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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations “rotating vane”, and “feeding port” in claim 1, “an inwardly convex extrusion rib” in claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term "a upper surface" is read as "an upper surface".
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 1-20 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:
The term “large diameter feed pipe” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is 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.
The phrase “characterized in that one of an end faces of the screw is a feeding end” is not defined. In particular, the term “characterized in that one of an end” is unclear because the limitation is silent with regard to what the term “that one” is referred to. The term “that one” can be referred to anything causing the claim to be indefinite.
The term “its” in line 2 is unclear because the limitation is silent with regard to what the term “it” is referred to. The term “its” can be referred to anything causing the claim to be indefinite.
The claim recites the terms “rotating vane” which is not disclosed in the specification and shown in the drawings; Hence, it is unclear whether the rotating vane is the rotating blade or not.
The term “a feeding pipe” in the last line of claim 1 is unclear whether if “a feeding pipe” is the same as “a large diameter feed pipe” in the first line of claim.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the term “feed inlet”. Since the term “a/the feeding port” in claim 1 is not shown in the drawings, it is unclear whether if the feed inlet in claim 2 is the same as the feeding port in claim 1.
Regarding Claims 4-5, 7-8, 10, each of the claim recites the phrase “a large-diameter feeding pipe”. It is unclear whether if a large-diameter feeding pipe in each of claims 4-5, 7-8 and 10 is the same as large diameter feed pipe in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the terms “a small top” and “a large bottom” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “large” and “small” 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the end face" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the terms “close to the rotating blade”, “section far away”, “the enlarged section”, “smooth section”, “flat key” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “close”, “far”, “enlarged”, “smooth” and “flat” 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.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “the orientation on the end face is the same” is indefinite. Since claim 8 recites the term “the end face” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, it is unclear the orientation on the end face is the same as which limitation.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the term “feed pipe” in line 4. It is unclear whether if the feed pipe in line 4 is the same as large diameter feed pipe in line 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the portion" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the inlet" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It should be noted that based on the ambiguity and obscurity of the claim language, the Examiner has interpreted the claim as best as can be understood and applied prior art accordingly.
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 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.
Claims 1-8, 11-13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Chou (US 20140053741 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chou discloses, a juice extractor assembly (see juicer in Fig. 1) of a large diameter feed pipe (see annotated feed pipe in Fig. 1), comprising a screw (see screw/rotating head 4 in Fig. 1), characterized in that one of an end faces of the screw is a feeding end (see annotated feeding end in Fig. 1), and the screw (4) on its feeding end (see annotated Fig. 1), be connected with rotating vane (as best understood, rotating vane is construed as rotating blade), be covered with a cover (see upper case 5 in Fig. 1) that cooperates with a juice extractor body (see separator 2 in Fig. 1) on a rotating blade (see conical cutter 510 in Fig. 1), the cover (5) on horizontal and vertical direction all completely cover the rotating blade (see Fig. 18), the cover (5) is provided with a feeding port (see material entrance/ feed inlet 540 in Fig. 1), and the feeding port (540) is connected with a feeding pipe (see annotated feed pipe in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
909
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Chou discloses, the juice extractor assembly of large diameter feed pipe according to claim 1, Chou further discloses, characterized in that, a feed inlet (540) is exposed in both horizontal and vertical directions of the cover out of the rotating blade (see Fig. 1), a transition position (see annotated Fig. 18) between the feed inlet (540) and the cover (5) is provided with an inwardly convex extrusion rib (see annotated Fig. 18).
PNG
media_image2.png
568
860
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Chou discloses, the juice extractor assembly of large diameter feed pipe according to claim 1, Chou further discloses, characterized in that, the cover (5) is integrated with the feed pipe (see Fig. 1), and a feed pipe ratio to a largest diameter of the cover is greater than a quarter (see Fig. 18, wherein the diameter of the feed inlet 540 is slightly smaller than the diameter of the upper case 5).
Regarding claim 4, Chou discloses, the juice extractor assembly of a large-diameter feed pipe according to claim 1, Chou further discloses, characterized in that, the cover (5) is a round platform with a small top and a large bottom (see annotated Fig. 18), and the cover is provided with a vertical groove (see annotated Fig. 18) uniformly distributed on an inner wall circumference of the cover (see annotated Fig. 18).
