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 foreign priority based on an application filed in China on July 27, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN 2023219974626 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. This statement is specifically in reference to the references found on page 1 of the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because exploded views should be placed in brackets. Further, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, including all embodiments. Therefore, the “the knob is configured to be twisted to any degree and released … the knob is configured to be twisted any degree up to 120 degrees and released … the knob is configured to be twisted any degree up to 90 degrees and released … the knob is configured to be twisted any degree up to 60 degrees and released" and “the certain angle is 120 degrees or less … the certain angle is 90 degrees or less” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 claims 6-8, prior art that contains a knob that can be twisted to any degree less than x will read on “configured to be twisted any degree up to x degrees and released”. For example, a device that contains a knob which can rotate up to 60° will read on claims 5-8.
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 9-12 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “plunger” in claim 9 is used by the claim to mean “protrusion,” while the accepted meaning is “a sliding reciprocating piece driven by or against fluid pressure" (Merriam-Webster dictionary). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The term “certain” in claim 10is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “certain” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unknown at what angle the stopper blocks the .
Claims 11-12 are also rejected for depending on an indefinite claim.
The examiner will interpret claim 9 with “peg” replacing “limiting plunger” and will interpret claim 10 as “the stopper blocks the peg from moving beyond an angle”.
Similarly to claims 6-8, claims 11 and 12 will be interpreted as “peg and stopper are configured so the knob is configured to be twisted any degree up to x degrees and released”. Therefore, a stopping mechanism that prevents the knob from rotating beyond 90° would read on claims 10-12.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, and 15-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng (CN 220512164 U).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng discloses a barrel body (1), dehydration basket (3), separator plate (4), limiting protrusion (5), limiting groove (6), buckle (7), upper cover (2), knob (9) rotatably connected to the upper cover (“knob is rotatably connected in the upper cover” page 1 of provided translation), and a hook (10) fixed on an outer wall of the knob (Figure 1).
Zheng teaches “the upper cover is detachably engaged with a top of the barrel body” on page 3 of the provided translation: “The upper cover 2 is snap-fastened to the top of the barrel body 1”.
Zheng teaches “the dehydration basket and the separator plate are provided between the barrel body and the upper cover” in Figure 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
670
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
Zheng teaches “a top of the dehydration basket is clamped and fixed with the separator plate” on page 1 of the provided translation: “The top of the dehydration basket is snap-fitted with the partition board”.
Zheng teaches “a center of an inner bottom surface of the barrel body is provided with the limiting protrusion which supports and makes the dehydration basket to rotate freely on a tip of the limiting protrusion; a bottom of the dehydration basket is provided with the limiting groove into which the limiting protrusion is inserted” on page 3 of the provided translation: “The middle part of the inner cavity of the barrel 1 is provided with a limiting protrusion 5 that facilitates the rotation of the dehydration basket 3. The bottom of the dehydration basket 3 There is a limit groove 6 for the limit protrusion 5 to be inserted into.”
Zheng also teaches “the driving mechanism is provided below the upper cover; wherein the driving mechanism comprises: an installation disk; a tension spring; and a center gear, wherein: the installation disk is fixed below the upper cover; the buckle is coaxially attached to the center gear; one end of the tension spring is fixedly connected with an inner wall of the installation disk; and the other end of the tension spring is hooked with the hook; wherein the knob is configured to be twisted such that the tension spring is stretched, and when the knob is released, the driving mechanism is configured to rotate the buckle by pulling force of the tension spring, thereby rotating the dehydration basket” in Figure 2 and Figure 3 and page 2 of the provided translation: “When the knob is twisted, the hand is released. The buckle fixed on the top of the dehydration basket is pulled by the tension spring to return and is driven by two gears.”
PNG
media_image2.png
670
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
601
768
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3
Regarding claim 2, Figure 4 teaches “the driving mechanism further comprises: a sector gear; a driving gear; and a driven gear, wherein: the sector gear is coaxially attached to a bottom of the knob; the driving gear is meshed with the sector gear; and the driven gear and the driving gear are coaxially attached to each other.”
PNG
media_image4.png
330
723
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4
Regarding claims 5-8, Zheng teaches “After the knob 9 rotates 120° in the opposite direction under the pull of the tension spring 802, the limit insertion rod 807 on the side of the hook 10 is inserted into the limit slot 808, so that the knob 9 no longer rotates” (page 4 of the provided translation).
The knob rotating to 120° anticipates the knob being configured to be twisted to any degree and released (claim 5) as well as the knob being configured to be able to be twisted to any degree up to 120° (claim 6). Furthermore, if the knob is configured to be able to be twisted to any degree up to 120°, it is also “configured to be twisted any degree up to 90 degrees and released” (claim 7) and “configured to be twisted any degree up to 60 degrees and released” (claim 8).
Regarding claims 15-16, Zheng teaches “An anti-skid pad 12 is fixed at the bottom of the barrel body 1, and the anti-skid pad 12 is arranged in an annular
Shape” (page 4 of the provided translation). This anticipates claims 15-16: “15. The vegetable dehydrator according to claim 1, wherein the vegetable dehydrator further comprises an anti-skid pad fixed at the bottom of the barrel body.
16. The vegetable dehydrator according to claim 15, wherein the anti-skid pad is provided in a ring shape.”
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouineteau (US 3885321) in view of Wan et al. (US 2007/0137504 A1), hereinafter “Wan”, Xie (CN 213778389 U), and Physics Online (Non-Patent Literature).
Regarding claim 1, Fouineteau teaches a salad spinner which includes a barrel body, dehydration basket, separator plate, limiting protrusion, limiting groove, upper cover, knob rotatably connected in the upper cover, installation disk, and buckle fixed on the separator plate, as shown in Figure 5 and “a member 6 which, in this example, is a solid disc, is fixed to the end 4 of the shaft so as to rotate therewith” (column 2 lines 8-9) and “The disc 10 is fixed to the end 5 of the shaft so as to rotate therewith” (column 2 lines 19-21). Fouineteau also teaches a drive mechanism: “This cover has, inside an enclosed casing, a set of step-up speed gears, known per se, with two trains of pinions, and a central shaft” (column 2 lines 2-4). Fouineteau also teaches “a center of an inner bottom surface of the barrel body is provided with the limiting protrusion which supports and makes the dehydration basket to rotate freely on a tip of the limiting protrusion; a bottom of the dehydration basket is provided with the limiting groove into which the limiting protrusion is inserted” of claim 1 with “basket which has a bottom provided with a recess to receive said pivot” (column 3 lines 18-19). The basket is capable of rotation: “basket providing, during rotation” (column 3 lines 24-25).
PNG
media_image5.png
828
1057
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5
Fouineteau also teaches “the dehydration basket and the separator plate are provided between the barrel body and the upper cover” as shown in Figure 5.
Fouineteau also teaches “a top of the dehydration basket is clamped and fixed with the separator plate” with “The upper edge of the basket 13 and the peripheral tyre 8 of the rotatable member or disc 6 are intended to co-operate together. To this end the upper edge of the basket 13 is provided with a rotating coupling means complementary to the coupling means provided on the tyre 8 of disc 6 which is suspended under the cover 3” (column 2 lines 33-39).
Fouineteau also teaches “the upper cover is detachably engaged with a top of the barrel body” with “a cover for closing the container and completely manually removable readily therefrom by merely lifting off said cover” (column 3 lines 6-8).
However, Fouineteau does not teach a driving mechanism which comprises a tension spring with one end attached to the installation disk and the other end attached to the hook connected to the knob and a center gear coaxially attached to the buckle.
Wan teaches a similar device to Fouineteau which includes center gear (411) (Figure 6) attached to a ratchet assembly (400) attached to the buckle (212) along one axis (Figure 7): “The trailing gear 324 is integrated co-axially with a horizontal crossbar 421 of the ratchet assembly 400” (paragraph 90) (Figure 6). The ratchet assembly is attached to the lid of the dehydration basket: “Via the coupling between the ratchet disc 410 and the lid 210, the rotation is thus imparted to the basket 200” (paragraph 97); “The tube 412 has its lower end notched on opposite sides to introduce a certain degree of resilience so that it can be snap-fitted into the collar 212 of the basket lid 210” (paragraph 95).
PNG
media_image6.png
677
501
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 6
Wan also teaches a torsion spring which returns the lever (310) to the starting position: “resiliently biased by an elbow spring 326 to turn in the anti-clockwise direction” (paragraph 91) which returns the lever (310) to the starting position. See Figure 7.
