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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement has not been submitted by applicant; therefore, an information disclosure statement has not been considered. For an information disclosure statement to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), the information disclosure statements requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. See MPEP § 609.04 (a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the drive motor device (Claims 1 and 5) and spindle of the drive motor device (Claim 5) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings, specifically Figure 1 and 3, are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Figure 1 fails to show a lifting handle 5 (described in Page 7, Line 14 of the specification) but fails to reference it.
Figure 3 fails to show a stirring member 21 (described in Page 9, Line 3 of the specification) but fails to reference it.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings, specifically Figure 4, are objected to because:
The extending plates 212 are partially missing the hatch marks (referred to annotated Figure 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 9, Line 11: Cutter holder 3 should read Cutter holder 31.
Throughout the specification applicant uses “cutter holder” and “cutter holders” to refer to cutter holder 31 as well as “cutter” and “cutters” to refer to cutter 33. Examiner advises the applicant to be consistent with the nomenclature.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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 "the " in Page 1, Lines 16-17. There are at least two cutter holders and it is unclear which cutter holder is referenced. For the purpose of examination, “the ” is interpreted as “each of the cutter holders having a surface facing the receiving space”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the mounting surface receives a cutter fixedly mounted thereto” in Page 1, Lines 19-20. There are at least two mounting surfaces and it is unclear which mounting surface is referenced. For the purpose of examination, “the mounting surface receives a cutter fixedly mounted thereto” is interpreted as “each of the mounting surfaces receive a cutter fixedly mounted thereto”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the connection arm” in Page 1, Lines 20-21 and Lines 24-25. There are at least two connection arms and it is unclear which connection arm is referenced. For the purpose of examination, “the connection arm” is interpreted as “each of the connection arms”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cutter holder” in Page 1, Lines 21 and 24. There are at least two cutter holders and it is unclear which cutter holder is referenced. For the purpose of examination, “the cutter holder” is interpreted as “each of the cutter holders”.
Claims 2-7, which are dependent on Claim 1, are similarly rejected.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the cutter holder” in Page 2, Lines 3 and 10. There are at least two cutter holders and it is unclear which cutter holder is referenced. For the purpose of examination, “the cutter holder” is interpreted as “each of the cutter holders”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the connection arm” in Page 2, Lines 4 and 9. There are at least two connection arms and it is unclear which connection arm is referenced. For the purpose of examination, “the connection arm” is interpreted as “each of the connection arms”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the cutter holder” in Page 2, Line 14. There are at least two cutter holders and it is unclear which cutter holder is referenced. For the purpose of examination, “the cutter holder” is interpreted as “each of the cutter holders”.
Claim 4, which is dependent on Claim 3, and Claims 5-7, which are dependent on Claim 4, are similarly rejected.
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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (WO2016060290A1), hereinafter "Oh", in view of Hwang et al. (US12383909B2), hereinafter "Hwang" and Maxwell et al. (US20220001389A1), hereinafter "Maxwell" . For text citation of Oh, refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Oh discloses a pulverization pot structure of a kitchen waste pulverization apparatus, which is adapted to connect with a drive motor device of the kitchen waste pulverization apparatus (Fig. 2), the pulverization pot structure comprising: a pulverization pot (Fig. 2, Element 20), which is formed with a receiving space (see the region corresponding to the “receiving space” in the 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Oh reproduced below), the pulverization pot having an opening (Fig. 2; Page 2, Line 19-20 of the machine translation of Oh provided by the Examiner) including a circumference from which a protruding rim protrudes outward (Fig. 2, Element 21; Page 2, Line 19-20 of the machine translation of Oh provided by the Examiner).
Oh further discloses a positioning portion in the form of a notch formed in the protruding rim (see the positioning portion in the 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Oh reproduced below). However, it fails to teach least two positioning portions in the form of notches formed in the protruding rim.
Nonetheless, Hwang teaches a food waste disposer that includes two positioning portions in the form of notches in the protruding rim (Fig. 9, Elements 1111, 1112; Column 18, Line 1-7).
Oh and Hwang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of disposing of food waste. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hwang of having more than one positioning portions into the pulverization pot structure disclosed by Oh to adapt and correspond to the number of grinders provided (Column 18, Line 1-7).
Oh further discloses an axle hole portion being arranged in an interior of the pulverization pot (see the axle hole portion in the 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Oh reproduced below), a stirrer mechanism (Fig. 2, Element 30), which is arranged on the axle hole portion in the interior of the pulverization pot (Fig. 5, Elements 20 and 30 ), the stirrer mechanism (Fig. 5, Element 30) being connectable with the drive motor device (Fig. 5, Element 50) so that the drive motor device drives the stirrer mechanism to rotate (Page 13, Line 14-15 of the machine translation of Oh provided by the Examiner).
PNG
media_image2.png
618
381
media_image2.png
Greyscale
1st annotated Figure 2 of Oh
Oh also discloses a cutter holder mechanism comprising a cutter holder and a connection arm (Fig. 2, Element 13).
However, Oh fails to disclose more than one holder mechanisms each comprising a cutter holder and a connection arm, the cutter holder having a surface facing the receiving space and formed with a plurality of mounting portions, the mounting portions being arranged in a stepped form, wherein each of the mounting portions comprises a mounting surface and the mounting surface receives a cutter fixedly mounted thereto.
Nonetheless, Maxwell teaches two cutter holder mechanisms (Fig. 22C, Elements 2218 and 2220), which are arranged, in a movable manner, in the receiving space of the pulverization pot (Fig. 22A, Elements 2202, 2218 and 2220), the cutter holder mechanisms each comprising a cutter holder and a connection arm (see cutter holder and connection arm in the annotated Fig. 22C of Maxwell reproduced below), the cutter holder having a surface facing the receiving space (Fig. 22A, Elements 2202, 2218 and 2220) and formed with a plurality of mounting portions (see mounting portions arm in the annotated Fig. 22C of Maxwell reproduced below).
PNG
media_image3.png
320
563
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 22C of Maxwell
Oh and Maxwell are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of disposing of food waste. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Maxwell of two cutter holder mechanisms, arranged in a movable manner in the receiving space, each having a connection arm and a cutter holder formed with a plurality of mounting portions into the pulverization pot structure disclosed by Oh to accommodate a top cutting blade and a bottom cross blade member in a removable nature (¶0309, Lines 2-9).
In a different embodiment, Maxwell further teaches, the mounting portions being arranged in a stepped form (Figs. 27A-C, Elements 2716, 2718, 2720, and 2722), wherein each of the mounting portions comprises a mounting surface (Figs. 27A-C, Elements 2716, 2718, 2720, and 2722), and the mounting surface receives a cutter fixedly mounted thereto (Figs. 27A-C, Elements 2708, 2710, 2712, and 2714).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Maxwell of mounting portions arranged in a stepped form, wherein each of the mounting portions comprises a mounting surface and each mounting surface receives a cutter fixedly mounted thereto to accommodate blades with different diameters (¶0341, Lines 11-24).
Maxwell further teaches the connection arm (see annotated Fig. 22C of Maxwell reproduced above) having one end fixed to the cutter holder (see annotated Fig. 22C of Maxwell reproduced above) and an opposite end formed with a retaining portion (see annotated Fig. 22C of Maxwell reproduced above the retaining portion being fit to (Fig. 22A) and retained in a corresponding one of the positioning portions of the pulverization pot (Fig. 22A); wherein the cutter holder is liftable upward by means of the connection arm to be removed out of the pulverization pot (Fig. 22A).
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, the prior art combination of Oh, Hwang, and Maxwell renders the pulverization pot structure of a kitchen waste pulverization apparatus as claimed in Claim 1 unpatentable as explained above.
Oh fails to disclose wherein at least one stop block is provided such that the stop block is fixedly mounted in the receiving space of the pulverization pot and is arranged to stagger with respect to the cutter holder, and the stop block has a surface facing the receiving space and forming a working surface, the working surface being arranged in a stepped form.
Nonetheless, Hwang teaches at least one stop block (Fig. 16, Element 1123) fixedly mounted in the receiving space (Fig. 16, Element 114) of the pulverization pot (Fig. 14, Element 110) and arranged to stagger with respect to the cutter holder (Fig. 16, Element 130) and the stop block has a surface facing the receiving space (Fig. 16, Elements 1123 and 114) and forming a working surface (Fig. 16, Element 1123), the working surface being arranged in a stepped form (Fig. 16, Element 1123).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hwang of incorporating a stop block into the pulverization pot structure disclosed by Oh, the stop block being staggered with respect to the cutter holder and formed in a stepped form to have a shape corresponding to transfer food waste that accumulated on the bottom surface of the pulverization pot without leaving any residue or to stir the food waste (Hwang - Column 18, Lines 45-51).
Regarding Claim 4, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, the prior art combination of Oh, Hwang, and Maxwell renders the pulverization pot structure of a kitchen waste pulverization apparatus as claimed in Claim 3 unpatentable as explained above.
Oh further discloses wherein the stirrer mechanism comprises a stirring member (see annotated Fig. 3 of Oh reproduced below), a drive axle (see annotated Fig. 3 of Oh reproduced below), and a rotation ring (Fig. 3, Element 60), wherein the stirring member (see annotated Fig. 3 of Oh reproduced below) comprises a center axle portion (Fig. 3, Element 301) and at least two plates extending outward from a center defined by the center axle portion (Fig. 3, Element 31) (see distinction between the center axle portion and the plates in the annotated Fig. 3 of Oh reproduced below), and the center axle portion is arranged on and combinable with the axle hole portion of the pulverization pot (Fig. 6), the drive axle extending through the axle hole portion of the pulverization pot and received in the center axle portion (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Oh reproduced above), the rotation ring arranged outside of the pulverization pot (Fig. 6, Page 14, Line 2 of the machine translation of Oh provided by the Examiner), and set at a bottom of the drive axle (Fig. 6), a fastening member (Fig. 4, Element 51) penetrating sequentially through and fastening the rotation ring (Fig. 4, Elements 51 and 60), the drive axle (see annotated Fig. 3 of Oh reproduced below), and the center axle portion (see annotated Fig. 3 of Oh reproduced below; Page 13, Lines 14-18) to form a mechanism of synchronous rotation among the rotation ring (Fig. 4, Elements 51 and 60), the drive axle (see annotated Fig. 3 of Oh reproduced below), and the center axle portion (see annotated Fig. 3 of Oh reproduced below; Page 13, Line 18-19 and Page 14, Line 1-3 of the machine translation of Oh provided by the Examiner).
PNG
media_image4.png
475
516
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Oh
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, the prior art combination of Oh, Hwang, and Maxwell renders the pulverization pot structure of a kitchen waste pulverization apparatus as claimed in Claim 4 unpatentable as explained above.
Oh further discloses wherein the rotation ring (Fig. 5, Element 60) is connected to a spindle (see annotated Fig. 5 of Oh reproduced below) of the drive motor device (Fig. 5, Element 50), so that the drive motor device (Fig. 5, Element 50) drives the stirrer mechanism to rotate (Page 13, Lines 14-15 of the machine translation of Oh provided by the Examiner).
PNG
media_image5.png
521
299
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Oh
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, the prior art combination of Oh, Hwang, and Maxwell renders the pulverization pot structure of a kitchen waste pulverization apparatus as claimed in Claim 4 unpatentable as explained above.
Oh further discloses wherein the drive axle comprises a plurality of seal rings fit thereto (Fig. 4, Elements W; Page 15, Lines 5-7 of the of the machine translation of Oh provided by the Examiner).
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, the prior art combination of Oh, Hwang, and Maxwell renders the pulverization pot structure of a kitchen waste pulverization apparatus as claimed in Claim 4 unpatentable as explained above.
Oh further discloses wherein the plates (Fig. 3, Element 31) extending outward from the center axle portion (see center axle portion in the annotated Fig. 3 of Oh reproduced above), of the stirring member (see stirring member in the annotated Fig. 3 of Oh reproduced above) are structured such that an end of each of the plates is made in a stepped form (Fig. 3, Element 31).
Oh and Hwang fail to teach wherein the stepped form of the end of the plate is corresponding, in an opposite direction, to the mounting portions of the cutter holders and the working surface of the stop block, wherein the ends of the plates are set in a staggered form with respect to the mounting portions of the cutter holders and the working surface of the stop block.
Nonetheless, Maxwell teaches the stepped form of the end of the plate (Fig. 27C, Elements 2707 and 2709) corresponding, in an opposite direction, to the mounting portions of the cutter holders (Figs. 27A-C, Elements 2716, 2718, 2720, and 2722), wherein the ends of the plates are set in a staggered form with respect to the mounting portions of the cutter holders (Fig. 27C, Elements 2707 and 2724; Figs. 27A-C, Elements 2716, 2718, 2720, and 2722; ¶0342, Lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Maxwell and modify the stirrer mechanism of Oh to have plates extending outward from the center axle portion of the stirring member structured such that an end of each of the plates is made in a stepped form, and the stepped form of the end of the plate is corresponding, in an opposite direction, not only to the mounting portions of the cutter holders but also to the working surface of the stop block, wherein the ends of the plates are set in a staggered form with respect to the mounting portions of the cutter holders and the working surface of the stop block such as to chop or process the food waste efficiently (Maxwell - ¶0344, Lines 1-12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20240009678A1
KR20110001116A
WO2010008164A2
KR102632481B1
US20200147824A1
US20240261832A1
CN214974619U
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALONDRA MICHELLE ORTIZ-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9539. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5PM ET.
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, Christopher 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. 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.
/A.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725