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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/08/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 07/07/2025.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jays et al., US 8474375 (hereafter Jays) , and further in view of Leahy, US 5597090 (hereafter Leahy).
Regarding claim 1,
A juicer spout extending from a juice collection chamber, (Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image1.png
522
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Jays
the spout including a generally cylindrical body having a generally tubular interior surface enclosing a channel extending between a discharge opening and the juice collection chamber, (Fig. 2 in Jays)
Jays is silent about the body having an undersurface provided with a slot extending from the discharge opening towards the juice collection chamber, the slot providing an elongate gap in the undersurface of the body extending entirely through a thickness of the undersurface, and being adapted for minimising dripping and pooling of juice in the channel.
Leahy teaches the body having an undersurface provided with a slot extending from the discharge opening towards the juice collection chamber, (Fig. 2 in Leahy teaches spout 30 wherein upper edge 32 of the spout has a notch 33.)
the slot providing an elongate gap in the undersurface of the body extending entirely through a thickness of the undersurface, and being adapted for minimising dripping and pooling of juice in the channel. (Fig. 2 in Leahy teaches spout 30 wherein upper edge 32 of the spout has a notch 33. Column 3, lines 45-50 teaches “Because of the sharpness of the interruption 33, and the general configuration of the upper edge 32, the usual dripping of fluid during a pour is significantly reduced.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the slot as taught in Leahy to the spout in Jays. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The reverse "V" cut 33 added by the invention in the edge 32 of the pouring spout 20 provides user control over viscous liquid flow. Suitable tilting of the V groove 32 reduces flow and cuts off "stringing" of viscous liquid” as taught in column 3, lines 55-60 in Leahy.
Regarding claim 2,
The juicer spout of claim 1, wherein the slot has a terminal end and an open end forming a portion of the discharge opening, and wherein a width of the slot at the open end is greater than a width of the slot at the terminal end. (Jays is silent about this.
Leahy teaches slot in spout in Fig. 4.)
PNG
media_image2.png
362
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 in Leahy
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the slot as taught in Leahy to the spout in Jays. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The reverse "V" cut 33 added by the invention in the edge 32 of the pouring spout 20 provides user control over viscous liquid flow. Suitable tilting of the V groove 32 reduces flow and cuts off "stringing" of viscous liquid” as taught in column 3, lines 55-60 in Leahy.
Regarding claim 3,
The juicer spout of claim 2, wherein the terminal end of the slot has a curved portion. (Jays is silent about this.
Leahy teaches slot in spout in Fig. 4.)
PNG
media_image2.png
362
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 in Leahy
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the slot with curved portion at terminal end as taught in Leahy to the spout in Jays. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The reverse "V" cut 33 added by the invention in the edge 32 of the pouring spout 20 provides user control over viscous liquid flow. Suitable tilting of the V groove 32 reduces flow and cuts off "stringing" of viscous liquid” as taught in column 3, lines 55-60 in Leahy.
Regarding claim 5,
The juicer spout of claim 1, wherein the body of the spout is arranged with a downward inclination to promote flow of juice along the channel. (Fig. 2 in Jays.)
Regarding claim 6,
A juicer having a juice collection chamber, with the juice collection chamber including a spout extending therefrom, (Fig. 1 in Jays.)
the spout including a generally cylindrical body having a generally tubular interior surface enclosing a channel extending between a discharge opening and the juice collection chamber, the body having an undersurface provided with a slot extending from the discharge opening towards the juice collection chamber, the slot providing an elongate gap in the undersurface of the body, and being adapted for minimising dripping and pooling of juice in the channel. (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 7,
The juicer of claim 6, wherein the slot has a terminal end and an open end forming a portion of the discharge opening, and wherein a width of the slot at the open end is greater than a width of the slot at the terminal end. (Similar scope to claim 2 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 8,
The juicer of claim 7, wherein the terminal end of the slot has a curved portion. (Similar scope to claim 3 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 10,
The juicer of claim 6, wherein the body of the spout is arranged with a downward inclination to promote flow of juice along the channel. (Similar scope to claim 5 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jays, and Leahy as applied to claims 1 and 6 above respectively, and further in view of Moore et al., US 2786607 (hereafter Moore).
Regarding claim 4,
The juicer spout of claim 1, wherein the discharge opening is surrounded by a tapered or chamfered edge portion. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Moore teaches tapered spout 37 in Fig. 1. Discharge opening 38 of spout is surrounded by a tapered edge.)
PNG
media_image3.png
444
377
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Moore
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the edge of opening as tapered as taught in Moore to the spout in Jays. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Therefore, it will be apparent that when the dispenser is inverted or tilted such as by grasping the manually engageable handle 39, the contents of the can may flow into the space 41 between the upper end of the can and the concave inner peripheral surface of the head, and through the openings 36 and 38 into any desired place” as taught in column 2, lines 62-68 in Moore.
Regarding claim 9,
The juicer of claim 6, wherein the discharge opening is surrounded by a tapered or chamfered edge portion. (Similar scope to claim 4 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/08/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant amended claim 1 to recite that “extending entirely through a thickness of the undersurface” and argued that this makes the claimed invention distinguishable from prior art. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of prior art as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/Examiner, Art Unit 3761