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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l) because every line, number, and letter in Figs. 2-6 and 8-14 are not durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined, as required by 37 CFR 1.84(l). The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. See MPEP 608.02. As published in US 20240268594 A1, Figs. 2-6 and 8-14 employ grayscale shading rather than solid black lines, resulting in lines and surface shading that are insufficiently dense and dark for adequate reproduction.
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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the increased width of the toothed layer of the first cutting disc and the toothed layer of the second cutting disc, as recited in claims 7 and 8 (see ¶ [0035], describing a “fourth embodiment” with increased toothed layer width but citing no corresponding figure), 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is a substantial copy of language appearing in the claims (claim 1), including the informalities and lack of antecedent basis present therein. In particular, “surrounding around” (redundant language) and “the multiple spaced cutouts” (lacking antecedent basis, as this term is introduced with “the” without prior recitation). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Applicant is advised that correction of the abstract should be consistent with any correction made to claim 1 to address the objections set forth above.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 7-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
“surrounding around” in line 7 is redundant. The examiner suggests “surrounding around” should be changed to recite “disposed around.”
“the multiple spaced cutouts” in line 12 lacks antecedent basis. The examiner suggests “the multiple” be changed to recite “multiple”, for example “multiple spaced cutouts” in place of “the multiple spaced cutouts.”
Claim 2:
“a respective one tilted teeth” in line 2-3 contains a grammatical error. The examiner suggests the limitation should be changed to recite “a respective one of the tilted teeth.”
Claim 3:
“a slit is defined among” in line 5. The examiner suggests the limitation should be changed to recite “a slit is defined between.”
“generating” in line 6 should read “generated”.
Claims 7 and 8:
“a width the toothed layer” in line 2 should read “a width of the toothed layer.”
Claims 9 and 10:
“has” in line 3 should read “have”.
Appropriate correction of each of the above informalities 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 3, 7 and 8 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 3 recites “such that a slit is defined among the at least one cut fence of the first cutting disc and multiple peripheral teeth of the second cutting disc” in lines 4-6. Claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, recites that the second cutting disc has “a toothed layer radially extending inward around a peripheral side of the second cutting disc” in lines 11-12, but does not recite “multiple peripheral teeth.” It is therefore unclear whether “multiple peripheral teeth of the second cutting disc” in claim 3 refers to the same structure as the “toothed layer” recited in claim 1, or to an additional, separately structured feature of the second cutting disc not otherwise recited. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 3 cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty. Appropriate correction is required. For example, applicant may amend claim 3 to clarify whether “multiple peripheral teeth of the second cutting disc” refers to the “toothed layer” of claim 1 or to an additional structural feature, and, if the latter, positively recite such feature with proper antecedent basis.
Claims 7 and 8 each recites “wherein a width of the toothed layer of the first cutting disc and a width the toothed layer of the second cutting are increased so as to move and cut the fruits and vegetables effectively.” This limitation is indefinite for the following reasons:
First, the phrase “a width the toothed layer of the second cutting” lacks a preposition (“of”) between “width” and “the toothed layer,” and refers to “the second cutting” rather than “the second cutting disc” in claim 1, from which claims 7 and 8 ultimately depend, establishes antecedent basis for “a second cutting disc,” not “second cutting”. As written, it is unclear whether “the second cutting” is intended to refer to the previously recited second cutting disc, rendering the metes and bounds of the claims unclear.
Second, it is unclear what the recited widths are “increased” relative to. Neither claim recites a baseline width, a prior width, or any other point of comparison for either the width of the toothed layer of the first cutting disc or the width of the toothed layer of the second cutting disc, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain when the claimed widths are, or are not, “increased”, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Third, the term “effectively” is a term of degree. Where a claim limitation involves a term of degree, the specification must provide some standard for measuring that degree so that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the metes and bounds of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(b). Here, neither claim sets forth any objective standard for determining what constitutes moving and cutting the fruits and vegetables “effectively”, and the specification likewise provides no such standard, criterion, or threshold (see, e.g., ¶ [0035], which states only that the increased widths allow the fruits and vegetables to be “moved and cut easily” without further elaboration). Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Appropriate correction is required. For example, applicant may amend the claim to recite “wherein a width of the toothed layer of the first cutting disc and a width of the toothed layer of the second cutting disc are increased relative to [baseline/comparator]” or otherwise clarify the intended antecedent basis and point of comparison, consistent with applicant’s disclosure (see, e.g., ¶ [0035], describing the toothed layer widths of a fourth embodiment as “increased more than a size and a width of the toothed layer 511 and toothed layer 523 of the first embodiment”).
For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets “a width the toothed layer of the second cutting are increased” as referring to “a width of the toothed layer of the second cutting disc,” consistent with claim 1’s recitation of “a second cutting disc” and the toothed layer thereof. The examiner further interprets “increased” as meaning a width greater than a width of a corresponding toothed layer of a comparable cutting disc not having the recited increased width, consistent with the specification’s description of a toothed layer width increased relative to that of a first embodiment (¶ [0035]). The examiner interprets “effectively” as a non-limiting statement of intended result, not imposing any specific structural or quantitative requirement beyond the increased width itself.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20070089615 A1), in view of Fister et al. (US 20130068116 A1) hereinafter Fister.
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches, in Fig. 1,
a fruit and vegetable juicer (¶ [0006]: “juice extractor”; Fig. 1) comprising:
a first holder (annotated Fig. 1: “middle body portion”; ¶ [0016]: “The grind blade assembly … comprises a fixed and ring-shaped upper grind blade 1 and a rotatable lower grind blade 2”; ¶ [0017]: “Three holes 24 are defined through the lower grind blade 2 so as to be fixed on the frame 41”; the examiner interprets the middle body portion as annotated in Fig. 1 that includes the frame 41 having the grind blade assembly as corresponding to the claimed first holder),
a second holder (annotated Fig. 1: “bottom body portion”; the bottom body portion is annotated in Fig. 1. The bottom body portion includes a drive shaft from the motor 4, and is connected to the frame 41 having the grind blade assembly),
a filtration mesh (34, “filtering member”),
a cutter assembly (Fig. 2: “grind blade assembly”), and
a cap (3, “top portion),
the second holder (“bottom body portion”) including a drive shaft (annotated Fig. 1: “drive shaft”) configured to connect with the cutter assembly (“grind blade assembly”) (the configuration is shown in annotated Fig. 1) so that the cutter assembly (“grind blade assembly”) rotates (the examiner interprets the limitation “the cutter assembly rotates” to correspond to Wu’s grind blade assembly including the rotatable lower grind blade. This interpretation is consistent with the instant specification, which repeatedly describes the cutting operation in terms of the second cutting disc rotating as in e.g., ¶¶ [0031]-[0033], rather than requiring every component of the cutter assembly to rotate) at a high speed to cut fruits and vegetables (Wu teaches a motor-driven juice extractor including a rotatable lower grind blade for grinding fruits and vegetables. The recited high-speed rotation is an inherent operating characteristic of Wu’s motor-driven grind blade assembly) which are fed from an inlet (32, “inlet”) of the cap (3), thus juicing the fruits and vegetables (¶ [0015]: “Fruits can be put into the extruder via the inlet 32 … The fruits are then ground by the grind blade assembly… and juice is collected from the spout 31”);
wherein the cutter assembly (“grind blade assembly”) includes a first cutting disc (Fig. 2: 1, “upper grind blade”) and a second cutting disc (Fig. 2: 2, “lower grind blade”), the first cutting disc (1) has a toothed layer (¶ [0016]: “The upper grind blade 1 includes a plurality of first teeth 11 located on an underside thereof and the first teeth 1[1] are located in radial direction”; Fig. 2; the examiner interprets a toothed region including a plurality of first teeth arranged on the upper grind blade as the claimed toothed layer) surrounding around a peripheral side thereof (the configuration shown in Fig. 2), a circular orifice (¶ [0002]; “central hole”) defined on a central portion of the first cutting disc (1) (Fig. 2; ¶ [0002]: “The upper grind blade [1] is a ring-shaped member and includes a central hole so that fruit passes through the central hole of the upper grind blade”), and multiple spaced recesses (Fig. 2: 12, “annular recess”) extending on the first cutting disc (1) (the arrangement of recesses is shown in Fig. 2); and
wherein the second cutting disc (2) has multiple central teeth (Fig. 2: 22, “first blades”), multiple toothed rows (Fig. 2: 23, “second blades”) radially extending outward from the multiple central teeth (22) (the configuration of the second blades 23 is shown in Fig. 2), a toothed layer (¶ [0017]: “A plurality of second teeth 21 are defined in a ring-shaped area of a top surface of the lower grind blade 2”; Fig. 2; the examiner interprets a toothed region including a plurality of second teeth 21 arranged on the lower grind blade as the claimed toothed layer) radially extending inward around a peripheral side of the second cutting disc (2) (the arrangement of the second teeth is shown in Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
583
1117
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Wu
PNG
media_image2.png
512
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Wu
Regarding claim 1, Wu does not explicitly teach the multiple spaced cutouts defined on the second cutting disc.
However, Fister teaches, in Fig. 2, a fruit and vegetable juicer (“food processor”; ¶ [0002]: “A food processor … to prepare food by juicing … for example, as a centrifugal juicer for extracting juice”) wherein multiple spaced cutouts (28, “groove”) are defined on the second cutting disc (4, “grating disc”) (the examiner interprets the plurality of spaced grooves 28 shown in Fig. 2 as corresponding to the claimed multiple spaced cutouts because both comprise spaced recesses formed in the cutting disc).
Wu and Fister are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of food processing devices that prepare food by juicing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wu’s lower grind blade to include the spaced grooves taught by Fister, thereby providing spaced cutouts “extending from an inner region to an outer edge of the grating disc,” in order to “make[] it possible for the food particles to be transported outwardly better and faster.” Fister, ¶ [0010].
PNG
media_image3.png
250
350
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Fister
Regarding claim 7, Wu in view of Fister teaches the fruit and vegetable juicer (Wu: “juice extractor”) as claimed in claim 1, including a toothed layer of the first cutting disc (Wu: 11, “first teeth”) and a toothed layer of the second cutting disc (Wu: 21, “second teeth”), but does not explicitly teach wherein a width of the toothed layer of the first cutting disc and a width the toothed layer of the second cutting are increased so as to move and cut the fruits and vegetables effectively.
However, Wu discloses the first teeth (11) and second teeth (21) of the first and second cutting discs cooperate to cut and grind the fruits and vegetables (¶ [0017]: “The fruits are ground by the fi[r]st and second blades 22, 23 and enter into the space between the first and second teeth 11, 21 via the recess 12. The first and second teeth 11, 21 are straight teeth and extend in radial direction so that the juice can go through the paths between the straight teeth 11, 21), such that the radial width of the toothed layers directly determines the available cutting/grinding surface area and travel path through which the fruits and vegetables must pass to be ground and juiced. Accordingly, it would have been recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art that increasing the width of the toothed layer of the first cutting disc and the toothed layer of the second cutting disc increases the cutting/grinding surface area and residence time of the fruits and vegetables within the toothed layers, thereby predictably enhancing the cutting and juicing effectiveness of the juicer. The width of the toothed layer is therefore recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result (cutting/juicing effectiveness) and which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized through routine experimentation to achieve a desired degree of cutting/juicing performance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have increased the width of the toothed layer of the first cutting disc and the toothed layer of the second cutting disc of Wu and Fister, through routine experimentation, since discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
Regarding claim 9, Wu in view of Fister teaches the fruit and vegetable juicer (Wu: “juice extractor”) as claimed in claim 1, including the multiple spaced recesses of the first cutting disc (Wu: 12, “annular recess”) and the multiple spaced cutouts of the second cutting disc (Fister: 28, “groove”), but does not explicitly teach wherein the multiple spaced recesses of the first cutting disc and the multiple spaced cutouts of the second cutting disc has different depths.
However, Fister discloses that the depth of the groove (28) is a variable, non-critical dimension (¶ [0028]: “the groove is around two mm deep, but other depths may also be functional”). Fister further discloses that the depth of the groove affects the transport and guiding of food particles outwardly during use (¶ [0010]: “the groove accordingly makes it possible for the food particles to be transported outwardly better and faster as compared to a grating disc known in the art lacking such a groove”). Accordingly, it would have been recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art that the depth of the recesses and cutouts of the respective first and second cutting discs is a variable which affects the particle size reduction and transport of the fruits and vegetables as they pass through the recesses and cutouts, and that selecting different depths for the recesses of the first cutting disc relative to the cutouts of the second cutting disc would predictably achieve a desired degree of particle size reduction and juicing performance at each respective stage of cutting. The depth of the recesses and cutouts is therefore recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result (particle size reduction and juice extraction), and which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized, including by selecting different depths for the recesses relative to the cutouts, through routine experimentation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected different depths for the multiple spaced recesses of the first cutting disc and the multiple spaced cutouts of the second cutting disc of Wu and Fister, through routine experimentation, since discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
Claims 2, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20070089615 A1), in view of Fister et al. (US 20130068116 A1) hereinafter Fister, and further in view of Tabah (US 4290560).
Regarding claim 2, Wu in view of Fister teaches the fruit and vegetable juicer (Wu: “juice extractor”) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first cutting disc (Wu: 1, “The upper grind blade”) has multiple teeth (Wu: 11, “first teeth”), but does not explicitly teach the multiple teeth are tilted, formed around an inner wall of the circular orifice, and a respective one tilted teeth has a beveled face.
However, Tabah teaches a machine for grinding nuts (abstract) comprising a cutting disc (Fig. 4: 84, “grinding disc”) having multiple teeth (Fig. 4: 90, “teeth”) that are tilted (col. 4, lns. 54-56: “[the] front faces [of the teeth] are not aligned radially but are on an angle such as to cause the ground nuts to move outward radially”), formed around an inner wall of the circular orifice (“central openings”) (col. 4, lns. 48-51: “Both [grinding] discs [84, 86] have central openings…. Adjacent to the center opening in the upper disc, 84, is a further row of six teeth, equally spaced apart as identified at 90”; Fig. 4 shows the row of teeth 90 immediately surrounding the central opening), and a respective one of tilted teeth (90) has a beveled face (col. 4, lns. 61-62: “teeth 90 … having a slight slant on their outer surfaces”).
Wu, Fister and Tabah are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of food processing apparatuses employing rotating cutting or grinding discs for processing food materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the tilted teeth formed around the central opening of the cutting disc, as taught by Tabah, into the cutting disc of Wu as modified by Fister, in order to “provide for shearing action on the [food materials] as they are entering the grinding discs” (Tabah, col. 5, lns. 10-13), and to allow the cutting configuration to “accomplish the grinding without clogging by allowing room for [food materials] to pass outwardly between teeth” (Tabah, col. 5, lns. 23-25), thereby improving the cutting and grinding performance of the juicer.
PNG
media_image4.png
256
303
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Tabah
Regarding claim 8, Wu in view of Fister and Tabah teaches the fruit and vegetable juicer (Wu: “juice extractor”) as claimed in claim 2, including a toothed layer of the first cutting disc (Wu: 11, “first teeth”) and a toothed layer of the second cutting disc (Wu: 21, “second teeth”), but does not explicitly teach wherein a width of the toothed layer of the first cutting disc and a width the toothed layer of the second cutting are increased so as to move and cut the fruits and vegetables effectively.
However, Wu discloses the first teeth (11) and second teeth (21) of the first and second cutting discs cooperate to cut and grind the fruits and vegetables (¶ [0017]: “The fruits are ground by the fi[r]st and second blades 22, 23 and enter into the space between the first and second teeth 11, 21 via the recess 12. The first and second teeth 11, 21 are straight teeth and extend in radial direction so that the juice can go through the paths between the straight teeth 11, 21), such that the radial width of the toothed layers directly determines the available cutting/grinding surface area and travel path through which the fruits and vegetables must pass to be ground and juiced. Accordingly, it would have been recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art that increasing the width of the toothed layer of the first cutting disc and the toothed layer of the second cutting disc increases the cutting/grinding surface area and residence time of the fruits and vegetables within the toothed layers, thereby predictably enhancing the cutting and juicing effectiveness of the juicer. The width of the toothed layer is therefore recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result (cutting/juicing effectiveness) and which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized through routine experimentation to achieve a desired degree of cutting/juicing performance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have increased the width of the toothed layer of the first cutting disc and the toothed layer of the second cutting disc of Wu, Fister and Tabah, through routine experimentation, since discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
Regarding claim 10, Wu in view of Fister and Tabah teaches the fruit and vegetable juicer (Wu: “juice extractor”) as claimed in claim 2, including the multiple spaced recesses of the first cutting disc (Wu: 12, “annular recess”) and the multiple spaced cutouts of the second cutting disc (Fister: 28, “groove”), but does not explicitly teach wherein the multiple spaced recesses of the first cutting disc and the multiple spaced cutouts of the second cutting disc has different depths.
However, Fister discloses that the depth of the groove (28) is a variable, non-critical dimension (¶ [0028]: “the groove is around two mm deep, but other depths may also be functional”). Fister further discloses that the depth of the groove affects the transport and guiding of food particles outwardly during use (¶ [0010]: “the groove accordingly makes it possible for the food particles to be transported outwardly better and faster as compared to a grating disc known in the art lacking such a groove”). Accordingly, it would have been recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art that the depth of the recesses and cutouts of the respective first and second cutting discs is a variable which affects the particle size reduction and transport of the fruits and vegetables as they pass through the recesses and cutouts, and that selecting different depths for the recesses of the first cutting disc relative to the cutouts of the second cutting disc would predictably achieve a desired degree of particle size reduction and juicing performance at each respective stage of cutting. The depth of the recesses and cutouts is therefore recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result (particle size reduction and juice extraction), and which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized, including by selecting different depths for the recesses relative to the cutouts, through routine experimentation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected different depths for the multiple spaced recesses of the first cutting disc and the multiple spaced cutouts of the second cutting disc of Wu, Fister and Tabah, through routine experimentation, since discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20070089615 A1), in view of Fister et al. (US 20130068116 A1) hereinafter Fister, and further in view of Lu et al. (CN 101513322 A) hereinafter.
Regarding claim 3, Wu in view of Fister teaches
the fruit and vegetable juicer (Wu: “juice extractor”) as claimed in claim 1, comprising the first cutting disc (Wu: 1, “The upper grind blade”), wherein the second cutting disc (Wu: 2, “the lower grind blade”) has multiple peripheral teeth (Wu: 21, “second teeth”; ¶ [0017]: “A plurality of second teeth 21 are defined in a ring-shaped area of a top surface of the lower grind blade 2... located corresponding to the first teeth 11”; the examiner interprets the second teeth 21, located in a ring-shaped area at the top surface of the lower grind blade 2, as corresponding to the claimed multiple peripheral teeth of the second cutting disc).
Wu and Fister does not explicitly teach wherein the first cutting disc further has at least one cut fence vertically extending around the peripheral side thereof and having a toothed portion formed on the at least one cut fence, and the first cutting disc has at least one groove defined on a predetermined position of the at least one cut fence, such that a slit is defined among the at least one cut fence of the first cutting disc and multiple peripheral teeth of the second cutting disc so that particles generating by cutting the fruits and vegetables are cut and juiced further by using the at least one cut fence.
However, Lu teaches, in Figs. 1 and 7, a cutter head structure of juice extractor (title) comprising a cutterhead body (1) having a plurality of small serrated knives (2, “little serrated knife”) on an upper surface thereof,
wherein the first cutting disc (1, “cutterhead body”) further has at least one cut fence (3, “clubfoot”; the examiner interprets the clubfoot 3 as corresponding to the claimed cut fence) vertically extending (Fig. 7; Lu (translation), p. 7, lns. 1-2: “described clubfoot 3 is basically perpendicular to the upper surface of described cutterhead body 1”) around the peripheral side thereof (11, “neighboring”; Lu (translation), p. 4, lns. 21-22: “In the neighboring of described cutterhead body or near the more than one clubfoot that raises up that is connected on the upper surface of described cutterhead body neighboring”) and having a toothed portion (31, “blade”) formed on the at least one cut fence (Figs. 4-6; Lu (translation), p. 6, lns. 4-8: “blade 31 for the top of clubfoot 3... for the side of clubfoot 3... for the both sides of clubfoot 3”), and
the first cutting disc has at least one groove (Fig. 1; the examiner interprets the circumferentially spaced gap defined between adjacent clubfeet 3 as corresponding to the claimed at least one groove defined on a predetermined position of the at least one cut fence, since Lu discloses a plurality of clubfeet 3 distributed about the periphery 11 of the cutterhead body 1, and such spacing provides a discharge path) defined on a predetermined position of the at least one cut fence (Lu (translation), p. 6, lns. 26-27: “waste residues such as pomace enter the waste residue box of juice extractor from the periphery of described cutterhead body 1”), such that a slit is defined among the at least one cut fence of the first cutting disc and multiple peripheral teeth of the second cutting disc (the examiner relies on Wu, as applied above, for the multiple peripheral teeth (second teeth 21) of the second cutting disc; the combined teachings of Wu and Lu result in the claimed slit being defined between the clubfoot 3, as applied to the first cutting disc, and the second teeth 21 of the second cutting disc) so that particles generating by cutting the fruits and vegetables are cut and juiced further by using the at least one cut fence (Lu (translation), p. 6, lns. 29-32: “under action of centrifugal force, [particles are] transferred to the periphery 11 of described cutterhead body 1 ... and collide on the described clubfoot 3, the pulp of big grain is broken, rebound[s]... [and] is continued cutting by the little serrated knife... and is squeezed the juice, thereby mak[ing] the crushing juice rate of juice extractor improve”).
Wu, Fister and Lu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of juice extractors employing a rotating cutterhead or cutting disc assembly for cutting and juicing fruits and vegetables. Therefore, 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 first cutting disc of Wu and Fister to include at least one clubfoot having a toothed portion as taught by Lu, extending vertically around the peripheral side of the first cutting disc so as to form a slit with the peripheral teeth of the second cutting disc of Wu, in order to “crash[] big grain pulp” (Lu (translation), p. 2, ln. 40) thrown outward by centrifugal force before discharge (Lu (translation), p. 6, lns. 29-32), thereby “mak[ing] the crushing juice rate of juice extractor improve, cut[ting] the wast, and... reduc[ing] the wearing and tearing of the blade[s]” of the juicer. Lu (translation), p. 6, lns. 32-33.
PNG
media_image5.png
286
806
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1 & 7 of Lu
PNG
media_image6.png
147
618
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figs. 4-6 of Lu
Regarding claim 5, Wu in view of Fister and Lu teaches the fruit and vegetable juicer (Wu: “juice extractor”) as claimed in claim 3, and Lu further teaches, in Fig. 1 of Lu, wherein the first cutting disc (1, “cutterhead body”) has multiple spaced grooves, and each spaced groove is defined between any two adjacent cut fences (Fig. 1; Lu (translation), p. 6, lns. 20-21: “the clubfoot that raises up 3... is circular matrix distribution with the center of cutterhead body 1”; the examiner interprets the circumferentially spaced gaps defined between adjacent clubfeet 3 as corresponding to the claimed multiple spaced grooves defined on predetermined positions of the cut fences, since Lu discloses a plurality of clubfeet 3 distributed about the periphery 11 of the cutterhead body 1).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20070089615 A1), in view of Fister et al. (US 20130068116 A1) hereinafter Fister, Tabah (US 4290560), and further in view of Lu et al. (CN 101513322 A) hereinafter.
Regarding claim 4, Wu in view of Fister and Tabah teach the fruit and vegetable juicer (Wu: “juice extractor”) as claimed in claim 2, wherein the second cutting disc (Wu: 2, “the lower grind blade”) has multiple peripheral teeth (Wu: 21, “second teeth”; ¶ [0017]: “A plurality of second teeth 21 are defined in a ring-shaped area of a top surface of the lower grind blade 2... located corresponding to the first teeth 11”; the examiner interprets the second teeth 21, located in a ring-shaped area at the top surface of the lower grind blade 2, as corresponding to the claimed multiple peripheral teeth of the second cutting disc).
Wu, Fister and Tabah does not explicitly teach wherein the first cutting disc further has at least one cut fence vertically extending around the peripheral side thereof and having a toothed portion formed on the at least one cut fence, and the first cutting disc has at least one groove defined on a predetermined position of the at least one cut fence, such that a slit is defined among the at least one cut fence of the first cutting disc and multiple peripheral teeth of the second cutting disc so that particles generating by cutting the fruits and vegetables are cut and juiced further by using the at least one cut fence.
However, Lu teaches, in Figs. 1 and 7, a cutter head structure of juice extractor (title) comprising a cutterhead body (1) having a plurality of small serrated knives (2, “little serrated knife”) on an upper surface thereof,
wherein the first cutting disc (1, “cutterhead body”) further has at least one cut fence (3, “clubfoot”; the examiner interprets the clubfoot 3 as corresponding to the claimed cut fence) vertically extending (Fig. 7; Lu (translation), p. 7, lns. 1-2: “described clubfoot 3 is basically perpendicular to the upper surface of described cutterhead body 1”) around the peripheral side thereof (11, “neighboring”; Lu (translation), p. 4, lns. 21-22: “In the neighboring of described cutterhead body or near the more than one clubfoot that raises up that is connected on the upper surface of described cutterhead body neighboring”) and having a toothed portion (31, “blade”) formed on the at least one cut fence (Figs. 4-6; Lu (translation), p. 6, lns. 4-8: “blade 31 for the top of clubfoot 3... for the side of clubfoot 3... for the both sides of clubfoot 3”), and
the first cutting disc has at least one groove (Fig. 1; the examiner interprets the circumferentially spaced gap defined between adjacent clubfeet 3 as corresponding to the claimed at least one groove defined on a predetermined position of the at least one cut fence, since Lu discloses a plurality of clubfeet 3 distributed about the periphery 11 of the cutterhead body 1, and such spacing provides a discharge path) defined on a predetermined position of the at least one cut fence (Lu (translation), p. 6, lns. 26-27: “waste residues such as pomace enter the waste residue box of juice extractor from the periphery of described cutterhead body 1”), such that a slit is defined among the at least one cut fence of the first cutting disc and multiple peripheral teeth of the second cutting disc (the examiner relies on Wu, as applied above, for the multiple peripheral teeth (second teeth 21) of the second cutting disc; the combined teachings of Wu and Lu result in the claimed slit being defined between the clubfoot 3, as applied to the first cutting disc, and the second teeth 21 of the second cutting disc) so that particles generating by cutting the fruits and vegetables are cut and juiced further by using the at least one cut fence (Lu (translation), p. 6, lns. 29-32: “under action of centrifugal force, [particles are] transferred to the periphery 11 of described cutterhead body 1 ... and collide on the described clubfoot 3, the pulp of big grain is broken, rebound[s]... [and] is continued cutting by the little serrated knife... and is squeezed the juice, thereby mak[ing] the crushing juice rate of juice extractor improve”).
Wu, Fister, Tabah and Lu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of juice extractors employing a rotating cutterhead or cutting disc assembly for cutting and juicing fruits and vegetables. Therefore, 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 first cutting disc of Wu, Fister and Tabah to include at least one clubfoot having a toothed portion as taught by Lu, extending vertically around the peripheral side of the first cutting disc so as to form a slit with the peripheral teeth of the second cutting disc of Wu, in order to “crash[] big grain pulp” (Lu (translation), p. 2, ln. 40) thrown outward by centrifugal force before discharge (Lu (translation), p. 6, lns. 29-32), thereby “mak[ing] the crushing juice rate of juice extractor improve, cut[ting] the wast, and... reduc[ing] the wearing and tearing of the blade[s]” of the juicer. Lu (translation), p. 6, lns. 32-33.
Regarding claim 6, Wu in view of Fister, Tabah and Lu teaches the fruit and vegetable juicer (Wu: “juice extractor”) as claimed in claim 4, and Lu further teaches, in Fig. 1 of Lu, wherein the first cutting disc (1, “cutterhead body”) has multiple spaced grooves, and each spaced groove is defined between any two adjacent cut fences (Fig. 1; Lu (translation), p. 6, lns. 20-21: “the clubfoot that raises up 3... is circular matrix distribution with the center of cutterhead body 1”; the examiner interprets the circumferentially spaced gaps defined between adjacent clubfeet 3 as corresponding to the claimed multiple spaced grooves defined on predetermined positions of the cut fences, since Lu discloses a plurality of clubfeet 3 distributed about the periphery 11 of the cutterhead body 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhou et al. (US 20220400904 A1), Wang et al. (US 20160287000 A1), Krall et al. (US 20080202355 A1), Tseng et al. (US 20080115677 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