PNG
media_image7.png
713
590
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 7
Wan teaches that “the ratchet assembly 400 transmits drive from the gear train 320 to the basket 200 in one single direction (i.e. anti-clockwise) only upon pivoting of the lever 310 from its rest position R to its frontmost position F. Such transmission repeats for as long as the lever 310 is swayed. Although the rotational drive is transmitted and applied to the basket 200 only intermittently, each time the drive is applied the basket 200 gains speed and accelerates, and the basket 200 rotates freely through successive drives. The basket 200 may reach a maximum speed of about 800 rpm after say five to six strokes if the lever 310 is pivoted rapidly and frequently enough” (paragraph 99).
It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the drive mechanism of Fouineteau with the drive mechanism, lever/knob, and upper lid of Wan to provide fast rotation of the dehydration basket with minimal user effort.
However, the combined device of Wan and Fouineteau has a torsion spring biasing the knob/lever instead of a tension spring.
Xie teaches a centrifugal drier which includes a tension spring to return the driving element to the start position: “When the user releases the crank 211 of the drive unit 2, the drive member 21 is tilted in the opposite direction by the rebound force of the spring 22” (n0032 of the provided translation).
The torsion spring of Wan and the tension spring of Xie both perform the function of biasing the driving element to the start position. It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a simple substitution of the torsion spring of Wan with the tension spring of Xie. Xie also discloses that the other end of the tension spring attaches to a loop (Xie’s element 142) which is attached to an assembling space (Xie’s element 142), which is analogous to the installation disk of Fouineteau.
The modified device of Fouineteau, Wan, and Xie teaches all of the elements of the current invention except it utilizes a hole in the handle (Xie’s 2121) instead of the claimed hook for the extension spring to attach to and thus bias the handle/knob/lever.
Physics Online discloses an extension spring that connects to a hook.
PNG
media_image8.png
418
268
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 8
Replacing the hole of Xie with the hook of Physics Online is a simple substitution. Both methods of connecting an extension spring to an object are known in the art. It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the hole of the combined device of Fouineteau, Wan, and Xie with the hook as set forth Physics Online.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Fouineteau includes Wan’s driving mechanism (modified as described above) which includes a sector gear (Wan’s 321), driving gear (Wan’s 322), and driven gear (Wan’s 322) as shown in Figure 9.
PNG
media_image9.png
680
696
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figure 9
Figure 9 shows that the sector gear (321) is coaxially attached to the lever/knob (310) via connector 311. Figure 9 also shows that the sector and driving gear mesh and that the driving and driven gear are coaxially attached.
Regarding claims 5-8, the modified device of Fouineteau includes Wan’s lever 310. As shown in Figure 10, Wan’s lever 310 has a limited range of motion.
PNG
media_image10.png
167
430
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Figure 10
Wan describes it as follows “Suitable abutments are in place, for example as provided by parts of lid body 111 inside the cavity 115, to limit turning of the leading gear 321 to within an angle of approximately 90.degree” (paragraph 91). This anticipates claim 5’s “the knob is configured to be twisted to any degree and released” and claim 7’s “the knob is configured to be twisted any degree up to 90 degrees and released”. As described above, it also anticipates claims 6 and 8.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouineteau in view of Wan, Xie, Physics Online, and Dalquist, III et al. (US 4763567), hereinafter "Dalquist".
The modified device of Fouineteau includes all of the limitations of claim 2 as described above and includes the modified driving mechanism, lid, and knob of Wan. However, modified Fouineteau does not teach “a slotted groove wherein the slotted groove is a longitudinal slot configured to receive a common axle penetrating through a center of the driven gear and the driving gear so that the driving gear and the driven gear can slide along the slotted groove.”
Dalquist teaches a popcorn stirrer with a slotted groove (Dalquist’s element 88) which contains the axle for a pinion (Dalquist’s element 84) (Figure 11). The pinion is analogous to the driving/driven gear of Wan (322). Dalquist’s mechanism provides “a simple, reliable ratchet connection for rotating a food stirring mechanism by reciprocating a trigger member” (column 1 lines 40-42).
It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the ratchet mechanism of the modified device of Fouineteau with the simple ratchet mechanism of Dalquist in an effort to increase simplicity and reliability.
