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 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “planes extending around a diameter of the hub” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It does not appear that the inclined planes extend fully around presumably a circumference of the hub if that is what Applicant meant by diameter. 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.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, this claim is limited to the extrusion lever mechanism or rather the lever mechanism per se. Any reference to extrusion or language such as “manual extrusion”, “neutral” and “storage” is simply being treated as nomenclature. These words add no significance to the overall lever mechanism aside from defining discrete positions. That is, they are being treated no differently than if they recited “first”, “second” and “third” positions. This is being done because the claim and subsequent claims do not require the combination of the micro puree machine, it is only limited to the lever mechanism. Any deviation from this scope within the preamble would constitute of shift of invention and be subject to a restriction by original presentation.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of inclined planes extending around a diameter of the hub”. The use of the language extending around a diameter of the hub is confusing when read in light of the specification and drawings. Firstly, it is not clear whether Applicant are implying a circumference or perimeter of the hub. Figure 5c only shows a small section of the hub having the inclined planes and does not show any diameter per se. It is further confusing what is meant by “around a diameter”. A diameter is typically used to refer to a distance thru from one side of a circle to the other thru the center thereof. Thus, to say planes are formed around a diameter is actually confusing because the diameter is just one line. Combine this with what the drawings show and the scope of the claim is simply confusing as to what is actually being implied and what is supported. As far as reading in light of the specification, it is going to be assumed the plurality of inclined planes need to just be disposed along a surface or perimeter of whatever the hub element is considered.
Claims 2, 6 and 8 recite specific positions and further attempt to recite what these positions do or are intended to do by stating “initiates extrusion”. Based on the fact that the claims as a whole are written so as to be limited solely to the lever mechanism, it is confusing as to what these claims are actually adding to the claim set as a whole. Are they merely intended use clauses? Are they product by process limitations (and if so what structure of the lever mechanism is actually being modified)? It is not readily apparent whether Applicant is making an attempt to require limitations of the combination such as the bowl, ingredients and the micro puree machine. Doing so would create it’s own problem as, again, the claims are limited to the lever mechanism and said lever mechanism can not comprise elements of the combination. Only a combination can comprise a sub combination (lever mechanism), not the other way around. As best understood, these limitations are being treated as intended use and any prior art mechanism that would have a position would be capable of providing said intended use.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 recite “vertical position”, “radial position”, “horizontal plane”. These references to positions in the context of the claim set present numerous issues. Firstly, it is not clear whether these positions are referring to the position of the lever or the pin since claim one establishes that both of these have their own positions. Secondly, these positions are not qualified enough in the context of the lever mechanism to understand how they are to be interpreted. Are these positions relative to a specific cardinal system, or reference planes? Are they relative to precisely how the lever mechanism is mounted to the machine? Are they defined based on how the machine would be oriented? Another issue that arises as a result of this is again, it is not clear whether the machine or combination would be required in order to establish or qualify said positions. This in turn creates the same issue as claims 2, 6 and 8 in that the claim set is limited to the lever mechanism and thus can not comprise the combination since it would not make sense. In light of the great uncertainty as to how these positions are to be defined, it is deemed that as long as the prior art has an established position, it could be read on these positions because the lever would be capable of being oriented in any position based on how it would be mounted and/or based on what it is mounted to.
In summary, the manner in which these claims are written present significant issues of scope as it almost seems as if Applicant’s intention is to require the presence of the combination but at the same time seems to only want to be limited to the lever mechanism. A claim set limited to a lever mechanism versus a claim set limited to a micro puree machine are completely different in scope and prior art applicability as well as fields of search.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Cha (USpgpub 20180283543).
Regarding claim 1, Cha discloses an extrusion lever mechanism for a micro puree machine (intended use, not limiting), the extrusion lever mechanism comprising:
an extrusion lever (fig.4, 210);
a hub (fig.4, 220, 221) configured to receive a portion of the extrusion lever, the hub comprising a plurality of inclined planes (221) extending around a diameter of the hub (the planes extend along a perimeter or surface of the hub and as best understood this would read on this limitation); and
a pin (fig.8, 214) rotationally keyed to the extrusion lever (mounted and/or keyed to fit in the lever);
wherein each of a manual extrusion position, a neutral position, and a storage position (these positions may be defined as any one of positions 221D, N, R, P as shown in fig.8) of the extrusion lever corresponds to a position of the pin relative to the plurality of inclined planes.
Regarding claim 2, Cha discloses the extrusion lever mechanism of claim 1, wherein the manual extrusion position of the extrusion lever initiates extrusion of processed ingredients from a bowl of the micro puree machine with user input (as best understood, this is treated as intended use and the lever mechanism in Cha is capable of providing this use since it structurally has distinct positions).
Regarding claim 3, Cha discloses the extrusion lever mechanism of claim 1, wherein the manual extrusion position of the extrusion lever is between a vertical position and a first radial position (as best understood, the lever in Cha could be positioned in this positioning as evidenced in fig.8 and said position could be defined as the manual extrusion position).
Regarding claim 4, Cha discloses the extrusion lever mechanism of claim 1, wherein the neutral position of the extrusion lever is a vertical position (as best understood, there would be a vertical position among the positions of 221 especially depending on the device is mounted).
Regarding claim 5, Cha discloses the extrusion lever mechanism of claim 1, wherein the storage position of the extrusion lever is on a horizontal plane pointing away from a user (as best understood, there would be a position on a horizontal plane among the positions of 221 especially depending on the device is mounted and the frame of reference for which the plane is defined).
Regarding claim 6, Cha discloses the extrusion lever mechanism of claim 1, wherein an automatic extrusion position of the extrusion lever initiates extrusion of processed ingredients from a bowl of the micro puree machine without user input (as best understood, this is treated as intended use and the lever mechanism in Cha is capable of providing this use since it structurally has distinct positions).
Regarding claim 7, Cha discloses the extrusion lever mechanism of claim 6, wherein the automatic extrusion position of the extrusion lever is between a vertical position and a second radial position (as best understood, the lever in Cha could be positioned in this positioning as evidenced in fig.8 and said position could be defined as the automatic extrusion position).
Regarding claim 8, Cha discloses the extrusion lever mechanism of claim 1, wherein a retraction position of the extrusion lever initiates retraction of a plunger from a bowl of the micro puree machine without user input (as best understood, this is treated as intended use and the lever mechanism in Cha is capable of providing this use since it structurally has distinct positions).
Regarding claim 9, Cha discloses the extrusion lever mechanism of claim 8, wherein the retraction position of the extrusion lever is between a vertical position and a third radial position (as best understood, the lever in Cha could be positioned in this positioning as evidenced in fig.8 and said position could be defined as the retraction position).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (USpgpub 20180283543) in view of Soave et al. (USpgpub 200220325790).
Regarding claim 10, Cha discloses the use of a control apparatus 100 but doesn’t explicitly disclose the lever mechanism having at least one microswitch configured to provide information about the position of the extrusion lever to a printed circuit board.
Soave et al. teaches the use of at least one microswitch configured to provide information about the position of the extrusion lever to a printed circuit board (combination of hall effect sensor which reads on the microswitch and PCB 144 for detecting lever position).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lever mechanism disclosed in Cha to include said microswitch as taught by Soave et al. in order to provide the predictable result of allowing accurate detection of the position of the lever. Note the term microswitch is being broadly interpreted to encompass sensors since Applicant’s own specification and drawings are very sparse as to what type of detection mechanism is being utilized to determine the position of the lever and a microswitch could include a broad spectrum given BRI.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Include other examples of levers that could read on the claims broadly as well as more lever mechanisms which are closer to the field of endeavor. However, due to the breadth of the claims the field of endeavor is technically any lever mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS C DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5461. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/THOMAS C DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617