Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 35/523,827

Juice extractor

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Dec 04, 2024
Examiner
SHAVER, KELLIANNE M
Art Unit
2922
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Nuc Electronics Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
100%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 100% — above average
100%
Career Allow Rate
20 granted / 20 resolved
+40.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 7m
Avg Prosecution
1 currently pending
Career history
21
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
§102
38.5%
-1.5% vs TC avg
§112
38.5%
-1.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 20 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Foreign Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Response to Amendment The January 29th, 2026 amendment, consisting amended specification and reproductions, is acknowledged. Applicant has amended the specification to remove unclear language and add a description of broken lines as necessitated by the amended reproduction figures filed on the same date. The specification objection has been overcome. Applicant has submitted amended reproductions that reduce indefinite areas of the reproductions to broken line, removing them from the claim. However, surface shading lines remain inside of some of the areas that have been removed from the claim. The 35 U.S.C 112 (a) and (b) refusal has not been withdrawn, please see the below refusal. Claim Refusal 35 U.S.C 112 (a) and (b) The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The visual disclosure is inadequate such that the appearance and shape or configuration of the design for which protection is sought cannot be determined or understood (MPEP § 1504.04), specifically: There are portions of the interior structure of areas in reproductions 1.1, 1.6, and 1.8 that have been reduced to broken line in the amendment of January 29th, 2026 that contain surface shading lines. This could introduce confusion to the scope of the claim. See MPEP 1503.02, subsection II. Please see the below annotated reproductions for example. PNG media_image1.png 888 1728 media_image1.png Greyscale Because of the inadequate disclosure, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled. To overcome this refusal, it is suggested that applicant submit new drawings of the claimed design that show the design clearly and consistently. If certain non-enabled portions of the design cannot be fully enabled without the introduction of new matter, applicant may remove from the claim the areas or portions of the design that are considered indefinite and nonenabling by converting them to broken line and amending the specification to indicate those portions form no part of the claimed design. If the design cannot be clarified without changing its appearance, and there is no description of this changed appearance in the original disclosure, then applicant may wish to amend the design such that the non-enabled areas are shown in broken lines, therefore removing them from the claim. Any amendment to the claim must meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a). That is, it must be apparent that applicant was in possession of the scope now being asserted at the time of filing. This pertains to the addition or removal of parts of the design, as well as the conversion of solid lines to broken lines and vice versa. See 35 USC 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f) for new matter. Corrected drawing sheets are suggested 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. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. 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. When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). Conclusion The claim stands refused under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b). The references cited, but not applied, are considered cumulative art related to the claimed design. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLIANNE M SHAVER whose telephone number is (703)756-1924. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9am-5pm. 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, George Ulsh can be reached at 571-270-1433. 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. /K.M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2922 /CATHERINE S POSTHAUER/Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2922
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 04, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 29, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 03, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1120712
Body part of nonelectric grinder
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent D1118278
Salad spinner
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent D1106755
Steam release valve cap for cooking appliance
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent D1104650
CONTAINER CARRIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1104647
PORTABLE COOLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
100%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+0.0%)
1y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 20 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month