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
This Final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated June 27, 2026 filed in response to the Non-final Rejection dated March 27, 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection in the previous Office action is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 9 addressing the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in the previous Office action are maintained as explained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, in the middle of page 6 of the Amendment, Examiner has erroneously conflated distinct components from different stages of Boo’s transmission train. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner takes the position connecting part 123 and third gear 124 in Figs. 8 and 9 of Boo are the second stage of a two-stage gear set made up of gears 122 (the first stage) and connecting part 123 with third gear 124 (the second stage). Third gear 124, which may reasonably be interpreted as the second stage gear of the two-stage gear set, meshes with single-stage gear set 127 which meshes with second rotation connector 128. Claim 1 does not preclude this interpretation. Accordingly, Examiner does not find the argument persuasive.
Applicant argues, starting at the bottom of page 6, Examiner’s citation of Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984) is flawed because a transmission ratio is not a relative dimension nor a simple change in physical scale or spatial width. Examiner respectfully disagrees. A transmission ratio is literally a relative comparison of the number of teeth on one gear in relation to the number of teeth on another gear meshed therewith. That is, the “relative dimension” is the number of teeth on the gears of the transmission.
Applicant argues, in the bottom half of page 7, Examiner’s assertion applicant places no criticality on the claimed range ignores the technical teaching of the specification. Examiner respectfully submits applicant’s specification does not provide a showing of unexpected results using the claimed ratio as required by M.P.E.P. 2144.05,III,A. See also M.P.E.P. 716.02(d).
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because it includes a reference character which is not enclosed within parentheses. Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the micro switch" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Patent Publication No. KR 10-2325064 B1 by Boo, hereinafter “Boo”.
Regarding claim 1, Boo discloses a multifunctional food processor (food processor 1 in Fig. 1; ¶[0002] and [0025]), comprising a machine base (machine base main body 10 in Fig. 1; ¶[0025]) and a motor arranged in the machine base (motor 110 in Fig. 5 is arrange in base body 10; ¶[0051]), wherein an end of an output shaft of the motor (end of output shaft 111 in Figs. 6 and 7; ¶[0053]) is connected with a first rotation connector (first rotation connector shaft 125 in Fig. 5; ¶[0051]) and is connected with a second rotation connector (second rotation connector shaft 128c in Fig. 5; ¶[0051]) through a reducing mechanism (reducing mechanism unit 120 in Fig. 5; ¶[0051]); characterized in that, the reducing mechanism comprises a support frame (base plate 121 and lower housing 126 are a support frame for reducing mechanism unit 120) and driven gear sets (gear set 122 in Figs. 7-9 and gear set 127 in Figs. 11-13), the plurality of driven gear sets are arranged around a periphery of the output shaft through the support frame (gear sets 122 and 127 are arranged around output shaft 111 which pass through hole 126c as shown in Figs. 7-13; ¶[0056]) and form mutual transmission with the output shaft through a transmission gear (driven gear sets 122 and 127 are in mutual transmission with first transmission gear 112 in Figs. 6 and 7; ¶[0054]);
wherein the support frame comprises a first connection plate and a second connection plate fixedly connected to each other (first connection base plate 121 in Figs. 6-9 and second connection plate lower housing 126 in Figs. 10-13 make up the support frame), and the driven gear sets comprise single-stage gears (driven gear set 127 in Figs. 11-13 are single-stage gears) and two-stage gears (driven gear set 122 is a first stage of a two-stage gear set formed with connecting part 123 and gear 124 as the second stage as shown in Fig. 9) meshed with each other (second stage gear 124 meshes with single-stage gear driven set 127), the two-stage gears being meshed with the transmission gear (gears 122 of the two-stage gear set meshes with first transmission gear 112);
the second rotation connector is sleeved outside the plurality of driven gear sets (128/128c is sleeved outside driven gear sets 122 and 127 in Figs. 12 and 13), and an inner sidewall of the second rotation connector is provided with gear teeth meshing with the driven gear sets (inner sidewall of 128 has gear teeth 128a which mesh with driven gear set 127 as shown in Fig. 13).
Boo is silent regarding a specific gear reduction ratio. Paragraph [0057] discloses first rotation connector shaft 125 is rotated at a reduced speed from that of output shaft 111 but doesn’t give a specific value. Paragraph [0083] discloses second rotation connector shaft 128c rotates at a slower speed than connector shaft 125 due to the tooth ratio of driven gear set 127 but doesn’t give a specific ratio value. Therefore a transmission ratio of 8-12:1 is not disclosed. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the transmission ratio to be within the range of 8-12:1 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, Boo’s food processor would not perform differently with the claimed transmission ratio. Further, it appears applicant places no criticality on the range claimed. Paragraph [0028] of applicant’s written description merely states “the transmission ratio of the reducing mechanism is about 8-12:1” and provides an example within the range.
Regarding claim 2, Boo renders the multifunctional food processor according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Boo further discloses middle parts of the first connection plate and the second connection plate are each provided with a through hole for installing the output shaft (output shaft 11 passes through hole 121a of base plate 121 as shown in Fig. 6 and passes through hole 126c of lower housing 126 in Fig. 12), and the plurality of driven gear sets are rotatably arranged on the first connection plate and the second connection plate around the output shaft (driven gear set 122 is arranged on base plate 121 as shown in Fig. 7 and driven gear set 127 is arranged on lower housing 126 as shown in Fig. 13), the output shaft is fixedly provided with a transmission gear between the first connection plate and the second connection plate (transmission gear 112 in Fig. 6 is located between 121 and 126), and the first rotation connector is provided above the second connection plate (first rotation connector shaft 125 extends above section connection plate lower housing 126 as shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Boo renders the multifunctional food processor according to claim 2 unpatentable as explained above. Boo further discloses the two-stage gears are meshed with the transmission gear (driven gear set 122 of the two-stage gear set is meshed with transmission gear 112 as shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Boo renders the multifunctional food processor according to claim 3 unpatentable as explained above. Boo further discloses three two-stage gears are placed in an equilateral triangle arrangement and are meshed with the transmission gear (driven gears 122 of the two-stage gear set in Figs. 7-9 are placed in an equilateral triangle arrangement and are meshed with transmission gear 112 as shown in Fig. 7), and three single-stage gears are also placed in an equilateral triangle arrangement and are respectively meshed with each two-stage gear, so as to form a stable triangular reduction structure (three single-stage gears 127 in Figs. 11-13 are also placed in an equilateral triangle arrangement and are respectively meshed with gear 124 of the two-stage gear set so as to form a stable triangular reduction structure).
Regarding claim 6, Boo renders the multifunctional food processor according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Boo further discloses the machine base (machine base 10 in Fig. 5) comprises an upper casing (see “Upper Casing” annotation to Fig. 5 of Boo reproduced below) and a lower casing (see “Lower Casing” annotation below) that are fixedly connected to each other (Fig. 5 shows the casing are fixed together), wherein the middle of the upper casing is provided with a mounting recess (see “Mounting Recess” annotation below) for mounting the reducing mechanism (reducing mechanism unit 120 in Fig. 5 mounts in the Mounting Recess as shown in Fig. 2), the motor is arranged in the lower casing (motor 110 in Fig. 5 is arranged in the Lower Casing), and the output shaft passes through the mounting recess to be connected to the first rotation connector (output shaft 111 passes through the Mounting Recess and connects to rotation connector shaft 125) and the output shaft is connected to the second rotation connector via the reducing mechanism (output shaft 111 is connected to second rotation connector shaft 128c via reducing mechanism unit 120).
PNG
media_image1.png
915
1079
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Boo renders the multifunctional food processor according to claim 6 unpatentable as explained above. Boo further discloses the multifunctional food processor (food processor 1 in Fig. 1) further comprises a cover detachably arranged on the upper casing (container support section 11 in Fig. 2 covers the Upper Casing).
Regarding claim 10, Boo renders the multifunctional food processor according to claim 6 unpatentable as explained above. Boo further discloses the upper casing is provided with an engagement groove of an annular profile (see “Engagement Groove” annotation to Fig. 5 of Boo reproduced below), and the lower casing is provided with insertion members to be engaged with the engagement groove, and the insertion members are arranged at intervals (see “Insertion Members” annotation below).
PNG
media_image2.png
906
1129
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boo in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,224,414 to Hunt, hereinafter “Hunt”.
Regarding claim 5, Boo renders the multifunctional food processor according to claim 2 unpatentable as explained above. However, Boo does not disclose a first wear-resistant sheet as claimed in claim 5.
In the same field of food processing devices, Hunt teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use wear-resistant sheets to protect surfaces susceptible to wear. See column 4, lines 6-27.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a wear-resistant sheet between reduction output unit 128 and lower housing 126 as shown in Figs. 12 and 13 to reduce wear on lower housing 126 as reduction output unit 128 rotates therein in the same way Hunt teaches using wear-resistant sheeting. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Hunt to the multifunctional food processor of Boo would achieve the predictable result of Boo’s processor with an incorporated wear-resistant sheet.
Regarding claim 8, Boo renders the multifunctional food processor according to claim 7 unpatentable as explained above. However, Boo does not disclose a second wear-resistant sheet is arranged between second rotation connector shaft 128c and container support cover 11 in Fig. 2 as claimed in claim 8.
In the same field of food processing devices, Hunt teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use wear-resistant sheets to protect surfaces susceptible to wear. See column 4, lines 6-27.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a wear-resistant sheet between shaft 128c and support cover 11 to reduce wear on support cover 11 as shaft 128c rotates therein in the same way Hunt teaches using wear-resistant sheeting. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Hunt to the multifunctional food processor of Boo would achieve the predictable result of Boo’s processor with an incorporated wear-resistant sheet.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boo in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,174,073 to Maher et al., hereinafter “Maher”.
Regarding claim 9, Boo renders the multifunctional food processor according to claim 6 unpatentable as explained above. However, Boo does not disclose a safety groove and closing/opening mechanism as claimed in claim 9.
In the same field of food processors, Maher teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a safety groove with a closing/opening mechanism which makes a closed loop with the electric circuit in the machine base when the mechanism is pressed. See column 3, line 62 through column 6, line 4. More specifically, Maher teaches the closing/opening mechanism (locking means 24 in Figs 1 and 2; col. 3, line 5-) comprises a pressing block (pressing block slider 48 in Fig. 6), a first positioning column disposed at the bottom of the pressing block (the left column-shaped end of slider 48 in Fig. 6 is below the pressing surface on slider 48, recess 36 and coned surface 62), a second positioning column disposed opposite to the first positioning column (second positioning column bracket 50 in Fig. 6 is disposed opposite slider 48), a spring disposed on the first positioning column and the second positioning column (spring 56 in Fig. 6 is disposed on the left end of slider 48), and an microinching elastic sheet disposed opposite to the pressing block (microinching elastic sheet simple spring 76 in Fig. 6 is disposed opposite the pressing surface on slider 48); when a work bowl (blender jar 28 in Fig. 1) is engaged to the top of the machine base (supporting portion 16 in Fig. 1), a protrusion member on the work bowl pushes the closing/opening mechanism (protrusion lug 34 in Figs. 1-6 on jar 28), thus compressing the spring (spring 56 is compressed as shown in Fig. 5), such that the pressing block presses the microinching elastic sheet to turn on the micro switch (slider 48 presses spring element 76 to turn on and positively lock micro switch 46 in Fig. 6 into the on position).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a safety groove and closing/opening mechanism into the upper casing of Boo’s food processor in the same way Maher teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Maher to Son’s food processor would achieve the predictable result of Son’s food processor with a safety groove mechanism.
Conclusion
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 PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725 16 September 2026
Prosecution Insights