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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant contends “Claim 1 has been amended to include limitations from claims 3 and 4”, however the limitation of claim 1 differs from claim 4 by reciting “the selection controls configured to be moved in at least two additional directions”. However, Goldenberg (US 2008/0055241) which was cited in the previous action for claims 3 and 4 still applies to the amended limitations in claim 1. Nothing in the Remarks contends the teachings of Goldenberg or even mention the reference.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., in page 6 of the Remarks, “None of the cited documents discloses such claimed control, in association with the LED light sources. The claimed selection control 23 can advantageously be operated even by a user wearing gloves, where other control (physical buttons or touch buttons) might not work properly precisely because the user is hampered by the gloves. Moreover, advantageously, the user interface 21 can operate correctly even in a dusty or grubby environment”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, 16, and 18-22 are 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a selection control configured to rotate and/or to be moved in at least one direction”, and the claim also recites “the selection control is configured to rotate in two opposite rotation directions” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The remaining rejected claims are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-12, 16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0366906 by Geng et al. ("Geng"), in view of US 2018/0301301 by James Carter Bach ("Bach"), DE 10 2016214111 by Soren Strayle et al. (“Strayle”), and US 2008/0055241 by Goldenberg et al. (“Goldenberg”). Please see attached machine translation of Strayle for reference.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Geng teaches a machine (Para. [0154]: ice cream making machine 10) for making liquid or semi-liquid food products (Para. [0154], Fig. 1), comprising:
a first processing container (Para. [0174]: mixing bowl 40) for processing a liquid or semi-liquid base product and defining a processing chamber (Para. [0174], Fig. 4);
a stirrer (Para. [0174], Fig. 4 mixing blade 46) for mixing the product in the first processing container;
a thermal system (Para. [0174], Fig. 4 compressor 47 in conjunction with coils 41) comprising a heat exchanger (Para. [0174], Fig. 4 cooling/heating coils 41, Fig. 13 illustrates a more detailed heat exchanger system), operatively connected with the first processing container (Para. [0174] Fig. 4, mixing bowl 40);
a drive and control unit (Para. [0174], Fig. 4 motor 45 and MCU 43), connected to the stirrer and to the thermal system to control the stirrer and the thermal system (Fig. 4 illustrates a block diagram of the system);
a user interface comprising a display and a selection control (Para. [0174]: MCU 43 cooperated with the user interface to the display 12 and user controls 13) configured to rotate and/or to be moved in at least one direction (Fig. 36), the user interface being configured to allow selections to be made (Para. [0227], Fig. 36) and, being connected to the drive and control unit, to send commands for controlling the thermal system and the stirrer (Para. [0227]: user interface 443, display 444, rotating knob 463 provides a signal to the microprocessor);
wherein the selection control is configured to rotate in two opposite rotation directions (Fig. 36, shows knob 463 with rotational arrows).
Geng does not expressly disclose wherein the user interface comprises
a plurality of light sources;
wherein the plurality of light sources are LEDs;
wherein the plurality of light sources are located in proximity to the selection control;
the drive and control unit being configured to activate the LEDs to create a plurality of different lighting effects that respectively indicate different situations of operating status of the machine;
the drive and control unit being configured to activate the LEDs, when a recipe is finished, to start flashing in a first predetermined color to indicate that a mixture of the product is ready to be taken out of the mixer, and to activate the LEDs, in the event of a malfunction or fault, to flash in a second predetermined color.
However, Bach teaches an appliance with a user interface comprising a display and a selection control (Fig. 2, para. [0009]: “knob assembly may include a control panel, a control knob, and a lighting assembly”),
a plurality of light sources; (Fig. 4, para. [0052])
wherein the plurality of light sources are LEDs; (Para. [0052])
wherein the plurality of light sources are located in proximity to the selection control; (Fig. 4, LEDs 60)
the drive and control unit (Para. [0035]: controller 38) being configured to activate the LEDs to create a plurality of different lighting effects (Para. [0052]: “light source 60 may include more than one LED and be capable of illuminating in different colors based on … one or more operating conditions”) that respectively indicate different situations of operating status of the machine (Para. [0054]: “[i]n this manner, a sharp, high-contrast graphical display may communicate the angular position of control knob 16 and the status of the heating element 18 to the user”);
the drive and control unit being configured to activate the LEDs (Para. [0037]: “signals may be routed between controller 38 and various operational components of cooking appliance 10, such as heating element(s) 18, control knobs 16, display components, sensors, alarms, and/or other component”) when a recipe is finished, a first predetermined color to indicate that a mixture of the product is ready to be taken out of the mixer (Para. [0052]: “light source 60 may be or include a light emitting diode (LED), configured for illuminating as a single color, e.g., red, green, white, etc., or being capable of illuminating in more than one color”, para. [0052]: “light source 60 may include more than one LED and be capable of illuminating in different colors based on, for example, one or more operating conditions of heating element 18, cooking appliance 10, or both”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the appliance of Geng the user interface as taught by Bach. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include such a feature so as to provide the user with more intuitive controls and be able to know the status of the appliance more easily and efficiently.
While Geng and Bach teach an appliance with a controller for displaying a state of operation utilizing different colored LEDs (Geng, paras. [0237]-[0266]: “STEP 606: Indicate operation, for example illuminating a light surround a Start/Stop button from white to red … STEP 632: Indicate operation complete, for example illuminating a light surround a Start/Stop button from red to white”) and further (Bach, para. [0052]: “light source 60 may include more than one LED and be capable of illuminating in different colors based on, for example, one or more operating conditions of heating element 18, cooking appliance 10, or both”), Geng and Bach do not expressly disclose flashing the light or in the event of a malfunction or fault, to flash in a second predetermined color.
However, Strayle teaches a user interface and control unit for an appliance with a rotary knob (Para. [0005]), to activate the LEDs, in the event of a malfunction or fault (Para. [0032]: “in the event of a fault, the second display device of the rotary knob can indicate this fault”, para. [0036]: “different error states can be indicated by different visual signals, for example by different colors or different lights”), to flash in a second predetermined color (Para. [0070]: “other colors or different brightness or flashing signals can be used”, para. [0030]: “the indicator light flashing at different speeds, a slow light up or a slow flashing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the control knob light indication scheme of Geng and Bach to flash a light with a predetermined color for a malfunction or fault as taught by Strayle. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include this feature in order to provide a user with a visual indicator of a malfunction and to increase safety of the appliance.
Geng, Bach, and Strayle do not expressly disclose wherein the selection control is configured to be moved in at least two additional directions to allow a parameter and/or a processing cycle and/or a machine function to be selected and set on the display (claim 1); and
wherein the selection control is configured to rotate in at least two orthogonal directions (claim 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
857
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Goldenberg teaches a similar control knob for a kitchen appliance (Fig. 1, para. [0027]: “the controlled device can be a variety of other electronic or computer devices. For example, the device can be a home appliance such as a television set, a microwave oven or other kitchen appliances”) wherein the selection control is configured to be moved in at least two additional directions to allow a parameter and/or a processing cycle and/or a machine function to be selected and set on the display; and
wherein the selection control is configured to rotate in at least two orthogonal directions (Fig. 1, para. [0031]: “knob 26 can be moved in the four orthogonal and four diagonal directions shown”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the selection control of Geng, Bach, and Strayle to incorporate the additional functionality demonstrated in the teachings of Goldenberg. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a user with more versatility and options when controlling a device and navigating a menu screen and “allow the user to select additional settings or functions of the controlled device” (Para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 2, Geng further teaches wherein the selection control is configured to rotate (Fig. 36, knob 463) to allow a parameter and/or a processing cycle and/or a machine function to be selected and set on the display (Fig. 35, Para. [0226]: user interface 443, graphic display panel 444 and controls 445 allow user to operate machine and express preferences for the ice cream making process).
Regarding claim 3, Geng further teaches wherein the selection control is configured to rotate in two opposite rotation directions (Fig. 36, shows knob 463 with rotational arrows).
Regarding claim 4, Geng further teaches wherein the selection control is configured to be moved in at least two direction to allow a parameter and/or a processing cycle and/or a machine function to be selected and set on the display (Figs. 35 and 36, paras. [0226] and [0227]: user interface 443, graphic display panel 444 and various controls 445 and knob 463, allow a user to operate the machine and express preferences for the ice cream making process).
Regarding claim 8, Geng further teaches wherein the selection control is configured to be rotated to allow scrolling through a plurality of selectable settings shown on the display (Figs. 35 and 36, paras. [0226] and [0227]: user interface 443, graphic display panel 444, the softness or the hardness of the ice cream or frozen dessert being made is selected via the knob 463 which provides a signal to the device’s microprocessor).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Geng further teaches wherein the selection control is a protruding knob (Fig. 35). Geng does not expressly disclose the protruding knob further comprising at least one element made of transparent material, adjacent to the protruding knob and surrounding the protruding knob.
However, Bach teaches wherein the protruding knob (Fig. 5) is further comprising at least one element made of transparent material (Fig. 5), adjacent to the protruding knob and surrounding the protruding knob (Fig. 5 shows a transparent material surface 24 under and surrounding the control knob 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the user interface of Geng the transparent material as taught by Bach. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include this feature so to provide the user the ability to see a variety of status information while maintaining a sealed body to protect against any potential spill of food or liquid (Para. [0041]).
Regarding claims 10, 12, 16, and 18-19, Geng does not expressly disclose the machine further comprising at least one element made of transparent material, adjacent to the selection control (claim 10), wherein the transparent material is plastic or glass (claim 12), wherein the plurality of light sources are located under the at least one element made of transparent material (claim 16), and further comprising a base, located under the at least one element made of transparent material (claim 18), wherein the plurality of light sources are located between the base and the at least one element made of transparent material (claim 19).
However, Bach teaches wherein the machine further comprising at least one element made of transparent material, adjacent to the selection control (Fig. 5), wherein the transparent material is plastic or glass (Para. [0038]), wherein the plurality of light sources are located under the at least one element made of transparent material (Fig. 5, light sources 60), and further comprising a base, located under the at least one element made of transparent material (Fig. 5), wherein the plurality of light sources are located between the base and the at least one element made of transparent material (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the user interface of Geng the features as taught by Bach. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include these features is to provide the user the ability to see a variety of status information while maintaining a sealed body to protect against any potential spill of food or liquid (Para. [0041]).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Geng further teaches the machine comprising a plurality of additional buttons (Fig. 35) and wherein the additional buttons are physical buttons (Fig. 35).
Claims 6, 7, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0366906 by Geng et al. ("Geng") in view of US 20180301301 by James Carter Bach (“Bach”) and US 2018/0003392 by Babu et al. (“Babu”) in further view of US 2019/0302904 by Nieh et al. (“Nieh”).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Geng does not expressly disclose that the selection control is configured to be pressed (claim 6), and wherein the display is a touch display and is configured to allow viewing touch commands (claim 7).
However, Nieh teaches a selection control configured to be pressed (Figs. 1C, 3A, para. [0035]: “at least one of rotational, sliding, swiveling and depressible movement”), and also that the display is a touch display and is configured to allow viewing touch commands (Para. [0033]: “the electronic display panel may include a touch-sensitive electronic display panel”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the appliance of Geng, Bach and Babu to incorporate the teachings of Nieh and provide an ice cream machine with a selection control that can be pressed and a touch display to allow viewing touch commands. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to “aid in protecting against ingress of dust, liquids and other particulates into contact with electronic components of the electrical appliance” (Para. [0049]).
Regarding claim 22, Geng does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of buttons are touch buttons made available by the display.
As above, Nieh teaches a selection control configured to be pressed (Figs. 1C, 3A, para. [0035]: “at least one of rotational, sliding, swiveling and depressible movement”), and also that the display is a touch display and is configured to allow viewing touch commands (Para. [0033]: “the electronic display panel may include a touch-sensitive electronic display panel”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Geng to incorporate the teachings of Nieh and provide an ice cream machine with a selection control that can be pressed and a touch display to allow viewing touch commands. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to “aid in protecting against ingress of dust, liquids and other particulates into contact with electronic components of the electrical appliance” (Para. [0049]).
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 DANIEL W HATTEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 (EST).
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571)270-5569. 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.
/DANIEL WARD HATTEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761