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 .
Response to Amendment
It is noted that the Examiner received a phone call from Applicant’s representative (name wasn’t recorded) who requested an interview prior to submission of this action. An attempt was made to set up the interview via two phone calls and voicemails left with Applicant’s representative. However, no response to the voicemails was received. Thus, the Examiner has to proceed with the submission. Should an interview be desired, Applicant may request one after receiving this action.
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 2-9 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.
Claims 2, 6 and 8 recite specific positions and further attempt to recite what these positions do or are intended to do by stating “configured to initiate”. 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 its 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. In addition, it appears based on Applicants remarks that perhaps the intention may be to include positive limitations to the puree machine but that is not possible in the current set of claims because they are limited to the lever mechanism as explained above in the claim interpretation section.
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 a bunch of lever positions which are now defined “relative to the hub”. This is also confusing because there is no frame of reference for the hub itself. For example, what exactly is a “a vertical position relative to the hub”. It is very confusing to understand precisely how the lever is to be positioned (relative to the hub) when we don’t understand how the hub is positioned in the first place. Of course, all these positions make a lot of sense in the context of the combination but in a sub combination setting the frame of reference needs to be established and clear.
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 circumference of the hub (the planes extend along a circumference or external surface of the hub given BRI); 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 is configured to initiate 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 when the extrusion lever is provided in the manual extrusion position, the extrusion lever is positioned between a vertical position and a first radial position relative to the hub (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 when the extrusion lever is provided in the neutral position, the extrusion lever is positioned at a vertical position relative to the hub (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 when the extrusion lever is provided in the storage position, the extrusion lever is positioned on a horizontal plane relative to the hub and 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 is configured to initiate 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 when the extrusion lever is provided in the automatic extrusion position, the extrusion lever is positioned between a vertical position and a second radial position relative to the hub (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 is configured to initiate 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 when the extrusion lever is provided in the retraction position, the extrusion lever is positioned between a vertical position and a third radial position relative to the hub (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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The drawing objection has been withdrawn in light of a broadest and most reasonable interpretation of the claim.
The indefiniteness of claim 1 has been overcome, however, claims 2-9 remain indefinite in light of new issues and/or related issues to the indefinite rejections made in the previous action. Further explanation is provided above.
It appears that Applicant’s main argument is that Cha is not an extrusion lever, however, as explained in the office action, the “extrusion” aspect is simply treated as nomenclature and the micro puree machine is intended use and has no patentable weight in the claim. Thus the claims are merely limited to a lever mechanism per se. There is no positive limitations of the micro puree machine nor limitations of the lever mechanism itself which would overcome the prior art.
Again, there appears to be a big disconnect and issue with what Applicant’s intend or believe they have claimed and what is actually positively recited and claimed.
If Applicant’s wish to be limited to the combination, then the claims have to be shifted but doing so would result in a restriction by original presentation. Another potential path is to focus in on the actual lever mechanism structure. As it stands the claims are highly indefinite in light of this arbitrary nature of claiming where on the one hand the claims appear to be limited only to the lever mechanism and on the other hand Applicants want to be tied to the combination (micro puree machine) without positively claiming said combination.
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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights