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 .
The status of the 02/17/2026 claims, is as follows: Claims 1, 59-60, and 63 have been amended; Claims 67-68 have been added; Claims 17, 21, 25-31 have been withdrawn; Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14, 16, 18-20, 22-24, 32-57 have been canceled; Claims 1, 5, 10, 13, 15, 17, 21, 25-31, 58-68 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The (1) information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 15, 59-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 5408922) in view of Conti (US 20140117130)
Regarding claim 1, Gupta discloses a rotor-stator (fig. 1), comprising:
a rotor (blade 14, motor housing 16; fig. 1) rotatable about a central axis comprising a flute (blade 14) extending outward from the central axis (fig. 1); and
a stator (screen 12; fig. 1) comprising a cylindrical casing surrounding the rotor and comprising one or more holes (“residue remaining inside the centrifuge screen is emptied by removing the cutter blade centrifuge assembly from the vessel”, col. 3, lines 21-26 and “instead it could be cylindrical or of another shape”, col. 3, lines 55-57);
wherein the rotor-stator (fig. 1) is capable of grinding solid edible materials (soya beans) in a liquid (water) (col. 2, lines 58-64).
PNG
media_image1.png
624
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gupta does not disclose the flute comprising a plurality of flutes,
and wherein the plurality of flutes comprises at least two flutes, each extending outward from the central axis at a single respective location on the central axis,
wherein each of the plurality of flutes terminates at a distal end, said distal end comprising a flat surface; and
wherein the rotor-stator is adapted to perform grinding as a result of cooperation between the flat surface at the distal end of each of the plurality of flutes and the stator.
However, Conti discloses a rotor-stator (food processor 10) comprises:
a plurality of flutes (a pair of processing blades 50, 52) (“a pair of processing blades 50, 52 that extend outwardly from a central hub 54”, para. 0033),
and wherein the plurality of flutes (a pair of processing blades 50, 52) comprises at least two flutes (“more than two blades”, para. 0034), each extending outward from the central axis at a single respective location on the central axis (central hub 54) (“the blades may be staggered vertically such that one blade is positioned above or below the other blade”, para. 0035. It is noted that the embodiment relied upon discloses the food processor has more than two blades, wherein the blades are staggered vertically such that one blade is positioned above or below the other blade),
wherein each of the plurality of flutes (each blade 50, 52) terminates at a distal end (annotated figs. 5 and 4), said distal end comprising a flat surface (annotated figs. 5 and 4) (para. 0034-0035) (it is noted each blade 50, 52 is rectangular and lies parallel to the bottom wall of the bowl 20 in the slicing position); and
wherein the rotor-stator (fig. 1) is adapted to perform grinding as a result of cooperation between the flat surface at the distal end of each of the plurality of flutes and the stator (para. 0003) (it is noted the food processor 10 is capable of grinding food by having the blades 50, 52 rotate while the bowl 20/stator holds the food).
PNG
media_image2.png
482
587
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
614
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the flute of Gupta with the plurality of flutes (i.e. more than two blades and each blade is positioned above or below the other blade), wherein each of the flutes extends outward from the central axis at the single respective location on the central axis, wherein each of the plurality of flutes terminates at a distal end, said distal end comprising a flat surface; and
wherein the rotor-stator is adapted to perform grinding as a result of cooperation between the flat surface at the distal end of each of the plurality of flutes and the stator as taught by Conti because the modification involves the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result, which is to grind the food item using the plurality of flutes which improves the grinding speed and improves the contact surfaces between the flutes and the food item, thereby improving the efficiency of the grinding process.
Regarding claim 5, Gupta discloses the rotor-stator (fig. 1), further comprising a baffle (screen lid 24; fig. 1) positioned above the stator (col. 2, lines 60-62).
PNG
media_image4.png
474
418
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Gupta discloses the rotor-stator (fig. 1), wherein the rotor (blade 14, motor housing 16; fig. 1) is adapted to grind edible materials having a unit size within 10% of the size of a horizontal cross-section of the stator addressable for grinding (it is noted the limitation “edible materials having a unit size within 10% of the size of a horizontal cross-section of the stator addressable for grinding” is recitation of a material that is worked upon by the apparatus that does not define or limit the structure of the apparatus claim. See MPEP 2115. The equipment fig. 1 of Gupta is capable of grinding food item whose size is within 10% of the size of the stator because it is fit within the stator’s housing 12).
Regarding Claim 15, Gupta discloses the rotor-stator (fig. 1), wherein the rotor-stator is configured to generate a particle size of 150-1,000 micron (it is noted that the limitation “to generate a particle size of 150-1,000 micron” is a recitation of a manner of operating the device wherein the claimed particle sizes can be generated as a manner of operating the rotor stator wherein the more the rotor stator is used for grinding, the finer the particle size would be, see MPEP 2114. II).
Regarding Claim 59, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above. Conti discloses the rotor-stator (food processor 10; fig. 4), wherein the plurality of flutes (blades 50, 52) comprises at least three flutes extending outward from the central axis (“processing tool 16 may include only a single blade or more than two blades.”, para. 0034. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, more than two flutes includes three flutes), wherein each of the flutes (blade) is positioned at a different plane perpendicular to the central axis and there is only one flute (blade) per plane (para. 0035. It is noted the blades may be staggered vertically such that one blade is positioned above or below the other blade. In other words, one blade is positioned on a plane that is perpendicular to the central axis and another blade is positioned on another plane that is perpendicular to the central axis, either above or below the previously mentioned plane. Therefore, each of the blade is positioned at the different plane perpendicular to the central axis and there is only one blade per plane).
Regarding Claim 60, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above. Conti discloses the rotor-stator (food processor 10; fig. 4), wherein the plurality of flutes (blades 50, 52) comprises at least four flutes extending outward from the central axis (“processing tool 16 may include only a single blade or more than two blades.”, para. 0034. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, more than two flutes includes four flutes), wherein each of flutes (blade) is positioned at a different plane perpendicular to the central axis and there is only one flute (blade) per plane (para. 0035. It is noted the blades may be staggered vertically such that one blade is positioned above or below the other blade. In other words, one blade is positioned on a plane that is perpendicular to the central axis and another blade is positioned on another plane that is perpendicular to the central axis, either above or below the previously mentioned plane. Therefore, each of the blade is positioned at the different plane perpendicular to the central axis and there is only one blade per plane).
Regarding Claim 61, Conti discloses the rotor-stator (food processor 10; fig. 4), wherein the plurality of flutes (blades 50, 52) comprises at least one flute that has a flat surface at a distal end of the flute (“the blades 50, 52 are substantially rectangular”, para. 0034; fig. 4).
PNG
media_image5.png
606
560
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 62, Conti discloses the rotor-stator (food processor 10; fig. 4), wherein the plurality of flutes (blades 50, 52) comprises at least one flute that has a flat surface at a distal end of the flute (“the blades 50, 52 are substantially rectangular”, para. 0034; fig. 4), wherein the flat surface is adapted to perform grinding by cooperating with an inner side wall of the stator (bowl 20) (para. 0003) (it is noted the blades 50, 52 including the flat surfaces are configured to slice, chop, shred food item when in contact with the food item).
PNG
media_image5.png
606
560
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 63, Conti discloses each of the plurality of flutes (blade) is positioned at a different plane perpendicular to the central axis and there is only one flute per plane (para. 0035. It is noted the blades may be staggered vertically such that one blade is positioned above or below the other blade. In other words, one blade is positioned on a plane that is perpendicular to the central axis and another blade is positioned on another plane that is perpendicular to the central axis, either above or below the previously mentioned plane. Therefore, each blade is positioned at the different plane perpendicular to the central axis and there is only one blade per plane).
Regarding Claim 64, Conti discloses the rotor-stator (food processor 10; fig. 4),
wherein the plurality of flutes (blade 50, 52) comprises at least one flute that has a flat lateral surface (annotated fig. 4) extending outward from the central axis (central hub 54) (“the blades 50, 52 are substantially rectangular”, para. 0034).
PNG
media_image6.png
467
539
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 65, Conti discloses the rotor-stator (food processor 10; fig. 4), wherein the plurality of flutes (blades 50, 52) comprises at least one flute that has a flat lateral surface (annotated fig. 4) extending outward from the central axis (central hub 54) (“the blades 50, 52 are substantially rectangular”, para. 0034), wherein the flat lateral surface is adapted to perform grinding by impacting the edible material (“a slicing blade or pair of slicing blades that rotate about an axis to process food items placed in the bowl”, para. 0003. It is noted the blades 50, 52 including the flat lateral surface rotate around the vertical axis and slice or shred food when come in contact with the food).
PNG
media_image6.png
467
539
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 66, Conti discloses the rotor-stator (food processor 10; fig. 4), wherein the plurality of flutes (blades 50, 52) comprises at least one flute (blade 50 or 52) that has a flat lateral surface (annotated fig. 4) extending outward from the central axis (central hub 54), and a flat surface at a distal end of the flute (annotated fig. 4), and wherein the flat lateral surface and the flat surface at the distal end of the flute form a perpendicular edge of the at least one flute (“the blades 50, 52 are substantially rectangular”, para. 0034).
PNG
media_image7.png
467
608
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 67, Conti discloses the rotor-stator (food processor 10; fig. 4), wherein a plane of the flat surface at the distal end of each of the plurality of flutes is arranged parallel to the central axis of the rotor (para. 0034-0035).
PNG
media_image8.png
708
502
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 68, Conti discloses the rotor-stator (food processor 10; fig. 4), wherein the flat surface at the distal end of each of the plurality of flutes comprises a rectangular shape (para. 0034-0035; annotated fig. 4) (it is noted the distal end of the blade 50, 52 has rectangular shape because the blades 50, 52 as shown in figs. 4-5 have rectangular shape and have the distal ends have rectangular shape).
PNG
media_image9.png
482
639
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
614
568
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Gupta (US 5408922) and Conti (US 20140117130) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ren (US 20180084939)
Regarding Claim 13, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above. Gupta discloses the cylindrical casing (cylindrical screen 12; fig. 1) surrounding the rotor (blade 14) comprises a plurality of holes (“residue remaining inside the centrifuge screen is emptied by removing the cutter blade centrifuge assembly from the vessel”, col. 3, lines 21-25).
The modification does not disclose the plurality of holes having a diameter of in the range of 0.01-0.50 mm, 0.50-1.00 mm, 1.00-1.50 mm, 1.50-2.00 mm, 2.00-2.50 mm, 2.50-3.00 mm, 3.00-3.50 mm, 3.50-4.00 mm, or 4.00-4.50 mm.
However, Ren discloses a cylindrical housing (screen body 32; fig. 3) comprising a plurality of holes (pore 321) having a diameter of in the range of 0.01-0.50 mm (from 0.2 mm to 0.8 mm) (para. 0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of holes of the cylindrical casing of Gupta in view of Conti to have the diameter in the range of 0.01-0.50 mm, in order to effectively trap the crushed edible material within the cylindrical housing, thereby allowing only the liquid to exit through the dispensing outlet.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Gupta (US 5408922) and Conti (US 20140117130) as applied to claim 5 above, further in view of Spengler (US 20200269167)
Regarding Claim 58, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the baffle is an integral portion of the stator.
However, Spengler discloses a stator (filter housing 402) comprises a baffle (mounting plate 412) that is an integral portion of the stator (“the mounting plate 412 and the filter housing 402 can be integrated and/or differently separated”, para. 0033).
PNG
media_image11.png
636
422
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baffle of Gupta in view of Conti such that it is the integral portion of the stator as taught by Spengler because the modification involves a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result, which is to form a sealed space between the baffle and the stator for holding the soybeans to be grinded.
Response to Amendment
With respect to claim objections: since amendments made to the claims, therefore the claim objections are withdrawn.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026, with respect to prior art rejections have been fully considered and respectfully not persuasive because:
Applicant’s Arguments: with respect to claim 1 on p. 9 of the Remarks “First, claim 1 recites that the stator comprises "a cylindrical casing surrounding the rotor
and comprising one or more holes." The Examiner has asserted that Gupta's screen (screen 12;
Fig. 1) satisfies the stator element. However, Gupta does not teach use of a cylindrical casing.
Gupta's Fig. 1 plainly shows a conical screen, as illustrated by the excerpt shown on p. 4 of the
Office Action (reproduced below, with the Examiner's annotations). As such, the relied upon portion of Gupta fails to satisfy the cylindrical casing requirement
of claim 1. Furthermore, there is no reasonable basis to assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art ("POSA") would have modified Gupta's configuration to replace the conical screen with a
cylindrical casing. As shown in Gupta's Fig. 1, the conical screen is used to funnel the soybeans
or seeds to the cutter blade (14). If a cylindrical casing were used instead, it would either: (a) reduce the volume of beans/seeds capable of being loaded into the device, if the cylinder width is
less than or the same as the width of the cutter blade (14) element; or (b) result in poor or
incomplete grinding, if the width of the cylinder is larger than the width of the cutter blade (14)
element. A POSA would thus recognize from Gupta's teachings, and the illustrated example, that
a conical screen is the optimal shape and would have no motivation to switch to a cylindrical
shape.
Examiner’s Responses:
The applicant’s arguments are respectfully not persuasive because Gupta discloses the screen 12 (claimed stator) can be cylindrical or of another shape (col. 3, lines 55-56).
With respect to the newly added limitation in claim 1, “the rotor-stator is adapted to perform grinding as a result of cooperation between the flat surface at the distal end of each of the plurality of flutes and the stator.”, the modification of Gupta and Conti would result in the plurality of blades of Conti rotate within the screen 12 of Gupta to produce aqueous liquid of soy beans (col. 2, lines 39-44 of Gupta). The blades of Conti as a whole (i.e. including the flat surface of the distal end of each blade of Conti) cooperate with the screen 12 such that the blades of Conti rotate while the soybeans are held in the screen 12 to grind the soybeans to produce the soybean milk.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gross (US 11076721) discloses each blade has a blade tip 107 (fig. 1).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571)272-9059. 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.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761