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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 09/22/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-2, 5-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heredia (EP1731068) in view of Marc (FR2651982A1) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 1, Heredia teaches an appliance for preparing and/or cooking foodstuffs, comprising at least:
one foodstuffs preparation and/or cooking bowl (2) including at least one cooking and/or preparation inner volume ([0014] container 2 adapted to contain food, Fig. 2 having an interior),
one base (53),
wherein the bowl (2) is disposed on the base (53, 1) in the operating state of the appliance (Fig. 2 container 2 on base 49),
the base (53, 1) comprising at least one bottom (Fig. 2 bottom portion of base 49) and at least one sidewall (1)
the bottom and the at least one sidewall delimiting an inner volume (Fig. 2 bottom of base 53 and side wall 1 delimiting an inner volume),
one weighing device (34) configured to weigh at least the content of the bowl of the appliance ([0019] weight transducer 34 to perform weigh operation)
the one weighing device ([0018] weighing means) comprising at least two weighing sensors ([0034] plurality of weight transducers 34),
wherein the weighing device is arranged in the inner volume of the base (Fig. 2 weight transducers within space between base 53 and wall 1, which defines an inner volume with 48),
a support plate (48) distinct from the base (53, 1) and arranged opposite the bottom of the base (Fig. 5 bottom of base 53 opposite of support 48).
Heredia is silent on at least one sidewall extending from the bottom, wherein each of the weighing sensors comprises at least one first portion on a bottom surface of the bottom of the base, the support plate has at least a portion defined in a support plane, the bottom of the base comprises at least a portion defined in the support plane, the first portion and the second portion of the weighing sensors are above the support plane.
PNG
media_image1.png
433
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Heredia
PNG
media_image2.png
362
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Marc
PNG
media_image3.png
686
756
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Marc
Marc teaches at least one sidewall (91) extending from the bottom (10)
wherein each of the weighing sensors (6 or 7, [0010] weighing means 6 and 7 being interchangeable) comprises at least one first portion (Annotated Fig. 3) on a bottom surface of the bottom of the base (10) at least one second portion (Annotated Fig. 3) on top of a portion of the support plate (20)
the support plate (20) has at least a portion defined in a support plane (Annotated Fig. 5)
the bottom of the base (10) comprises at least a portion defined in the support plane (Annotated Fig. 5, where the 91 is included in as portion of the bottom of the base, which when in contact with face 20 share the same plane)
the first portion and the second portion of the weighing sensors (6 or 7) are above the support plane (Annotated Fig. 5).
Heredia and Marc are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of food weighing devices. It would have been obvious to have modify the base, support plate, and weighing sensors of Heredia to incorporate the teachings of Marc to have a sidewall extending from the bottom of the base, a support plate defining a support plane, a portion of the bottom of the base being in the support plane and a first portion of the weighing sensor on a first portion on a bottom surface of the bottom of the base at least one second portion of weighing sensor on top of a portion of the support plate in order to maintain the base at a constant height on above the support plate throughout the operation of the appliance, and therefore avoid any fatigue of the weighing means and to additionally limit vibrations throughout the entire device (Marc [0009-0010]).
Regarding claim 2, Heredia and Marc teach the appliance, according to claim 1, and Heredia teaches wherein the weighing device is on the bottom of the base in one or several dedicated housings ([0027] weight transducer 34 is installed connected to the chassis 53).
Regarding claim 5, Heredia and Marc teaches the appliance, according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein the bottom is formed integral with the at least one sidewall of the base.
Heredia teaches a bottom (53) and sidewall (1) being two distinct pieces (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have the bottom be formed integral with the sidewall of the base, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claim 6, Heredia and Marc teach the appliance, according to claim 1, and Heredia teaches wherein the at least one sidewall (1) comprises a peripheral edge that is a fillet at the periphery of bottom of the base (Annotated Fig. 1 shown fillet edge).
PNG
media_image4.png
525
589
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Heredia
Regarding claim 7, Heredia and Marc teach the appliance, according to claim 1, and Heredia teaches wherein the bowl (2) comprises a lower portion (Fig. 2 bottom of bowl 2, cooperating with piece 62) shaped so as to cooperate with a stand (62) arranged on the base of the appliance (53, 1).
Regarding claim 8, Heredia and Marc teach the appliance, according to claim 1, and Heredia teaches and comprising a controller configured to drive at least the weighing device ([0024] control electronics performs weigh operation using weight transducers 34).
Regarding claim 9, Heredia and Marc teach the appliance, according to claim 1, and Heredia teaches and wherein the controller comprises a display (8) configured to display weight information of the content of the bowl measured by the at least one weighing sensor ([0027] weight of food in container 2 shown on display 8).
Regarding claim 10, Heredia and Marc teach the appliance, according to claim 1, and Heredia teaches and comprising at least one foot arranged on the support plate irrespective of the position of the weighing sensors (Fig. 1 showing feet on the bottom of 48).
Regarding claim 11, Heredia and Marc teach the appliance, according to claim 1, and Heredia teaches wherein the appliance is a kitchen food processor ([007] food processing mixer).
Regarding claim 12, Heredia and Marc teach the appliance, according to claim 1, and Heredia teaches wherein the bottom (53) is distinct from the at least one sidewall of the base (1, Fig. 2 base 53 being distinct from sidewall 1).
Regarding claim 13, Heredia and Marc teach the appliance, according to claim 1, and Heredia teaches wherein each weighing sensor (34) is astride the bottom of the base (53) and the support plate (49).
Regarding claim 15, Heredia and Marc teach the appliance, according to claim 1, and Heredia teaches wherein the weighing sensors (34) extend in a plane substantially parallel to the plane in which the bottom of the base extends (53, Fig. 4 weighing sensor 34 parallel to support 49).
Regarding claim 16, Heredia and Marc teach the appliance, according to claim 1, and Heredia teaches wherein the bottom of the base (53) extends in a plane substantially parallel to the plane in which the support plate (49) extends (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 17, Heredia and Marc teach the appliance, according to claim 1, and Heredia teaches wherein the support plate (48) comprises a first face opposite the bottom of the base (53, shown in Fig. 4) and a second face opposite to the first face (Fig. 1 bottom of 48 being a second face), and at least one foot of the appliance is on the second face (Fig. 1 showing feet on the bottom of 48).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heredia (EP1731068) and Marc (FR2651982A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Chou (US10555634).
Regarding claim 3, Heredia and Marc teach the appliance, according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein at least one of the weighing sensors is a strain gauge sensor.
Chou teaches wherein at least one of the weighing sensors is a strain gauge sensor (Col. 4 lines 34-40 sensor 31 can be a stress strain gage).
Heredia, Marc, and Chou are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of weighing food devices. It would have been obvious to have modified Heredia and Marc to incorporate the teachings of Chou to have strain gauge sensors such that the weigh is more precise (Chou Col. 4 lines 34-40).
Regarding claim 14, Heredia and Marc teach the appliance, according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein each sensor comprises a flange covering a strain gauge.
Chou teaches wherein each sensor (30) comprises a flange (32) covering a strain gauge (31).
It would have been obvious to have modified Heredia and Marc incorporate the teachings of Chou to have a flange covering a strain gauge so that the precision of the weight is increased through the use of the sensor and the support, being a flange (Chou Col. 4 lines 25-35).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heredia (EP1731068) and Marc (FR2651982A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Beck (DE102009045521) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 4, Heredia and Marc teaches the appliance, according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein the weighing device comprises four weighing sensors whose strain gauges are connected in a Wheatstone bridge.
Beck teaches wherein the weighing device comprises four weighing sensors whose strain gauges are connected in a Wheatstone bridge ([0016] the weighing device consist of a ceramic plate, which is equipped with pressure-dependent resistors and fixed resistors in bridge circuit. The resistors are then advantageously arranged in the manner of a Wheatstone bridge).
Heredia, Marc, and Beck are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of weighing food devices. It would have been obvious to have modified Heredia and Marc to incorporate the teachings of Beck to have four weighing sensors in a Wheatstone bridge such that the values measured are added in the simplest way so that accurate measurement can be performed (Beck [0016]).
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards the Drawing objection and 112(a) rejection from the Non-Final Rejection dated 6/24/2025, the drawing objection and 112 (a) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that weighing sensors 6 and 7 are not interchangeable, in the relevant paragraphs of Marc such as [0010], in particular in view of rods 91, which are shown only in the embodiments of Fig. 5, Marc describes having the rods 91 when using both weighing sensors 6 or 7, so in this case, the embodiment of Fig. 5 was used to show the use of rods 91, which are not represented in Fig. 3 of Marc. Marc recites “the jack rods 91 are applied against the upper face of the base 20 in order to maintain the frame 1 at a constant height on the base 2 throughout the operation of the motor 3 and therefore avoid any fatigue of the weighing means 6 or 7,” so it is understood in this case that the jack rods 91 are applicable in both embodiments, however just shown in the embodiment of Fig. 5.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that the rods 91 do not “delimt[ing] an inner volume” because they are retractable, it is understood that in an unretracted position, rods 91 delimit an inner volume between each other. The claims do require that “the rod 91 extend around the bottom of the alleged base,” as applicant argues, rather only requires the sidewall “extends from the bottom.”
Regarding applicant’s argument that “the support plate 2 and the base 1 fdo not have any portion defined in the same plane” it is understood that the sidewall of the base is included as a portion of the base, so in this case, Marc’s rods 91 are a portion of the base, and have a portion, that when is fully unretracted, contacts the support plane, which is understood to be on the same plane of the support plane.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “there is no portion of the bar 6 in a portion of the base 1 and also on a portion of the support plane 2,” the claims do not require that the weighing sensor is on the support plane, rather it requires “each of the weighing sensors comprises at least one first portion on a bottom surface of the bottom of the base and at least one second portion on top of a portion of the support plate,” and bar 6 is in contact with the support plate. Additionally, weighing sensor 7 of Marc are similarly shown to be in contact with the support plate as required by the claims, and as explained above, Marc describes having jack rods 91 in combination with weighing sensors 6, so it is understood to teach the limitation.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 1/15/2026
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761