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 .
Specification
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 the abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention, “The present disclosure is reasonable in structural design” and “the food-processing appliance can realize not only meat mincing but also juicing functions such as juicing oranges, thereby being convenient to use and having improved practicality.”
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0025 should be in the detailed description instead of the brief description of drawings section. See MPEP § 608.01(f) and 37CFR1.74.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended that applicant maintain the full title of a part throughout the claims to improve clarity. For example, examiner recommends “hollow shaft tube” not be shortened to “shaft tube”. This would also apply to “replaceable blending unit” being shortened to “blending unit”.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit”, “power unit”, and “blending unit” in claim 1. It is noted that, the claim limitations “power unit” and “blending unit” are provided with sufficient structure in claims 7 and 2 respectively.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Unteregger (US 20030037685 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Unteregger teaches, a dual-purpose food-processing appliance, comprising a blending body (Fig 1 (2)), wherein the blending body is provided with an assembly space (Fig 1 (4)) and a control unit (Fig 1 (3), para [0022] A drive motor (M) is accommodated in the tower-shaped region (3) and is capable of driving a drive shaft 5 into rotation); a power unit (Fig 1 (M) motor, (5) drive shaft, (11) small belt pulley, (12) large belt pulley, (13) shaft, (14) transmission gear), wherein the power unit is assembled in the blending body, and a transmission shaft (Fig 1 (17)) on the power unit penetrates into the assembly space; a blending cup (Fig 1 (20)), wherein the blending cup is mounted in the assembly space, and a hollow shaft tube (Fig 1 (28), para [0026] The first bowl 20 further comprises a tubular inner portion 28 which rises from the bottom wall 22 into the interior of the bowl, which has a first end 29 remote from the bottom wall 22 and a second end 30 facing the bottom wall 22, and which is open at both ends 29 and 30.) is disposed at an inner bottom of the blending cup: and a replaceable blending unit (Fig 1 (42)(60)), wherein the blending unit is placed in the blending cup and sleeved on the shaft tube (Fig 1 (28)(42)(60)), and the transmission shaft passes through the shaft tube to be connected with the blending unit (para [0031] ...each transmission piece 60, 61 is constructed such that it renders it possible to realize an operational connection with the second drive means 17 and with a tool 42...).
Regarding claim 2, Unteregger teaches, the dual-purpose food-processing appliance according to claim 1, wherein the blending unit is a meat mincing appliance or a juicing appliance interchangeable with the meat mincing appliance (Fig 1 (42)(60); para [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Unteregger teaches, the dual-purpose food-processing appliance according to claim 2, wherein the meat mincing appliance comprises a blending shaft sleeved on the shaft tube (Fig 1 (28)(42)(60)), and at least 2 blending blades distributed on the blending shaft (Fig 1 (43)(44)), wherein the blending shaft is provided with an insertion shaft (Fig 1 (67); para [0033] …the first transmission piece 60 is provided with a bearing stud 67, which bearing stud 67 is designed for cooperating with the bearing sleeve 26 provided in the lid C for the first bowl 20.), and the transmission shaft is inserted into the blending shaft (Fig 1 (17)(42)).
Regarding claim 9, Unteregger teaches, the dual-purpose food-processing appliance according to claim 1, wherein the blending body is further provided with a control button electrically connected with the control unit (para [0037] The motor M may then be switched on, which will drive...)
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.
Claims 4, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unteregger (US 20030037685 A1), in view of Ho (GB 2275415 A).
Regarding claim 4, Unteregger teaches, the dual-purpose food-processing appliance according to claim 2. But, Unteregger fails to teach a filtering portion, and a blender connected in the filtering portion, wherein a sleeve connected with the transmission shaft is connected to a bottom end of the blender, the sleeve is inserted into the shaft tube, and a plurality of convex ribs are disposed on the blender in a staggered manner respectively.
Ho teaches, a juicing appliance comprising a filtering portion (Fig 1 (5) The filter), and a blender (Fig 1 (4)) connected in the filtering portion, wherein a sleeve connected with the transmission shaft is connected to a bottom end of the blender (Fig 1 (4)(43), Fig 7; page 11, para 2, In the assembled juicer, the hexagonal shaft 43 passes through the second indent 49 of the juice container 2 and then passes through the short cylindrical tube 27 in the centre of the funnel 6. The cylindrical tube 27 of the funnel 6 in turn, passes through the hole 18 in the centre of the filter 5 and then through the central aperture 58 in the centre of the base 6 of the first reamer 4), the sleeve is inserted into the shaft tube (page 11, para 2, The hexagonal shaft 43 is fully rotatable within the second indent 49 of the juice container 2 and within the cylindrical tube 27 of the funnel 6), and a plurality of convex ribs are disposed on the blender in a staggered manner respectively (Fig 1 (9); page 6, para 4, ...the octagonal platform 7 supports a parabolic cone 8 having eight, evenly spaced, reaming edges 9.).
Unteregger discloses that it is known in the art for food processors to be able to switch between different parts or tools in order to process different foods (para [0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to include a juicer attachment option, as disclosed by Ho, to the food processor of Unteregger to increase the utility of Unteregger by allowing it to process different foods.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Unteregger and Ho teach, the dual-purpose food-processing appliance according to claim 4, and further teaches a plurality of filtering holes, disposed at the bottom of the filtering portion respectively (Ho; Fig 1(19) slits, (5) filter).
Regarding clam 7, Unteregger teaches, the dual-purpose food-processing appliance according to claim 1, wherein the power unit comprises a motor (see rejection of claim 1 above). But Unteregger fails to teach the power unit comprising a driving gear connected with the motor, and a driven gear fitting with the driving gear, wherein the driving gear and the driven gear are arranged side by side, and the driven gear is connected with the transmission shaft.
Ho teaches, a power unit for a food processing device comprising a motor (Fig 5 (44)), a driving gear connected with the motor, and a driven gear fitting with the driving gear, wherein the driving gear and the driven gear are arranged side by side, and the driven gear is connected with the transmission shaft (Fig 5 (57) gears; page 12, para 3, The output torque of the motor 44 is magnified by a train of gears 57 (Figures 5, 7 and 8) and is then transmitted to the hexagonal shaft 43).
It is well known in food processing devices for a food processing device to include a power unit that has a motor, and a means of transmitting the power (such as a train of gears) from said motor to an output shaft. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date, to try using a gear train to transmit power from a motor to an output shaft as shown by Ho, instead of the belt pulleys described by Unteregger. A person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue this known potential solution with a reasonable expectation of success given their technical grasp. Further, the use of a gear train and a belt pulley system were known equivalents at the time of filing and it would have been obvious to substitute one for the other to achieve the predictable result of transferring power from a motor to the output shaft.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Unteregger and Ho teach, the dual-purpose food-processing appliance according to claim 4, and further teaches, a limiting handle that is disposed on the side of an upper edge of the filtering portion for facilitating grabbing (Ho; Fig 1, Fig 7 (22) flat projection or small handle).
The flat projection or small handle (22) described by Ho is attached to the upper wall (21) of the filter (5). Regarding the combination of Unteregger and Ho teaching a handle disposed on one side while the claim requires the limiting handle being disposed on both sides, i.e. there effectively being two handles, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily conclude that having a second handle on the opposite side of the filter would not change the part’s ability to be grabbed. Further, similar to pots, pans etc. It is common within the food processing and cooking arts to place handles on one or both sides of a cooking tool (cup, pot, pan, etc.). Since no new or unexpected result is produced from adding a second handle, the mere duplication of this part has no patentable significance. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to try adding a second handle opposite, the small handle (22) on the upper wall of the filter described in Ho to facilitate grabbing.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unteregger (US 20030037685 A1), in view of Ho (GB 2275415 A), and further in view of Hensel (US 20120103203 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Unteregger and Ho teach, The dual-purpose food-processing appliance according to claim 4, wherein the blender is disposed in a hemispherical structure (Ho; Fig 1 (8), page 6 para 4, ...the octagonal platform 7 supports a parabolic cone 8...), at least two supporting sheets extend from an outer edge of the blender (Ho; Fig 1 (12); page 4, para 3, ...a pair of opposing flat projections or stirrers 12 are located on the first reamer 4, each stirrer 12 extending from either side of the circular base 6 of the first reamer 4, parallel to the surface of the circular base 6). But the combination of Unteregger and Ho fail to teach the supporting sheets being pressed against the inner surface of the filtering portion.
Hensel teaches, a blender disposed in a hemispherical structure (Fig 6(b) (50)), at least two supporting sheets extend from an outer edge of the blender (Fig 6(b) (252)), and the supporting sheets are pressed against an inner surface of the filtering portion (Fig 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
651
749
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hensel - Figure 3 (Annotated)
Hensel discloses that the paddles are primarily used to sweep the strainer free from extraneous pulp as the reamer rotates (para [0049]).
It is well known in juicing devices for juicing devices with rotating reamers to include paddles or scrapers attached to the reamer as close as possible to the bottom of the filter, in order to clear solids from the holes of the filter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify the combination of Unteregger and Ho to include paddles or sheets attached to the reamer close the bottom of the filter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wilcock (WO 2021140333 A1) teaches, a food processing appliance, wherein a food processing tool can be interchanged with a juicing tool comprising a citrus reamer.
Hoare et al. (US 20170095122 A1) teaches, a combination juicer and blender device, comprising a rotating reamer, a blender portion, and a motor, disclosing multiple mechanisms for transferring power from the motor to the blender portion (This transmission mechanism 24 may be a clutch mechanism, a dog gear mechanism, a solenoid or mechanically activated gear mechanism, belt drive or the like).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J. MCCORMICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/C.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights