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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/26/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the plurality of blades are arranged perpendicular to each other to form a grid shape” of claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
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 4 and 9 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.
-Claim 4 recites the limitation "the plane where the blade of the second cutter is located" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Regarding claim 9, the phrase “wherein the first cutter is unremovable and fixedly arranged on the sliding body” is unclear. It is unclear how the first cutter is “unremovable” and fixedly arranged on the sliding body. How is the first cutter attached in such a way as to be unremovable? For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as fixed to the sliding body.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kent. (US2023/0080615).
Regarding claim 1, Kent teaches a manual vertical-type vegetable and fruit processing device (Figure 1; Abstract), comprising
a housing (10,14)(Figure 1), a first cutter (70), a second cutter (92) and
a sliding body (12) which slides back and forth relative to the housing, and the housing is provided with a feed port (16,18)(Figure 1; Paragraph 0040-0041 note the carriage is described but not shown in detail) and
a discharge port, wherein the first cutter is arranged on the sliding body (Figures 1-2 noting the discharge of food towards tray 22),
the second cutter is arranged on the housing (Figures 7 and 11; Paragraph 0055),
the first cutter has a first cutting direction, and the second cutter has a second cutting direction, and the first cutting direction and the second cutting direction are perpendicular to each other or substantially perpendicular to each other (Figure 11 noting the main blade 70 and the perpendicular julienne blades 92).
Regarding claim 2, Kent teaches the manual vertical-type vegetable and fruit processing device according to claim 1, wherein a plane where a blade (70) of the first cutter is located is a first cutting plane, and the first cutting plane and the second cutting direction are perpendicular to each other or substantially perpendicular to each other (Figures 7 and 11; Paragraph 0048, 0053).
Regarding claim 3, Kent teaches the manual vertical-type vegetable and fruit processing device according to claim 2, wherein a plane where a blade of the second cutter (92) is located is a second cutting plane, and the second cutting plane and the first cutting plane are perpendicular to each other or substantially perpendicular to each other (Figures 7 and 11).
Regarding claim 4, Kent teaches the manual vertical-type vegetable and fruit processing device according to claim 2, wherein the plane where the blade of the second cutter is located at least comprises a second cutting plane and a third cutting plane, and the second cutting plane and the third cutting plane are perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the first cutting plane respectively (Figures 7 and 11 noting the plurality of julienne blades, each having an individual plane perpendicular to the main blade 70).
Regarding claim 5, Kent teaches the manual vertical-type vegetable and fruit processing device according to claim 1, wherein the sliding body is provided with a protruding part (18) to push vegetables and fruits (Figures 7 and 18).
Regarding claim 6, Kent teaches the manual vertical-type vegetable and fruit processing device according to claim 5, wherein the protruding part is a wedge-shaped surface arranged behind the first cutter (Figures 7 and 18 noting the wedge shape and Paragraph 0048 noting the offset distance from the main blade 70).
Regarding claim 8, Kent teaches the manual vertical-type vegetable and fruit processing device according to claim 1, wherein the second cutter comprises a plurality of blades which are arranged in parallel with each other (Figures 7 and 11).
Regarding claim 9, Kent teaches the manual vertical-type vegetable and fruit processing device according to claim 1, wherein the first cutter is unremovable and fixedly arranged on the sliding body (Figures 7 and 11 noting the main blade attached to the carriage, thus fixed), and the second cutter is removably arranged on the housing (Figure 11 noting the blades are capable of being removed via the knob 84).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent. (US2023/0080615) as evidenced by Tetreault (US2013/0087033) in view of Peterson (US2009/0249936).
Regarding claim 7, Kent teaches the manual vertical-type vegetable and fruit processing device according to claim 1, wherein the second cutter comprises a plurality of blades, and the plurality of blades are arranged perpendicular to each other to form a grid shape.
Tetreault provides evidence that it is known in the art of food slicers to incorporate difference numbers and types or blades, including replacement slicing and julienne blades (Paragraph 0136).
Peterson teaches it is known to include a chopper and slicer including a removable grid of blades that can be replaced into different configurations and shapes including straight, pyramidal, V and other blade types (See Figure 2 noting a cirulcar shape having multiple blades positioned in a grid and perpendicular to each other; Paragraph 0005).
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 Kent to incorporate the teachings of Peterson to provide the plurality of blades perpendicular to each other to form a grid shape. In doing so, it allows for the work product to be cut into a variety of shapes and sizes as desired.
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references A-H,J-M on page 1 and A-C on Page 2 establish the state of the art with a variety of manual type slicing machines with a variety of blade and pushing mechanisms for different workpieces.
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/ 09/14/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights