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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a horizontal 1 shape” in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraph [0007] discloses preferably, the juicing element includes multiple first forward blades and multiple first reverse blades arranged thereon radially, and the multiple first forward blades are spaced from the multiple first reverse blades, wherein the multiple first and second forward blades and the multiple first and second reverse blades have multiple tips, and the multiple tips of the second forward blades are opposite to the multiple tips of the second reverse blades; the juicing element further includes a first cutter and a second cutter which are mounted on a center of the juicing element in a horizontal 1 shape, wherein the second cutter is opposite to the first cutter, the first cutter has a first cutting portion extending upward, and the second cutter has a second cutting portion extending upward.
Paragraph [0023] discloses the juicing element 4 is a round plate on which multiple first forward blades 41 and multiple first reverse blades 42 are arranged radially, wherein the multiple first forward blades 41 are spaced from the multiple first reverse blades 42, and the round plate 4 includes multiple second forward blades 43 and multiple second reverse blades 44 which are arranged on a center of the round plate 4 in a cross shape or a horizontal 1 shape, wherein the multiple first and second forward blades 41, 43 and the multiple first and second reverse blades 42, 44 have multiple tips, and the multiple tips of the second forward blades 43 are opposite to the multiple tips of the second reverse blades 44. Furthermore, a center of the feeding inlet 31 of the cap 3 is eccentric with a center of the round plate 4.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "fruits and vegetables" at line 5 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this fruits and vegetables is the same as the one recited at line 4. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
The dependent claims are rejected for their inherited deficiencies on rejected independent claim 1.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tseng et al. (US 20080115677).
Regarding claim 1, Tseng et al. discloses a fruit and vegetable juicer (abstract, i.e. a food processor; see figures 2A and 2B) comprising:
a first holder (12, i.e. called a base), a second holder (11, i.e. called a bowl), a filtration mesh (13, i.e. called a strainer basket), a juicing element (21, 22, i.e. called upper and lower grinding discs) connected with the filtration mesh (13, i.e. called a strainer basket) and having multiple blades (212, 221, 222, i.e. teeth and blades), and a cap (14, i.e. called a cover);
the first holder (12, i.e. called a base) including a transmission mechanism (121, i.e. called a driving mechanism/motor) configured to drive the juicing element (21, 22, i.e. called upper and lower grinding discs) to rotate, the cap (14, i.e. called a cover) including a feeding inlet (141) configured to feed fruits and vegetables, such that the juicing element rotates to cut and grind fruits and vegetables (¶ 0003, 0025);
wherein the multiple blades (212, 221, 222, i.e. teeth and blades) of the juicing element 21, 22, i.e. called upper and lower grinding discs) have multiple tips extending radially (see figures 4A, 5, and 6; ¶ 0030, i.e. a plurality of triangle-sectioned and pointed cutting bodies), wherein some of the multiple tips are opposite to the other tips to form multiple forward blades and multiple reverse blades (See the central blades arrangement in figure 5 for example), such that the multiple forward blades and the multiple reverse blades rotate forward or reversely to remove residues and to cut and grind the fruits and vegetables simultaneously ¶ 0030-0032, i.e. two rows directed toward two opposite directions.).
With respect to claim 4, Tseng et al. discloses wherein a center of the feeding inlet (141) of the cap (14) is eccentric (i.e. offset the cover 14) with a center of the juicing element (21, 22, i.e. called upper and lower grinding discs) (¶ 0003, 0008, 0026-0027).
With respect to claim 5, Tseng et al. discloses wherein the transmission mechanism (121, i.e. called a driving mechanism/motor) is configured to drive the juicing element (21, 22, i.e. called upper and lower grinding discs) to rotate forward or reversely after being switched manually or automatically to rotate forward or reversely (¶ 0008, 0026-0027).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng et al. (US 20080115677) in view of Kim (US 20190008307).
Regarding claim 6, Tseng discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein the filtration mesh is closed without any bores.
However, Kim teaches wherein the filtration mesh 400 (fig. 8) is closed without any bores (¶ 0023, 0108, 0109).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a Juice extractor. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tseng and Kim before him or her, to include such a filtration mesh/net of Kim because the ground materials directly fall vertically downwards, so that the residue is very smoothly discharged. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it allows residue or ground materials to directly fall in a vertically downward direction of a juice extracting drum, thereby very rapidly and efficiently discharging the residue and conveniently obtaining the ground materials or a product, such as ice cream, as necessary (¶ 0001)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 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.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zheng et al. (CN 200991140). Zheng et al. (CN 2504999). Blackus (US 20110083566). Cohen et al. (US 7,040,220; US 20060086261; 6,901,849). Chen (US 6,742,447). Tseng et al. (US 6,397,736). Lee (US 20110185921). Lin et al. (WO 03028513). And Krall et al. (US 20080202355).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights