Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/642,190

FOOD PROCESSOR

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Mar 10, 2022
Examiner
TEIXEIRA MOFFAT, JONATHAN CHARLES
Art Unit
3700
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Nuc Electronics Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
222 granted / 312 resolved
+1.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
569 currently pending
Career history
881
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.0%
+5.0% vs TC avg
§102
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
§112
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 312 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 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. Claim 6 is 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. In claim 6, the recitation of “at least some crushers comprise a projection protruding against a rotating direction of the screw” is not definite. Claim 6 depends from claim 5, which recites “the container comprises at least one crusher protruding or recessed on an inner wall thereof”. In claim 6, it is not definite whether the recitation of “at least some crushers” refers to the “at least one crusher” of claim 5. In addition, it is not definite how many element(s) claim 6 comprises in the recitation of “the recitation of “at least some crushers comprise a projection…” because ‘crushers’ is plural but ‘projection’ is singular and claim 5 also recites ‘crusher’ not ‘crushers’. For examination purposes, claim 6 is interpreted as referring to the at least one crusher of claim 5. 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. Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 205306708 U to LIAO (“LIAO) in view of WO 2016/072720 A1 to KIM et al. (“KIM”). LIAO discloses: Regarding claim 1: a food processor comprising: a screw (e.g., pressing device 3) formed with a crushing blade (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 24-31); a container (e.g., container 1) in which a base end side of the screw is rotatably accommodated (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 24-31); Regarding claim 9: the food processor of claim 8, wherein the juice-extraction filter comprises: an inner filter (e.g., press cylinder 2) provided to surround the tip end side of the screw and comprising a plurality of slits (e.g., juice holes 23) (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 24-31); and an outer filter (e.g., movable cover 4) detachably coupled to the inner filter to surround the inner filter, and comprising a plurality of plugs (e.g., shielding blocks 41) accommodated in the plurality of slits and forming a micro-gap together with the plurality of slits while coupling with the inner filter (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 24-31), and juice extracted from a food ingredient pressed between the tip end side of the screw and the inner filter is discharged between the outer filter and the filter cover through the micro-gap (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 24-31); Regarding claim 10: the food processor of claim 9, wherein a bottom surface of the container is formed with a juice outlet (e.g., outlet of container 1 seen in Fig. 1) through which juice discharged (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 24-31); Regarding claim 11: the food processor of claim 10, further comprising a discharge-preventing piece (e.g., cover base 22) provided above the juice outlet so that a food ingredient put into the container or a food ingredient byproduct produced while extracting juice from the food ingredient can be prevented from being directly discharged through the juice outlet without passing through the juice-extraction filter (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 24-31); Regarding claim 12: the food processor of claim 11, wherein the discharge-preventing piece is extended from a first side of the inner filter (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 24-31); and Regarding claim 13: the food processor of claim 9, wherein the inner filter comprises a first residue outlet (e.g., outlet holes 21) through which residues remaining after extracting juice from a food ingredient between the tip end side of the screw and the inner filter are discharged (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 24-31), and the residue remaining after extracting the juice from the food ingredient is discharged between the first residue outlet and the tip end of the screw (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 24-31). LIAO does not explicitly discloses an ingredient guider (as recited in claim 1). However, KIM discloses: Regarding claim 1: a food processor comprising: a screw (e.g., screw 500) formed with a crushing blade (e.g., spiral crushing blade 501) (e.g., Fig. 1-7 and 10-13 and para 48-58 and 80-83); a container (e.g., container 100) in which a base end side of the screw is rotatably accommodated (e.g., Fig. 1-7 and 10-13 and para 48-58 and 80-83); and an ingredient guider (e.g., guide 300) extended upward from the container, and comprising an ingredient inlet (e.g., inlet 200) on a top thereof to feed a food ingredient, so that the food ingredient fed through the ingredient inlet can be guided into the container (e.g., Fig. 1-7 and 10-13 and para 48-58 and 80-83), wherein the ingredient guider is eccentrically disposed with respect to the container, and comprises a first side being in contact with an upper side of the container and a second side being in contact with a lateral portion and a lower side of the container (e.g., Fig. 1-7 and 10-13 and para 48-58 and 80-83), and the second side of the ingredient guider comprises a bottom side of an inner surface thereof biased toward a tip end side of the screw (e.g., Fig. 1-7 and 10-13 and para 48-58 and 80-83); Regarding claim 2: the food processor of claim 1, wherein the inner surface of the second side of the ingredient guider comprises an outer line (e.g., lines seen in Fig. 1-7 and 10-13) formed by connecting outermost points of horizontal planes, and the outer line comprises an upper line extended vertically downward, and a lower line (e.g., lines seen in Fig. 1-7 and 10-13) inclined with regard to the upper line from a lower portion of the upper line toward a tip end of the screw (e.g., Fig. 1-7 and 10-13 and para 48-58 and 80-83); Regarding claim 3: the food processor of claim 2, wherein an edge line (e.g., lines seen in Fig. 1-7 and 10-13) forming a boundary between the container and the inner surface of the second side of the ingredient guider comprises a first edge line adjacent to the tip end of the screw with respect to the lower line, and a second edge line adjacent to the base end of the screw with respect to the lower line, and the first edge line is more steeply inclined with regard to a rotary shaft of the screw than the second edge line (e.g., Fig. 1-7 and 10-13 and para 48-58 and 80-83); Regarding claim 4: the food processor of claim 1, wherein the first side of the ingredient guider is extended upward at a position spaced apart from a center of the container in a direction of the first side (e.g., Fig. 1-7 and 10-13 and para 48-58 and 80-83); Regarding claim 5: the food processor of claim 1, wherein the container comprises at least one crusher (e.g., brush 135) protruding or recessed on an inner wall thereof (e.g., Fig. 1-7 and 10-13 and para 48-58 and 80-83); Regarding claim 6, as best understood: the food processor of claim 5, wherein at least some crushers comprise a projection (e.g., brush 135) protruding against a rotating direction of the screw (e.g., Fig. 1-7 and 10-13 and para 48-58 and 80-83); Regarding claim 7: the food processor of claim 1, wherein the screw comprises an ingredient accommodating groove at a first side thereof, in which a food ingredient entering the container through the ingredient guide is at least partially accommodated (e.g., Fig. 1-7 and 10-13 and para 48-58 and 80-83); Regarding claim 8: the food processor of claim 1, further comprising: a filter cover (e.g., cover 130) rotatably accommodating the tip end side of the screw and detachably coupled to the container (e.g., Fig. 1-7 and 10-13 and para 48-58 and 80-83); and a juice-extraction filter (e.g., juice extraction net 600) provided between the filter cover and the screw (e.g., Fig. 1-7 and 10-13 and para 48-58 and 80-83); Regarding claim 10: the food processor of claim 9, wherein a bottom surface of the container is formed with a juice outlet (e.g., juice outlet 122) through which juice discharged between the outer filter and the filter cover is drained (e.g., Fig. 1-7 and 10-13 and para 48-58 and 80-83), and the filter cover comprises a downward surface (e.g., downward surface of cover 130 seen in Fig. 13) inclined toward the container so that juice can flow toward the juice outlet (e.g., Fig. 1-7 and 10-13 and para 48-58 and 80-83); and Regarding claim 11: the food processor of claim 10, further comprising a discharge-preventing piece (e.g., body 510) provided above the juice outlet so that a food ingredient put into the container or a food ingredient byproduct produced while extracting juice from the food ingredient can be prevented from being directly discharged through the juice outlet without passing through the juice-extraction filter (e.g., Fig. 1-7 and 10-13 and para 48-58 and 80-83). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify LIAO as suggested and taught by KIM in order to increase juice extraction rate. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 14-15 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S STAPLETON whose telephone number is (571)270-3492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday regular business hours. 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 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. /ERIC S STAPLETON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 June 12, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 10, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12350762
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR HEIGHT CONTROL IN LASER METAL DEPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 08, 2025
Patent 12349847
MOP HEAD AND SELF-WRINGING MOP APPARATUS AND ASSEMBLY AND METHOD OF WRINGING A MOP
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 08, 2025
Patent 12352306
Workpiece Support For A Thermal Processing System
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 08, 2025
Patent 12350227
BUBBLE MASSAGE FLOAT APPARATUS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 08, 2025
Patent 12343473
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TREATING HYPERAROUSAL DISORDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 01, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+9.9%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 312 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month