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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/25 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 4-5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (3901978).
Nelson teaches a method of preparing soy milk (col. 16 line 35) using a blender (col. 14 lines 4-13), the method comprising:
heating beans (col. 11 lines 49-51, col. 12 lines 4-6) and water (col. 12 lines 16-17) in a predetermined proportion (col. 12 lines 20-21) to a first predetermined temperature (col. 12 lines 29-31; col. 12 lines 7-13) within a first time period (col. 12 lines 29-31), the first predetermined temperature is set to a boiling point of the water (col. 12 lines 29-31; 212F)
cooking the beans at a second predetermined temperature (col. 12 lines 45-51) for a second time period (col. 12 lines 49-50) to make the beans well-cooked, where it is noted the well-cooked bean is taken with respect to heating to an elevated temperature and time, where the second time period is set to be within a range from 10 min to 30 min. (col. 12 line 50; range encompassing 20-30min.) and
stopping the heating (col. 13 lines 60-62) and grinding the well-cooked beans (col. 14 lines 3-4).
Nelson teaches the first predetermined temperature is set to include a boiling point of the water (col. 12 lines 29-31; 212F). Nelson teaches the second predetermined temperature for the purpose of blanching including near the boiling temperature of the solution (col. 12 lines 46-47) in addition to recognizing heating temperatures of 180 f (col. 19 line 13) and 210F (col. 25 line 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the second temperature is set to be lower than the first predetermined temperature (col. 12 lines 46-47; near boiling, i.e. less than 212F) thus achieving its defined purpose of providing the first tenderization as taught and a second heat treatment subsequent to the first necessary to inactivate lipoxidase and trypsin (col. 12 lines 62-64) and achieving the art recognized advantage of improving the nutritional value of the product as well as a desired taste as taught by Nelson (col. 12 lines 52-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the second temperature is set to be lower than the first predetermined temperature such as heating temperatures of 180 f (col. 19 line 13) thus achieving its defined purpose of providing the first tenderization as taught and a second heat treatment subsequent to the first necessary to inactivate lipoxidase and trypsin (col. 12 lines 62-64) and achieving the art recognized advantage of improving the nutritional value of the product as well as a desired taste as taught by Nelson (col. 12 lines 52-54).
It is noted with respect to the preamble, while there is no disclosure that the grinder is a blender, Nelson teaches grinding including wet milling, and/or forming a slurry and thus in a first instance is taken with respect to a blender. Alternatively, Nelson teaches the apparatus for grinding is not limited (col. 14 lines 8-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach a blender relative the grinding step of Nelson since Nelson teaches other conventional milling procedures and apparatus can be employed and give comparable results (col. 14 lines 11-15)
Alternatively, applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e. grinding, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure which is a grinder is identical to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use of grinding.
With respect to claim 2, heating the beans and the water in the predetermined proportion to the first predetermined temperature is completed within a first time period (col. 12 lines 29-31; col. 12 lines 7-13) and
cooking the beans at the second predetermined temperature to make the beans well-cooked is completed within a second time period (col. 12 line 50; range encompassing 20-30min.).
With respect to claim 4, heating the beans and the water in the predetermined proportion to the first predetermined temperature and cooking the beans at the second predetermined temperature to make the beans well-cooked is completed within a time period (col. 12 lines 58-60; where it is noted completed within a time period is not limited and thus encompass any defined end time and/or relative a combination of the first and second time)
With respect to claim 5, though silent to defining the first period time of heating numerically, since Nelson teaches the first period of time dependent on the elevated temperature, where higher temperature would shorten the time to achieve the desired degree of tenderization and since Nelson teaches the second period encompassing the range of 10 to 30 minutes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a total time determined to ascertain the proper duration of treatment as taught by Nelson (col. 13 lines 35-37), relative the same first and second heating steps which is in a range of 15-40 minutes. For its art recognized purpose of achieving a two step process which achieves the desired degree of tenderization and which does not over tenderize the bean due to excessive periods of time of treatment as taught by Nelson (col. 13 lines 26-28) thus obtaining the resulting product in satisfactory mouthfeel and/or colloidal stability as further taught (col. 13 lines 30-34).
With respect to claims 8 and 9, since the time of grinding is not limited by an amount of beans and since Nelson teaches grinding to a desired particle size. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed through routine experimentation to teach a total time of the grinding is set to be within a range from 2-15 minutes or more specifically a time of 4min to 10min since the amount of beans and desired particle size dictates a required time of grinding to achieve the desired reduction in particle size of the beans as taught by Nelson (col. 14 lines 14-24).
With respect to claim 10, where a plurality of times is taken with respect to separate batches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed through routine experimentation to teach the grinding times separated by a predetermined interval, such as the time required to provide a second batch, thus achieving a same desired final ground soybean product.
Alternatively, since Nelson teaches the addition of water during grinding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed through routine experimentation to teach a plurality of grindings separated by a predetermined interval, such as a time to provide and or maintain a desired slurry concentration to form a slurry having a solid concentration of less than a desired amount as taught by Nelson (col. 14 lines 24-27).
Claim 11, Nelson teaches the first predetermined temperature is set to include a boiling point of the water (col. 12 lines 29-31; 212F). Nelson teaches the first predetermined temperature is set to include a boiling point of the water (col. 12 lines 29-31; 212F). Nelson teaches the second predetermined temperature for the purpose of blanching including near the boiling temperature of the solution (col. 12 lines 46-47. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach a temperature difference between the first predetermined temperature and the second predetermined temperature is set within a range from 0°C to 5°C (col. 12 lines 46-47; near boiling, i.e. 212F) thus achieving its defined purpose of providing the first tenderization as taught and a second heat treatment subsequent to the first necessary to inactivate lipoxidase and trypsin (col. 12 lines 62-64) and achieving the art recognized advantage of improving the nutritional value of the product as well as a desired taste as taught by Nelson (col. 12 lines 52-54).
Claim 12, Nelson teaches the first predetermined temperature is set to include a boiling point of the water (col. 12 lines 29-31; 212F). Nelson teaches the first predetermined temperature is set to include a boiling point of the water (col. 12 lines 29-31; 212F). Nelson teaches the second predetermined temperature for the purpose of blanching including near the boiling temperature of the solution (col. 12 lines 46-47. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach a temperature difference between the first predetermined temperature and the second predetermined temperature is set within a range from .5°C to 2°C (col. 12 lines 46-47; near boiling, i.e. 212F) thus achieving its defined purpose of providing the first tenderization as taught and a second heat treatment subsequent to the first necessary to inactivate lipoxidase and trypsin (col. 12 lines 62-64) and achieving the art recognized advantage of improving the nutritional value of the product as well as a desired taste as taught by Nelson (col. 12 lines 52-54).
Claims 1-2 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cong et al. (KR20160014702; English translation provided).
Cong teaches a method of preparing soy milk using a blender (pg. 2 par. 4), the method comprising:
heating beans (pg. 2 last line; abstract lines 1-3) and water (pg. 2 last line) in a predetermined proportion (pg. 2 par. 7 lines 3-6) to a first predetermined temperature (pg. 3 par. 1 alternatively par. 2; abstract lines 1-3) within a first time period (pg. 3 par. 3; 1 to 1.5 min.), wherein the first predetermined temperature is set to a boiling point of water (pg. 3 par. 1 range including 100C).
cooking the beans at a second predetermined temperature (pg. 3 par. 5; abstract lines 4-7) lower than the first predetermined temperature (pg. 3 par. 5; temperature falls below first temperature; temperature Tsub2, 85-90C, 90C) for a second time period (pg. 3 par. 9 total time 5-6 minutes thus subtracted time of 1-1.5 min of first heating) to make the beans well-cooked (pg. 3 par. 6; abstract lines 4-7; where it is noted in a first instance well-cooked is taken with respect to twice cooked); and
stopping the heating (pg. 3 par. 8; after heating determined temperature not lower but “accumulated grinding time is determined to be shorter) grinding the well-cooked beans (pg. 3 par. 8; abstract lines 5-7).
Though silent to the second time period is set to be within a range from 10min to 30min. Since Cong teaches a timer (pg. 2 par. 8), since Cong teaches predetermined second cooking time to achieve a final product, since Cong teaches the second cooking step to achieve a minimum degree of cooking and since Cong teaches the heating power directly influences the time required to heat a quantity (pg. 3 par. 3), though silent to a time of the combination of raising and holding times taught. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed through routine experimentation to teach the second time period being within a range from 10-30 min. to achieve a final product which has undergone a minimum degree of heating, relative an undefined amount to achieve preventing of the activation of antinutrients in the soymilk as further taught by Cong (pg. 3 3rd. from last par.) and achieving a well-cooked bean.
Alternatively, though silent to the second time period is set to be within a range from 10min to 30min. Since Cong teaches a timer (pg. 2 par. 8) and since Cong teaches a desired number of cups (pg. 2 par. 7) and since Cong teaches the heating power directly influences the time required to heat a quantity (pg. 3 par. 3) and since a time of 10 minutes to 30 minutes lacks criticality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the second time period being within a range from 10-30 minutes thus achieving a well-cooked bean and since the desired number of cups dictates an amount of beans needed and consequently a predetermined heating time relative a corresponding heating power to produce the desired amount.
In addition, though silent to the second cook time, and in the instance the cook time is relative a desired degree, i.e. soft cooked vs well cooked. It is not necessary that suggestion or motivation be found within the four comers of the reference(s) themselves. "The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... theexplicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case since Cong teaches a timer (pg. 2 par. 8), since Cong teaches predetermined second cooking time to achieve a final product, since Cong teaches the second cooking step to achieve a minimum degree of cooking, though silent to a time of the combination of raising and holding times taught. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed through routine experimentation to teach the second time period being within a range from 10-30 min. to achieve a final product which has undergone a minimum degree of heating to achieve a well-cooked bean.
With respect to claim 2, heating the beans and the water in the predetermined proportion to the first predetermined temperature is completed within a first time period (pg. 3 par. 3; 1 to 1.5 min.) and
cooking the beans at the second predetermined temperature to make the beans well-cooked is completed within a second time period (pg. 3 par. 9 total time 5-6 minutes thus subtracted time of 1-1.5 min of first heating).
With respect to claim 4, heating the beans and the water in the predetermined proportion to the first predetermined temperature and cooking the beans at the second predetermined temperature to make the beans well-cooked is completed within a third time period (pg. 3 par. 9 total time 5-6 minutes).
With respect to claim 5, Cong teaches heating of the beans and of the water in the predetermined proportion to the first predetermined temperature and cooking of the beans at the second predetermined temperature to make the beans well-cooked are completed within a time period (pg. 3 par. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation to teach a total time of the heating is set to be within a range from 15-40 min. since the desired number of cups dictates an amount of beans needed and consequently a predetermined heating time to produce the desired amount.
With respect to claim 6, Cong teaches determining an amount of the beans and the water in the predetermined proportion, wherein the determining is implemented based on one of the following:
receiving an indication on the amount of the beans and the water in the predetermined proportion via a user interface of the blender (pg. 2 par. 7).
With respect to claim 7, wherein the time period is set based on the amount of the beans and the water in the predetermined proportion (pg. 2 par. 7):
Though silent to a predetermined threshold, Cong teaches the heating and cooking time dictated by the user desired number of cups and/or taste (pg. 2 par. 7).
Thus in the instant where the predetermined number of desired cups is a predetermined threshold and since reducing the desired number of cups would require less water and beans and conversely since increasing the number of cups would require additional beans and water.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed through routine experimentation to teach if the amount of the beans and the water in the predetermined proportion is determined to be less than a predetermined threshold amount of the beans and the water, such as in the instant of user desired less than 1 cup, the time period is set within a first range in a set range of the time period, i.e. corresponding time for 1 cup, and if the amount of the beans and the water in the predetermined proportion is determined to be greater than the predetermined threshold amount of the beans and the water, i.e. user desired more than 1 cup, the third time period is set within a second range thus achieving controller operation specific to determined corresponding grinding and heating times according to user instructions specific to a desired number of cups (pg. 2 par. 7) where the first range is less than the second range.
With respect to the term “range”. Though silent to a range, importantly Cong teaches the heating and cooking time dictated by the user desired number of cups and/or taste (pg. 2 par. 7). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed through routine experimentation to teach if the amount of the beans and the water in the predetermined proportion is determined to be less than a predetermined threshold amount of the beans and the water, such as in the instant of user desired less than 1 cup, the time period is set within a first range in a set range of the time period, i.e. corresponding time for 1 cup, and if the amount of the beans and the water in the predetermined proportion is determined to be greater than the predetermined threshold amount of the beans and the water, i.e. user desired more than 1 cup, the third time period is set within a second range thus achieving controller operation specific to determined corresponding grinding and heating times according to user instructions specific to a desired number of cups (pg. 2 par. 7) where the first range is less than the second range.
With respect to claim 8, wherein the grinding is performed at least one time, and wherein a total time of the grinding is set to be within a range from 2min to 15min (pg. 3 par. 7; 2 min.).
With respect to claim 9, since Cong teaches predetermined grind time to achieve a final product, in addition to teaching a desired number of cups (pg. 2 par. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed hrough routine experimentation to teach a total time of the grinding is set to be within a range from 4min to 10min since the desired number of cups dictates an amount of beans needed and consequently a predetermined grind time to produce the desired amount.
With respect to claim 10, the grinding is performed a plurality of times, and wherein two consecutive times of the plurality of times of the grinding are separated by a predetermined interval (abstract; pg. 3 par. 6; predetermined interval relative heating to t2; grinder stopped).
With respect to claim 11, wherein the first predetermined temperature is set to a boiling point of the water (pg. 3 par. 1; 100C), wherein the second predetermined temperature is set to be lower than the first predetermined temperature (pg. 3 par. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach a desired temperature difference between the first predetermined temperature and the second predetermined temperature is set within a range from 0°C to 5°C since the second temperature as taught is variable and indicates a reduction of the temperature of the mixture below a certain temperature, thus providing a same determination by temperature reduction and initiating control of the heater to further heat the temperature of the mixture back to its Tsub1 as taught by Cong.
With respect to claim 12, Cong teaches wherein the first predetermined temperature is set to a boiling point of the water (pg. 3 par. 1; 100C), wherein the second predetermined temperature is set to be lower than the first predetermined temperature (pg. 3 par. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach a desired temperature difference between the first predetermined temperature and the second predetermined temperature is set within a range from .5°C to 2°C since the second temperature as taught is variable and indicates a reduction of the temperature of the mixture below a certain temperature, thus providing a same determination by temperature reduction and initiating control of the heater to further heat the temperature of the mixture back to its Tsub1 as taught by Cong.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cong et al. (KR20160014702; English translation provided) in view of Kim (KR100495838).
With respect to claim 13, Cong teaches a blender for preparing soy milk (pg. 2 par. 4), the blender comprising:
a receptacle for accommodating beans and water (pg. 3 par. 4) in a predetermined proportion (pg. 3 par. 7),
a stirring device disposed within the receptacle (pg. 3 par. 4)
a temperature sensor (pg. 2 par. 8) and configured to sense a temperature of the beans and the water in the predetermined proportion (pg. 3 par. 8); and
a controller (pg. 3 par. 7) configured to:
control the heating device to heat the beans and the water in the predetermined proportion to a first predetermined temperature (pg. 3 par. 1 alternatively par. 2; abstract lines 1-3) within a first time (pg. 3 par. 3; 1 to 1.5 min.) wherein the first predetermined temperature is set to a boiling point of water (pg. 3 par. 1 range including 100C).
in response to the temperature sensor sensing that the beans and the water in the predetermined proportion are heated to the first predetermined temperature (pg. 3 par. 2), control the heating device to cook the beans at a second predetermined temperature (pg. 3 par. 5; abstract lines 4-7) lower than the first predetermined temperature (pg. 3 par. 5; temperature falls below first temperature; temperature Tsub2, 85-90C, 90C) for a second time period (pg. 3 par. 9 total time 5-6 minutes thus subtracted time of 1-1.5 min of first heating) to make the beans well-cooked (pg. 3 par. 6; abstract lines 4-7; where it is noted in a first instance well-cooked is taken with respect to twice cooked) and
stop the heating (pg. 3 par. 8; after heating determined temperature not lower but “accumulated grinding time is determined to be shorter) and control the stirring device to grind the well-cooked beans (pg. 3 par. 8; abstract lines 5-7).
It is further noted with respect to the controller configured to heat the beans at a second temperature lower than the first, Cong teaches the first heating temperature and thus since the heater is capable of the claimed second heating temperature, Cong device is capable of the intended use.
Though silent to the second time period is set to be within a range from 10min to 30min. Since Cong teaches a timer (pg. 2 par. 8), since Cong teaches predetermined second cooking time to achieve a final product, since Cong teaches the second cooking step to achieve a minimum degree of cooking, though silent to a time of the combination of raising and holding times taught. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed through routine experimentation to teach the second time period being within a range from 10-30 min. to achieve a final product which has undergone a minimum degree of heating, relative an undefined amount to achieve preventing of the activation of antinutrients in the soymilk as further taught by Cong (pg. 3 3rd. from last par.) and achieving a well-cooked bean.
Alternatively, though silent to the second time period is set to be within a range from 10min to 30min. Since Cong teaches a timer (pg. 2 par. 8) and since Cong teaches a desired number of cups (pg. 2 par. 7) and since a time of 10 minutes to 30 minutes lacks criticality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the second time period being within a range from 10-30 minutes thus achieving a well-cooked bean and since the desired number of cups dictates an amount of beans needed and consequently a predetermined heating time to produce the desired amount.
In addition, though silent to the second cook time, and in the instance the cook time is relative a desired degree, i.e. soft cooked vs well cooked. It is not necessary that suggestion or motivation be found within the four comers of the reference(s) themselves. "The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... theexplicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case since Cong teaches a timer (pg. 2 par. 8), since Cong teaches predetermined second cooking time to achieve a final product, since Cong teaches the second cooking step to achieve a minimum degree of cooking, though silent to a time of the combination of raising and holding times taught. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed through routine experimentation to teach the second time period being within a range from 10-30 min. to achieve a final product which has undergone a minimum degree of heating to achieve a well-cooked bean.
Cong teaches a temperature sensor. Though silent to the location of the temperature sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach a location of the temperature, such as disposed on the receptacle or the base portion for its art recognized and applicants same intended purpose to sense a temperature of the beans and the water in the predetermined proportion (pg. 3 par. 8) and control operation to achieve a temperature of the mixture at predetermined temperatures as further taught by Cong (pg. 3 pg. 8).
Cong teaches an apparatus for both heating and grinding of soybeans and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of food processors which both heat and grind as taught by Kim.
Kim teaches an apparatus for heating and grinding soybean. Kim teaches the heating device located in the base portion (fig. 6 ref. 78; pg. 9 par. 4) and the receptacle being detachably attached to the base portion (fig. 6; pg. 5 par. 2).
Thus since both teach a same heating element for heating the contents and since Kim teaches the heating element located in a base portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the heating device located in the base portion (fig. 6 ref. 78; pg. 9 par. 4) for its art recognized purpose of providing heat to the contents as desired by both since changing the location of the heater would not alter the function of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the receptacle being detachably attached to the base portion thus providing the benefit of allowing cleaning of the container and components. In addition since it is considered desirable to remove the container from the base part for cleaning as taught by Kim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the receptacle being detachably attached to the base portion thus providing the benefit of allowing cleaning of the container and components
With respect to claim 14, heating the beans and the water in the predetermined proportion to the first predetermined temperature is completed within a first time period (pg. 3 par. 3; 1 to 1.5 min.) and
cooking the beans at the second predetermined temperature to make the beans well-cooked is completed within a second time period (pg. 3 par. 9 total time 5-6 minutes thus subtracted time of 1-1.5 min of first heating).
With respect to claim 15, Cong teaches heating of the beans and of the water in the predetermined proportion to the first predetermined temperature and cooking of the beans at the second predetermined temperature to make the beans well-cooked are completed within a time period (pg. 3 par. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed through routine experimentation to teach a total time of the heating is set to be within a range from 15-40 min. since the desired number of cups dictates an amount of beans needed and consequently a predetermined heating time to produce the desired amount.
With respect to claim 16, wherein the second time period is based at least on a type of the beans and the water within the blender (pg. 2 par. 7, par. 8).
With respect to claim 17, a time period for the grinding of the well-cooked beans (pg. 2 par. 8 total grinding time) is based at least on a rotation speed of the stirring device of the blender (pg 2 par. 8 total grinding time), where it is noted the rotating speed is not limited and thus is taken with respect to with rotation vs. without rotation, i.e. rotation speed with respect to 0.
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicants urgings directed to Nelson. Nelson teaches the first predetermined temperature is set to include a boiling point of the water (col. 12 lines 29-31; 212F). Nelson teaches the second predetermined temperature for the purpose of blanching including near the boiling temperature of the solution (col. 12 lines 46-47). Importantly Nelson teaches “near” the boiling temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the second temperature is set to be lower than the first predetermined temperature (col. 12 lines 46-47; near boiling, i.e. less than 212F) thus achieving its defined purpose of providing the first tenderization as taught and a second heat treatment subsequent to the first necessary to inactivate lipoxidase and trypsin (col. 12 lines 62-64) and achieving the art recognized advantage of improving the nutritional value of the product as well as a desired taste as taught by Nelson (col. 12 lines 52-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the second temperature is set to be lower than the first predetermined temperature such as heating temperatures of 180 f (col. 19 line 13) thus achieving its defined purpose of providing the first tenderization as taught and a second heat treatment subsequent to the first necessary to inactivate lipoxidase and trypsin (col. 12 lines 62-64) and achieving the art recognized advantage of improving the nutritional value of the product as well as a desired taste as taught by Nelson (col. 12 lines 52-54).
With respect to applicants urging Nelson is silent to stopping the heating. Nelson teaches the second temperature for a specific time. Thus stopping heat at that time. In addition Nelson teaches draining (col. 13 lines 60) which indicates stopping of heating. Nelson teaches subsequently “grinding” as claimed (col. 14 lines 4). Applicants claims are not limited by grinding.
With respect to applicants urging directed to Cong describes heating a mixture of beans and water until it reaches a first temperature within a first predetermined period, Cong teaches wherein the first predetermined temperature is set to a boiling point of water (pg. 3 par. 1 range including 100C).
With respect to applicants urging “restoring” the temperature does not equate to a second temperature lower than the first, importantly the term “restoring” specifically means achieving a previous, i.e. in the instant case when Tsub2 is sensed, restore the temperature to Tsub1.
Thus with respect to applicants urging directed to the second temperature, Cong teaches heating during a second period where the temperature of the mixture falls. Cong teaches this second temperature is predetermined Tsub2 which is lower than the first and in response to the temperature sensor sensing that the beans and the water in the predetermined proportion are heated to the first predetermined temperature (pg. 3 par. 2), control the heating device to cook the beans at a second predetermined temperature (pg. 3 par. 5; abstract lines 4-7) lower than the first predetermined temperature (pg. 3 par. 5; temperature falls below first temperature; temperature Tsub2, 85-90C, 90C).
With respect to applicants urging Cong is silent to beans that are grinded are not well cooked. Cong teaches stop the heating at pg. 3 par. 8 and after heating if the determined temperature not lower but “accumulated grinding time is determined to be shorter control the stirring device to grind the well-cooked beans (pg. 3 par. 8; abstract lines 5-7).
With respect to applicants urging directed to Kim, Kim is relied upon to teach a heating device located in the base portion (fig. 6 ref. 78; pg. 9 par. 4) and the receptacle being detachably attached to the base portion (fig. 6; pg. 5 par. 2).
Kim is not relied upon with respect to the claimed controller configured to.
Thus since both teach a same heating element for heating the contents and since Kim teaches the heating element located in a base portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the heating device located in the base portion (fig. 6 ref. 78; pg. 9 par. 4) for its art recognized purpose of providing heat to the contents as desired by both since changing the location of the heater would not alter the function of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the receptacle being detachably attached to the base portion thus providing the benefit of allowing cleaning of the container and components. In addition since it is considered desirable to remove the container from the base part for cleaning as taught by Kim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the receptacle being detachably attached to the base portion thus providing the benefit of allowing cleaning of the container and components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN N LEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792