PNG
media_image3.png
528
909
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Chou discloses, the juice extractor assembly of a large-diameter feed pipe according to claim 1, Chou further discloses, characterized in that, the rotating blade (510) is inclined to the rotation direction of the screw (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 6, Chou discloses, the juice extractor assembly of large diameter feed pipe according to claim 5, Chou further discloses, characterized in that, the rotating blade (510) is provided with an acute cutting angle θ (see horizontal blade 512 in Fig. 1) on an edge of an upper end in the direction of rotation of the screw (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Chou discloses, the juice extractor assembly of a large-diameter feed pipe according to claim 5, Chou further discloses, characterized in that, the rotating blade (510) is set at a bottom position in contact with the screw (see Fig. 18) and gradually increases from a top to bottom thickening zone (see Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 8, Chou discloses, the juice extractor assembly of a large-diameter feed pipe according to claim 5, characterized in that, the rotating blade (510) is provided with a groove (see annotated Fig. 18) on the end face connected to the screw (see Fig. 18), a screw rod (see transmission rod 430 in Fig. 18) is provided with a protrusion (see Fig. 18) matching with the groove (see Fig. 18) on an end surface in contact with the rotating blade (see Fig. 18).
PNG
media_image4.png
530
854
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Chou discloses, a juice extractor assembly (see juicer in Fig. 1) of a large diameter feed pipe (see annotated feed pipe in Fig. 1), comprising a screw (see screw/rotating head 4 in Fig. 1); a rotating blade (see conical cutter 510 in Fig. 1) connected to the screw (see Fig. 1); and a cover (see upper case 5 in Fig. 1) having a feed inlet (see material entrance/ feed inlet 540 in Fig. 1) and a feed pipe (see annotated feed pipe in Fig. 1), a plurality of vertical grooves and extruding ribs (see annotated Fig. 18), the cover (5) configured to cooperate with the rotating blade (see Fig. 18).
PNG
media_image5.png
560
1022
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Chou discloses, the juice extractor assembly of claim 11, Chou further discloses, wherein the feed pipe is co-formed with the cover (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Chou discloses, the juice extractor assembly of claim 11, Chou further discloses, wherein a ratio of a diameter of the cover to a diameter of the feed pipe is greater than 1:4 (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 15, Chou discloses, the juice extractor assembly of claim 11, Chou further discloses, wherein the rotating blade (510) is inclined in the same rotational direction of the screw (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 16, Chou discloses, the juice extractor assembly of claim 11, Chou further discloses, wherein the rotating blade (510) is disposed at an acute angle relative to the screw (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 17, Chou discloses, the juice extractor assembly of claim 11, Chou further discloses, wherein the rotating blade (510) includes a groove (see annotated Fig. 18), and the screw (4) includes a protrusion (see the top part of the transmission rod 430 in Fig. 18), the groove configured to receive the protrusion (see annotated Fig. 18).
PNG
media_image4.png
530
854
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Chou discloses, the juice extractor assembly of claim 11, Chou further discloses, wherein the screw (4) includes a feeding zone (see annotated Fig. 10) and a squeezing zone (see annotated Fig. 10), the feeding zone including pushing ribs (see spiral sheets 410 in Fig. 10 and Fig. 12) and the squeezing zone including a plurality of spiral ribs (see annotated Fig. 10).
PNG
media_image6.png
495
903
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Chou discloses, a juice extractor assembly (see juicer in Fig. 1) of a large diameter feed pipe (see annotated feed pipe in Fig. 1), comprising: a cover (see upper case 5 in Fig. 1) including a feed pipe (see annotated feed pipe in Fig. 1) and a feed inlet (see material entrance/ feed inlet 540 in Fig. 1), the inlet having a plurality of vertical grooves and extruding ribs (see annotated Fig. 18), a screw (4) including a feeding zone (see annotated Fig. 10) having pushing ribs (see spiral sheets 410 in Fig. 10 and Fig. 12) and a squeezing zone (see annotated Fig. 10) having a plurality of spiral ribs (see annotated Fig. 10), the pushing ribs (410) configured to push food into the squeezing zone (see Fig. 10), and the plurality of spiral ribs configured to squeeze juice from the food (see Fig. 10); a rotating blade (510) disposed within the cover and connected to the screw (see Fig. 18); and a driving shaft (see rod 430) configured to receive the screw and the rotating blade (see Fig. 18).
PNG
media_image7.png
538
1021
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 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.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou in view of Wang (CN 104970678 A and see PDF translation attached).
Regarding claim 14, Chou discloses, the juice extractor assembly of claim 13. Chou further discloses, the portion of the feed inlet (see Fig. 18).
However, Chou does not explicitly disclose, wherein the portion of the feed inlet includes a plurality of vertical grooves uniformly distributed around a circumference of the portion.
Nonetheless, Wang teaches, wherein the portion (see inner surface 440 in Fig. 4a) of the feed inlet (see static grinding wheel 400 in Fig. 2) includes a plurality of vertical grooves (see third discharge chutes 442 adjacent the crush ribs 441 in Fig. 4a) uniformly distributed around a circumference of the portion (see Fig. 4a, wherein inner surface 440 is formed with a plurality of crush ribs 441 and adjacent the crush ribs 441 are provided with third discharge chute for crushed food out of 442 as disclosed in the specification of Wang).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the portion of the feed inlet of Chou wherein the portion of the feed inlet includes a plurality of vertical grooves uniformly distributed around a circumference of the portion as taught/suggested by Wang in order to guide the crushed food out of the portion of the feed inlet (disclosed in the specification of Wang “the static grinding wheel 400 of cone structure inner surface 440 is formed with a plurality of crush ribs 441. The crush ribs 441 and the crushing tool 551 between in clearance fit for crushing food space is left; adjacent the crush ribs 441 are provided with third discharge chute for crushed food out of 442, the food channel 410 in the wall 471 is further formed with a guide rib 470 on the static grinding wheel set 400 in the crush ribs 441 and movable grinding wheel 500 set on the crushing knife 551 to form first grinding region A (see FIG. 1). the first grinding area A for food crushing and grinding for the first time”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou in view of Pfeiffer (DE 4428014 C2 and see PDF translation attached).
Regarding claim 19, Chou discloses, the juice extractor assembly of claim 11, Chou further discloses, wherein the screw (4) and the rotating blade (510) are secured to a driving shaft (see rod 430 in Fig. 18) with a tool fixing part (see annotated Fig. 18) connected to the driving shaft (see Fig. 18).
PNG
media_image8.png
547
788
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, Chou does not explicitly disclose, a tool fixing screw threadedly connected to the driving shaft.
Nonetheless, Pfeiffer teaches, a tool fixing screw (see small nut 78) threadedly (see thread 80) connected to the driving shaft (see drive shaft stub 40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the tool fixing part of Chou wherein the tool fixing screw threadedly connected to the driving shaft as taught/suggested by Pfeiffer in order to obtain the rotation lock between the shaft and the rotating blade so as securing the screw and the rotating blade when operating (disclosed in the specification of Pfeiffer “The cutting disc 34 , the plate-shaped part 48 , which has the bottom 44 and the peripheral wall 46 of the storage space 42 and the lower grinding disc 50 , and the container 62 are by means of a small nut 78 , which is screwed onto a thread 80 of the drive shaft stub 40 from above is clamped on this. The rotation lock between the drive shaft stub 40 and the counted on parts 34, 48, 62 takes place either by friction or by means of a known positive connection, not shown in the figure”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, Chou discloses, the juice extractor assembly of large diameter feed pipe according to claim 8, Chou further discloses, characterized in that, the screw (4) is enlarged in one direction (see Fig. 10), and the enlarged section (see annotated Fig. 10) close to the rotating blade is a feeding area (see annotated Fig. 10), and a smooth section far away from the rotating blade is a squeezing zone (see annotated Fig. 10), and the squeezing zone (see annotated Fig. 10) is provided with a plurality of spiral ribs (see annotated Fig. 10), and on the feeding zone, a spiral pusher bar (see a spiral sheet 410 in Fig. 10) is provided. Chou further discloses, wherein the screw (4) and the rotating blade (510) are secured to a driving shaft (see rod 430 in Fig. 18) with a tool fixing part (see annotated Fig. 18) connected to the driving shaft (see Fig. 18).
Chou does not explicitly disclose, a drive shaft is provided in a middle of the screw rod, and the drive shaft is connected with the rotating blade by a flat key, and the drive shaft and the rotating blade are connected by a tool fixing screw, the tool fixing screw buckles the rotating blade and is threadedly connected with the drive shaft, an upper surface of the tool fixing screw is set, there are two centrally symmetrical screw holes.
Pfeiffer teaches, a tool fixing screw (see small nut 78) threadedly (see thread 80) connected to the driving shaft (see drive shaft stub 40).
Sun (US 20210212498 A1) teaches, the first auxiliary feeding device 36 further includes: a sealing cover 366 mounted on one end of the first drive shaft 364 protruding from the first through hole 3622, the first dial 362 can be installed through the first through hole 3622 on the end of the first drive shaft 364 protruding from the first mounting hole 3222 and passed through the first dial 362, to improve the installation reliability between first dial 362 and the first drive shaft 364, by setting the sealing cover 366, the upper end of the first drive shaft 364 can be limited to the upper side of the first dial 362, so that the first drive shaft 364 can be prevented from slipping out of the first through hole 3622, which can further improve the connection reliability between the first dial 362 and the first drive shaft 364 (see Fig. 8 and para 0226 and 0227).
However, the modification of Pfeiffer and/or Sun to make “a drive shaft is provided in a middle of the screw rod, and the drive shaft is connected with the rotating blade by a flat key, and the drive shaft and the rotating blade are connected by a tool fixing screw, the tool fixing screw buckles the rotating blade and is threadedly connected with the drive shaft, an upper surface of the tool fixing screw is set, there are two centrally symmetrical screw holes” to reach the claimed invention would be unreasonable and based on hindsight since there is no suggestion or motivation in the references to indicate obviousness in such extensive changes to Chou. No additional evidence was found to reasonably render a case of obviousness against the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is also allowable as being dependent upon claim 9 and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday approx. 6:00 am-3:30 pm ET.
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.
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761