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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment and/or arguments submitted on 05/15/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims 1-19 are pending:
Claims 8-15, 18 are withdrawn
Claims 1-7, 16-17, 19 are examined on the merits.
Priority
The office notes that claimed priority document CN 202122819452.0 dated Nov 17, 2021 has not been received by the office.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species C (Fig62-103), C2 (Fig62-67), C10 (Fig78), C13 (Fig78), C18 (Fig93), C27 (Fig92), C29 (Fig103) in the reply filed on 05/15/2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 8-15, 18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/15/2026.
Applicant indicated the following species-claim correspondence: Species C (claims 1-4, 6-15, 17-18), C2 (claim 5), C18, C10 (claim 16), C27 (claim 19), C29 (claim 19)
Claim 8
Limitation “vertical crank handle rotary shaft” is directed towards non-elected Species D (Fig110, crank handle rotary shaft 4006). Instant elected Species C/C2 uses drive block 3024, best seen Fig65/63, and does not use a crank handle rotary shaft. Therefore, Claim 8 is withdrawn.
Claim 9-15, 18 are withdrawn due to dependency upon Claim 8.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/20/2023 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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:
“circulation-driving mechanism” in claim 1
Corresponding structure
Crank disk with scrubber, as informed by Fig62-64
Or Equivalents
“wipe part” in claim 5
Corresponding structure
Wipe surface 3026, as informed by Fig93
Or equivalents
“drive mechanism” in claim 7
Corresponding structure
Ribbed sleeve, as in formed by sleeve 3018 best seen in Fig66/67
Or Equivalents
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.
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 Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Missing and extra spaces
Claim 2/3/4/4, extra spaces
Claim 3/4, missing space near preamble
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (US 5,704,281)
Claim 1
Huang discloses:
“A fruit and vegetable washing apparatus (Fig1-10, best seen Fig1/4), comprising a container (barrel 10), a circulation-driving mechanism (best seen Fig1/3, brush 20 with cover 30 with internal mechanism), and a scrubber (brush 20);
wherein the container (barrel 10) has a circulation passage (Abstract; best seen Fig1/4, full internal void of barrel 10 for the flow of water [as hashed] and food A) formed therein, the circulation passage comprising a fruits/vegetables flowing and staging (intended use) zone (best seen Fig1/2/4, radially outer portion of barrel away from brush 20 and axially lower portion of barrel below baffles 101) and a brush washing (intended use) zone (best seen Fig1/2/4, radially inner portion of barrel near brush 20 and axially upper portion of barrel above baffles 101), wherein when washing fruits/vegetables (functional limitation. Abstract; Fig4, water and food A in arrangement), the circulation passage provides a passageway for wash water and the fruits/vegetables to circulate between the fruits/vegetables flowing and staging zone and the brush washing zone (functional limitation. Abstract; C4L32-49; Fig4, when in use, water and food A may move vertically due to movement of the brush 20);
wherein the scrubber is disposed in the brush washing zone (best seen Fig1/2/4, brush 20 is located within the radially inner portion of barrel near brush 20 and axially upper portion of barrel above baffles 101), and when washing the fruits/vegetables (functional limitation), the scrubber brushes the fruits/vegetables passing through the brush washing zone (functional limitation. Abstract; C4L32-49; Fig4, when in use, brush 20 brushes food A); and
wherein the circulation-driving mechanism (cover 30) is configured to provide a driving force which, when washing the fruits/vegetables, drives the wash water and the fruits/vegetables to circulate in the circulation passage (functional limitation. Abstract; C4L32-49; Fig4, when in use, water and food A may move vertically due to movement of the brush 20, cover 30 with mechanism to rotate brush 20), wherein the fruits/vegetables are brushed when sequentially passing through the brush washing zone (functional limitation. Abstract; C4L32-49; Fig4, when in use, water and food A may move vertically due to movement of the brush 20, food is brushed when in contact with the brush).”
The above noted limitations are considered functional language, and as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. However, the functional language is disclosed as noted above.
Claim 2
Huang discloses: “The fruit and vegetable washing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the scrubber is rotatably disposed in the container (best seen Fig1/4, brush 20 is in barrel 10), and the scrubber serves as the circulation-driving mechanism (best seen Fig1/3, brush 20 with cover 30 with internal mechanism).”
Claim 3
Huang discloses: “The fruit and vegetable washing apparatus of claim 2, wherein the scrubber (brush 20) comprises a scrubber rotary shaft (Fig1, shaft 202) and a brushing portion disposed on the scrubber rotary shaft (Fig1, brushing portion 201 mounted to shaft 202).”
Claim 4
Huang discloses: “The fruit and vegetable washing apparatus of claim 3, wherein the scrubber (brush 20) is disposed in the container (barrel 10) with the scrubber rotary shaft being vertically disposed (Fig1/4, brush 20 is arranged vertically), the brushing portion extends in a direction away from the scrubber rotary shaft (Fig1/4, brushing portion 201 extends radially away from shaft 202), wherein when washing fruits/vegetables (functional limitation), the fruits and vegetables sequentially pass through the brush washing zone (functional limitation. Abstract; C4L32-49; Fig4, when in use, water and food A may move vertically due to movement of the brush 20, food is brushed when in contact with the brush) between the brushing portion (brushing portion 201) and a side wall of the container (inner side wall of barrel 10).”
The above noted limitations are considered functional language, and as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. However, the functional language is disclosed as noted above.
Claim 5
Huang discloses: “The fruit and vegetable washing apparatus of claim 4, wherein an internal side surface of the container is provided with a wipe part (best seen Fig1/4, barrel 10 inner surface with baffle 101 that also performs the function of a wipe part) corresponding to the scrubber (best seen Fig4, brush 20 physically corresponds to baffle 101 in arrangement).”
Claim 6
Huang discloses: “The fruit and vegetable washing apparatus of claim 4, wherein the scrubber (brush 20) is proximal to one end or one side of the container (best seen Fig2/4, brush 20 is proximal to the flats of each side of barrel 10) to facilitate circulation formulation of the wash water and circulation formulation of the fruits/vegetables (functional limitation. Abstract; C4L32-49; Fig4, when in use, water and food A may move vertically due to movement of the brush 20).”
Claim 7
Huang discloses: “The fruit and vegetable washing apparatus of claim 4, wherein the scrubber rotary shaft (shaft 202) being connected (Fig1/2/4, connection between shaft driving portion 203 and axil 304) to a drive mechanism (best seen Fig3, drive mechanism of cover 30) driving the scrubber rotary shaft to rotate (functional limitation. Fig3; C4L7-14).”
Claim 17
Huang discloses: “The fruit and vegetable washing apparatus of claim 4, wherein an anti-splash cover (cover 30) is provided on an upper cover of the brush washing zone (cover 30 covers void of barrel 10).”
Claim 16
Huang discloses: “The fruit and vegetable washing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a baffle part (best seen Fig1/4, baffle 101), wherein the baffle part is disposed in the container (baffle 101 is on inner surface of barrel 10), and the circulation passage surrounds the baffle part (best seen Fig1/4, void of barrel 10 surrounds baffle 101).”
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 5,704,281) in view of Glucksman (US 6,622,618).
Claim 19
Huang discloses the arrangement of claim 1.
Huang is silent to the application of a drain basket within the barrel 10.
Glucksman teaches: “… wherein a drain basket (best seen Fig3/4, basket 22/23) is provided in the container (Fig3/4, container 21), the drain basket is provided with drain holes (holes 58/67), …”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Huang to add an internal drain basket as taught by Glucksman, as the arrangement of Glucksman teaches that the application of a drain basket is a known in the art food cleaner internal container, and that such an application of a drain basket provides water drainage properties when removed from the container / cleaning arrangement with food internal to the basket, and the resulting arrangement has reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Huang with a working and known in the art improved food drainage selection as taught by Glucksman for easily removing food from the overall food cleaning arrangement of Huang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10,058,119 from Chen: Fig7/10, fruit and vegetable washer with internal cleaning projections 355 with drain basket 60 all within container 100
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights