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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims, 1, 12, and 21 have been amended. Thus, claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-13, and 15-24 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor, Jr. et al. (US PGPub 2016/0317988, hereinafter Pryor) in view of Friedland (US 5236263, hereinafter Friedland).
Regarding claim 21, Pryor discloses a device for processing ingredients in a beaker (figure 16, cup 104) removably couplable to the device, the device comprising:
a blade assembly (mixing blade 120);
a driven shaft (shaft 122) attached to the blade assembly; and
a first drive unit configured to translate the driven shaft (paragraph 0010, “a stepper motor to move a carriage up and down on the frame”; see carriage 117 in figure 16) and the blade assembly along an axis while the beaker is rotated about the axis (paragraph 0025, “a first motor operatively connected to the cup-holder to rotate the cup-holder”).
Although it is noted that Pryor teaches a tilted arrangement for the cup in figure 16, Pryor also teaches an arrangement in which the cup is arranged to have the same central axis as the shaft (see figure 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the shaft and cup with the same central axis because both arrangements are known in the art and would provide only the predictable result of allowing for stirring of ingredients within the cup. It is further noted that the cup of Pryor would rotate around both axis A and B in figure 16, meeting the claim.
Pryor is silent to the driven shaft being removably attached to the blade assembly via a releasable connection. Friedland teaches a mixing device including a blade assembly (figure 3, beater 76m), a driven shaft (shaft 76), and a first drive unit (motor 31 and associated chains and gears) wherein the driven shaft is removably attached to the blade assembly via a releasable connection arrangement (column 4, lines 40-56; figures 4-7). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Pryor with the removably attached shaft and blade assembly of Friedland for the purpose of allowing for removal of the blade assembly from the device for replacement or cleaning.
Regarding claim 22, Pryor discloses the axis being a vertical axis (see alignment of shaft 22 and cup holder 40 in figure 3).
Regarding claim 23, Pryor discloses a beaker coupling (figure 3, cup holder 40) configured to receive the beaker (cup 4) therein, the beaker coupling operatively coupled to a second drive unit for rotating the beaker and the beaker coupling about the axis (paragraph 0025, “a first motor operatively connected to the cup-holder to rotate the cup-holder”).
Regarding claim 24, Pryor discloses the beaker and the beaker coupling are configured to prevent rotation of the beaker relative to the beaker coupling (paragraph 0103, “clamping a cup”; paragraph 0025, “a cup-holder to secure a tapered cup selectively placed therein”). The cited passages state that the cup is clamped and secured by the cup holder, indicating that these structures are configured to prevent movement of the cup, including rotation as recited.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 2, 4-6, 9-13, and 15-20 are allowed.
Claims 1 and 12 are deemed allowable because they recited specific configurations of the first and second alignment structures not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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 on 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights