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 .
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 3 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.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation "the strainer” is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation "the strainer” is interpreted to “the strainer handle”.
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.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wong (US 2007/0256315)
Regarding claim 7, Wong teaches a salad spinner (salad spinner 10) including a strainer bowl (outer bowl 100) and a lid (lid 500) having a drive mechanism (drive assembly 300) with a drive shaft (drive gear 332), the salad spinner comprising:
a strainer basket (inner basket 104) placed within the strainer bowl (outer bowl 102) (See para.[0025] “basket 104 may rotate with respect to bowl 102.”) and having a pivotable strainer handle handle (handle ; see the annotation of fig.8) extending a diameter of the strainer basket (inner basket 104).
Regarding claim 8, W ong teaches a spinning motion of the strainer basket (inner basket 104) is initiated by the drive shaft (drive gear 332) engaging the strainer handle (see fig.[0043.] “the handle 400 is allowed to be folded up and opened … Such movement of the handle 400 causes motion of the gear rack 334 which drives the drive gear 332 to rotate due to the pinion engagement as mentioned above, by which the rotary drive plate 350 is actuated to rotate.”).
Regarding claim 9, Wong teaches the strainer handle (handle; see the annotation of fig.8) includes a centrally disposed aperture and wherein the drive shaft is removably coupled to the centrally disposed aperture (see figs.7-8, , the handle has a aperture with shape disposed centrally on the salad spinner, and drive gear 332 is configured to be removably coupled to the aperture of the handle.)
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.
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 2007/0256315) in view of Taylor (US 2010/0112164).
Regarding claim 1, Wong teaches a salad spinner (salad spinner 10) including a strainer bowl (outer bowl 100) and a lid (lid 500), the lid (lid 500) having an integrated a drive mechanism (drive assembly 300) including a drive shaft (drive gear 332) extending centrally from a bottom portion of the drive mechanism (drive assembly 300) (See fig.5, drive gear 332 extending centrally from a bottom portion of drive assembly 300); the salad spinner (salad spinner 10) comprising:
a strainer basket (inner basket 104) rotatably supported within the strainer bowl (outer bowl 102) (See para.[0025] “basket 104 may rotate with respect to bowl 102.”) and having a pivotable strainer handle (handle; see the annotation of fig.8), the drive shaft of the drive mechanism engaging the strainer handle (handle ; see the annotation of fig.8) to impart rotation to the strainer basket (inner basket 104) (see fig.[0043.] “the handle 400 is allowed to be folded up and opened … Such movement of the handle 400 causes motion of the gear rack 334 which drives the drive gear 332 to rotate due to the pinion engagement as mentioned above, by which the rotary drive plate 350 is actuated to rotate.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
246
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
494
872
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wong does not explicitly teach the handle mounted on an edge of the strainer basket.
However, Taylor teaches the same field of endeavor of a kitchen appliance, comprising a handle (handle 816) mounted on an edge of a basket (filter 120).
PNG
media_image3.png
548
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
362
468
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the basket and handle of Wong with a handle mounted on an edge of a basket as taught by Taylor, in order to easier to carry the basket, since the rearrangement of the handle only involve routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 2, Wong teaches the strainer handle (handle ; see the annotation of fig.8) includes a centrally disposed aperture of a predetermined shape (See fig.8, the handle has a aperture with shape disposed centrally on the salad spinner.).
Regarding claim 3, Wong teaches the drive shaft (drive gear 332) has the same predetermined shape and is configured to be removably coupled to the aperture of the strainer (see fig.7, both of drive gear 332 and the aperture of the handle include gear teeth shape, and drive gear 332 is configured to be removably coupled to the aperture of the handle ).
PNG
media_image5.png
438
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Wong teaches the predetermined shape comprises a geometric shape (See fig.8, the shape is a geometric shape.)
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Wong and Taylor in view of Park (CN 202702288)
Regarding claim 4, the modification of Wong and Taylor does not explicitly teach a chopper centrally placed within the strainer basket and aligned with and configured to engage the aperture of predetermined shape.
However, Park teaches in the same field of endeavor of a kitchen appliance, comprising a chopper (chopper; see the annotation of fig.2) centrally placed within a container (body 20) and aligned with and configured to engage a aperture (rotating port 15) of predetermined shape.
PNG
media_image6.png
686
396
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the salad spinner of the modification of Wong and Taylor by adding a chopper centrally placed within a container and aligned with engage a aperture as taught by Park, in order to provide a device easy to repair, capable of cutting vegetables to various lengths, and easy to manufacture (See para.[0002] of Park).
Regarding claim 6, the modification of Wong and Taylor does not explicitly teach a chopper centrally placed within the strainer basket and aligned with and configured to be engaged by the drive shaft through the aperture of predetermined shape in the strainer handle.
However, Park teaches in the same field of endeavor of a kitchen appliance, comprising a chopper (chopper; see the annotation of fig.2) centrally placed within a container and aligned with and configured to be engaged by a drive shaft (rotating drive unit 12) through the aperture (rotating port 15) of predetermined shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the salad spinner of the modification of Wong and Taylor by adding a chopper centrally placed within a container and aligned with and configured to be engaged by a drive shaft through the aperture as taught by Park, in order to provide a device easy to repair, capable of cutting vegetables to various lengths, and easy to manufacture (See para.[0002] of Park).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Park (CN 202702288)
Regarding claims 10-11, Wong does not explicitly teach a chopper having a chopper rod with chopper blades, a proximal end of the chopper rod defining an opening configured to align with the centrally disposed aperture of the strainer handle.
However, Park teaches in the same field of endeavor of a kitchen appliance, comprising a chopper (chopper; see the annotation of fig.2) having a chopper rod (rod; see the annotation of fig. 2) with chopper blades (blades 33)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the salad spinner of Wong by adding a chopper with a rod and blades, and the drive shaft is removably coupled to a protrusion of the chopper rod as taught by Park in order to provide a device easy to repair, capable of cutting vegetables to various lengths, and easy to manufacture (See para.[0002] of Park), and further modify the chopper and the drive shaft to exchange the protrusion of the chopper and the aperture of drive shaft, so that chopper defining an opening align with the aperture of the strainer handle, in order to provide a desired arrangement of the structure of the chopper, since the rearrangement of parts only involve routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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) 270-5569. 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761