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 .
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
“A small beveled gear 152” in para. 35;
“a large beveled gear 154” in para. 34.
The terms “small” and “large” are not defined in the specification. It is not clear to what degree and within what tolerance in size the beveled gear should be considered small or large.
Moreover, the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
"the small beveled gear 154" should read “the small beveled gear 152” in para. 35, in order to be consistent with “A small beveled gear 152”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the small beveled gear is affixed to the handle and operable to rotate axially when the handle is turned”, which contradicts the specification description “a large beveled gear 154 is directly connected to the handle 106 such that the large beveled gear 154 rotates axially with the handle 106 when turned” in para. 34 and contradicts the drawings of fig.1B, fig.7, fig. 8, fig. 9, fig.10, fig. 11.
Claims 2-4 are rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 1, as they inherit from claim 1 its contradictions to the specification descriptions.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of examination, “wherein the small beveled gear is affixed to the handle and operable to rotate axially when the handle is turned” will be interpreted in light of the specification descriptions as reading “wherein the larger beveled gear is affixed to the handle and operable to rotate axially when the handle is turned”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 1-4 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 limitations “the second gear” is recited in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as reading “the larger beveled gear”.
The limitation “the large beveled gear” are recited in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as reading “the larger beveled gear”.
The terms “small”, “larger”, “large” in claim 1 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite.
The terms “small” and “large” 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. It is not clear to what degree and within what tolerance in size the beveled gear should be considered small or large.
The term “larger” 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. It is not clear that which beveled gear should be considered as the reference for such a comparison of beveled gear in size.
For the purposes of examination, the terms “small”, “larger”, “large” will be interpreted in consistent with each other as such a description of a comparison in size between the specific two beveled gears as described in the specification and as shown in the drawings of the claimed invention:
The beveled gear which is housed in the cylindrical tray in the L-shaped docking station and is mechanically interconnected with the tertiary gear is smaller than the beveled gear which is housed in the sidewall rising superiorly from the lower surface of the L-shaped docking station.
Regarding Claim 2-4
Claims 2-4 are rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benoit (US-20150257433, of which “Whirlpool Ultimate Collection 77015 150-Watt Slow Juicer” and “Use and Care Guide” are proofs of commercialization for one of its embodiments) in view of Sylvester et al. (Design and Construction of an Orange Juice Extractor, Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2012 Vol III, WCE 2012, July 4-6, London, U.K., 2012) , Henn (US-4700903), and FANG (CN-106438875).
“Whirlpool Ultimate Collection 77015 150-Watt Slow Juicer”, webpage <https://www.amazon.in/Whirlpool-Ultimate-Collection-77015-150-Watt/dp/B01LPQUA16>, 5 pages, 26 Dec 2016, retrieved from Internet Archive Wayback Machine <https://web.archive.org/web/20161226161253/https://www.amazon.in/Whirlpool-Ultimate-Collection-77015-150-Watt/dp/B01LPQUA16> on 27 Feb 2026.
“Use and Care Guide”, Model SJ15 XL UMO, Whirlpool Ultimate Collection 77015 150-Watt Slow Juicer, 2016, retrieved from <https://www.manualslib.com/manual/4153081/Whirlpool-Sj15-Xl-Um0.html#manual> on 25 Feb 2026.
Regarding claim 1, Benoit discloses a juicing apparatus (juice extractor, see Abstract; fig.17 is one of the alternative arrangements of the claimed invention, para. 92; “Whirlpool Ultimate Collection 77015 150-Watt Slow Juicer” and “Use and Care Guide” illustrate the commercial product in market of the embodiment shown in fig.17.) comprising:
a cylindrical receptacle (see fig.17, annotated; also see juicing bowl 5, figure in p2 of “Use and Care Guide”) for housing raw fruit matter (see “Whirlpool Ultimate Collection 77015 150-Watt Slow Juicer” and “Use and Care Guide”);
an L-shaped docking station (see fig. B in p3 of “Use and Care Guide”, annotated) have a planar lower surface (see fig. B in p3 of “Use and Care Guide”, annotated);
a sidewall (see fig. B in p3 of “Use and Care Guide”, annotated) rising superiorly from the lower surface (see fig. B in p3 of “Use and Care Guide”, annotated).
Benoit does not expressly disclose the L-shaped docking station comprising a cylindrical tray within which a small beveled gear is housed; the sidewall housing a larger beveled gear.
Benoit discloses the L-shaped docking station housing a driven beveled gear (beveled gear 254, see fig.17, annotated. The bevel gear 254 is configured to transmit a torque from the drive mechanism through a horizontal shaft and a drive bevel gear 256, para. 92.); the sidewall housing a drive beveled gear (drive beveled gear 256, fig.17, annotated; for the side wall, also see fig. B in p3 of “Use and Care Guide”, annotated).
However, Sylvester discloses a cylindrical tray (the bevel gear casing, Abstract, also see fig.1 of Sylvester, annotated) within which a driven beveled gear (gear, fig.1 of Sylvester, annotated) is housed. Sylvester teaches that the cylindrical tray stabilizes the machine while in operation [Sec III. A. Assembly, p.4].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings by Benoit and Sylvester to include the L-shaped docking station comprising a cylindrical tray within which a driven beveled gear is housed, in order to stabilize the machine including the gear while in operation as taught by Sylvester.
As a result, the combination of the teachings by Benoit and Sylvester discloses the L-shaped docking station comprising a cylindrical tray within which a driven beveled gear is housed; the sidewall housing a drive beveled gear.
Benoit does not expressly disclose an L-shaped handle adapted to rotate axially about an axis point defined by the sidewall; wherein the larger beveled gear is affixed to the handle and operable to rotate axially when the handle is turned.
Benoit discloses an electrically powered horizontal shaft adapted to rotate axially about an axis point (see fig.17, annotated) defined by the sidewall (The bevel gear 254 is configured to transmit a torque from the drive mechanism through a horizontal shaft and a drive bevel gear 256, para. 92. The side drive mechanism includes a drive mechanism such as a belt drive pulley system or a gear drive system. Both drive mechanism alternatives can be configured to transmit power directly to a lower shaft which is configured to engage at least one of the top portions or the bottom portion of the auger, para. 53.); wherein the drive beveled gear is operable to rotate axially along the axis of a horizontal shaft (The bevel gear 254 is configured to transmit a torque from the drive mechanism through a horizontal shaft and a drive bevel gear 256, para. 92. The drive mechanism is configured to drive in a horizontal orientation thereby requiring a mechanism, such as a bevel gear, to translate the torque from the horizontal orientation to the vertical orientation, para. 52.) driven electrically (The side drive mechanism includes a drive mechanism such as a belt drive pulley system or a gear drive system. Both drive mechanism alternatives can be configured to transmit power directly to a lower shaft which is configured to engage at least one of the top portions or the bottom portion of the auger, para. 53. Also see “Whirlpool Ultimate Collection 77015 150-Watt Slow Juicer” and “Use and Care Guide”).
However, for the purpose of constructing a manually operated household orange juice extractor to be portable and used in extraction of juice [Abstract], Sylvester discloses an L-shaped handle (handle, see fig.1 of Sylvester, annotated) adapted to rotate axially about an axis point defined by the sidewall (the axis of pinion shaft, see fig.1 of Sylvester, annotated), wherein the drive beveled gear is affixed to the handle and operable to rotate axially when the handle is turned (see fig.1 of Sylvester, annotated).
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to an L-shaped handle adapted to rotate axially about an axis point defined by the sidewall, wherein the drive beveled gear is affixed to the handle and operable to rotate axially when the handle is turned. It is realized by replacing the operating from electrically to manually, with the purpose of constructing a manually operated household orange juice extractor to be portable and used in extraction of juice as taught by Sylvester.
Benoit does not expressly disclose wherein the larger beveled gear comprising two or more prongs adapted to snap into a mounting.
However, Henn disclose an attachment means for a rotatably supported utensil for chopping or mixing food, wherein a drivable blading element (see fig.3 of Henn) comprising three prongs (20, see fig. 3 of Henn) adapted to snap into a mounting (see fig.1 of Henn, Abstract, col.4, ll. 19-33). Henn teaches “such a mounting method permits an automatic coupling of the drive unit of the kitchen machine without the exchange of component parts, while the imminent risk of injuries is fully eliminated, which affords optimal cutting results and which lends itself to being easily and quickly opened and mounted. Moreover, the attachment is to permit ease of manufacture at low costs.” [col.1, ll. 54-62]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the larger beveled gear comprising two or more prongs adapted to snap into a mounting, in order to realize an easy and quick mounting and to permit ease of manufacture at low costs as taught by Henn.
Benoit does not expressly disclose the larger gear mechanically interconnected with the small beveled gear such that the small beveled gear rotates axially in a direction opposing the larger beveled gear.
Benoit discloses the drive gear mechanically interconnected with the driven beveled gear (see fig.17, annotated) such that the driven beveled gear rotates axially in a direction opposing the drive beveled gear (The bevel gear 254 is configured to transmit a torque from the drive mechanism through a horizontal shaft and a drive bevel gear 256, para. 92.).
Benoit does not expressly disclose a tertiary gear mechanically interconnected to the small beveled gear, the tertiary gear adapted to rotate a reamer or chuck, in the embodiment in Fig. 17.
However, Benoit discloses in another embodiment that a tertiary gear (276, see fig.18, annotated) is added to be mechanically interconnected to the driven beveled gear (272, see fig.18, annotated), the tertiary gear adapted to rotate a reamer or chuck (202, see fig.18, annotated).
Benoit teaches: “Referring now to FIG. 18, a clutch assembly 270 is configured in an offset axis "OA" relative to juicing axis "JA". The clutch assembly 270 is driven by a set of bevel gears 271, 272 to transmit torque through the clutch assembly 270 to an additional gear 274 which engages an auger drive gear 276. This exemplary arrangement may be used to create additional gear ratios that are tunable for juicing particularly fibrous or large food items.” [para. 93]
As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a tertiary gear mechanically interconnected to the driven beveled gear, the tertiary gear adapted to rotate a reamer or chuck, in order to create additional gear ratios that are tunable for juicing particularly fibrous or large food items as taught by Benoit.
The combination of the teachings by Benoit, Sylvester and Henn does not expressly disclose that the driven beveled gear is smaller than the drive beveled gear. Instead, Sylvester discloses the driven beveled gear is larger (gear, fig.1 of Sylvester, annotated) than the drive beveled gear (pinion, fig.1 of Sylvester, annotated) [Sec.II.E, p.2]. Sylvester teaches that transmission ratio is the ratio of speed between pinion and gear, and Sylvester calculated that the ratio of the number of teeth for gear to the number of teeth for pinion is three, where the number of teeth on a gear is directly proportional to its physical size [Sec.II.E, p.2].
However, Fang teaches transmission of food processing appliances can be changed according to needs of different function transmission ratio, with low rotation speed and high torque or with high speed and small torque, the two working states [Abstract, para. 2, p3 of attached translation]. A person of ordinary skill seeking to optimize speed and torque would look to change the ratio of the physical size between drive and driven gears [para. 1 of Background technology, p1 of attached translation].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the choice that the driven beveled gear is smaller than the drive beveled gear, in order to meet a requirement on speed and torque by changing the sizes of drive and driven gears. This is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.I (D).
Accordingly, concerning the gears, the combination of the teachings by Benoit, Sylvesterm, Henn and Fang discloses the L-shaped docking station comprising a cylindrical tray within which a small beveled gear is housed; the sidewall housing a larger beveled gear; wherein the larger beveled gear is affixed to the handle and operable to rotate axially when the handle is turned; wherein the larger beveled gear comprising two or more prongs adapted to snap into a mounting, the larger gear mechanically interconnected with the small beveled gear such that the small beveled gear rotates axially in a direction opposing the larger beveled gear; and a tertiary gear mechanically interconnected to the small beveled gear, the tertiary gear adapted to rotate a reamer or chuck.
PNG
media_image1.png
516
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
596
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 17 of Benoit, annotated Figure in p2 of “Use and Care Guide”, on Fig.17 of Benoit
PNG
media_image3.png
332
582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. B in p3 of “Use and Care Guide”, annotated, pertinent to Fig.17 of Benoit
PNG
media_image4.png
880
1441
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Sylvester, annotated
PNG
media_image5.png
538
426
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
462
426
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 18 of Benoit, annotated Fig. 1 of Henn
PNG
media_image7.png
236
442
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Henn
Regarding claim 2, The combination of the teachings by Benoit and Sylvester discloses wherein the chuck rotates to perform one or more of the following functions within the cylindrical receptacle (Benoit teaches an auger rotates within a cavity to extract juice, para. 92. Sylvester describes a vertical impeller shaft rotating chunk within a goblet to extract juice, see Abstract.): stirring (Any rotating tool in a liquid-filled receptable will inherently stir the contents.), grinding (Benoit discloses the auger processing whole foods and fibrous material, para.92.), juicing (Both Sylvester and Benoit are explicitly titled and described as juice extractors or juicing systems).
Regarding claim 3, Benoit discloses an L-shaped dock cover positioned superiorly to the cylindrical tray (see Fig. 17 of Benoit, annotated, and fig. B in p3 of “Use and Care Guide”, annotated).
Benoit does not expressly disclose the L-shaped cover forming a snap fit with the cylindrical tray. However, Benoit teaches that snap fit engagement is one of known securing method for mounting [para. 58].
Furthermore, Henn teaches snap-in mounting permits an automatic coupling of the drive unit of the kitchen machine without the exchange of component parts, which lends itself to being easily and quickly opened and mounted. Moreover, the attachment is to permit ease of manufacture at low costs [col.1, ll. 54-62].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the L-shaped cover forming a snap fit with the cylindrical tray, in order to realize an easy and quick mounting and to permit ease of manufacture at low costs as taught by Henn.
Regarding claim 4, Benoit discloses wherein the L-shaped dock cover further comprising a cylindrical protuberance rising superiorly therefrom (see Fig. B in p3 of “Use and Care Guide”, annotated).
Benoit does not expressly disclose wherein the L-shaped dock cover further comprising a tapered cylindrical protuberance rising superiorly therefrom.
However, changes in shape for the cylindrical protuberance rising superiorly does not affect the function of the protuberance.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the L-shaped dock cover further comprising a tapered cylindrical protuberance rising superiorly therefrom. The configuration of being tapered therefrom is a matter of choice of which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP § 2144.IV (B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zunjing J Wang whose telephone number is 571-272-0762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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 571-270-5569. 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.
/ Zunjing J Wang /Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761