DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 12/2/2025.
Claims 1-12 are pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 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 line 4 recites “a nested strainer” and line 5 recites “a strainer”. It is unclear as recited whether these are the same or different “a strainer”. For purposes of examination, Examiner assumes these are the same strainer. Examiner suggested Applicant amend subsequent recitations as “the strainer” or “the nested strainer”.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 6-7, 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mah et al. (US 2010/0263555 A1) in view of KR900004083Y1 (machine translation attached) and KR101972933B1 (machine translation attached).
Re claim 1, Mah discloses an apparatus (abstract, see fig. 1), comprising: a container (ref. 23) configured to be filled with water; a strainer (ref. 35) configured to be inserted into the container and filled with a selected food item to be cleaned; a paddle (ref. 51) configured to be inserted into the strainer for agitating the selected food item, a lid (ref. 81) with a hole (ref. 107) attached to a top of the container to seal itself while exposing the top of the paddle; and a handle (ref. 121, 97) configured to attach to the top of the paddle to allow the paddle to rotate inside the strainer.
Mah does not explicitly disclose the container having a generally cylindrical geometry that narrows or tapers to an upper rim sized to receive and support a nested strainer; and the strainer having a cylindrical sidewall and a top flange extending radially outward beyond the cylindrical sidewall, the top flange being configured to rest on and nest against the upper rim of the container to support the strainer during agitation.
Regarding the container shape, KR900004083Y1 disclose it is known in the rice washing art (title) to provide a container (ref. 1) having a generally cylindrical geometry (see fig. 1) that narrows or tapers to an upper rim (see figs. 2-3 upper rim of ref. 1 appears to narrow inward with respect to the vertical wall) sized to receive and support a nested strainer (ref. 6); the strainer having a sidewall (see figs. 1-3) and a top flange (see figs. 2-3 top flange of ref. 6 resting on upper rim of ref. 1) extending radially outward beyond the cylindrical sidewall, the top flange being configured to rest on and nest against the upper rim of the container to support the strainer during agitation. KR900004083Y1 also discloses a paddle (ref. 12) in conjunction with the strainer.
Regarding the strainer having a cylindrical sidewall, KR101972933B1 discloses it is known in the rice washing art (title) to provide a strainer (ref. 200) having a cylindrical sidewall (see fig. 2). It further being simply an obvious change in shape to one of ordinary skill in the art, for purposes of increased volume utilization, ease of manufacturing and/or storage. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) Changes in Shape. (See also Mah ¶ [0035] the basket can assume a variety of different shapes). KR101972933B1 also discloses a paddle (ref. 330) in conjunction with the strainer.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the container and strainer of Mah to further include a generally cylindrical geometry that narrows and the strainer to include a flange, as suggested by KR900004083Y1, in order to wash rice conveniently and compactly; and to further modify the strainer to have a cylindrical sidewall, as suggested by KR101972933B1, in order to reduce complicated structures and enable the container to be simply held with both hands.
Re claim 4, Regarding “wherein the strainer or container further comprises of measurement markings on either the inside or outside surface to measure an amount of food to be washed”, Mah further discloses the basket/strainer 35 has horizontal ribs (ref. 47), which may be used for measuring an amount of food, if so desired. See MPEP 2114. Intended Use.
Re claim 7, Mah further discloses further comprising a gear reduction system (ref. 103, 105) configured to drive rotations of the paddle inside the strainer.
Re claim 11, Regarding “wherein the strainer is shaped to contour and nest within a rice cooker or a cooking pot”, this is a statement of intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Mah since the prior art is capable of being nested within a rice cooker, if so desired. It being a matter of the rice cooker shape and size. See MPEP 2114.
Re claim 12, Mah further discloses further comprising an inlet for adding water and an outlet for draining waste water (ref. 111 water guiding; alternatively entire opening is an inlet) (ref. 85; alternatively the entire opening is an outlet), the inlet and outlet being connectable to plumbing for easy filling and draining of the container (intended use, can be put below faucet and above drain. See MPEP 2114.)
Re claims 2 and 9, Mah discloses as shown above. Regarding “wherein the container, strainer, paddle, lid and handle are dishwasher safe” and “wherein the lid, strainer, and paddle are made of non-stick materials or coated in a non-stick material to prevent food particles from adhering to their surfaces”, this is a statement of intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Mah since the prior art meets all the structural elements of the claim(s) and is capable of being used in a dishwasher, if so desired. See MPEP 2114. To any extent, “safe” implies a certain material choice, the selection of dishwasher safe material would have been prima facie obvious in view of being able to easily clean kitchen apparatuses. Similarly, “non-stick” is prolific in the kitchen art and obvious to enable easily clean kitchen apparatuses. See MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Re claim 3, Mah and/or KR900004083Y1 and/or KR101972933B1 further discloses the paddle includes a vertically-extending peripheral mixing portion (Mah fig. 11 ref. 51; KR900004083Y1 fig. 2 ref. 12; KR101972933B1 fig. 6 ref. 330) that spans a substantial height of the strainer (KR900004083Y1 fig. 2; KR101972933B1 fig. 6) and is positioned proximate to the inner sidewall of the strainer such that a minimal radial clearance is maintained along at least a majority of the paddle’s height during rotation (Mah fig. 11 depicts a very small minimal radial clearance, i.e. conforming shaped paddle; KR900004083Y1 fig. 2 depicts a relatively minimal radial clearance, i.e. conforming shaped paddle, but formed in two parts; KR101972933B1 fig. 6 depicts at least an upper portion of the paddle having a relatively minimal radial clearance) (Examiner notes the terms “substantial height”, “minimal radial clearance” and “a majority of the paddle’s height” are relative terms and although given consideration are also weighed against the obviousness of changing the paddle’s shape in view of the disclosures of Mah, KR9000004083Y2 and KR101972933B1. Here, adjusting the conformity of the paddle shape to a cylindrically shaped strainer as in KR101972933B1 is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prevent deadzones and ensure thorough washing. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) Changes in Shape).
Regarding “wherein the paddle comprises an inner core made of a rigid material and an outer portion made of a flexible material to prevent damage to the selected food item during agitation”, the selection of material to have flexible exterior and rigid interior is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of kitchen utensil and apparatus design, for purposes of gentle conforming use but sufficient rigidity to perform movement. Here, the use of silicone or rubber spatulas and mixing paddles are prolific in the kitchen art, for durability, low damage and cost-effectiveness. See MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Re claim 6, Regarding “further comprising a non-slip material lining a surface of the container to prevent movements during rotation”, the selection of a known material suitable for its intended use is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for the purposes of non-slip and ease of cleaning. Here, the use of silicone liners are well-known in the kitchen art. See MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mah in view of KR900004083Y1 and KR101972933B1, as applied above, and further in view of CN 113448267 A (machine translation attached).
Re claim 5, Mah/KR900004083Y1/KR101972933B1 discloses as shown above but does not disclose a counter. However, CN 113448267 A discloses it is known in the food processing art (abstract) to include a counter to count the number of rotations performed by a user (metering device… a rotating speed metering unit/revolution counter). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Mah/KR900004083Y1/KR101972933B1 to further include a counter, as suggested by CN 113448267 A, in order to monitor speed/revolutions and cleaning efficacy.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mah in view of KR900004083Y1 andKR101972933B1, as applied above, and further in view of Ancona et al. (US 2001/0035101 A1).
Re claim 8, Mah/KR900004083Y1/KR101972933B1 discloses as shown above including a gear reduction system (see rejection to claim 7) but does not disclose a motor operable by a user. However, Ancona discloses it is well-known in the food processing art (abstract) to provide a motor (¶ [0024], [0026]). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotation of Mah to further include a motor, as taught by Ancona, in order to automate a manual task.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mah in view of KR900004083Y1 and KR101972933B1, as applied above, and further in view of Kahn (US 2010/0258011 A1).
Re claim 10, Mah/KR900004083Y1/KR101972933B1 discloses as shown above but does not disclose wherein the strainer is telescopically collapsible. However, Kahn discloses it is known in the food processing art (abstract) to provide a strainer (ref. 12) telescopically collapsible (¶ [0018] collapse into storage position) to facilitate the removal of residues or particles of the selected food item sticking to the bottom of the strainer. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the strainer of Mah/KR900004083Y1/KR101972933B1 to further be collapsible, as suggested by Kahn, in order to facilitate storage and/or cleaning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of KR101972933B1 and KR900004083Y1.
In response to Applicant’s characterization of Mah “employs a paddle for rice washing, the filter basket is removed entirely”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mah discloses the basket “can be removed” (emphasis added) (¶ [0011]), thus the removal of the basket is optional. As seen in Fig. 1, the paddle 51 can be installed on top of the basket 35 (see also Fig. 10 showing support cone 181 in combination with the basket and the paddle member 51 described as placed over the rotational support cone 181 ¶ [0055]). That is, the use of the paddle with or without the basket is discretionary or simply an intended use of the apparatus (See MPEP 2114). Further, Applicant’s claims are broadly drawn to an apparatus for selected foods, and not simply rice. Nonetheless, KR101972933B1 and KR900004083Y1 cited in the current rejection of record clearly disclose the use of a strainer with rice and the paddle installed therein the strainer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR100891197B1 note cylindrical strainer with flange in cylindrical container; and “the shape and structure may be variously formed as necessary”.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711