DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on December 01, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 1 and 20 in independent claim form.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for Provisional priority of parent Application No. 63/429282 filed on 12/01/2022.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: the language of “a blunt edge” of claim 18 and “a first plane” and “a second plane” of claim 19 are mentioned in the specification/claims but does not designate with reference character(s).
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.
Specification
5. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of: the language of “The present disclosure provides” in line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
6. The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-19 line 1, recited the limitation of “The hopper of Claim“ is suggested to be replaced with “The hopper of claim “,
Claim 20 line 5, recited the limitation of “interior surface of the body.,“ is suggested to be replaced with “interior surface of the body,“.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
8. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
9. Claim 1 line 6 and claim 20 line 18, discloses the limitation “cutting mechanism” has been interpreted under 112(f) because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language “configured to cut” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claims 16 and 20 show that there is equivalent structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f): claim 16 and claim 20 lines 14-15, recited “the cutting mechanism includes a blade and an agitator” therefore the “blade and agitator” will be interpreted as the equivalent structure of the generic placeholder (means) to perform the function of cutting the sheet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. 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.
11. Claim 3 is 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 in line 1, recited the limitation "the cutout includes a rectangular cross section" is indefinite, it is not understood the cutout to have a rectangular cross section, does the Applicant meant “edges of the projection forming the cutout to have a rectangular cross section”, the limitation is unclear. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as "edges of the projection forming the cutout to have a rectangular cross section ".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
13. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
14. Claims 1-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hurom Co., ltd. DE Publication (212020000284) hereinafter Hurom.
Regarding claim 1,
Hurom discloses a hopper (210) for a vertical juicer for food (see fig.2 and 53), comprising:
a body (215) including a projection (2155), a protrusion (2151, elements opposing element 2155), and a rib (2151, see fig 12 of claim 6, Examiner interpreted a projection, protrusion and ribs are parts extension from a surface),
wherein the projection, the protrusion, and the rib are disposed on an interior surface of the body (210, see fig.12);
a lid (220) coupled to the body (215), the lid (220) including a hole (2201) configured to receive food therethrough; and
a cutting mechanism (225) rotatably coupled to the interior surface of the body (215) and configured to cut food.
Regarding claim 2,
Hurom further discloses wherein the projection (2155) includes a cutout (2156) disposed along a length of the vertical juicer and configured to accommodate rotation of the cutting mechanism (225 see fig.9a-b) therethrough.
Regarding claims 3,
Hurom discloses wherein the cutout (2156) includes a rectangular cross section within an interior of the body (210 see fig.13, bottom view of hopper).
PNG
media_image1.png
637
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4,
Hurom further discloses wherein the projection (2155) is disposed opposite the protrusion (2151, elements opposing element 2155) on the interior surface of the body (215, see fig.12 in claim 6).
Regarding claim 5,
Hurom further discloses wherein the projection (2155) includes a substantially rectangular cross section (see fig 8).
PNG
media_image2.png
610
633
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6,
Hurom further discloses wherein the rib (2151) is comprised by a plurality of ribs (see fig 12) disposed on the interior surface of the body (215, see fig 12, examiner interpreted a protrusion and ribs both are extension from a surface).
PNG
media_image3.png
638
1006
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7,
Hurom further discloses wherein the plurality of ribs (see fig.12) includes a first set of ribs and a second set of ribs (see fig.12),
the first set of ribs (see fig.12) disposed on a first side of the body (215) between the projection and the protrusion (see fig.12) and the second set of ribs disposed on a second side of the body (215) between the protrusion and the projection (see fig.12).
Regarding claim 8,
Hurom further discloses wherein the first set of ribs (see fig.12) includes a first rib, a second rib, and a third rib (multiple ribs are shown, see fig.12), where the first rib, the second rib, and the third rib are disposed equidistant (all the ribs are shown equidistant) on the first side between the projection and the protrusion (see fig.12).
Regarding claim 9,
Hurom further discloses wherein the second set of ribs (see fig.12) includes a fourth rib, a fifth rib, and a sixth rib (multiple ribs are shown, see fig.12), where the fourth rib, the fifth rib, and the sixth rib are disposed equidistant (all the ribs are shown equidistant) on the second side between the protrusion and the projection (see fig.12).
Regarding claim 10,
Hurom further discloses wherein the lid (220) is hingedly coupled to the body (215 see fig.7).
Regarding claim 11,
Hurom further discloses where the body (215) includes a handle (216) disposed on an exterior of the body (215 see fig.7).
Regarding claim 12,
Hurom further discloses wherein the handle (216) includes a lock switch mechanism (2161).
Regarding claim 14,
Hurom further discloses wherein the hopper (210) includes a safety mechanism (115,1102, 2211 see pag. 130 lines 40-48 and pag. 131 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 15,
Hurom further discloses wherein the lid (220) includes a tab (221 or 2221) configured to be received by the body (215, fig.8a-b shown the handle to be part of the body).
Regarding claim 16,
Hurom further discloses wherein the cutting mechanism (225) includes a blade (226) and an agitator (227, element 227 is called a cutting blade and both elements (226,227) are also agitator see pag. 102 lines 13-15).
Regarding claim 17,
Hurom further discloses wherein the agitator (227) includes a substantially triangular cross section (see fig.19).
Regarding claim 18,
Hurom further discloses wherein the agitator (227) includes a blunt edge (see top edge of fig.18).
Regarding claim 19,
Hurom further discloses wherein a bottom surface of the hopper (210) is disposed in a first plane, the agitator is disposed in a second plane, and the first plane and the second plane are parallel.
PNG
media_image4.png
931
655
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurom Co., ltd. DE Publication (212020000284) hereinafter Hurom.
Regarding claim 13,
The prior art Hurom discloses all limitations in claim 1.
Hurom discloses in the body of the hopper wherein the ribs (2151) and the protrusion (2151, elements opposing element 2155, see fig 12 of claim 6, Examiner interpreted a projection, protrusion and ribs are parts extension from a surface) to be in the interior surface of the body but does not disclose the ribs and the protrusion to be taper in opposite directions along the interior surface of the body.
Hurom discloses in figure 41, a body (240) to have the ribs (244, taper upward similar to element 252 since the back of 244 (element 242) would be sitting on element 252 see pag. 121 lines 33-43) and the protrusion (243, taper downward) taper in opposite directions along the interior surface of the body.
Huron discloses multiple embodiments, parts and sections to increase the operation efficiency of the juicer (see pag. 119 lines 19-22), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct to the hopper body of Hurom with the ribs and the protrusion to be taper in opposite directions along the interior surface of the body as taught in Hurom figure 41, as it would be beneficiary to Hurom Hopper’s body to facilitate the agitation of the material and increase the operation efficiency of the juicer (see pag. 119 lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 20,
Hurom discloses a hopper (210) for a vertical juicer for food, comprising:
a body (215) including a projection (2155) having a rectangular cross section within an interior surface of the body (215 see fig.8 of claim 5),
a protrusion (2151 elements opposing element 2155) disposed opposite the projection on the interior surface of the body (215, see fig.12 of claim 6),
a plurality of ribs (2151, see fig 12 of claim 6, examiner interpreted a protrusion and ribs both are extension from a surface) disposed on the interior of the body (215) and including a first set of ribs and a second set of ribs (see fig.12),
the first set of ribs disposed on a first side of the body between the projection and the protrusion (see fig.12) and
the second set of ribs disposed on a second side of the body between the protrusion and the projection (see fig.12),
a cutout (2156) disposed on the interior of the body and adjacent to the projection (see fig.9a-b),
a handle (216) disposed on an exterior of the body and including a lock switch mechanism (2161), and
a safety mechanism (115,1102, 2211 see pag. 130 lines 40-48 and pag. 131 lines 1-4);
a lid (220) disposed adjacent to the body (215) and hingedly coupled to the body (215 see fig.7), the lid (220) including a hole (2201) configured to receive food therethrough and
a tab (221 or 2221) configured to be received by the body (215, fig.8a-b shown the handle to be part of the body); and
a cutting mechanism (225) disposed in the body (215) and configured to cut food, the cutting mechanism (225) including a blade (226) and an agitator (227, element 227 is called a cutting blade and also agitate the material being chopped under operation because of the height see fig.18),
wherein the cutout (2156) is configured to receive the cutting mechanism (225 see fig.9a-b), and
Hurom discloses in the body of the hopper wherein the plurality of ribs (2151) and the protrusion (2151, elements opposing element 2155, see fig 12 of claim 6, examiner interpreted a protrusion and ribs both are extension from a surface) to be in the interior surface of the body but does not disclose wherein the plurality of ribs and the protrusion to be taper in opposite directions along the interior surface of the body.
Hurom discloses in figure 41, a body (240) to have the plurality of ribs (244, taper upward similar to element 252 since the back of 244 (element 242) would be sitting on element 252 see pag. 121 lines 33-43) and the protrusion (243, taper downward) taper in opposite directions along the interior surface of the body.
Huron discloses multiple embodiments, parts and sections to increase the operation efficiency of the juicer (see pag. 120 lines 19-22), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct to the hopper body of Hurom with the plurality of ribs and the protrusion to be taper in opposite directions along the interior surface of the body as taught in Hurom figure 41, as it would be beneficiary to Hurom Hopper’s body to facilitate the agitation of the material and increase the operation efficiency of the juicer (see pag. 119 lines 19-22).
Conclusion
17. Prior Art CN107624046 is also relevant as it shows the body to be taper and a safety mechanism to be with magnet on the lower part of the body.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Smith O. BAPTHELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-5976. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00.
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 L. 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.
November 04, 2025
/BSO/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725