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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 24th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The objections to claims 28 and 30-31 are withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 28-43 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn. However, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) follow below.
Applicant's arguments filed July 24th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner has combined an excessive number of references (Remarks, page 8), reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The Applicant argues that the references alone or in combination do not teach or suggest the claimed invention including one or more scraper blades with a retaining slot indented along an inner side forming a rail and slot configuration with a stirring paddle (Remarks, pages 9-10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that the rail and slot configuration is disclosed by Cocchi et al. as annotated in the Office Action dated February 24th, 2025 and again in the rejections which follow below. The Applicant has provided no further explanation as to how the configuration disclosed in Cocchi et al. does not meet the limitation. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the references do not disclose “a pressing and scraping effect against the inner surface of the freezing cylinder” and no elastic scraper is disclosed (Remarks, pages 9-10). It is noted that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Beck explicitly teaches the blades are elastic (“resilient plastic”, Abstract) and the pressing and scraping effect is taught by Beck who teaches the blades scrape and press in that each blade serves as a “scraper blade” (Abstract) which is formed of a resilient material (Abstract) and they deform when inserted into the cylinder (col. 3, lines 26-27) due to pressing against the cylinder. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the references do not disclose opposing slanted arms with a V configuration or arms with gradually reducing thickness or tapered scraping arms with a sharp edge and which press against the inner surface with a predetermined pressure and define a helical diameter precisely fitted with a diameter of the mixing chamber and forming a scraper cavity (Remarks, pages 9-10). Again, these features are disclosed in Beck who clearly discloses a V configuration (Fig. 5) as well as pressing against the cylinder/chamber (discussed above), a helical diameter (Fig. 1 clearly shows a helix – also note the title) precisely fitted (Figs. 2-4), and “sharp” blades (Fig. 5) which can become dull (col. 3, line 47) and where a scraper cavity is defined between the scraping edges (Figs. 2-4). Beck clearly shows the scraper arms gradually reduce in thickness (they are tapered, Fig. 5). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the references do not disclose the scraper cavity facilitates a rotational movement and shoveling while reducing friction (Remarks, page 10). Again, shoveling is disclosed by Beck (“scraping and feeding”, col. 3, lines 50-56) and Beck discloses facilitating rotational movement while reducing friction in that the tips of the blades are sharp and angled such that a cavity is formed (Figs. 2-4) and in this design little surface area is in contact with the chamber such that there is little friction between the blade and the chamber/cylinder and facilitating rotation and reducing friction is also accomplished by the shoveling action by which material is moved out of the way of the blade (col. 3, lines 50-63). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the V configuration and the scraper cavity provide a cushion effect that enables the scraper blades to reduce an overall thickness by pressing said pair of sharp edges inwards to move and pass through frozen mixture while shaving the frozen mixture and the idea of a “scraper cavity” is novel (Remarks, pages 10-11). Again, this is the function of Beck’s scraper design (col. 3, lines 53-56) and Beck has a “cushion effect” as the blade is resilient (Abstract, resiliency itself providing a degree of cushioning) and is pressed when inserted into the cylinder (“deformed radially inwardly”, col. 3, line 26). A “scraper cavity” is not novel and is disclosed by Beck:
PNG
media_image1.png
253
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Also, regarding this point, the Applicant further argues there is no teaching of “selective pressure points”, “confined scraping edges with defined deformation profiles”, “dynamic thickness modulation” or “pressure-optimized internal cavities” (Remarks, page 11). However, none of these are a claimed feature. 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). Further, “selective pressure points”, “confined scraping edges with defined deformation profiles”, “dynamic thickness modulation” or “pressure-optimized internal cavities” are also not mentioned in the Applicant’s disclosure. It is noted that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).
The Applicant argues that the references do not disclose a concave recess formed and extending longitudinally and a central ridge is slightly protruded along the outer side of the scraper blades where the central ridge reinforces the scraper arms while ensuring flexibility of the scraping edges (Remarks, pages 9-11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, supra; In re Merck & Co., supra. In this case, the central ridge is at least taught by Pethers (Fig. 2) and Feigenbaum (wedge 62, Fig. 2) and Pethers also teaches concave recesses (recesses located between lip parts 19, Fig. 2) and while not as pronounced in Feigenbaum, when Feigenbaum’s blade (Fig. 2) is pressed onto a surface it would result in concave recesses on either side of the central ridge (the wedge 62, Fig. 2) substantially similar to those in the Applicant’s disclosure (Fig. 4). Likewise, modifying the blade of Beck with a central ridge would also result in the concave recesses and the person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the central ridge in order to at least increase the stability and useful life of the blade (Feigenbaum, col. 5, lines 3-6). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the references disclose molded or screw-attached scraper elements rather than tool-less snap fit attachment and provides Feigenbaum as an example (Remarks, page 10). It is noted that the terms “tool-less” and “snap fit” are not claim limitations nor are these terms used in the specification. Feigenbaum is relied upon to teach the central ridge and concave recesses and is not relied upon to disclose detachable blades. Again, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, supra; In re Merck & Co., supra. In this case, Cocchi et al. discloses the detachable blades (as indicated in Fig. 4). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues there is no motivation to combine references and the cited art each solve different technical problems and lacks teaching or suggestion toward a flexible scraping system used with spiral paddles and flow-blocking beater elements (Remarks, page 9 and 11). The Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Applicant provides no specific examples and Examiner contends that the references are either ice cream or yogurt machines (Cocchi et al., Dong, and Beck) or are otherwise agitators for food processors (such as Lekner) and the proposed modifications to Cocchi et al. would provide expected results and/or benefits as detailed above or in the rejections which follow below or the references are at least pertinent to problems associated with scraper blades (Pethers and Feigenbaum) and the benefits of the scraper blade features they disclose would benefit a scraper blade used in an ice cream or yogurt machine in the same way. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the scraper blade achieves advantages (cavity, cushion effect, and flexed blade engagement) not found in any reference (Remarks, page 11) and the combination yields unpredictable “synergistic” results including hygienic scraping, reduced friction, and enhanced frost removal. Again, as discussed above, the Examiner contends that these listed advantages are achieved by following the teaching of Beck.
The Applicant argues the claimed rail-slot deformable scraper system is neither inherent nor obvious in view of the cited structure. Again, (as discussed above) the rail and slot configuration is disclosed in Cocchi et al. (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) and (as best understood) the deformable scraper system is disclosed in Beck ( “resilient”, col. 1, lines 46-51). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The Applicant further argues that the combination as a whole fails to teach synergistically addressing frost scraping, tool-less maintenance, and pressure regulated engagement (Remarks, page 12). It is noted that “frost scraping”, “tool-less maintenance”, and “pressure regulated engagement” are not claim terms nor terminology used in the specification. As discussed above, scraping and pressure engagement are taught by Beck (col. 3, lines 25-55) and it is unclear what “tool-less maintenance” is in reference to as the Applicant has provided no further clarification. Therefore, the Applicant has not pointed out any information in the rejection that could only be gleaned from their own disclosure, and thus there is no evidence of hindsight reasoning.
The Applicant argues that no reference teaches a size difference between the rail and slot for frictional retention via elastic compression (Remarks, page 12) without providing further details. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as this feature is taught by Seidler (para. [0010], where the wiping blade is an elastomer, para. [0028]). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the cited art does not disclose helical paddles spiraled in opposite directions over 180-270 ⁰ and the cited art lacks mirrored paddle geometry or spiraled extension along axial length (Remarks, page 12) without providing further details. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as this feature is disclosed by Cocchi et al. (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that claims 32 and 33 claim a central frame with axial bar and multiple beater elements to block spiral flow and enhance mixing. No cited reference shows this internal radial disruption (Remarks, page 12). The Examiner contends that Cocchi et al. discloses these features (axial bar/shaft 5 and beater elements/pins 11, Fig. 3) and the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that claims 34 and 35 claim a coaxial beater ring between the front supporter and axial bar for support and additional mixing. Cited art lacks such reinforcement structure (Remarks, page 12). The Examiner contends that Cocchi et al. discloses the beater ring (annular member 21, Fig. 3) and the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that claims 36 and 37 claim staggered pairs of beater elements radially arranged along front, middle, and rear positions. No art shows this spatial arrangement for enhanced smashing. It is noted that claims 36 and 37 do not use the term “staggered” and limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, supra. The Examiner contends that Cocchi et al. discloses first and second pairs of beater elements which are staggered (pins 11, Fig. 3, two pairs visible in Fig. 4) and Lekner et al. is relied upon to teach additional beater elements (Lekner et al., more than three pairs of spacers 15, Fig. 4a and 4b). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to claims 38-43 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 28-43 are objected to.
The preambles of the claims recite “a direct expansion evaporator” (claim 28) or “the direct expansion evaporator (claims 29-43), but the claims are directed to a mixing machine (with stirring apparatus) having a direct expansion evaporator. It’s recommended to change the preamble to “An ice cream or yogurt machine” and add the evaporator as a feature: “An ice cream or yogurt machine, comprising: a direct expansion evaporator” for clarity.
Claim 28 now recites “scraping edges inwards continuously move” in lines 51. This should be changed back to “scraping edges inwards to continuously move” for clarity.
Claim 28 recites “freezing cylinder, that while said one” in line 55 which should be changed to: “freezing cylinder,
Claims 40-43 recite “said one or more stirring paddles” in line 2, but these claims depend on claims which have specified that there are at least two stirring paddles (either explicitly or using “a pair”). These could be changed to “said
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 28-43 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.
Claim 28 recites “along said outer side thereof and a central ridge is slightly protruded along said outer side of each of said one or more scraper blades” in lines 31-33 and while “said outer side” has antecedent basis in the claim, it is reference to the outer side of the helical paddles (lines 11-12) rather than scraper blades. Therefore, “along said outer side” in line 32 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 28 recites “a helical diameter” and “a diameter of said mixing chamber” in line 43. However, it is unclear if these are referring to the same helical diameter and inner diameter of the mixing chamber recited in lines 16-17.
Claims 29-43 are likewise rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 28.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 28, 30, 32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi et al. (US 20140000302) in view of Dong (US 20200107558), Beck (US 4732013), Pethers (previously attached GB 2189383), and Feigenbaum (US 5732436).
Regarding claim 28, Cocchi et al. discloses a cylindrical mixing and freezing unit for an ice cream or yogurt machine (abstract) as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
406
875
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cocchi et al. discloses a freezing cylinder having a mixing chamber therein (abstract, para. [0004]), an inner surface (cylinder wall, para. [0007]), and an outlet (dispensing nozzle, para. [0005]),
and the stirring apparatus comprising: a stirring beater (the stirrer 1, Fig. 1), configured for being coaxially disposed in the mixing chamber of said freezing cylinder in a rotatable manner (“having a shaft rotating the stirrer about the axis”, abstract) for pushing a mixture to flow in said mixing chamber in an inner spiral manner while stirring, smashing and mixing the mixture (para. [0005]) which is served as frozen product out of said freezing cylinder, comprising: a front supporter (annular member 20, Fig. 1) rotatably mounted to a front end of said freezing cylinder, one or more helical stirring paddles (guides 16), each having an elongated retaining rail protruded along an outer side thereof (Fig. 3, shown below) and a central frame (rotation shaft 3) supporting said one or more helical stirring paddles spirally extended from said front supporter to a rear end portion thereof (Fig. 3); and one or more scraper blades (scraping members 12) being provided along said one or more stirring paddles respectively to define a helical diameter matched with an inner diameter of said mixing chamber of said freezing cylinder (para. [0035]), wherein each of said one or more scraper blades has a retaining slot (slot 32, annotated below) indented along an inner side thereof, which is sized and shaped to fit said retaining rail of one of said one or more helical stirring paddles therein, wherein said retaining rail of each of said one or more helical stirring paddles and said retaining slot of said one or more scraper blades forms a rail and slot configuration (Fig. 3, shown below), so as to detachably retain said one or more scraper blades on said outer sides of said one or more stirring paddles (Fig. 4 shows scraping members 12 being attached to paddles/guides 16) while providing a pressing and scrapping effect against said inner surface of said freezing cylinder during rotating of said stirring apparatus in said mixing chamber of said freezing cylinder (the scraping members 12 are in contact with the inside wall, Fig. 2, thus causing “friction”, para. [0072]).
PNG
media_image3.png
599
839
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Insomuch as Cocchi et al. does not explicitly disclose the freezing cylinder (freezing unit 2, Fig. 2) is part of a direct expansion evaporator and insomuch as Cocchi et al. does not disclose the stirring apparatus has an inlet, an inlet must be present to receive ingredients and Dong teaches a stirring apparatus for a direct expansion evaporation (expansion evaporator, abstract) of ice cream or yogurt machine (para. [0006]) which comprises a freezing cylinder (heat exchanger 10, Fig. 1) having a mixing chamber (wall 22) therein, an inner surface, an outlet, a paddle (paddle 511), etc. and Dong et al. further teaches the device comprises an inlet (Fig. 1) as shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
668
844
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi et al. wherein the freezing cylinder is part of a direct expansion evaporator and the stirring apparatus comprises an inlet.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include an inlet in order to feed ingredients to the mixing chamber and to utilize the freezing cylinder (freezing unit 2) as part of a direct expansion evaporator which is a conventional and well-known method of refrigeration.
Cocchi et al. discloses the scraper blades are plastic (para. [0043]) which would be expected to be at least somewhat elastic and Cocchi et al. discloses that different geometries for the scraper blades may be used (para. [0068]), but does not expressly disclose a pair of scraping arms with a V configuration.
However, Beck teaches a stirring apparatus for a direct expansion evaporation (shown with evaporator coils 17, Fig. 1) of ice cream or yogurt machine (col. 2, lines 21-22) which comprises a freezing cylinder and mixing chamber (cylinder 10, Fig. 1) and paddles (flight bars 31a and 31b) having scraper-blades attached thereto (blades 41) and Beck further teaches the scraper blades are elastic (“resilient” reads on elastic, col. 2, lines 65-66) wherein each of said one or more scraper blades comprises a pair of scraping arms (lobes 41c and 41b) outwardly and slantly extended from two longitudinal sides thereof respectively in a symmetrical manner to form a V configuration (Fig. 5), wherein each of said scraping arms gradually reduces a thickness (col. 3, line 34) thereof to form a sharp scraping edge (edges 41d and 41e, Fig. 5, which can become dull with use, col. 3, line 47) configured for pressing against said inner surface of said freezing cylinder (Figs. 2-4) and as shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
444
640
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Beck further teaches wherein each of said one or more scraper blades has a concave recess formed and extended longitudinally along said outer side thereof and a central ridge is slightly protruded along said outer side of each of said one or more scraper blades (Fig. 5) as shown below:
PNG
media_image6.png
487
671
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein said one or more scraper blades are supported to touch said inner surface of said freezing cylinder (Fig. 2), while only said two sharp scraping edges of said pair of scraping arms of each of said one or more scraper blades are pressing against said inner surface (Fig. 2, note 41b and 41c) with a predetermined pressure (deformed to a limited degree, col. 3, lines 25-27) for facilitating scraping against the mixture frozen on said inner surface during rotating said one or more scraper blades (col. 3, line 54) and a scraper cavity (shown above) is defined between said two sharp scraping edges of said pair of scraping arms and said inner surface of said freezing cylinder (Fig. 2), wherein the V configuration of said pair of scraping arms and said central ridge reinforces (provides an anchor for the arms as it is rigidly supported by a flight bar in channel 42, col. 3, line 21) said pair of scraping arms while ensuring a flexibility of said sharp scraping edges to press against said inner surface of said freezing cylinder (resiliently engage, col. 1, line 48) and define a helical diameter (helical, Fig. 1) precisely fitted with a diameter of said mixing chamber coaxially with respect to said stirring beater (Figs. 2-4) so as to perform effective scraping and stirring movement simultaneously (scraped by edge 41d or 41e and the scraped material would be “shoveled” by lobes 41b or 41c, Fig. 5) and said scraper cavity facilitates a rotation movement (by moving material out of the way and toward a discharge, col. 3, lines 50-63) and a shoveling action (the movement of material would require a “shoveling action”) of said one or more scraper blades while reducing friction between said one or more scraper blades (by removing material, col. 3, lines 50-63) with respect to said inner surface of said freezing cylinder, wherein the V configuration of said pair of scraping arms and a formation of said scraper cavity provides a cushion effect (not expressly stated, but an air space is formed between the blades which would act as a “cushion” and the blades are resilient, abstract, which also provides “cushion” via elasticity, col. 3, lines 25-27) that enables said one or more scraper blades to reduce an overall thickness by pressing said pair of sharp scraping edges inwards (col. 3, lines 25-27) to continuously move and pass through the mixture while each of said one or more scraper blades is rotated to shave a portion of the mixture frozen on said inner surface of said freezing cylinder while rotating said stirring beater within said mixing chamber of said freezing cylinder (col. 3, lines 50-63), such that while said one or more scraper blades are continued to be rotated to shave the mixture frozen on said inner surface of said freezing cylinder around and around, the mixture frozen on said inner surface of said freezing cylinder is shaven around and around from said inner surface of said freezing cylinder (col. 3, lines 50-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi et al. wherein the scraper blades are made of elastic material (Beck, resilient plastic, abstract) and wherein each of said one or more scraper blades comprises a pair of scraping arms (Beck, col. 3, line 34) outwardly and slantly extended from two longitudinal sides thereof respectively in a symmetrical manner to form a V configuration (Beck, Fig. 5), wherein each of said scraping arms gradually reduces a thickness thereof to form a sharp scraping edge configured for pressing against said inner surface of said freezing cylinder (Beck, Fig. 2 and Fig. 5), wherein each of said one or more scraper blades has a concave recess formed and extended longitudinally along said outer side thereof and a central ridge is slightly protruded along said outer side of each of said one or more scraper blades (shown above), wherein said one or more scraper blades are supported to touch said inner surface of said freezing cylinder, while only said two sharp scraping edges of said pair of scraping arms of each of said one or more scraper blades are pressing against said inner surface (Beck, Fig. 2) with a predetermined pressure for facilitating scraping against the mixture frozen on said inner surface during rotating said one or more scraper blades and a scraper cavity is defined between said two sharp scraping edges of said pair of scraping arms and said inner surface of said freezing cylinder (Beck, Fig. 2), wherein the V configuration of said pair of scraping arms and said central ridge reinforce said pair of scraping arms while ensuring a flexibility of said sharp scraping edges to press against said inner surface of said freezing cylinder, and define a helical diameter (Beck, helical, Fig. 1) precisely fitted with a diameter of said mixing chamber coaxially with respect to said stirring beater (Beck, Figs. 2-4) so as to perform effective scraping and stirring movement simultaneously, and said scraper cavity facilitates a rotation movement and a shoveling action of said one or more scraper blades while reducing friction between said one or more scraper blades with respect to said inner surface of said freezing cylinder, wherein the V configuration of said pair of scraping arms and a formation of said scraper cavity provides a cushion effect that enables said one or more scraper blades to reduce an overall thickness by pressing said pair of sharp scraping edges inwards to continuously move and pass through the mixture while each of said one or more scraper blades is rotated to shave a portion of the mixture frozen on said inner surface of said freezing cylinder while rotating said stirring beater within said mixing chamber of said freezing cylinder (as discussed above), such that while said one or more scraper blades are continued to be rotated to shave the mixture frozen on said inner surface of said freezing cylinder around and around, the mixture frozen on said inner surface of said freezing cylinder is shaven around and around from said inner surface of said freezing cylinder.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the blade configuration of Beck in order to provide for a more stable blade configuration where movement of the lead scraper blade is counteracted by the trailing blade (Beck, col. 3, lines 60-62) while feeding material toward a discharge outlet (Beck, col. 3, lines 50-56) with improved mixing (Beck, col. 3, line 57).
Assuming, arguendo, that a central ridge and concave recess are not disclosed in Cocchi et al. in view of Beck as discussed above, Pethers discloses a device (wiper blade, abstract) which is analogous art in that it is pertinent to the problem of using a wiping blade to effectively clean surfaces and Pethers further teaches that the blade has two scraper arms (where the two arms are formed from backing strip 1 and wiper blade rubbers 3 and 4) and Pethers further teaches that each scraping arm has a concave recess as shown below:
PNG
media_image7.png
356
380
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Further, Feigenbaum teaches a device (wiper blade) which is analogous art in that it is pertinent to the problem of using a wiper blade to effectively clean a surface and Feiganbaum teaches a scraper blade (blade 10) having two scraping arms (arms 46 and 49) wherein a central ridge (wedge 62, Fig. 2) is slightly protruded along said outer side of each of said scraper blades that reinforces said two scraper arms and ensures a flexibility (col. 4, lines 64-65, col. 5 lines 3-8) of said two scraping edges (Fig. 2) as shown below:
PNG
media_image8.png
629
926
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi et al. wherein each of said one or more scraper blades has a concave recess formed and extended longitudinally along said outer side thereof and a central ridge is slightly protruded along said outer side of each of said one or more scraper blades.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a central ridge in order to provide for structural support in the region where the blade is attached to a rail (as indicated by Pethers, the rail being projection 14, Fig. 2) and the inclusion of a rounded central ridge (Pethers, Fig. 2) to the blade of Beck would result in concave recesses formed on each arm or the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a central ridge (Feigenbaum, wedge 62) in order to increase the stability and useful life of the blade (Feigenbaum, col. 5, lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 30, Cocchi et al. discloses wherein said stirring beater comprises a pair of said stirring paddles (Fig. 3 ) and a pair of said scraper blades (Fig. 3), wherein said pair of said helical stirring paddles is spirally extended in opposite directions (Fig. 3) and each of said pair of said stirring paddles is extended in a spiral manner for 180-270 degrees along a length of the mixing chamber of the freezing cylinder (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, 270 degrees, as the ends are oriented perpendicular to each other as marked with dotted lines below, showing each paddle’s spiral extends through 270 degrees) as annotated below:
PNG
media_image9.png
429
594
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 32, Cocchi et al. discloses wherein said central frame comprises an axial bar (central frame comprises a shaft 3 having first portion 4 and second portion 5, Fig. 3), an end rotor (annular flange 6, Fig. 3 and shown above for claim 28) radially protruded at a rear end of said axial bar for mounting to a rear end of the freezing cylinder (Fig. 2), a driven shaft rearwardly extended from said end rotor for being driven by a motor (para. [0029]) of said freezing cylinder to rotate said central frame in the mixing chamber coaxially, and two or more beater elements (pins 11) radially extended from said axial bar (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) to connect with two or more of said stirring paddles respectively (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3), so as to be positioned around said axial bar and surrounded by said stirring paddles radially (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3), thereby when the mixture is moving along an inner spiral line pushed by said stirring beater, said beater elements block a flowing path of the mixture to mix and smash the mixture in an inner portion of the mixing chamber (pins 11 would block flow and cause the mixture to flow around and agitate the mixture while rotating) as shown below:
PNG
media_image10.png
548
806
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, Cocchi et al. discloses wherein said stirring beater further comprises a beater ring (annular member 21, annotated above for claim 1) positioned between said front supporter and said axial bar and coaxially connected with said two or more stirring paddles (Fig. 3).
Claims 29, 31, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi et al. (US 20140000302) in view of Dong (US 20200107558), Beck (US 4732013), Pethers (attached GB 2189383), and Feigenbaum (US 5732436) as applied to claim 28 above and in further view of Siedler et al. (US 20130135964).
Regarding claim 29, the above-cited references do not disclose wherein said retaining slot is slightly smaller than sectional size of a retaining rail.
However, Seidler teaches a stirring apparatus (beater assembly for mixing ingredients) where a scraping blade (wiping blade 32) which is elastic (para. [0032]) is mounted on a beater (para. [0006]) using a snug fit (para. [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi et al. wherein a snug fit is used resulting in said retaining slot (Cocchi et al., slot annotated above for claim 28, Beck, slot 42, Fig. 5) being slightly smaller than a sectional size of said retaining rail, such that an elastic effect (Beck, resilient, abstract) of each of said one or more scraper blades provides a tight engaging and holding effect (Siedler et al., snug fit, para. [0010]) to mount on said corresponding helical stirring paddle.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a snug fit in order to improve retention of the blade during mixing and to avoid malfunction.
Regarding claim 31, Cocchi et al. discloses wherein said stirring beater comprises a pair of said stirring paddles (Fig. 3) and a pair of said scraper blades (Fig. 3), wherein said pair of said helical stirring paddles is spirally extended in opposite directions (Fig. 3) and each of said pair of said stirring paddles is extended in a spiral manner for 180-270 degrees along a length of the mixing chamber of the freezing cylinder (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, 270 degrees, as the ends are oriented perpendicular to each other as marked with dotted lines shown above for claim 30, indicating each paddle’s spiral extends through 270 degrees) as annotated above for claim 30.
Regarding claim 33, Cocchi et al. discloses wherein said central frame comprises an axial bar (central frame comprises a shaft 3 having first portion 4 and second portion 5, Fig. 3), an end rotor (annular flange 6, Fig. 3 and shown above for claim 28) radially protruded at a rear end of said axial bar for mounting to a rear end of the freezing cylinder (Fig. 2), a driven shaft rearwardly extended from said end rotor for being driven by a motor (para. [0029]) of said freezing cylinder to rotate said central frame in the mixing chamber coaxially, and two or more beater elements (pins 11) radially extended from said axial bar (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) to connect with two or more of said stirring paddles respectively (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3), so as to be positioned around said axial bar and surrounded by said stirring paddles radially (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3), thereby when the mixture is moving along an inner spiral line pushed by said stirring beater, said beater elements block a flowing path of the mixture to mix and smash the mixture in an inner portion of the mixing chamber (pins 11 would block flow and cause mixture to flow around and agitate the mixture while rotating) as shown above for claim 32.
Regarding claim 35, Cocchi et al. discloses wherein said stirring beater further comprises a beater ring (annular member 21, annotated above for claim 1) positioned between said front supporter and said axial bar and coaxially connected with said two or more stirring paddles (Fig. 3).
Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi et al. (US 20140000302) in view of Dong (US 20200107558), Beck (US 4732013), Pethers (attached GB 2189383), Feigenbaum (US 5732436) as applied to claim 32 above or unpatentable over Cocchi et al. (US 20140000302) in view of Dong (US 20200107558), Beck (US 4732013), Pethers (attached GB 2189383), Feigenbaum (US 5732436) and Siedler et al. (US 20130135964) as applied to claim 35 above and in further view of Lekner et al. (US 2018008942) and Cocchi et al. (US 20040083754) hereinafter “Cocchi II”.
Regarding claims 36-37, Cocchi et al discloses wherein a first pair of said beater elements (pins 11) is radially and respectively extended at two opposing sides of a front portion of said axial bar, a second pair of said beater elements is radially and respectively extended at two opposing sides of a rear portion of said axial bar (Fig. 3) as shown below:
PNG
media_image11.png
566
1004
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Cocchi et al. does not disclose at least a third pair of said beater elements is radially and respectively extended at two opposing sides of a portion between said front portion and said rear portion of said axial bar.
However, Lekner et al. teaches a stirring apparatus for food (abstract) having a beater (rotary shaft 25) and a mixing chamber having the beater therein (para. [0011]) and Lekner et al. further teaches at least a third pair of said beater elements (spacers 15) is radially and respectively extended at two opposing sides of a portion between said front portion and said rear portion of said axial bar (Fig. 4a and 4b) as shown below:
PNG
media_image12.png
543
1275
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Further, Cocchi II teaches a stirring apparatus for ice cream (abstract) and further teaches at least a third pair of said beater elements (spokes 11) is radially and respectively extended at two opposing sides of a portion between front and rear portions of an axial bar (Fig. 1) as shown below:
PNG
media_image13.png
607
715
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi et al. by duplicating parts wherein at least a third pair of said beater elements is radially and respectively extended at two opposing sides of a portion between said front portion and said rear portion of said axial bar.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to add another pair of beater elements in order to achieve the predictable result of providing more support to the paddles (Lekner et al., para. [0025]). See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 38-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocchi et al. (US 20140000302) in view of Dong (US 20200107558), Beck (US 4732013), Pethers (attached GB 2189383), and Feigenbaum (US 5732436) as applied to claim 28 above and in further view of Zhou (attached translation of CN 109497252A) or as unpatentable over Cocchi et al. (US 20140000302) in view of Dong (US 20200107558), Beck (US 4732013), Pethers (attached GB 2189383), Feigenbaum (US 5732436) and Siedler et al. (US 20130135964) as applied to claims 29, 31, 33, or 35 above and in further view of Zhou (attached translation of CN 109497252A) or as unpatentable over Cocchi et al. (US 20140000302) in view of Dong (US 20200107558), Beck (US 4732013), Pethers (attached GB 2189383), Feigenbaum (US 5732436), Siedler et al. (US 20130135964), Lekner et al. (US 2018008942) and Cocchi et al. (US 20040083754) hereinafter “Cocchi II” as applied to claim 37 above and in further view of Zhou (attached translation of CN 109497252A).
Regarding claims 38-43, Cocchi et al. discloses each of said one or more stirring paddles comprises a front retainer (body 29, Fig. 1) and a rear retainer (end stop 19, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) provided at a front end and a rear end thereof, such that a front-end portion and a rear portion of said corresponding scraper blade detachably mounted on said stirring paddle are received and retained in said retainers of said front retainer and said rear retainer respectively (para.[0045] and [0062]).
Cocchi et al. does not disclose wherein each of said front retainer and said rear retainer forms a retainer slot.
However, Zhou discloses a stirring mechanism for an ice cream machine (Abstract) having helical stirring paddles (blades 13) with detachable scrapers (para. [0018]) wherein each of said one or more stirring paddles comprises a front retainer and a rear retainer provided at a front end and a rear end thereof wherein each of said front retainer and said rear retainer forms a retainer slot such that a front end portion and a rear portion of said corresponding scraper blade detachably mounted on said stirring paddle are received and retained in said retainer slots of said front retainer and said rear retainer respectively (Figs 1-3) as shown below:
PNG
media_image14.png
438
929
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cocchi et al. by substituting the front retainer (body 29, Fig. 1) and a rear retainer (end stop 19, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) for retainers having retainer slots (Zhou, Fig. 2, shown above) wherein each of said one or more stirring paddles comprises a front retainer and a rear retainer provided at a front end and a rear end thereof wherein each of said front retainer and said rear retainer forms a retainer slot such that a front end portion and a rear portion of said corresponding scraper blade detachably mounted on said stirring paddle are received and retained in said retainer slots of said front retainer and said rear retainer respectively.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute one retainer means (Cocchi et al., protrusions 19 and 31) for another known retainer (Zhou, slots, Fig. 2) to thereby achieve the predictable result of retaining a detachable scraper blade (Zhou, para. [0018]). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774