PNG
media_image11.png
281
859
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Figure 11
Claims 4 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouineteau in view of Wan, Xie, Physics Online, Dalquist, and Katz et al. (US 2014/0261018 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Fouineteau includes the ratchet mechanism of Dalquist. Dalquist teaches a ratchet mechanism: “Each oscillation of trigger 40 rotates stirring mechanism 44 as follows. Initially, trigger extension 68 and pinion 84 are in their forward positions as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3. A hand gripping of the trigger moves the trigger and trigger extension rearwardly against the force of trigger spring 70. The forward end of trigger extension 68 is provided with a series of teeth 94 drivingly engaged with pinion teeth 96 of pinion 84, so that rearward movement of the trigger extension moves the pinion as well. However, because of the low friction mounting of pinion 84 within the cover and handle slots represented at 88, the pinion does not rotate responsive to trigger movement, but rather slides rearwardly until center shaft 86 approaches the rearward end of the slots, corresponding to a driving engagement between pinion teeth 96 and drive teeth 98 of drive gear 82 as shown in FIGS. 4a and 4b. This driving engagement occurs well before a full retaction of trigger 40 into handle section 32. Accordingly, rearward trigger movement following the driving engagement rotates pinion 84 counterclockwise as viewed in FIG. 4, thus to rotate drive gear 82 and stirring mechanism 44 in the clockwise direction. When the trigger is released, trigger extension 68 moves forward under the influence of trigger spring 70. Pinion 84 does not rotate in the clockwise direction, but rather slides forwardly in its mounting slots until center shaft 86 contacts the forward portion of the slots, whereupon the pinion is rotated clockwise by the continued forward return of the trigger and trigger extension.” (column 5 lines 3-34).
However, the ratchet mechanism of Dalquist is configured to transmit motion during the driven stroke instead of the return stroke while the applicant’s ratchet mechanism is configured to transmit motion during the return stroke instead of the driven stroke (“the driving mechanism is configured to rotate the buckle and the dehydration basket when the knob is released and the driving mechanism is configured not to rotate the buckle and the dehydration basket when the knob is twisted”).
Katz teaches a salad spinner with a ratchet mechanism, handle, and extension spring. Katz describes the mechanism: “ when the user turns the actuator; a cover defining a housing for at least partially receiving the drive transmission mechanism, actuator and linking member, the cover being located above the drive lid; and a spring with first and second ends, the first end of the spring being affixed to the second end of the linking member and the second end of the spring being affixed to the cover, wherein in use, when the user turns the actuator from the first operable position to the second operable position, the spring is pulled for loading potential energy in the spring while no rotational movement is transmitted to the drive lid, and when the user releases the actuator from the second operable position, the spring imparts rotational movement to the linking member and drive transmission mechanism, which in turn imparts rotation movement to the drive lid” (paragraph 8). Katz teaches this construction allows for a more efficient application of rotating forces while requiring less force exerted by the user (paragraph 5).
The ratchet mechanism can transmit motion in only one direction. Depending on how it is configured, it may transmit on the driven or return stroke. Therefore, it would thus have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ratchet mechanism of the modified device of Fouineteau so the return stroke powers the salad spinner instead of the driven stroke in an effort to increase efficiency while reducing effort required by the user.
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of Fouineteau includes the modified ratchet mechanism of Dalquist and includes the limitations of claim 4. Dalquist teaches “the above-described cycle is repeated by the operator as frequently as desired in order to adequately mix and stir the corn as it is popped” (column 5 lines 34-36). This shows Dalquist’s mechanism is capable of “the knob is configured to be twisted and released during a free rotation of the dehydration basket that the rotation of the sector gear makes the driving gear rotate reversely and therefore forces the driven gear to move to the center gear based on the shape of the slotted groove, and the center gear meshes with the driven gear, thereby the rotation of the sector gear makes the center gear and the dehydration basket rotate further” as “as frequently as desired” means that the modified ratchet of Dalquist is capable of operation during free-rotation (beyond a certain frequency, the basket and center gear will still be rotating when the knob is released) of the popcorn stirrer/dehydrator basket thus making the basket of Fouineteau rotate further.
Regarding claim 20, the modified device of Fouineteau includes the modified ratchet of Dalquist and the limitations of claim 19. Wan teaches a ratchet mechanism allows “permitted to continue to rotate anti-clockwise (FIG. 12B) with the basket 200 and lid 210 under the action of momentum. Continual rotation of the basket 200, etc. is practically unhindered” (paragraph 98) and “Although the rotational drive is transmitted and applied to the basket 200 only intermittently, each time the drive is applied the basket 200 gains speed and accelerates, and the basket 200 rotates freely through successive drives” (paragraph 99). Therefore, the modified mechanism of Dalquist in the modified device of Fouineteau reads on “the center gear and the rotation basket is configured to rotate further to prolong the duration of the free rotation of the dehydration basket and/or to increase the speed of the free rotation of the dehydration basket”.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouineteau in view of Wan, Xie, Physics Online, and Wong (US 2007/0256315 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device Fouineteau includes the driving mechanism of Wan and the modified tension spring of Xie and incorporates the limitations of claim 2. Wan’s driving mechanism uses the contour of the lid to limit the range of motion of its lever 310.
