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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I drawn to claims 1-14 and 16-20 in the reply filed on July 23, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the Groups I and II are not cleanly distinct or mutually exclusive as framed in the office action.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is not found persuasive because the groups initially identified in the restriction requirement mailed on June 05, 2026 require separate classifications, separate statuses in the art, and different fields of search. As a result, the groups present an undue search burden. Further, according to MPEP 806.05, “Related inventions in the same statutory class are considered mutually exclusive, or not overlapping in scope, if a first invention would not infringe a second invention, and the second invention would not infringe the first invention.” Claim 15 would not infringe claim 1, nor would claim 1 infringe claim 15. Thus, claims 1 and 15 have mutually exclusive characteristics.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 “at least two retaining rollers” of Claim 11 and 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Furthermore, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “at least two retaining rollers” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 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 12 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. Claim 12 recites the limitations “engine power stage of the engine.” However, “engine” is not mentioned at any point in the specifications or in any of the other claims. As Claim 12 depends directly on Claim 10 which cites a “motor” (supported by the applicant’s disclosure), the engine of Claim 12 will be understood as a motor for the sake of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 1-4, 8, 10, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 20090049998 A1):
PNG
media_image1.png
663
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
746
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
557
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
483
518
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
632
497
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Kim teaches a juicing module (“juice extractor” Abstract) for cooperating with a preparation vessel (see Figure 2 as annotated “Preparation Vessel”) having
at least one rotatable tool holder (“polygonal shaft” Figure 2 Element 610), comprising
at least one drive interface (“rotary shaft” Figure 2 Element 210) and
at least one juicer tool, wherein the juicer tool can be connected to the drive interface so that a rotation of at least a part of the juicer tool can be effected with a rotation of the drive interface, wherein the juicer tool has
at least one guide body (“screw” Figure 2 Element 200 with a discharge jaw [0046] Figure 2 Element 225) and
at least one sieve unit (“mesh drum” Figure 2 Element 300 [0040] and “rotary brush” [0057] Figure 2 Element 400, with holes as indicated in annotated Fig 2 above),
wherein a relative movement between the guide body and the sieve unit can be effected with a rotation of the drive interface (“drive unit having a polygonal shaft that is inserted into the polygonal shaft hole through the through hole of the waterproof cylinder, and rotating the screw at a low speed” [Claim 1] and as such, the guide body is rotated relative to the sieve unit), and
wherein the guide body and the sieve unit are designed and arranged in such a manner that with a relative movement (rotation of the screw) between the guide body and the sieve unit a food to be juiced can be conveyed (“press[ed]… down Abstract) into
a tapering gap (Figure 3b shows a tapering gap between the minor diameter of the screw and the inner surface of the container in which the screw is contained and operated which meets the limitation of a tapering gap) between the guide body and the sieve unit in order to effect a pressing force on the food to be juiced (“crush the materials fine as the materials are moved downward by the screw 200” 0048]).
Regarding Claim 2: Kim further teaches that the guide body (“screw” Figure 2 Element 200 with a discharge jaw [0046] Figure 2 Element 225) is connectable to the drive interface (“rotary shaft” Figure 2 Element 210) in such a way (shown in Figure 3b as assembled) that a rotation of the drive interface (the polygonal shaft is “to be rotated” [0064]) causes a rotation of the guide body (which initiates “rotation of the screw” [0068]).
Regarding Claim 3: Kim further teaches that the sieve unit (“mesh drum” Figure 2 Element 300 [0040] and “rotary brush” [0057] Figure 2 Element 400) has at least one first sieve (“mesh drum” Figure 2 Element 300 [0040]) with first sieve openings and at least one second sieve (“rotary brush” [0057] Figure 2 Element 400) with second sieve openings (see annotated Fig 2), and wherein the first sieve can be arranged within the second sieve (the rotary brush 400 is mounted between the [outer] housing 500 and the mesh drum” [0057] and as such, due to the circular nature of the elements 300 and 400, element 300 must sit within element 400).
Regarding Claim 4: Kim further teaches that at least one housing is present, wherein the housing (“cover” 100 and “housing” Figure 2 Element 500) has at least one lid opening (“inlet port” Figure 2 Element 110 of the “cover 100 is detachably secured to the housing 500” [ 0065]), at least one juice outlet (“Juice Outlet Port” Figure 2 Element 560), at least one pomace opening (“draff outlet port” Figure 2 Element 570 [0070]) and at least one lid, and wherein the lid opening can be closed by the lid (as the cover 100 is detachably attached to the housing, one of ordinary skill on the art would recognize that the cover when removed constitutes an open position and when installed constitutes a closed position) .
Regarding Claim 8: Kim further teaches at least one gear unit is present, wherein the gear unit (Figure 4 Elements 280 and 590) has at least one adapter element (“intermediate gear” Figure 4 Element 590) for at least indirect interaction with the tool holder (“polygonal shaft” Figure 2 Element 610), of the preparation vessel and at least one output interface (“screw gear” [0063] Figure 4 Element 280) and wherein the gear unit is configured to convert a high rotational speed at the adapter element to a lower rotational speed at the output interface (the gear unit further comprises a “speed reducer” [0062] which “serves to reduce the rotating speed of the motor and makes the screw rotate at a very low speed” [0067] via the screw gear), wherein the gear unit can be inserted at least partially into the preparation vessel (Shown in Figure 3b).
Regarding Claim 10: Kim further teaches a kitchen appliance (“juice extractor” [0039]) comprising at least one kitchen appliance base (“base frame” Figure 5 Element 640), at least one control device (“control device” [0085]), at least one motor (“motor” [0064]), at least one preparation vessel (see annotated Fig 2) and at least one juicing module according to claim 1 (see section regarding Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 14: Kim further teaches a preparation vessel (see annotated Fig 2) for a kitchen appliance (“juice extractor” [0039]), with at least one rotatable tool holder (“polygonal shaft” Figure 2 Element 610) and a juicing module according to claim 1 (See section regarding Claim 1), which is at least partially insertable into the preparation vessel (see figure 2 juicing module is accommodated in preparation vessel).
Regarding Claim 16: Kim further teaches that the first sieve (“mesh drum” Figure 2 Element 300 [0040]) and the second sieve (“rotary brush” [0057] Figure 2 Element 400) can be aligned in at least two different orientations relative to one another, and wherein an overlap of the first sieve openings (see annotated Fig 2) and of the second sieve openings (see annotated Fig 2) is different in the two orientations (Since the rotary brush of Kim can be “rotated” [0057], it can be realigned in relation to the first sieve to create at least two different orientation such that the overlap of the openings of the first and second sieve are different in the different orientations)
Regarding Claim 17: Kim further teaches that a form-fit connection can be formed between the lid (Figure 6 Element 100) and the housing (Figure 6 Element 500) in axial direction of a rotation axis of the juicer tool (Shown in Figure 6)
Regarding Claim 18: Kim further teaches at least one fixing means is present (“securing groove” [0085] Figure 6 Element 665), and wherein the fixing means is configured to fix the juicing module (The “juicing module” of the embodiment shown in Figure 6 is the same as that of Figures 2 and 3 as supported by the text which states that the“screw 200, the mesh drum 300, the rotary brush 400, and the housing 500 are the same as this of the juice extractor according to [the first embodiment shown in figures 2-3] of the present invention [0083]) … a carrying handle (Figure 6 Element 670) of a kitchen appliance base (Figure 6 Element 640) …
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.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20090049998 A1) in view of Arnold (US 20130206771 A1
PNG
media_image6.png
460
442
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5: Kim further teaches a lid holder is present wherein the lid is configured to cooperate with the lid holders (Figure 6 Element 665 “securing groove” [0085]),
Kim does not teach that two lid holders are present. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference of Kim such that there are two lid holders instead of one as it has been held that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this case, the securing grooves 665 provide means for securing the lid during operation. Providing additional securing grooves would allow for a stronger securing of the lid to the invention during operation.
Kim does not teach that the lid holders are configured in such a way that the lid holders can be mounted on the lid only when the lid is completely locked to the housing.
Arnold does teach a food processor (Abstract) wherein two lid holders (“securing overlap” [0019] Figure 4 Elements 21) are present wherein the lid (“Lid” [0060] Figure 4 Element 10) is configured to cooperate with the lid holders (shown in Figure 4) which are configured in such a way that the lid holders can be mounted on the lid only when the lid is completely locked to the housing (the over-engaging portions are only able to enter the engaged position when the “fluid-tight arrangement of the lid 10 on the vessel 6” [0061] is achieved “in the locked state” [0019]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kim with the lid holders as disclosed by Arthur in order to allow the “lid [to] be suitably locked to the…vessel, [wherein the lock is able] to absorb the pressured …or forces that may act on the lid” [0006])
Regarding Claim 11: Kim does not teach that at least two retaining rollers are present, the retaining rollers being movable at least between an open position and a locked position, and wherein at least two lid holders are arranged on a lid of the juicing module in such a manner that, in the locked state, each lid holder interacts with one of the retaining rollers.
However, Arnold does teach a food processor (Abstract) wherein at least two retaining rollers are present (“locking part” [0062] Figure 4 Element 17) the retaining rollers being movable at least between an open position (“lid release position” [0029]) and a locked position (“locking position” [0019]), and wherein at least two lid holders (“securing overlap” [0019] Figure 4 Elements 21are arranged on a lid of the juicing module in such a manner that, in the locked state, each lid holder interacts with one of the retaining rollers (Shown in Figure 4).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kim with the lid holders as disclosed by Arthur in order to allow the “lid [to] be suitably locked to the…vessel, [wherein the lock is able] to absorb the pressured …or forces that may act on the lid” [0006])
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20090049998 A1) in view of Hurom (US 20220240708 A1):
PNG
media_image7.png
663
524
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
612
323
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
731
587
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6: Kim does not teach that at least one pomace container) is present, wherein the pomace container has at least one recess in its outer circumference for interacting with at least one projection) on an inner wall of the preparation vessel.
However, Hurom does teach a teaches a juicing module (“juice extractor” [0067] Figure 1 all elements) with at least one pomace container (“residue cup” [0346] Figure 2 Element 125) wherein the pomace container has at least one recess (See Figure 3 as annotated “Recess” which is shown in interaction with the projection) in its outer circumference for interaction with at least one projection (See Figure 3 as annotated “projection”) on an inner wall of the preparation vessel (Figure 1 Element 100 ( includes 110 and 120))
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kim with the pomace container as taught by Hurom in order to provide a juicer that allows for “improving user convenience” [0061] by containing the pomace in a dedicated location.
Regarding Claim 7: Kim does not teach that a juice container is provided, wherein the juice container can be fastened to a pomace container, wherein the juice container is configured in such a way that, in the assembled state, the juice container is supported at least partially on a handle of the preparation vessel.
However, Hurom (US 20220240708 A1) teaches a juicing module (“juice extractor” [0067] Figure 1 all elements) wherein a juice container (“Juice Extracting Drum” [0336]) Figure 2 Element 280) is provided, wherein the juice container can be fastened to a pomace container (“residue cup” [0346] Figure 2 Element 125), wherein the juice container is configured in such a way that, in the assembled state, the juice container is supported at least partially on a handle (See Hurom Figure 2 As annotated) of the preparation vessel (See Figure 3b as annotated “preparation vessel” Element 200).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kim with the juice container and the pomace container and handle as taught by Hurom in order to provide a juicer that allows for “improving user convenience” [0061]
Claims 11-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20090049998 A1) in view of Hilgers (US 2022/0087479 A1)
PNG
media_image10.png
466
412
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11: Kim does not teach that at least two retaining rollers are present, the retaining rollers being movable at least between an open position and a locked position, and wherein at least two lid holders are arranged on a lid of the juicing module in such a manner that, in the locked state, each lid holder interacts with one of the retaining rollers.
However, Hilgers does teach a food processor (Abstract) wherein at least two retaining rollers are present (“locking device… with rollers” [0016] Figure 1 Elements 23) the retaining rollers being movable at least between an open position (“ unlocked state” [0017]) and a locked position (“locked state” [0017]), and wherein at least two lid holders (See Figure 1 As annotated “Lid Holders” arranged on a lid of the juicing module in such a manner that, in the locked state, each lid holder interacts with one of the retaining rollers (Shown in Figure 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kim with the lid holders and rollers as disclosed by Hilgers in order to allow user to “lock the lid” [0017] and secure it against the forces in the vessel that might act upon it.
Regarding Claim 12: Kim does not teach that the control device is arranged and configured to display to a user, on the basis of recipe data, at least one of setting parameters relating to the juicer tool, and setting information relating to an engine power stage of the engine.
However, Hilgers does teach a food processor (“food processor” [0016] Figure 1 Element 1) the control device (“control device” [0016] Figure 1 Element 10) is arranged and configured to display to a user (“via a user interface” [0018] Figure 1 Element 24), on the basis of recipe data (“digital recipes” [0018] , at least one of setting parameters relating (“parameter[s]” [0023] are based on the recipe in use) to the juicer tool…
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kim with the display as disclosed by Hilgers in order to enable the “user” [0018] to “receive information and instructions from the control device” [0018])
Regarding Claim 13: Kim teaches that the control device (“control device” [0085] is configured to perform a juicing process (extraction of “juice” [0064]) with a predetermined motor power (a “speed reducer” [0062] which “serves to reduce the rotating speed of the motor and makes the screw rotate at a very low speed” [0067] )
Kim does not teach that the control device is configured and set up in such a way that updated setting parameters for the juicer tool are displayed to a user on a display device…wherein the control device is configured and set up in such a way that the motor is operated using recipe data for a juicing process with a predetermined motor power.
However, Hilgers does teach a food processor (“food processor” [0016] Figure 1 Element 1) with a control device (“control device” [0016] Figure 1 Element 10) wherein the control device is configured and set up in such a way that updated setting parameters (“cooking parameters” [0019]) for the juicer tool are displayed to a user on a display device (“touch screen display” [0018]) … wherein the control device (“control device” [0016] Figure 1 Element 10) is configured and set up in such a way that the invention is operated using recipe data (“digital recipes” [0018])
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kim with the display device showing cooking parameters and such that the motor is operated with consideration of the recipe data as disclosed by Hilgers in order to enable the “user” [0018] to “receive information and instructions from the control device” [0018]).
Regarding Claim 19: Kim as modified by Hilgers further teaches that the control device is set up to detect the non-presence of the lid (“the lifting of the lid is detected” [0024] via “weight sensors” [0020] or a “contact sensor” [0020]) and has a display device (“touch screen display” [0018]) via which the user can be “prompted to take an action” [0067] detach
Although, Kim as modified by Hilgers does not explicitly teach that an error message is displayed, the device in question has the capacity to display an error message and detect the non-presence of the lid. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kim as modified by Hilgers to display an error message to the user if a non-presence of the lid holders is detected with the retaining rollers in the locked position.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20090049998 A1) in view of Brezovnik (US 2003/0066438 A1):
PNG
media_image11.png
581
493
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9: Kim further teaches the gear unit comprises at least one housing (see figure 4 as annotated “Housing”) and at least two gear wheels (Figure 4 Elements 590, 440, and 280), wherein at least one gear wheel is formed as a sun wheel (Figure 4 Element 280) wherein the sun wheel is coupled to the adaptor element (“intermediate gear” Figure 4 Element 590)
Kim does not teach at least three gear wheels are formed as planet wheels, wherein the planet wheels have a larger diameter than the sun wheel, and wherein the sun wheel is coupled to the adapter element and the output interface is coupled to the planet wheels.
However, Brezovnik does teach a food processor (“food processor” [0027]) with a gear unit (“gear” unit [0027]) wherein at least one gear wheel is formed as a sun wheel (“sun wheel” Figure 1 Element 9 [0028]) and at least three gear wheels are formed as planet wheels (“hollow-wheel toothed ring 6…and “a plurality of planet wheels 10” [0028] Figure 1 Element 6 and 10) , wherein the planet wheels have a larger diameter than the sun wheel (shown in Figure 1)…and wherein the output interface (“drive shaft” [0028] Figure 1 Element 9.1) is coupled to the planet wheels (“hollow-wheel toothed ring 6…and “a plurality of planet wheels 10” [0028] Figure 1 Element 6 and 10.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kim with the sun wheel and 3 planet wheel orientation as disclosed by Brezovnik in order to avoid an “increase in overall height” typically associate with a “food processor without such a planet gear” [0004] and thus conserve space and manufacturing costs associated with the additional height.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is 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. Regarding Claim 20, the prior art of record (Kim) teaches that the kitchen appliance has a control device (“control device” [0085]) and a motor (“motor” [0064]). However, the prior art of record does not teach that the control device is configured and set up to increase the motor power of the motor if a blockage of the rotation of the juicer tool is detected. Additionally, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art with these features as required by Claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights