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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “axis 52 of the slide rail” as described in the specification (Specification at [0027]).
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding 2, 9, 10, 13, and 14 -- “Sealing” is not explained. In the claims 2, 9, 10, 13 and 14, the ‘sealing’ must be present, and the claims are directed to requiring removal of the seal to gain access to the adjustment assembly, but the disclosure as a whole fails to reasonably demonstrate the step or steps required to remove the seal or otherwise provide access (or to have such a seal present). The intention of removing the seal is disclosed, but there is no reasonable disclosure of how to actually accomplish that action, and therefore applicant has failed to demonstrate possession of the invention.
The term “a movable index component” is used in claims 1-14 (1, 9, 11 at least) and is not understood (See below under 112(b)) and is not disclosed demonstrating possession of the invention. Specifically, the movable index component is not a definite thing—it is the idea of indexing. There is no scope of the nature or physicality of this element which is bounded, and therefore it is not understood and is not understood to be demonstrably within applicant’s possession. Variously, 44 is an index, or a follower—but nothing in the specification defines what is a ‘movable index component’ and therefore the disclosure fails to apprise those of ordinary skill of possession of the invention having this idea of a component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 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.
The “movable index component” is not a definite thing—it is the idea of indexing. There is no scope of the nature or physicality of this element which is bounded, and therefore it is not understood. How 44 is an “index” component is not explained, nor are the boundaries of when something is an index component versus not being an index component. It is shown with a complex geometry, but none of the geometry is claimed or explained and therefore the nature and scope of the term is wholly ambiguous.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by McGuffin-Noll (2009/0133552).
Regarding claim 1. McGuffin-Noll discloses A food product slicer (See title), comprising: a base (bottom in figure 1, ~ into which 74 is mounted);a knife (54 figure 1) mounted for rotation relative to the base (See figure 1).
McGuffin-Noll further discloses a carriage assembly mounted to the base for movement back and forth past a cutting edge of the knife (58, etc. figure 1; [0003] etc.).
McGuffin-Noll further discloses a gauge plate mounted for movement between a closed position that prevents slicing and multiple open positions that permit slicing at respective thicknesses (See e.g. [0016]: “[0016] Referring to FIG. 2, where a portion of the slicer housing is shown as 100, a gauge plate system includes rotatable handle assembly with handle 74.” And [0019]: “The plate 172 may also include one or more sensors 174 (FIG. 6) thereon for electronically detecting if the gauge plate is in the closed position,”
McGuffin-Noll further discloses a gauge plate movement system for moving the gauge plate between the closed position and the multiple open positions (Figure 2 as a whole).
McGuffin-Noll further discloses the gauge plate movement system including a movable index component (As best understood see 112(b) above)) having a portion that projects upwardly through an opening in the base (150, 160, figure 4) and that is connected to a lower portion of the gauge plate by a gauge plate adjustment assembly that is accessible via a gap between an upper surface portion of the base and the lower portion of the gauge plate (Shown in figure 5 at e.g. 144, 160).
11. Claim(s) 1-3, 9- 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yan (US 6,119,566).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 11, Yan shows the blade, gauge plate, etc. in figure 1. The gauge and its indexing is shown more in figures 2-3 and 5.
Regarding claim 2, and 10 Yan shows a seal assembly 70 figure 5, between the opening in the base and the lower portion of the gauge plate, wherein the gauge plate adjustment assembly is surrounded by the seal assembly such that the seal assembly must be moved out of a sealing position to provide access to the gauge plate adjustment assembly to enable gauge plate adjustment via the gauge plate adjustment assembly (to the same extent as applicant’s—see 112 issues supra).
3. The food product slicer of claim 1, wherein the gauge plate adjustment assembly includes a first set of fasteners by which a gauge plate plane of the gauge plate can be adjusted about a rotational degree of freedom (54 or 32 figures 2, inter alia) and a second set of fasteners by which the gauge plate can be adjusted along a linear degree of freedom (“a plurality of screws inserted in the holes 42 can be tightened down into the groove 36 and "lock" the adjustment…”, wherein the first set of fasteners and the second set of fasteners are located in an upper region of the gap (See figures 2 and 5, inter alia).
The features of claims 10-14 are seen as treated by the art above.
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
Prosecution Insights