the front to back (42a), a second blade angularly disposed relative to the first blade and extending along the frame near the front to back near a left side (42b), a third blade angularly disposed relative to the first blade and extending along the frame near the front to back near a right side (42c), and a handle coupled to the upper side of the frame (2).
With regards to claim 10, CN 111543456 discloses the same invention including a multi-blade food slicer (Fig. 1, background) having a frame (1) having an upper side (u), a lower side (L), a front (f), and a back (b), the frame having a first arm extending along a middle of the frame near the front to the back of the frame (4a), a second arm angularly disposed relative to the first arm and extending near the front to back near a left side of the frame (4b), a third arm angularly disposed relative to the first arm and extending near the front to back near a right side of the frame (4c), a plurality of blades having a first blade coupled to the first arm in the lower side of the frame and extending near the front to back (42a), a second blade coupled to the second arm on the lower side of the frame and extending near the front to back (42b), a third blade coupled to the third arm on the lower side of the frame and extending near the front to back (42c), a cross-member extending across the first of the frame and connected to the arms (11, 12), and a handle coupled to the upper side of the frame on the first arm (2, the entire frame including the portion connected to the handle is “on” the first arm).
PNG
media_image1.png
582
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 3-7 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111543456 in view of Bryda (5,456,010).
With regards to claims 3, 5, 7, 14, 16, and 17, CN 111543456 discloses each of the blades have a lower side (Fig. 1), each of the blades has a length defined as a distance that each of the blades extends from near the front to back of the lower side of the frame (Fig. 1), and the length of the second and third blades is approximately equal (42b, 42c).
However, with regards to claims 3-6 and 14-17, CN 111543456 fails to disclose the lower side of the blades is curved, a curved shape of the first blade is different than a curved shape of the second and third blade such that the blades maintain substantially continuous contact with a cutting surface when rotationally operated, the curved shape of the second and third blades are substantially the same, the length of the second and third blade is different than the length of the first blade, the length of the first blade is greater than the length of the second and third blade.
Bryda teaches it is known in the art of multi-blade cutters to incorporate the lower side of the blades is curved (32, 34), a curved shape of the first blade (12, Fig. 3) is different than a curved shape of the second and third blade (14, Fig, 4, the entire shape of the blade can be considered the curved shape of the blade), the curved shape of the second and third blades are substantially the same (14, Fig. 4), the length of the second and third blade (14, Fig. 4) is different than the length of the first blade (12, Fig. 3), the length of the first blade is greater than the length of the second and third blade (Figs. 3 and 4). Modifying CN 111543456 with the curved edges allows for the capability of the blades to maintain substantially continuous contact with a cutting surface when rotationally operated. It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have made the blade edges of any reasonable and known shape to achieve a particular cut and it would have been well within one’s technical skill to have made the lengths of each blade any reasonable length including different lengths to achieve a particular cutting result for a particular work piece. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided CN 111543456 with the blade specifics, as taught by Bryda, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111543456.
CN 111543456 discloses the invention including the second blade (42b) is offset from the first blade (42a) and extends along the second arm (42b, 4b) at an angle (Fig. 1) and the third blade (42c) is offset from the first blade (42a) and extends along the third arm (42c, 4c) at an angle (Fig. 1).
However, CN 111543456 remains silent and, therefore, fails to discloses the angles being between approximately 25 to 45 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the angle between any reasonable range including the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of CN 111543456 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Claims 8, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111543456 in view of Massa (1,830,284).
With regards to claims 8, 9, and 18, CN 111543456 fails to disclose a tab extending from a back of the frame and a front extension extending from a front of the frame, and the front extension defines an opening extending through the front extension.
Massa teaches it is known in the art of food cutters to incorporate a tab (6) or an extension with a through hole (6). It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have added this tab/extension to any reasonable portion of the CN 111543456 including the front and/or back of the frame to allow for the cutter to be hung up when not in use (page 1 line 36-40 in Massa). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided CN 111543456 with the tab/extension, as taught by Massa, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The arms (4) of CN 111543456 are not able to be modified to define/form the back of the frame.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
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 D Ashley can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
16 June 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights