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
The claim to priority as a 371 filing of PCT/EP2021/077861, filed on October 8, 2021, which claims benefit to FR FR2012058, filed on November 24, 2020 is acknowledged in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on May 23, 2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference “64” (Fig. 2); “61a”, “67” (Fig. 3). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 23, it is unclear what “it” is referring to. Examiner is assuming “it” refers to the citrus press.
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) 1-2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner (US Pat. 2,848,939) (cited by Applicant) in view of Li (CN 107898287) (new cited).
Regarding claim 1, Warner discloses an apparatus for extracting juice from whole citrus fruits comprising: a frame (20); an enclosure (via lower mold 22/upper mold 65) disposed in the frame (20) and having a wall delimiting a cavity for receiving a fruit (74), the enclosure having an axis (vertical axis) and an upper opening for introduction of the fruit (74) to be squeezed into the cavity (Fig. 3-5); an extensible membrane (23, 67) disposed in the cavity and extending over all or part of the wall (via 25 and 68) so as to surround the fruit (74) to be squeezed when it is in the enclosure (Fig. 4), a cannula (46) provided with at least one perforation (63), the cannula (46) extending parallel to the axis of the enclosure and being configured to be engaged in the fruit (74) to be squeezed (Fig. 4), the cannula (46) including an inner duct (50) connecting the perforation (63) to an outlet orifice disposed below the cavity for removal of the fruit from the cannula (46) (Fig. 4); an inflation device configured to inflate the extensible membrane (23, 67), so as to compress the fruit (74) to be squeezed fitted onto the cannula (46) in order to extract the fruit therefrom (Fig. 4; Col. 2, Lines 4256; Col. 4, Lines 12-23; Col. 5, Lines 59-75; Col. 8, Line 65 to Col. 9, Line 13); wherein it further includes a displacement device (Fig. 4-5; Col. 3, Lines 48-56; Col. 7, Lines 45-70) for moving the cannula (46) in translation relative to the enclosure along a first direction of displacement parallel to the axis, between an active position in which the cannula (46) extends at least partly into the enclosure to fit fruit (74) and a release position in which the cannula (46) is disposed below the enclosure. Warner does not disclose the release of the squeezed fruit out of the enclosure through a lower opening of the enclosure. Li discloses the release of the squeezed fruit out of the enclosure through a lower opening (via through the pressure plate 61) of the enclosure to the waste cup (8) (Fig. 1-4; Abstract; Par. 29 and 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Warner, the release of the squeezed fruit out of the enclosure through a lower opening of the enclosure, as taught by LI, for the purpose of discharging the squeezed fruit into the collecting container.
Regarding claim 2, Warner discloses a lid (65) configured to obturate the upper opening (Fig. 5), the lid (65) being movable relative to the enclosure between an open position allowing the fruit (74) to be squeezed to enter the enclosure (Fig. 4) via the upper opening , and a closed position in which the upper opening is obturated (Fig. 3-5).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner (US Pat. 2,848,939) in view of Li (CN 107898287) and further view of Hensel (US Pub. 2007/0125244) (new cited).
Regarding claim 3, Warner/LI disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including from Warner, the lid (65) except the lid is pivotally mounted relatively to the enclosure about a first pivot axis which is orthogonal to the axis of the enclosure. Hensel discloses the lid (90) is pivotally mounted relatively to the enclosure about a first pivot axis which is orthogonal to the axis of the enclosure (Fig. 3 and 12-15; Par. 32 and 38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Warner/Li, the lid is pivotally mounted relatively to the enclosure about a first pivot axis which is orthogonal to the axis of the enclosure, as taught by Hensel, for the purpose of suitable to the user application to pivot the dome/lid in open and close position for placing the fruit to be squeezed.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner (US Pat. 2,848,939) in view of Li (CN 107898287) and further view of Obiora et al. (US Pat. 9,642,489) (new cited).
Regarding claim 11, Warner/LI disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above except the frame includes a door which is pivotal along the door axis parallel to the axis of the enclosure. Obiora et al. discloses the frame (via housing 12) includes a door (14) which is pivotal along the door axis parallel to the axis of the enclosure (Fig. 2a and 3a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Warner/Li, the frame includes a door which is pivotal along the door axis parallel to the axis of the enclosure, as taught by Obiora et al., for the purpose of providing the pivot door for storage compartment.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner (US Pat. 2,848,939) in view of Li (CN 107898287) and further view of Nelson (US Pat. 4,917,007) (new cited).
Regarding claim 13, Warner/LI disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above except an inlet for the insertion of a citrus fruit, as well as a rail connecting the inlet to the upper opening of the enclosure. Nelson discloses an inlet for the insertion of a citrus fruit (14), as well as a rail (20) connecting the inlet to the upper opening of the enclosure (Fig. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Warner/Li, an inlet for the insertion of a citrus fruit, as well as a rail connecting the inlet to the upper opening of the enclosure, as taught by Nelson, for the purpose of delivering the citrus fruit to be juiced.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10, 12 and 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 HUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7828. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 9PM.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571)272-5567. 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.
/HUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
HUNG D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761