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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/22/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasaki (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0038330).
Regarding claim 11, Sasaki discloses a plunger for a machine (abstract; figures 1-16, reference #10 and 96) comprising:
plunger body (reference #104) comprising a connection element engageable with a driven shaft of the machine (figure 14, struts #124 is an element that is connected to driven shaft #106 (it is noted that “connection element” is vague and devoid of any definable structure beyond something that connects with a driven shaft)), the driven shaft configured to axially move the plunger within the interior volume of the bowl to force ingredients within the interior volume to be extruded from the bowl (reference #106; [0057]) (it is noted that the driven shaft, interior volume and bowl are a functional intended use of the plunger body, and therefore are not positive structural limitations, and the movement of the driven shaft and the material worked upon are also directed to a manner of operation that do not further limit an apparatus claim and do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”); and
a pressure release mechanism held or formed within the plunger body for reducing or eliminating pressure build-up within the interior volume of the bowl during an extrusion process of the machine (figures 9, 10 and 13-16, reference #112; [0049]-[0050]).
Regarding the limitations in the preamble directed to a micro-puree machine that are not accorded any patentable weight, it is noted that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 12, Sasaki discloses wherein the pressure release mechanism is a pressure release valve member (figures 9, 10 and 13-16, reference #112; [0049]-[0050]). Regarding the valve member being made of silicone, the limitation is directed to a method of making said valve member, the examiner notes that the determination of patentability is determined by the recited structure of the apparatus and not by a method of making said structure. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is made does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. However, in order to further compact prosecution, Sasaki discloses that the machine, including all the parts that make up the machine may be made of silicone ([0034]).
Regarding claim 13, Sasaki discloses wherein the pressure release valve member is held in a cavity defined by the plunger body (figures 9, 10 and 13-16, reference #114; [0049]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 14, Sasaki discloses wherein the pressure release mechanism valve member is offset from a center of the plunger body (figure 14, see location of reference #112 off to the side, off-center).
Regarding claim 15, Sasaki discloses wherein the pressure release valve member is configured to move between a first, open position (figure 16, reference #112; [0050]) and a second, closed position (figures 13 and 15, reference #112; [0050]).
Regarding claim 16, Sasaki discloses wherein, in the first, open position, an outer circumferential portion of the pressure release valve member allows air to move from the interior volume of the bowl, past the pressure release valve, and through at least one air outlet defined in the plunger body (figure 16, reference #112, 114b, 122; [0049]-[0050]) (it is noted that the limitation is directed to a manner of operating disclosed machine and the material worked upon (air), and neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”. It is further noted that the bowl and the interior volume of the bowl are not positive structural limitations as explained in the rejection of claim 11 above, and therefore the limitation which makes further limits with respect to the interior volume of the bowl are also not positive limitations).
Regarding claim 17, Sasaki discloses wherein, in the second, closed position, an outer circumferential portion of the pressure release valve member prevents the processed food ingredients from moving out of the interior volume of the bowl (figures 13 and 15, reference #112; [0050]) (it is noted that the limitation is directed to a manner of operating disclosed machine and the material worked upon, and neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” It is further noted that the bowl and the interior volume of the bowl are not positive structural limitations as explained in the rejection of claim 11 above, and therefore the limitation which makes further limits with respect to the interior volume of the bowl are also not positive limitations).
Regarding claim 18, Sasaki discloses wherein the outer circumferential portion of the pressure release valve member is closed based on a pressure exerted by the processed food ingredients against the pressure release valve member (figures 13 and 15, reference #112 and 120; [0049]-[0050]) (it is noted that the limitation is directed to a manner of operating disclosed machine and the material worked upon, and neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”).
Regarding claim 19, Sasaki discloses wherein a bottom surface of the pressure release valve member aligns level with a bottom surface of the plunger body (see figures 9 and 10, reference #112/116 level with bottom wall of reference #104; [0049]).
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patterson (U.S. Patent No. 4,889,432).
Regarding claim 1, Patterson discloses a machine (abstract; figure 1) comprising:
a housing (figure 1, #11, 12, 14, 36) comprising a driven shaft (figure 1, #46)
a bowl assembleable to the housing (figures 1 and 3, #14 and 16), the bowl including a sidewall defining an interior volume (figures 3-5, #16), the sidewall extending between a first end of the bowl (reference #22) and a second end opposite the first end (reference #24; [0037]-[0038]);
a plunger (figures 1, 2 and 5 #48) comprising:
a plunger body (figures 1, 2 and 5 #48) engageable with a driven shaft of the machine, the driven shaft configured to axially move the plunger within the interior volume of the bowl to force ingredients within the interior volume to be extruded from the bowl (figures 1, 2 and 5, #46 and 48; column 2, lines 18-26; column 4, lines 4-26) (it is noted that the driven shaft is a functional intended use of the plunger body, and therefore is not a positive structural limitation, and the movement of the driven shaft and the material worked upon are also directed to a manner of operation that do not further limit an apparatus claim and do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”); and
a pressure release mechanism held or formed within the plunger body for reducing or eliminating pressure build-up within the interior volume of the bowl during an extrusion process of the machine (figures 1 and 5, #57 and 58; column 4, lines 27-38).
Regarding the limitations in the preamble directed to the machine being a micro-puree machine that are not accorded any patentable weight, it is noted that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 11, Patterson discloses a plunger for a machine (abstract; figures 1, 2 and 5, #48) comprising:
plunger body (reference #48) comprising a connection element engageable with a driven shaft of the machine (figures 1 and 5, #49 is an element that is connected to driven shaft #46; column 4, lines 4-11 (it is noted that “connection element” is vague and devoid of any definable structure beyond something that connects with a driven shaft)), the driven shaft configured to axially move the plunger within the interior volume of the bowl to force ingredients within the interior volume to be extruded from the bowl (figures 1, 2 and 5, #46 and 48; column 2, lines 18-26; column 4, lines 4-26) (it is noted that the driven shaft, interior volume and bowl are a functional intended use of the plunger body, and therefore are not positive structural limitations, and the movement of the driven shaft and the material worked upon are also directed to a manner of operation that do not further limit an apparatus claim and do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”); and
a pressure release mechanism held or formed within the plunger body for reducing or eliminating pressure build-up within the interior volume of the bowl during an extrusion process of the machine (figures 1 and 5, #57 and 58; column 4, lines 27-38).
Regarding the limitations in the preamble directed to a micro-puree machine that are not accorded any patentable weight, it is noted that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
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 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki in view of Patterson.
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki discloses a machine (abstract; figure 1, reference #10) comprising:
a housing (reference #14);
a bowl assembleable to the housing (reference #16), the bowl including a sidewall defining an interior volume (reference #30; [0038]), the sidewall extending between a first end of the bowl (reference #22) and a second end opposite the first end (reference #24; [0037]-[0038]);
a plunger (reference #96) comprising:
a plunger body (reference #104) engageable with a driven shaft of the machine, the driven shaft configured to axially move the plunger within the interior volume of the bowl to force ingredients within the interior volume to be extruded from the bowl (reference #106; [0057]) (it is noted that the driven shaft is a functional intended use of the plunger body, and therefore is not a positive structural limitation, and the movement of the driven shaft and the material worked upon are also directed to a manner of operation that do not further limit an apparatus claim and do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”); and
a pressure release mechanism held or formed within the plunger body for reducing or eliminating pressure build-up within the interior volume of the bowl during an extrusion process of the machine (figures 9, 10 and 13-16, reference #112; [0049]-[0050]).
Regarding the limitations in the preamble directed to the machine being a micro-puree machine that are not accorded any patentable weight, it is noted that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
However, Sasaki does not explicitly disclose the housing comprising a driven shaft.
Patterson teaches another plunger dispenser and mixer (abstract). Patterson teaches a housing comprising a driven shaft (figure 1, #11, 12 and 37 make up the housing that comprises shaft 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the driven shaft of Patterson on the housing of Sasaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach plunger dispensers and mixers. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a driven shaft as part of the housing because it supports the driven shaft and plunger in order to lower the plunger into the mixing vessel and remove the driven shaft and plunger after mixing is complete (Patterson column 5, lines 30-46).
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki in view of Patterson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Sasaki as modified by Patterson further discloses wherein the pressure release mechanism is a pressure release valve member (figures 9, 10 and 13-16, reference #112; [0049]-[0050]). Regarding the valve member being made of silicone, the limitation is directed to a method of making said valve member, the examiner notes that the determination of patentability is determined by the recited structure of the apparatus and not by a method of making said structure. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is made does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. However, in order to further compact prosecution, Sasaki discloses that the machine, including all the parts that make up the machine may be made of silicone ([0034]).
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki in view of Patterson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Sasaki as modified by Patterson further discloses wherein the pressure release valve member is held in a cavity defined by the plunger (figures 9, 10 and 13-16, reference #114; [0049]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki in view of Patterson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Sasaki as modified by Patterson further discloses wherein the pressure release mechanism valve member is offset from a center of the plunger (figure 14, see location of reference #112 off to the side, off-center).
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki in view of Patterson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Sasaki as modified by Patterson further discloses wherein the pressure release valve member is configured to move between a first, open position (figure 16, reference #112; [0050]) and a second, closed position (figures 13 and 15, reference #112; [0050]).
Regarding claim 6, Sasaki in view of Patterson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Sasaki as modified by Patterson further discloses wherein, in the first, open position, an outer circumferential portion of the pressure release valve member allows air to move from the interior volume of the bowl, past the pressure release valve, and through at least one air outlet defined in the plunger (figure 16, reference #112, 114b, 122; [0049]-[0050]) (it is noted that the limitation is directed to a manner of operating disclosed machine and the material worked upon (air), and neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”).
Regarding claim 7, Sasaki in view of Patterson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Sasaki as modified by Patterson further discloses wherein, in the second, closed position, an outer circumferential portion of the pressure release valve member prevents the processed food ingredients from moving out of the interior volume of the bowl (figures 13 and 15, reference #112; [0050]) (it is noted that the limitation is directed to a manner of operating disclosed machine and the material worked upon, and neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”).
Regarding claim 8, Sasaki in view of Patterson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Sasaki as modified by Patterson further discloses wherein the outer circumferential portion of the pressure release valve member is closed based on a pressure exerted by the processed food ingredients against the pressure release valve member (figures 13 and 15, reference #112 and 120; [0049]-[0050]) (it is noted that the limitation is directed to a manner of operating disclosed machine and the material worked upon, and neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”).
Regarding claim 9, Sasaki in view of Patterson discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Sasaki as modified by Patterson further discloses wherein a bottom surface of the pressure release valve member aligns level with a bottom surface of the plunger (see figures 9 and 10, reference #112/116 level with bottom wall of reference #104; [0049]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki in view of Patterson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurek et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,641,667).
Regarding claim 10, Sasaki discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the pressure release valve member comprises a stem held by the plunger and a diaphragm positioned in a cavity defined by the plunger. It is well known in the art that there are many types of valves that may be used to release air, including a stem and diaphragm valve as evidenced by Kurek et al. (figure 10, reference #94; column 12, lines 27-35). Since the prior art of Kurek et al. recognizes the equivalency of ball valves and diaphragm valves in the field of plungers for releasing air/pressure (column 12, lines 27-35), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the ball valve in the cavity of Sasaki with the diaphragm valve of Kurek et al. in the cavity as it is merely the selection of functional equivalent pressure release valve members recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1 and 11. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation micro-puree machine is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. Furthermore, the preamble of a “micro-puree machine” is merely nomenclature and does not point out any structure as to what makes the machine directed to micro-puree or even any functional language as to what a “micro-puree machine” is. The nomenclature is interpreted broadly during examination absent any further claim to a particular structural element of a machine.
Applicant further argues Sasaki fails to disclose the dispensing device does not include the driven shaft to drive the plunger and the plunger of the dispensing device does not include a connection element to engage with a driven shaft to drive the plunger because the plunger of the dispensing device of Sasaki is configured for manual actuation by a user. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. First, the amended claims now recite the housing comprises the driven shaft, not that the dispensing device includes a driven shaft. There is a difference in the wording, with the first requiring a driven shaft connected to the housing, versus the language in applicant’s arguments that only requires the device have a driven shaft. Examiner admits the driven shaft of Sasaki is not connected to the housing, and a new rejection in view of Patterson is made. Regarding the connection element, the claims have not provided any structure to this element, and Sasaki continues to read on the limitation of a connection element engaged with a driven shaft as explained in the 102 rejection above. The limitation only requires some element in contact with the driven shaft. The limitation does not recite that the connection element drive the plunger as applicant argues.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights