DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Abstract Objections
The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The invention provides” (ln. 1), “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In re claim 1: the claim is worded awkwardly, has improper capitalization of terms, and at least one antecedence issue; the examiner suggests replacing the claim with the following claim 1:
–A squeezing device comprising:
a squeezing structure provided with a holding cavity, a squeezing cavity and a diversion, the diversion cavity has a connection port I and a connection port II; the diversion cavity is arranged between the holding cavity and the squeezing cavity such that the connection port I is connected to the holding cavity and the connection port II is connected to the squeezing cavity; wherein a cross-sectional area of the connection port I is greater than a cross-sectional area of the connection port II; and
a squeezing head at least partially positioned within the squeezing cavity, wherein the squeezing head is configured rotate relative to the squeezing structure.–
In re claim 2: the claim would be in better form if “has the feature that, the diversion cavity is at least partially of conical diversion cavity or helical diversion cavity” read –wherein the diversion cavity is at least partially conical or helical–.
In re claim 3: the claim would be in better form if “has the feature that, the included angle between the bus bar of the diversion cavity and the horizontal plane is D” read –wherein an included angle between a bus bar of the diversion cavity and a horizontal plane is D–.
In re claim 4: the claim would be in better form if “has the feature that, the cross section” read –wherein a cross-section–.
In re claim 5: the claim would be in better form if “has the feature that, the cross section” read –wherein a cross-section–.
In re claim 6: the claim would be in better form if “has the feature that, the ratio of the cross section diameter of the connection port I to that of the connection port II is not greater than 10” read –wherein a ratio of a cross-section diameter of the connection port I to a cross-section diameter of the connection port II is not greater than 10–.
In re claim 7: the claim would be in better form if “has the feature that,” read –wherein–.
In re claim 8: the claim would be in better form if “has the feature that,” read –wherein–; and “chamber” should be –cavity–; and “the cross section” should be –a cross-section–.
In re claim 9: the claim would be in better form if “has the feature that,” read –wherein–; and “the inner wall” should be –an inner wall–; and “the diversion cavity” should be –the squeezing cavity– (compare fig. 2, 3 of the drawings, discharging part 150 is below connection port II 1132 and, thus, in the squeezing cavity).
In re claim 10: the claim would be in better form if it read:
–A juicer comprising:
a main body; and
a squeezing device according to claim 1, wherein the squeezing device is detachable and attachable to the main body, and the main body is used to drive the squeezing head of the squeezing device for rotation.–
In re claim 11: the claim would be in better form if “has the feature that,” read –wherein–; and “the position signal” should be –a position signal–.
In re claim 12: the claim would be in better form if “has the feature that,” read –wherein–; “the squeezing structure” should be –the squeezing device–; and “and contact with” should be –an makes contact with–.
Appropriate correction for the above list of issues is required.
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 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) 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):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” 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 entirely performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” 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 the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for entirely performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites a function without reciting sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) 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) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“induction part is used to obtain the position signal of the squeezing device” (clm. 11);
“contact part … [makes] contact with the induction part” (clm. 12).
The term “part” is a nonce term, is coupled to the functional language “is used to …” and “makes contact with …” and is not preceded by a structural modifier. Element 140 in fig. 2 of the drawings is the contact part, and element 300 is the induction part. Also see ¶ 58 of the specification.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as entirely performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to entirely perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to entirely perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that forms 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 1-3, 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (CN 204 698 309 U).
In re claim 1: Gao discloses a squeezing device comprising:
a squeezing structure internally provided with a holding cavity, a squeezing cavity and a diversion cavity (see annotated fig. 1 of Gao below), the diversion cavity has a connection port I and a connection port II arranged between the holding cavity and the squeezing cavity such that the connection port I is connected to the holding cavity and the connection port II is connected to the squeezing cavity (fig. 1 below); wherein a cross-sectional area of the connection port I is greater than a cross-sectional area of the connection port II (fig. 1 below); and
a squeezing head at least partially positioned within the squeezing cavity, wherein the squeezing head is configured for rotation relative to the squeezing structure (fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1st Annotated Fig. 1 of Gao
In re claim 2, which depends on claim 1: Gao discloses the diversion cavity is at least partially conical (see fig. 1 above).
In re claim 3, which depends on claim 2: Gao discloses an included angle between a bus bar of the diversion cavity and a horizontal plane is D, and D is greater than or equal to 10° and less than or equal to 80° (see annotated fig. 1 of Gao below).
PNG
media_image2.png
196
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2nd Annotated Fig. 1 of Gao
In re claim 7, which depends on claim 1: Gao discloses the diversion cavity and the holding cavity are eccentrically arranged (see the 1st fig. 1 above).
In re claim 9, which depends on claim 1 and is being examined as best understood: Gao discloses a discharging part arranged on an inner wall of the squeezing cavity (see the 1st fig. 1 above).
In re claim 10: Gao discloses a juicer comprising:
a main body (fig. 1, the base on which the squeezing device of 1st fig. 1 above rests on); and
a squeezing device according to claim 1 (see clm. 1 above), wherein the squeezing device is detachable and attachable to the main body, and the main body is used to drive the squeezing head of the squeezing device for rotation (see fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gao.
In re claim 4, which depends on claim 1: Gao is silent regarding a diameter of a cross-section of the holding cavity being greater than or equal to 100mm and less than or equal to 500mm.
However, because the general conditions of the claim are met by Gao (i.e., Gao discloses all the required structure), it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gao in the claimed manner, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP § 2144.04, subsection IV.A).
In re claim 5, which depends on claim 1: Gao is silent regarding a diameter of a cross-section of the diversion cavity being greater than or equal to 60mm and less than or equal to 200mm.
However, because the general conditions of the claim are met by Gao (i.e., Gao discloses all the required structure), it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gao in the claimed manner, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP § 2144.04, subsection IV.A).
In re claim 6, which depends on claim 4: Gao discloses a ratio of a diameter of a cross-section of the connection part I to a diameter of a cross-section of the connection part II is not greater than 10 (see the 1st fig. 1 above, the diameter of the connection part I about two times the diameter of the connection part II and, thus, the ratio is about 2).
In re claim 8, which depends on claim 1: Gao discloses the squeezing device includes a cover body provided with a feeding port connected with the holding cavity (second material port 42, fig. 1-2).
Gao is silent regarding a diameter of a cross-section of the feeding being not greater than 45mm.
However, because the general conditions of the claim are met by Gao (i.e., Gao discloses all the required structure), it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gao in the claimed manner, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP § 2144.04, subsection IV.A).
Claim 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gao, in view of Guo (CN 106 691 149 A).
In re claims 11 and 12, which depend on claims 10 and 11: Gao is silent regarding an induction part arranged in the main body and used to obtain a position signal of the squeezing device when it is connected to the main body and, from claim 12, the squeezing device also includes a contact part, the contact part is at least partially protruding from the squeezing structure, the main body is provided with a connecting groove, and the induction part is at least partially arranged in the connecting groove; when the squeezing device is connected with the main body, the contact part is inserted into the connecting groove and contact with the induction part.
However, Guo teaches a juicer comprising a main body (30, fig. 5) having an induction part (43, 60) such that when a squeezing device (20) is connected with the main body the induction part obtains a position signal of the squeezing device (§ [0038], ¶ 3-5; § [0048]). And the squeezing device (20) includes a contact part (41), the contact part is at least partially protruding from the squeezing structure (see the figures, it protrudes from the handle), the main body is provided with a connecting groove (fig. 3-4, the groove in which 43 moves up and down), and the induction part is at least partially arranged in the connecting groove (fig. 3-4); when the squeezing device is connected with the main body, the contact part is inserted into the connecting groove and makes contact with the induction part (fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gao in the claimed manner, as taught by Guo, thereby providing Gao with a safety feature by only allowing the juicer to operate when the squeezing device is in the proper position for operation.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Han (CN 110 710 856 A); at least the figures are pertinent to at least various features of the independent claims
Jiang et al. (CN 104 323 693 A); at least the figures are pertinent to at least various features of the independent claims and claim 3
Liu (CN 107 343 736 A); at least the figures are pertinent to at least various features of the independent claims and claim 3
Mei et al. (CN 110 464 224 A); at least the figures are pertinent to at least various features of the independent claims
Park et al. (KR 2015-0094102 A); at least the figures are pertinent to at least various features of the independent claims
Sun et al. (CN 209 074 123 U); at least the figures are pertinent to at least various features of the independent claims
Wang et al. (CN 114 847 744 A); at least the figures are pertinent to at least various features of the independent claims
You et al. (CN 111 109 993 A); at least the figures are pertinent to at least various features of the independent claims
Zou (CN 204 580 854 U); at least the figures are pertinent to at least various features of the independent claims
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jared O. Brown whose telephone number is 303-297-4445. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 5:00 (Mountain Time).
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 complete and submit the Automated Interview Request (AIR) form located at the following website: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher (“Chris”) L. Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center; and for information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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 THE USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725