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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/17/2026 has been entered.
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 1-5 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 terms “high speed” and “low speed” in claim 1 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “high speed” and “low speed” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what would constitute a high speed or low speed in the context of the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the reduction gear" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which of the “at least one reduction gear” is being referred to.
The terms “small” and “large” in claims 4 and 5 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “small” and “large” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what would constitute a small or large radius circumference of corresponding gears.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (PGPub# US 2016/0037822 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN208582272).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas teaches a juice extractor capable of serving as a mixer(abstract and figure 15), comprising: a first motor 162 rotating at high speed (par. 13: Motor rotates faster and must be reduced to lower speed for shaft 160.) ; a first driving shaft 161 rotated at high speed by the first motor; a second driving shaft 160 surrounding the first driving shaft such that the first driving shaft and the second driving shaft are is concentrically formed as a dual shaft (figure 13); and a main body comprising a reducer165 disposed between the second driving shaft and a motor shaft 163 and reducing rotation speed of the second motor to rotate the second driving shaft at low speed (par. 13); a mixer module comprising a rotary blade 32 that couples with the first driving shaft and rotates at high speed, and mounted to an upper portion of the main body (par. 61 and figure 2); and a juice-extraction module comprising a screw 14 that couples with the second driving shaft and rotates at low speed (figure 1, par. 61), and mounted to the upper portion of the main body in replacement of the mixer module (figure 1, 2, 13 and 15 and par. 77).
Thomas does not explicitly teach a second high speed motor coupled to the second shaft.
However, Zhang teaches a food processor that utilizes a first motor 3 to drive a shaft 4 and a second motor 6 to drive a second drive shaft 732. (figure 3, par. 39-42) Zhang teaches that the use of separate motors reduces the load and increases service life of the motors. (par. 2-7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied separate motors of Zhang, for each of the drive shafts of Thomas, in order to increase the service life of the motors as taught by Zhang. Further, it would also have been obvious to substitute two independent motors for a single motor operating two drive shafts as they would be simple substitution over each other.
Regarding claim 2, Thomas teaches wherein the reducer comprises at least one reduction gear, meshing and rotating between gear teeth formed on an outer circumference of the second driving shaft and the motor shaft of the second motor (figure 13 par. 77: Gears 164, 165, 167, and 168).
Regarding claim 3, Thomas teaches wherein the reduction gear comprises a first reduction gear meshing with the motor shaft of the second motor, and a second reduction gear meshing between the first reduction gear and the second driving shaft. (figure 13 par. 77: Gears 164, 165, 167, and 168).
Regarding claim 4, Thomas teaches wherein the first reduction gear comprises two steps of first gear teeth formed on a small-radius circumference, and second gear teeth formed on a large-radius circumference, the second gear teeth of the first reduction gear mesh with the motor shaft of the second motor, and the first gear teeth of the first reduction gear mesh with the second reduction gear. (figure 13 par. 77: Gears 164, 165, 167, and 168).
Regarding claim 5, Thomas teaches wherein the second reduction gear comprises two steps of first gear teeth formed on a small-radius circumference, and second gear teeth formed on a large-radius circumference, the second gear teeth of the second reduction gear mesh with the first gear teeth of the first reduction gear, and the first gear teeth of the second reduction gear mesh between gear teeth formed on an outer circumference of the second driving shaft. (figure 13 par. 77: Gears 164, 165, 167, and 168).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5569. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights