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, 19-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, 19-20, the claim language is confusing and lacks clarity. Specifically, the recitation "jog dial" fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the structure of the invention. Further, the specification and drawings enable the structure of the jog dial to be a knob that is rotated to change a setting of a juicer (para [0006], "Jog dials include circular knobs that users can rotate to adjust various settings on a juicer"). Accordingly, for purposes of this opinion, the structure required for the claim language has been interpreted to be consistent with the Applicants specification.
Regarding claim 12, the claim language is confusing and lacks clarity. Specifically the recitation "wherein the jog dial is configured to allow the user to customize the indicator light" fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the structure of the invention. Further, the specification enables the jog dial to have the ability to alter the way the lights work for a given juicing mode of operation (para [0012]). Accordingly, for purposes of this opinion, the structure required for the claim language has been interpreted to be consistent with the Applicants specification.
Regarding claim 19, the claim language is confusing and lacks clarity. Specifically, the recitation "the indicator including a customizable indicator light" fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the structure of the invention. Further, the specification enables the jog dial to have the ability to alter the way the lights work for a given juicing mode of operation (para [0012]). Accordingly, for purposes of this opinion, the structure required for the claim •language has been interpreted to be consistent with the Applicants specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Floessholzer et al. (US 2017/0164776) in view of Montgomery (US 2014/0301155).
Regarding claim 1, Floessholzer discloses, a juicer (100, Fig. 2; abstract) for a user comprising: a juicer body (110, Fig. 2; para (0024]) having an outer perimeter (Fig. 2 - the outer perimeter of the circular plate of body 110);
a jog dial (242, Fig. 2; para [0039]); and an indicator (Fig. 2 - the CLEAR and CLOUDY text on the circular plate of body 110; para [0039]) disposed along a portion of the outer perimeter (Fig. 2 - the outer perimeter of the circular plate of body 110) of the juicer body (110, Fig. 2), the indicator (Fig. 2 - the CLEAR and CLOUDY text on the circular plate of body 110; para [0039]) configured to display a juicer status (para [0039]), but does not specifically teach a face plate.
However, Montgomery teaches a food processing system (100, Fig. 1; ABSTRACT), comprising:
a body (110, Fig. 1; para [0027]) including a face plate (Fig. 1 - the faceplate of 110 where the dial 112 is located) having an outer perimeter (Fig. 1 - the outer perimeter of body 110); and
a jog dial (112, Fig. 1; para [0030]) rotatably disposed on the face plate (Fig. 1 - the faceplate of 110 where the dial 112 is located).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the face plate of Montgomery to the Juicer body of Floessholzer to improve the strength and stability of the juicer body, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
It should be noted, the terms “juicer” and “jog” do not add any limitations to the claims as there is no further structure to indicate the distinguish the apparatus as a juicer or the dial as a “jog” dial.
Regarding claim 2, Floessholzer fails to disclose, the jog dial extending outwardly from the faceplate. Floessholzer does disclose the jog dial as discussed above.
However, Montgomery discloses a dial 112 extending from a faceplate as shown in Fig 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the face plate of Montgomery to the Juicer body of Floessholzer to improve the strength and stability of the juicer body, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding claim 3, the jog dial (242, Fig. 2; para (0039]) has a substantially circular cross section.
Regarding claim 5, Floessholzer and Montgomel)'. disclose the modified juicer of Claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the jog dial includes a diameter between half of an inch and 3 inches. It is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering
choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the dimensions of the jog dial. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dimensions of the jog dial to provide an easy to operate jog dial with improved visibility, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 6, Floessholzer and Montgomery disclose the modified juicer does not specifically teach wherein the jog dial includes a user interface display. However, in a second embodiment, Floessholzer teaches a juicer (100, Fig. 1) wherein a switch (142, Fig. 1) includes a user interface display (para (0037]- touch-screen interface). It is known that combination of like embodiment is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at adding the user interface display of the second embodiment of Floessholzer to the jog dial of the first embodiment of Floessholzer. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the user interface display of the second embodiment of Floessholzer to the jog dial of the first embodiment of Floessholzer for greater control over the juicer, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Floessholzer discloses, regarding claim 7, the dial has a touch screen interface. (See Paragraph [0037]) Regarding claim 8, the jog dial (242, Fig. 2; paragraph (0039]) is configured to allow the user to interact with the user interface display (para [0037] - touchscreen interface). Regarding claim 9, the jog dial
(242, Fig. 2; para (0039]) includes a visualization element (Fig. 2 - the line on the dial 242 pointing towards the indicator) disposed on the jog dial (242, Fig. 2; para (0039]).
Floessholzer fails to disclose regarding claims 11, 13, 14-17, the indicator includes an indicator light, the jog dial is configured to allow the user to customize the indicator light, the juicer status is conveyed using an indicator light color, the juicer status is conveyed using an indicator light pattern, the juicer status is conveyed using an indicator light brightness, the face plate extends outwardly from the juicer body, the face plate includes a curvature corresponding to a curvature of the juicer body.
Regarding claim 11, Montgomery teaches a food processing system (100, Fig. 1; ABSTRACT),
wherein an indicator (114, Fig. 1) includes an indicator light (114, para [0031], para [0037]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the indicator, based on the teaching of Montgomery, as a routine substitution of a known equivalent type of indicators for performing the same function.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Montgomery discloses a food processing system (100, Fig. 1; ABSTRACT), wherein an indicator (114, Fig. 1) includes an indicator light (114, para [0031], para [0037]-(0038]); and wherein the system status is conveyed using an indicator light color or light pattern (para (0031], (0038]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the indicator, based on the teaching of Montgomery, as a routine substitution of a known equivalent type of indicators for performing the same function.
Regarding claim 15, Montgomery teaches a food processing system (100, Fig. 1; ABSTRACT), wherein an indicator (114, Fig. 1) includes an indicator light (114, para [0031], para (0037]-[0038]); and wherein the system status is conveyed using an indicator light brightness (para (0031], (0038]; CLAIM 1, "a plurality of indicator lights disposed along a periphery of said blender base, wherein said indicator lights are operatively connected to said selection dial such that adjustment of said selection dial changes an illumination condition of said indicator lights"). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the indicator, based on the teaching of Montgomery, as a routine substitution of a known equivalent type of indicators for performing the same function.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Montgomery discloses, the face plate (Fig. 1 - the faceplate of 110 where the dial 112 is located) extends outwardly from the juicer body (110, Fig. 1; para [0027]); the face plate (Fig. 1 - the faceplate of 110 where the dial 112 is localed) Includes a curvature corresponding to a curvature of the Juicer body (110, Fig.1; para [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the face plate of Montgomery to the Juicer body of Floessholzer to improve the strength and stability of the juicer body, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation and as matter of obvious design choice.
Floessholzer discloses, the jog dial (242, Fig. 2; para (0039]) is disposed on a central axis of the face plate (Fig. 2 - the vertical axis bisecting the circular plate of body 110).
Regarding claim 20, Floessholzer discloses a method for customizing an indicator (Fig. 2 - the CLEAR and CLOUDY text on the circular plate of body 110; para [0039]) of a juicer (100, Fig. 2; ABSTRACT), comprising: providing a juicer (100, Fig. 2; ABSTRACT) having: a juicer body (110, Fig. 2; para [0024]) having an outer perimeter (Fig. 2 - the outer perimeter of the circular plate of body 110), a jog dial (242, Fig. 2; para (0039]), and an indicator (Fig. 2 - the CLEAR and CLOUDY text on the circular plate of body 110; para [0039]) disposed along a portion of the outer perimeter (Fig. 2 - the outer perimeter of the circular plate of body 110) of the juicer body (110, Fig. 2), the indicator (Fig. 2 - the CLEAR and CLOUDY text on the circular plate of body 110; para (0039]) configured to display a juicer status (para (0039]), but does not specifically teach a method comprising: a face plate; selecting an indicator modifying setting on the juicer; rotating the jog dial to select an indicator attribute; selecting the indicator attribute.
However, Montgomery teaches a method for customizing an indicator (114, Fig. 1) of a food processing system (100, Fig. 1; ABSTRACT), comprising: a body (110, Fig. 1; para [0027]) including a face plate (Fig. 1, the faceplate of 110 where the dial 112 is located) having an outer perimeter (Fig. 1 - the outer perimeter of body 110), wherein the face plate (Fig. 1 - the faceplate of 110 where the dial 112 is
located) includes a curvature corresponding to a curvature of the body (110, Fig. 1; para [0027]); and
a jog dial (112, Fig. 1; para [0030]) rotatably disposed on the face plate (Fig. 1 - the faceplate of 110 where the dial 112 is located), wherein the jog dial (112, Fig. 1; para (0030]) extends outwardly from the face plate (Fig. 1 - the faceplate of 110 where the dial 112 is located); selecting an indicator modifying setting (para [0031], CLAIM 1 - illumination condition) on the food processing system (100, Fig. 1); rotating a jog dial (112, Fig. 1) to select an indicator attribute (para (0031], "The lights are electrically connected to the mode of operation controls, such that varying the mode of operation results in a change in illumination pattern"); selecting the indicator attribute (para [0031], para [0037]-(0038]; Claim 1, "a plurality of indicator lights .disposed along a periphery of said blender base, wherein said
indicator lights are operatively connected to said selection dial such that adjustment of said selection dial changes an illumination condition of said indicator lights"). Accordingly, ii would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the face plate of Montgomery to the juicer body of Floessholzer to improve the strength and stability of the juicer body and to have substituted the
indicator, based on the teaching of Montgomery, as a routine substitution of a known equivalent type of indicators for performing the same function.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Floessholzer et al. (US 2017/0164776) in view of Montgomery (US 2014/0301155) and Vassallo et al (US 2006/0012584).
