FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application:
Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774.
Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d). All of the CERTIFIED copies of the priority documents have been received in this national stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
Drawings
The replacement sheets of drawings filed on 26 JUNE 2026 are objected to under 37 CFR § 1.84 in view of the following deficiencies that require correction:
The drawings still contain improper sectional views. The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight (37 CFR 1.84(h)(3)). For example, Figure 2b should be a sectional view taken along line 2b-2b in Figure 2a (not sectional line A-A), Figure 3b should be a sectional view taken along line 3b-3b in Figure 3a (not sectional line B-B), etc. All sectional views should be corrected in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). Moreover, the sectional line designations (“A-A” below “Fig. 2a” on sheet number 3 and “B-B” below “Fig. 3b” on sheet number 4, etc.) must be deleted.
The replacement sheets are otherwise approved for line quality and content.
Applicant should review the specification and drawing Figures to ensure a proper one-to-one correspondence between the specification and drawings in accordance with MPEP 608.01(g) and 37 CFR 1.84(f). The brief description of the drawings and the descriptive portion of the substitute specification filed 26 JUNE 2026 will require revision in accordance with any drawing objections listed herein or those noticed by Applicant during said review.
From MPEP 608.01(g): The reference characters must be properly applied, no single reference character being used for two different parts or for a given part and a modification of such part. See 37 CFR 1.84(p). Every feature specified in the claims must be illustrated, but there should be no superfluous illustrations.
Applicant should thus verify that (1) all reference characters in the drawings are described in the detailed description portion of the specification and (2) all reference characters mentioned in the specification are included in the appropriate drawing Figure(s) as required by 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement figures which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments, or remarks, section of the amendment. Any replacement drawing sheet must be identified in the top margin as “Replacement Sheet” (37 CFR 1.121(d)) and include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even though only one figure may be amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and centered within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheets must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Marked-up Drawings” and accompany the replacement sheets.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 26 JUNE 2026 is NOT approved for entry because it contains improper sectional line designations as outlined above and the alleged “Clean Copy” shows markings as seen, for example, on page 7 reproduced in part below:
PNG
media_image1.png
541
739
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
385
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The title and the substitute Abstract of the Disclosure are approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The inquiry during examination is patentability of the invention as the inventor or a joint inventor regards such invention. If the claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim that which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as his or her invention, the appropriate action by the examiner is to reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
NOTE: Per 37 CFR 1.75(c), dependent claims shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim. Accordingly, by definition, any claims that depend from a claim that is deemed indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) will also be considered indefinite and identified in the list of rejected claims above, even if such claims are themselves free of indefiniteness under § 112(b).
Claim 9: A claim may be rendered indefinite by reference to an object that is variable. For example, the Board has held that a limitation in a claim to a bicycle that recited “said front and rear wheels so spaced as to give a wheelbase that is between 58 percent and 75 percent of the height of the rider that the bicycle was designed for” was indefinite because the relationship of parts was not based on any known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, but on a rider of unspecified build. Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).
Claim 9, line 8 recites the term “thin shaft” - with specific regard to the term "thin shaft", this term is deemed a subjective term. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc. 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Since these claims rely on subjective judgment or opinion to determine at what angle of spray of the atomizer is either sufficient or insufficient to meet the requirements of the claims, the claims are of indeterminate scope.
Claim 9 is of indeterminate scope since it is unclear what shaft sizes are included or excluded by the claim language. Thus, the metes and bounds of this claim are so unclear as to obscure the specific subject matter the claim encompasses. Furthermore, since the geometry is related to a variable (the subjective interpretation of the word “thin”), this claim is further indefinite as reciting a structural element [the shaft] to an undetermined/unspecified variable (see MPEP 2173.05(b)).
Claim 9: “the thin shaft” lacks antecedent basis since this term was deleted in lines 3 and 4.
Claim 16: “the top surface” and “the upper cover” lack antecedent basis.
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 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 terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2112.
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.
The rejection over GB 2304598 A is withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RIEDE (US 004/0168583 A1).
RIEDE discloses a pull type transmission system 10, wherein the pull type transmission system 10 comprises a pull mechanism; the pull mechanism at least comprises a coaxial column, the coaxial column is formed by connecting rotary discs 12 with different diameters (Figure 2 showing a large outer diameter upper disc at 12 and a lower disc of smaller diameter 12 abutting the upper disc at a face, the lower disc having the pull rope 11 wound thereabout); each of the rotary discs 12 having an outer surface capable of allowing a rope to be wound thereabout; the rotary discs with different diameters are connected via a connecting face (similar to the arrangement seen in instant Figure 2b where the lower disc of smaller diameter 11 joins the upper larger diameter disc 11, 121); the pull mechanism is provided with a rope tying position above A-A, the rope tying position is arranged on a side face of the pull mechanism, and a pull rope 11 is connected to the pull mechanism through the rope tying position at one end and is wound around the rope winding area of the lower rotary disc 12 (Figure 2); and the pull mechanism is connected to a resilience mechanism 13 providing a resilience force and is used for retracting the pull rope after the pull rope is pulled out;
wherein the connecting face extends outward and is provided with flange between 11 and 12 in Figure 2 protruding outward from the face;
wherein the rope tying position above A-A in Figure 2 is adjacent to the connecting faces and located above or below the connecting faces;
wherein the rope tying position is a structure that runs through the rotary discs 12, and the pull rope 11 extends outward from the rotary discs 12 - Figure 2;
wherein the resilience mechanism 13 is a set of coil springs 13 and arranged above or below the pull mechanism - Figure 2;
a food processor 1 having the pull mechanism is connected to a transmission mechanism seen in Figure 3 and the transmission mechanism is connected to a food processing device 1 that is operated in a rotating manner - Figure 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's arguments filed 26 JUNE 2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant essentially argues that Riede discloses a rope winding mechanism with a single rope winding area. Therefore, Riede fails to disclose or suggest rotary discs with different diameters, each of which forms rope winding area, as recited in claim 1. Riede also fails to disclose or suggest that a pull rope is configured to be selectively wound around the rope winding area of one of the rotary discs. At least for these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patentably distinct from Riede [references to FANG removed, no longer applied against the claims].
In response, a review of Figure 2 of RIEDE reveals that the element 12 is a cord drum around which a pull-cord 11 may be wound or unwound [0013], [0021]. Thus, RIEDE explicitly discloses that the cord drum, including both lower and upper rotary discs 12 as explained in the rejection, can accept a pull-cord. The examiner sees nothing in Figure 2 of RIEDE or in the disclosure thereof that would preclude a pull-cord from being wound about either the lower disc (actually seen in Figure 2) or the upper disc of the cord drum 12.
In contrast, note GB 2304598 to FANG discloses the upper rotary disc 2 having gear teeth 22 that mesh with gear teeth 41 on the shaft 51 thus constituting a surface on the upper rotary disc which would preclude a pull-cord from being wound about this surface. Accordingly, the rejection over FANG was withdrawn. However, the only structure recited in amended claim 1 with regard to this issue are rotary discs forming a rope winding area. Unlike FANG, the examiner argues the outer peripheral surfaces of the lower and upper discs of the cord drum 12 in RIEDE present an outer surface capable of or suitable for winding a pull-cord thereon for any desired purpose, as disclosed in RIEDE.
Moreover, such an intended use of using both diameters of the instant column to wind a rope has not been afforded any patentable weight because it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647; In re Sebald, 122 USPQ 527; In re Lemin et al., 140 USPQ 273; In re Sinex, 135 USPQ 302; In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641. "[A] statement of intended use.., does not qualify or distinguish the structural apparatus claimed over the reference." In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492 (CCPA 1962); In re Tuominen, 671 F.2d 1359, 1361 (CCPA 1982) ("The only distinction to which Tuominen can aver is a difference in use, which cannot render the claimed composition novel."); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973) ("Appellant's use limitation does not impart a structural feature different from those of the prior art."); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580 (CCPA 1967) ("The claims in issue call for an apparatus or machine, viz. a tape dispensing machine. The manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself."); In re Hack, 245 F.2d 246, 248 (CCPA 1957) ("These cases are merely expressive of the principle that the grant of a patent on a composition or machine cannot be predicated on a new use of that machine or composition.").
Since all of the structural limitations of claims 1+ are met by RIEDE, irrespective of how in the instant invention is used or operated, the rejection in maintained. The claims which actually recite structural elements not taught or suggested by RIEDE are considered allowable as noted above in sections (19) and (20) above .
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Per Rule 1.116(b)(3): “An amendment touching the merits of the application or patent under reexamination may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the amendment is necessary and was not earlier presented.” Thus, an amendment after final lacking such showing will be denied entry.
A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE TO THIS FINAL ACTION IS SET TO EXPIRE THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ACTION. IN THE EVENT A FIRST RESPONSE 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 EXTENSION FEE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) WILL BE CALCULATED FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THE ADVISORY ACTION. IN NO EVENT WILL THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE EXPIRE LATER THAN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS FINAL ACTION. ANY RESPONSE FILED AFTER THE MAILING DATE OF THIS FINAL REJECTION WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MPEP 714.12 AND 714.13 - NO EXCEPTIONS.
NOTE: The examiner of record follows the interview after-final policy set forth in MPEP 713.09:
Normally, one interview after final rejection is permitted. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview [agenda] should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search should be denied. (emphasis added)
The agenda will be made of record per PTO policy.
New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 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. New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution”.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLAIRE X. WANG can be reached at 571-272-1700. 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.
/CHARLES COOLEY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1774
DATED: 28 JULY 2026
Prosecution Insights