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 Status
Claims 1,8,9,12-16 and 23 are amended.
Claim 24 is newly added.
Claims 1-24 are pending and examined as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,7-9,10,11,12,15,16-18, 20-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gibson (US 5,791,237).
With regards to claims 1 and 16, Gibson discloses a press for mincing a produce product (garlic press 10, Fig. 1), comprising: a receiving block comprising a chamber with a surrounding sidewall, a top opening and a bottom opening (bearing unit 14 having sidewalls, a top opening and a bottom opening, Fig. 1); a mincing grill disposed in the receiving block and covering the bottom opening (oval basket 60 has a top planar surface 64 and holes 68, Fig. 1 and 4), the mincing grill comprising a plurality of splitting strips (projections 74, Fig. 1 and 4) oriented to define mincing cells therebetween (between each projections 74 there is a planar surface 64,bottom surface 66 and hole 68 which constitute a cell, Fig. 4), each splitting strip of the plurality of splitting strips having a upper face and a lower surface (each projection 74 has an upper round faced and lower surface connected to planar surface 64, Fig. 4), wherein the upper face has a periodic leading-edge profile including a rounded apex with a leading edge that sweeps down and away from the rounded apex in opposing directions until the sections meet at a bottom land between adjacent apexes (projections 74 have a leading edge profile including a rounded apex that extends and widens at a bottom, Fig. 4) and wherein the upper faces of the plurality of splitting strips have no planar portions that are perpendicular to an axis defined between the upper face and lower surface(the sides of projection 74 are slanted therefore not perpendicular to the claimed axis , Fig. 4) ; a pressing block sized and received to enter the chamber and press any produce product therein into the mincing grill to thereby mince the produce product by tearing (plunger 52 sized to and received to enter the top of oval basket 60 to thereby mince the produce product by mincing, Fig. 1 and 4) as the rounded apexes of the plurality of splitting strips punctures tissue of the produce product then forces the produce product downwards, causing the tissues to tear and be divided into individual pillars of tissue in the mincing cells where the produce product is pressed (rounded tops of projections 74 punctures the food product put into the press, causing the food product to be divided between the projections 74 to be pressed through adjacent holes 68, Fig. 4).
With regards to claims 2 and 17, Gibson discloses wherein the plurality of splitting strips comprises a first plurality of splitting strips extending in a first direction and a second plurality of splitting strips extending in a second direction as seen below:
PNG
media_image1.png
454
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claims 3 and 18, Gibson discloses wherein the first direction is substantially perpendicular to the second direction as seen below:
PNG
media_image2.png
444
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claims 7 and 20, Gibson discloses wherein the plurality of splitting strips includes an upper toothed region and a lower structural region as seen below:
PNG
media_image3.png
487
826
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regards to claims 8 and 21, Gibson discloses wherein the leading edges of the upper toothed region are at an angle of 45 degrees referenced from an underlying line segment or the lower structural region as seen below:
PNG
media_image4.png
408
888
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regards to claims 9 and 22, Gibson discloses wherein the leading edges are concave as seen below:
PNG
media_image5.png
409
902
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 10, Gibson discloses wherein each splitting strip has front facing edges with a constant degree of roundness (projections 74 are rounded and angled all throughout, Fig. 4).
With regards to claim 11, Gibson discloses wherein the receiving block is mechanically coupled to the press block with a hinge (bearing unit 14 is mechanically coupled to the presser unit 12 by pivot pin 16, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 12, Gibson discloses further comprising first and second handles configured to rotate the press block and the receiving block toward each other (elongated U-shaped handle 22 on presser unit 12 and U-shaped handle 42 on bearing unit 14, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 15, Gibson discloses a mechanical linkage that receives mechanical energy and uses the mechanical energy to cause the pressing block to enter the chamber and press any produce product therein into the mincing grill to thereby mince the produce product by tearing (elongated U-shaped handle 22 on presser unit 12 and U-shaped handle 42 on bearing unit 14 are pressed to cause the plunger 52 into bearing unit 14 to cause mincing of a food product, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 24, Gibson discloses wherein the pressing block further comprises an array of protrusions (press plate 50 has protrusions that fit around projections 74, Fig. 1,4), each protrusion of the array corresponding to a separate mincing cell, such that when the pressing block enters the chamber and presses a produce product against the mincing grill, a front end of each protrusion travels into and through its corresponding mincing cell to thereby push the torn pillars of produce product completely out of the mincing grill (when plate 50 is pushed down on projections 74, the food product is pushed between the plate 50 and projections 74 wherein it is pushed through holes 68, Fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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(s) 4-6,13,14,19,22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson as applied to claims 3 and 16 above, and further in view of Kaposi (US7762169B2).
With regards to claims 4 and 19, Gibson does not disclose wherein the first plurality of splitting strips and the second plurality of splitting strips are joined at all points of intersection.
Kaposi teaches wherein a mincing grill having the first plurality of splitting strips and the second plurality of splitting strips are joined at all points of intersection (blade tray 20 has a network of blades 40 having a first plurality of blades and a second plurality of blades that intersect each other to form right angles and form square openings, col 2, lines 12-14, Fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Gibson and Kaposi before him or her, to modify the mincing grill of Gibson to include the plurality of first and second blades of Kaposi because the combination allows for improved and uniform mincing of a food stuff.
With regards to claim 5, Kaposi teaches wherein the apexes of each of the first plurality of splitting strips and the second plurality of splitting strips are coincident (blade tray 20 has a network of blades 40 having a first plurality of blades and a second plurality of blades that intersect and are coincident to each other to form right angles and form square openings, col 2, lines 12-14, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 6, Kaposi teaches wherein the first plurality of splitting strips and the second plurality of splitting strips define square mincing cells (blade tray 20 has a network of blades 40 having a first plurality of blades and a second plurality of blades that intersect and are coincident to each other to form right angles and form square openings, col 2, lines 12-14, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 22, Kaposi teaches wherein the leading edges are straight (blade tray 20 has a network of blades 40 having a first plurality of blades and a second plurality of blades that intersect and are coincident to each other to form right angles and form square openings wherein the blades are straight lines, col 2, lines 12-14, Fig. 1).
With regards to claims 13 and 23, Gibson and Kaposi does not teach wherein the plurality of splitting strips has a thickness in the range of from 0.25mm to 0.75mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the thickness of the splitting strips taught by Gibson and Kaposi, since the applicant has not disclosed that a thickness in the range of from 0.25mm to 0.75mm solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the thickness of the splitting strips taught by Gibson and Kaposi.
With regards to claim 14, Gibson and Kaposi does not teach wherein the plurality of splitting strips has a thickness of t 50 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the thickness of the splitting strips taught by Gibson and Kaposi, since the applicant has not disclosed wherein the plurality of splitting strips has a thickness of 50 mm solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the thickness of the splitting strips taught by Gibson and Kaposi.
Response to Amendment
Drawings submitted 1/26/2026 are accepted and overcome the previous drawing objections.
Claim amendments to claims 8,12-14,21 and 23 overcome the previous 112 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach the amended limitations of claim 1 and 16.
Examiners response: Claim 1 has been amended to include “a press for mincing a produce product, comprising: a receiving block comprising a chamber with a surrounding sidewall, a top opening and a bottom opening; a mincing grill disposed in the receiving block and covering the bottom opening, the mincing grill comprising a plurality of splitting strips oriented to define mincing cells therebetween, each splitting strip of the plurality of splitting strips having a upper face and a lower surface, wherein the upper face has a periodic leading-edge profile including a rounded apex with a leading edge that sweeps down and away from the rounded apex in opposing directions until the sections meet at a bottom land between adjacent apexes, and wherein the upper faces of the plurality of splitting strips have no planar portions that are perpendicular to an axis defined between the upper face and lower surface; a pressing block sized and received to enter the chamber and press any produce product therein into the mincing grill to thereby mince the produce product by tearing as the rounded apexes of the plurality of splitting strips punctures tissue of the produce product then forces the produce product downwards, causing the tissues to tear and be divided into individual pillars of tissue in the mincing cells where the produce product is pressed”. Claim 16 has been amended to include “a mincing grill for a mincer, comprising: a plurality of splitting strips oriented to define mincing cells therebetween, each splitting strip of the plurality of splitting strips having a upper face and a lower surface, wherein the upper face has periodic leading-edge profile including a rounded apex with a leading edge that sweeps down and away from the rounded apex in opposing directions until the sections meet at a bottom land between adjacent apexes, and wherein the upper faces of the plurality of splitting strips have no planar portions that are perpendicular to an axis defined between the upper face and lower surface”. Gibson discloses a press for mincing a produce product (garlic press 10, Fig. 1), comprising mincing grill comprising a plurality of splitting strips (projections 74, Fig. 1 and 4) oriented to define mincing cells therebetween (between each projections 74 there is a planar surface 64,bottom surface 66 and hole 68 which constitute a cell, Fig. 4), each splitting strip of the plurality of splitting strips having a upper face and a lower surface (each projection 74 has an upper round faced and lower surface connected to planar surface 64, Fig. 4), wherein the upper face has a periodic leading-edge profile including a rounded apex with a leading edge that sweeps down and away from the rounded apex in opposing directions until the sections meet at a bottom land between adjacent apexes (projections 74 have a leading edge profile including a rounded apex that extends and widens at a bottom, Fig. 4) and wherein the upper faces of the plurality of splitting strips have no planar portions that are perpendicular to an axis defined between the upper face and lower surface(the sides of projection 74 are slanted therefore not perpendicular to the claimed axis , Fig. 4) ; a pressing block sized and received to enter the chamber and press any produce product therein into the mincing grill to thereby mince the produce product by tearing (plunger 52 sized to and received to enter the top of oval basket 60 to thereby mince the produce product by mincing, Fig. 1 and 4) as the rounded apexes of the plurality of splitting strips punctures tissue of the produce product then forces the produce product downwards, causing the tissues to tear and be divided into individual pillars of tissue in the mincing cells where the produce product is pressed (rounded tops of projections 74 punctures the food product put into the press, causing the food product to be divided between the projections 74 to be pressed through adjacent holes 68, Fig. 4).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761