The teachings of Floessholzer have been discussed above. Floessholzer fails to disclose wherein the jog
dial includes a plurality of ridges.
However, Vassallo teaches a kitchen appliance (Fig. 1; ABSTRACT, para [00231) wherein a jog dial (26, Fig. 1; para [0025]) includes a plurality of ridges (para [0025], "The knob 26 can alternatively be implemented as a variety of different objects, including conical shapes, spherical shapes, dials, cubical shapes, rods, etc, and may have a variety of different textures on their surfaces, including bumps, lines, or other grips, or projections or members extending from the circumferential surface"). Accordingly, it-would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the. art to have added the ridges of Vassallo to the jog dial of Floessholzer to make the jog dial easier to grip, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Floessholzer et al. (US 2017/0164776) in view of Montgomery (US 2014/0301155) and Ancona et al (US 2002/0009016).
The teachings of Floessholzer have been discussed above. Floessholzer discloses, wherein the jog dial
(242, Fig. 2; para [00391) is configured to allow the user to select an appropriate food type (para [0007] - pre-programmed; para [0055] -selecting the appropriate food type), but does not specifically teach wherein the jog dial is configured to allow the user to select a recipe from a preloaded recipe book.
However, Ancona teaches a food processing system (Fig. 4a-c; ABSTRACT), wherein an interface selector (58, Fig. 4a; para [0032]) is configured to allow the user to select a recipe (para [0040], "Optionally keys 58d-58g could be speed controls and/or additional alphanumeric keys may be present for entering data or Selecting recipes") from a preloaded recipe book (Fig. 5; para [00411). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the juicer of Floessholzer with the preloaded recipe book of Ancona to provide the desired information to the recipe to the user without the user having to use another device to find the information for the recipe, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Claim(s) 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Floessholzer et al. (US 2017/0164776) in view of Montgomery (US 2014/0301155) and Yoon (US 2011/0063248).
Floessholzer discloses, a juicer (100, Fig. 2; abstract) for a user comprising: a juicer body (110, Fig. 2; para (0024]) having an outer perimeter (Fig. 2 - the outer perimeter of the circular plate of body 110);
a jog dial (242, Fig. 2; para [0039]); and an indicator (Fig. 2 - the CLEAR and CLOUDY text on the circular plate of body 110; para [0039]) disposed along a portion of the outer perimeter (Fig. 2 - the outer perimeter of the circular plate of body 110) of the juicer body (110, Fig. 2), the indicator (Fig. 2 - the CLEAR and CLOUDY text on the circular plate of body 110; para [0039]) configured to display a juicer status (para [0039]), but does not specifically teach a face plate.
However, Montgomery teaches a food processing system (100, Fig. 1; ABSTRACT), comprising:
a body (110, Fig. 1; para [0027]) including a face plate (Fig. 1 - the faceplate of 110 where the dial 112 is located) having an outer perimeter (Fig. 1 - the outer perimeter of body 110); and
a jog dial (112, Fig. 1; para [0030]) rotatably disposed on the face plate (Fig. 1 - the faceplate of 110 where the dial 112 is located).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the face plate of Montgomery to the Juicer body of Floessholzer to improve the strength and stability of the juicer body, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Floessholzer in view of Montgomery fails to teach the indicator including a customizable indicator light configured to display at least one of an indicator light color, an indicator light pattern, and an indicator light brightness.
Yoon discloses, regarding claim 12 and 19, controlling the brightness of a user interface, which contains a backlight. (See Claim 7). It would have been obvious to provide the indicator including a customizable indicator light configured to display at least one of an indicator light color, an indicator light pattern, and an indicator light brightness for allowing the user to set a desired operating preference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 7/24/2026
Prosecution Insights