However, the modified device of Fouineteau, which includes Wan’s driving mechanism, fails to disclose a peg fixed on one side of the hook and a stopper provided on a lower surface of the upper cover.
Xie discloses a peg (Figure 12). Element 212 of Xie is analogous structure to the applicant’s hook since it is connected to the tension spring and lever/knob.
The modified device of Fouineteau includes the driving mechanism of Wan which includes abutments of the lid which limit the range of motion of the lever/knob. The lever/knob may be limited in its range of motion either above the lid/in sight of the user or below the lid/out of sight of the user.
PNG
media_image12.png
507
481
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Figure 12
Wong teaches a salad spinner with a knob whose range of motion is limited by a slot in the lower surface of the upper lid (Figure 13). The stopper may be within the upper lid, as shown by Wong, or it may be on the installation disk, as shown by Xie.
PNG
media_image13.png
284
366
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Figure 13
The stopping mechanism can be in sight of the user (Wan) or out of sight of the user (Xie and Wong). The stopping mechanism may be disposed on the lid (Wan) below the lid (Wong) or on the side of the centrifugal dehydrator device (Xie).
It would thus have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the driving mechanism of the modified device of Fouineteau to be any of the available options, including so the limiting mechanism is below the lid/out of sight of the user instead of above the lid/in sight of the user and the stopper is arranged on a lower surface of the lid instead of on the installation disk as doing so would lead to the predictable result of preventing over-rotation of the knob.
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Fouineteau includes the limitations of claim 9 which includes a stopping mechanism that will stop the lever from moving at an angle. Therefore, it reads on claim 10’s “the stopper blocks the limiting protrusion from moving beyond an angle”.
Regarding claims 11-12, the modified device of Fouineteau includes the limitations of claim 10. Xie teaches the stopper stopping the protrusion at an angle less than 90° in Figure 12. Wong also teaches the stopper stopping the protrusion at an angle less than 90° in Figure 13. Wan also teaches the lever not being able to move beyond 90°. It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified device of Fouineteau so the stopping mechanism stops the lever from rotating beyond 90°.
Claims 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouineteau in view of Wan, Xie, Physics Online, Dalquist, Hou et al. (US 2023/0292960 A1), hereinafter "Hou", and Mulhauser (US 6018883).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Fouineteau includes the limitations of claim 3 as described above. However, Fouineteau does not describe a brake mechanism.
Hou describes salad spinner with a brake mechanism consisting of a pressing rod (Hou’s 50 and 5), a limiting cylinder, a limiting convex ring (Hou’s 51) (Figure 14). Hou teaches “the dehydration basket is configured to stop rotating by friction between the separator plate and a bottom end of the pressing rod when the pressing rod is pressed” with “The brake pad 5 may provide friction to the drive element 4 used as a turntable to stop it” (paragraph 19). Hou shows the limiting cylinder is fixed in the installation disk and that the pressing rod is inserted into the limiting cylinder and penetrates through the installation disk in Figure 14. Hou shows “the pressing rod penetrates through the upper cover” with “The cover plate 21 may be disposed with a button hole 211 for exposing the button 50” (paragraph 19).
PNG
media_image14.png
868
724
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Figure 14
Mulhauser describes prior art without a brake “these devices had no structure for stopping the basket once the basket is spun. It only is stopped by friction it normally encounters, which may be a slow process, unsuitable for the cook on the go. The most practical other way of stopping the basket spinning is to remove the cover and manually grasp the basket. A user, however, may unintentionally grasp the food in the spinning basket or be sprayed with liquid flying off the food in the basket” (column 1 lines 26-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the brake of Hou to the modified device of Fouineteau to provide a practical way to stop the motion of the salad spinner to decrease spinning time to better accommodate cooks on the go.
However, Hou fails to teach “a limiting convex ring fixed on an outer wall of one end of the pressing rod”. Mulhauser teaches a limiting convex ring fixed on an outer wall of one end of the pressing rod (Mulhauser’s 10 and 12).
Moving the limiting convex ring from the center of the brake (Hou) to an outer wall of one end of the pressing rod (Mulhauser) is a simple substitution and therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Both limiting convex rings perform the function of returning the brake to the non-engaged position (“the flexible resilient nature of the actuator 302 biases the brake assembly 300 back to the non-engaged position” (Mulhauser column 7 lines 46-48); “an elastic member 51 for restoration after being pressed” (Hou paragraph 19)).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Fouineteau includes the braking mechanism of Hou. Hou teaches “an upper surface of the upper cover is provided with a through hole through which the top of the pressing rod penetrates” with “The cover plate 21 may be disposed with a button hole 211 for exposing the button 50” (paragraph 19). However, Hou teaches the top of the penetrating rod being flat, not in a hemispherical shape. Mulhauser teaches a salad spinner with a braking mechanism with a pressing rod. The top of the pressing rod (Mulhauser’s 308) is in a hemispherical shape as shown in Figure 15.
PNG
media_image15.png
228
479
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Figure 15
Modifying the brake mechanism of Hou so the pressing rod has the hemispherical top of Mulhauser is a simple substitution. Both are known in the art. It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the flat topped pressing rod of Hou with the hemispherical top of Mulhauser.
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Fouineteau includes the braking mechanism of Hou. Hou teaches the brake structure being provided in the upper cover in Figure 14.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouineteau in view of Wan, Xie, Physics Online, and Glucksman et al. (US 6622618 B1), hereinafter "Glucksman".
The modified device of Fouineteau does not disclose “the vegetable dehydrator further comprises an anti-skid pad fixed at the bottom of the barrel body”. Nor does it teach the anti-skid pad being in a ring shape.
Glucksman discloses a salad spinner with “the anti-skid ring about the bowl bottom” (column 9 lines 32-33). Glucksman also discloses “operated with one hand” (column 9 line 35).
It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an anti-skid ring of Glucksman to the bottom of the modified device of Fouineteau to allow for one-hand operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 includes the limitation “the center gear is configured to push the driven gear away from the center gear based on the shape of the slotted groove after the knob is released and rotated reversely”.
The modified device of Fouineteau includes the modified ratchet mechanism of Dalquist. Dalquist teaches “When the trigger is released, trigger extension 68 moves forward under the influence of trigger spring 70. Pinion 84 does not rotate in the clockwise direction, but rather slides forwardly in its mounting slots until center shaft 86 contacts the forward portion of the slots, whereupon the pinion is rotated clockwise by the continued forward return of the trigger and trigger extension” (Column 5 lines 26-33). It is known in the art that the sector gear (Dalquist’s rack 68) moves the driven and driving gear (Dalquist’s 84) along the slot (Dalquist’s 88) away from the center gear (Dalquist’s 82). It is not known in the art that the center gear pushes the driven and driving gear along the slot away from the center gear.
Wakulenko (US 1283377) teaches a mechanism on a bicycle that allows for free-wheeling: “lever 52, fulcrumed on the horizontal element 53 of the frame by the 51, but when the lever is actuated the shaft 24 causes the gears 23 and 25 to be moved into or out of engagement with those with which they normally mesh, thereby connecting or disconnecting the pedal movement from the train of gears” (lines 69-76). Wakulenko however does not teach a ratchet mechanism, nor does Wakulenko teach the gear 32 pushes away gear 25.
Therefore, claim 18 contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dalla Piazza et teaches a salad spinner with a lever, a ratchet mechanism, and a brake. Lu (CN 206777246 U) teaches a manually driven salad spinner. Hauser (US 2016/0095474 A1) teaches a manually driven salad spinner. Myoung (US 2016/0045072 A1) teaches a manually driven salad spinner with a knob. However, the knob is not spring-biased. So (US 2014/0283692 A1) teaches a salad spinner with a lever, a ratchet mechanism, and a brake. Harris et al. (US 2011/0239874 A1) teaches a device with a lever and a ratchet mechanism. Yu (US 2010/0078376) teaches a manually driven dehydration structure. Margolin (US 6510785 B1) teaches a manually driven salad spinner. Lillelund et al. (US 5904090) teaches a manually driven salad spinner. Bull et al. (US 5562025) teaches a manually driven salad spinner powered by a reciprocating knob.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET H. CLARKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5718. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday/Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, 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.
/M.H.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights