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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/21/2026 has been entered.
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) further in view of Pacnik (EP2317900B1) 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 and upward relative to, the bottom, the side wall surrounding 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
Marc teaches 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 (horizontal plane of 20 Fig. 3)
the first portion and the second portion of the weighing sensors (6 or 7) are above the support plane (horizontal plane of 20 Fig. 3).
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 for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Heredia to incorporate the teachings of Marc to have a support plate defining a support plane, a first portion of the weighing sensor on a first portion on a bottom surface of the bottom of the base, and 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]).
Heredia and Marc are silent on the base comprising at least one bottom and at least one sidewall extending from, and upward relative to, the bottom, the side wall surrounding the bottom, the bottom of the base comprises at least a portion defined in the support plane.
PNG
media_image3.png
480
624
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Pacnik
Pacnik teaches the base (9) comprising at least one bottom and at least one sidewall extending from (Fig. 2), and upward relative to, the bottom, the side wall surrounding the bottom (Fig. 2),
the support plate (8) has at least a portion defined in a support plane (Fig. 2), the bottom of the base (9) comprises at least a portion defined in the support plane (Fig. 2).
Heredia, Marc, and Pacnik 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 for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Heredia and Marc to incorporate the teachings of Pacnik to have the base have a bottom and a sidewall extending upwards, surrounding the bottom, that also has a portion defined in the support plane in order to allow the device to be mechanically secure and allow the bottom of the device to reliably placed on a surface (Pacnik [0040]).
Regarding claim 2, Heredia, Marc, and Pacnik 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, Marc, and Pacnik teaches the appliance, according to claim 1, but Heredia, and Marc are silent on wherein the bottom is formed integral with the at least one sidewall of the base.
Pacnik teaches the bottom (Fig. 2) is formed integral with the at least one sidewall of the base (9).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Heredia and Marc to incorporate the teachings of Pacnik to have the bottom be formed integral with the sidewall to ensure the connection between the sidewall and the bottom is mechanically stable and also liquid and gas tight (Pacnik [0039]).
Regarding claim 6, Heredia, Marc, and Pacnik 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, Marc, and Pacnik 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, Marc, and Pacnik 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, Marc, and Pacnik 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, Marc, and Pacnik 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, Marc, and Pacnik 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, Marc, and Pacnik 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, Marc, and Pacnik 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, Marc, and Pacnik 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, Marc, and Pacnik 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, Marc, and Pacnik 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), Marc (FR2651982A1), and Pacnik (EP2317900B1) with as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Chou (US10555634).
Regarding claim 3, Heredia, Marc, and Pacnik 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, Pacnik, 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, Marc, and Pacnik 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, Marc, and Pacnik 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, Marc, and Pacnik 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), Marc (FR2651982A1), and Pacnik (EP2317900B1) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Beck (DE102009045521) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 4, Heredia, Marc, and Pacnik 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, Pacnik, 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, Marc, and Pacnik 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
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 04/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under Heredia (EP1731068) in view of Marc (FR2651982A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, Applicant's amendment necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, wherein the new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Heredia (EP1731068) in view of Marc (FR2651982A1) further in view of newly cited reference Pacnik (EP2317900B1).
Conclusion
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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 6/9/2026
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights