DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on April 8th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-30 and 82 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-30 and 82 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 13, and 21, the claims recites the limitation " the one or more rotational positions of the mixing paddle ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim is considered indefinite because it recites “scoop shape”. It is unclear what that shape is. Would a shape that does the action of scooping materials be considered a “scoop shape”? Its indefinite as the shape is unclear and there are countless shapes that perform a scooping action.
Regarding Claims 4, 18, and 24, the claims are considered indefinite because they define that radial end portions extending beyond a tangent point with the inner surface. This definition is contradicting as its unclear how a radial end extends beyond a tangent point when tangent, by definition, means that it does not cross.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-14, 17-, 19-23, 26-30, and 82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte (Embodiment 1) (US Patent No. 20200056835) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) (US Patent No. 20200056835) and further in view of Jay (US Patent No. 3161404).
Regarding Claim 1, Fonte (Embodiment 1) teaches a pod comprising: a body having a sidewall that extends from a first end of the body to a second end of the body to define an interior of the pod (Figure 6A-B, A wall 214 connects the first end 210 to the second end 212 to create Pod 150); ingredients disposed within the interior of the pod for producing a single serving of a cooled food or drink (Paragraph 93, The pods can be sized to provide a single serving of the food or drink being produced); and a mixing paddle disposed within the interior of the pod and rotatable relative to the body along a longitudinal axis of the body (Figure 6A-B, Mixing Paddle 160 is enclosed in the Pod 150 and is rotatable relative to the body along a longitudinal axis of the body),
Fonte (Embodiment 1) fails to teach two radial end portions in the cross section, a cross-section of the mixing paddle taken perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the mixing paddle having at least one curved or non-linear section, the cross-section having a pair of concave features each spaced approximately equidistant from the longitudinal axis of the mixing paddle, the concave features being concave with respect to a rotational direction of the mixing paddle used to mix the ingredients disposed within the interior of the pod to produce the single serving of the cooled food or drink, wherein at least a portion of each of the two radial end portions is tangent to an inner surface of the sidewall of the pod at the one or more rotational positions of the mixing paddle.
Fonte (Embodiment 2) teaches an apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food (Abstract, Apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food) where a cross-section of the mixing paddle taken perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the mixing paddle having at least one curved or non-linear section (Figure 25C, Showcases cross-sections perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of different Mixing Paddles that have curved sections), the cross-section having a pair of concave features each spaced approximately equidistant from the longitudinal axis of the mixing paddle (Figure 25C, Showcases Mixing Paddle 486 having a concave features spaced approximately equidistant from the longitudinal axis of the mixing paddle), the concave features being concave with respect to a rotational direction of the mixing paddle used to mix the ingredients disposed within the interior of the pod to produce the single serving of the cooled food or drink (Figure 25C, Showcases Mixing Paddle 486 having a concave features with respect to a rotational direction of the mixing paddle), wherein at least a portion of each of the two radial end portions is tangent to an inner surface of the sidewall of the pod at the one or more rotational positions of the mixing paddle (Figure 25C, Showcases Mixing Paddle 486 having three concave features where the end portion is tangent to an inner surface of the sidewall of the pod).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) to incorporate the shape of mixing paddle as stated in Fonte (Embodiment 2). Regarding the shape of the mixing paddle, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), (MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B)).
Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) fails to teach two radial end portions in the cross section.
Jay teaches an ice cream pod and stirrer (Col 1 Line 9-11, Ice cream freezers with stirrer) where the cross-section has two radial end portions that are curved in an opposite direction relative to the concave features (Figure 5-6 and Col 2 Line 49-51, The longitudinally extending members 14 curve opposite direction of the concave features).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) to incorporate two radial end portions in the cross section as stated by Jay. The longitudinally extending members act as scraper blades adapted to engage the inner surface of the can to scrape materials on the inner wall (Col 2 Line 49-51, Scraper Blades).
Regarding Claim 2, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Jay fails to teach that at least one curved or non-linear section defines a C-shape, an S-shape, a wavy-shape, or an undulating-shape.
Fonte (Embodiment 2) teaches an apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food (Abstract, Apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food) where at least one curved or non-linear section defines a C-shape, an S-shape, a wavy-shape, or an undulating-shape (Figure 25C and Paragraph 167, Showcases top view of Mixing Paddle that has a undulating shape as it has a helical shaped blades).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Jay to incorporate the shape of mixing paddle as stated in Fonte (Embodiment 2). Regarding the shape of the mixing paddle, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), (MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B)).
Regarding Claim 3, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Jay fails to teach that at least one curved or non-linear section defines a scoop-shaped section for scooping the ingredients within the pod when the mixing paddle rotates relative to the body of the pod.
Fonte (Embodiment 2) teaches an apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food (Abstract, Apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food) where at least one curved or non-linear section defines a scoop-shaped section for scooping the ingredients within the pod when the mixing paddle rotates relative to the body of the pod (Figure 25C and Paragraph 167, Showcases Mixing Paddle 486, that has helical blades, having a scoop shape that can scoop ingredients within the pod).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Jay to incorporate the shape of mixing paddle as stated in Fonte (Embodiment 2). Regarding the shape of the mixing paddle, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), (MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B)).
Regarding Claim 5, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Jay fails to teach that the concave features span a majority of the cross-section of the mixing paddle.
Fonte (Embodiment 2) teaches an apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food (Abstract, Apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food) where the concave features span a majority of the cross-section of the mixing paddle (Figure 25C, Showcases Mixing Paddle 486 having three concave features that span the cross-section area).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Jay to incorporate the shape of mixing paddle as stated in Fonte (Embodiment 2). Regarding the shape of the mixing paddle, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), (MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B)).
Regarding Claim 9, Fonte in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay teaches that the radius of the concave features is between 0.6 and 1.2 inches (Fonte (Embodiment 1): Paragraph 78, The pods have diameters ranging from 2.080 inches-2.090 inches (radius 1.04 to 1.045 inches), therefore the radius of the concave features of the mixing paddle would be less than 1.045 inches).
Regarding Claim 10, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay teaches that the radius-to-thickness ratio defined by a radius of the concave features of the mixing paddle divided by a thickness the cross-section of the mixing paddle is between 1.0 and 10.0 (Fonte (Embodiment 1): Paragraph 78 and Figure 6B, The pods have diameters ranging from 2.080 inches-2.090 inches (radius 1.04 to 1.045 inches), therefore the mixing paddle radius would need to be smaller in order to fit in the pod. As seen by the figures, the thickness of the concave features of the mixing paddle is smaller than the radius of the mixing paddle and would be less than 1.045 inches, therefore the ratio is higher than 1.0).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay to incorporate a radius-to-thickness ratio defined by a radius of the concave features of the mixing paddle divided by a thickness the cross-section of the mixing paddle that is between 1.0 and 10. While Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay may not expressly teach that a radius-to-thickness ratio of the instant claim. Fonte (Embodiment 1) teaches a radius-to-thickness ratio that falls close to the instant claim. The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding Claim 11, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay teaches that at least one curved or non-linear section provides an increased bending, flexural, or torsional stiffness to the mixing paddle to resist deflection of the mixing paddle as the mixing paddle rotates within the pod (Fonte (Embodiment 1): Paragraph 177, The Mixing Paddle formed from metal. Therefore this reads as resisting deflection of the mixing paddle as the mixing paddle rotates within the pod.).
Regarding Claim 12, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay teaches that the mixing paddle is concentrically disposed within the interior of the pod such that the longitudinal axis of the body of the pod is coincident with the longitudinal axis of the mixing paddle (Fonte (Embodiment 1): Figure 6A-B, Mixing Paddle 160 is concentrically disposed within Pod 150 and their longitudinal axis align).
Regarding Claim 13, Fonte (Embodiment 1) teaches A device located in a hermetically-sealed pod containing liquid food or drink ingredients, the device comprising: a body having a longitudinal mixing paddle (Figure 6A-B and Paragraph 79, Mixing Paddle 160 is enclosed in the Pod 150 which is air tight. Paragraph 93, The pods can be sized to provide a single serving of the food or drink being produced); the body having at least two windows passing through the cross-section of the body (Figure 6B, Showcases openings 232 passing through the cross-section of the mixing paddle); the body being sized and shaped such that, when the device is rotated within the pod while the pod is cooled:(i) edges of the device scrape an inner surface of the pod to remove built-up frozen ingredients located on the inner surface of the pod (Paragraph 113 and Figure 6B, In this mixing paddle configuration, one blade is intended to scrape ingredients from the inner sidewall of the pod); (ii) the cross section portion of the body forces ingredients in an axial direction in the pod and through the at least two windows (Figure 6B and Paragraph 115, Mixing Paddle forces ingredients in an axial direction in the pod); and (iii) the device forces frozen confection out of the pod after the pod is opened (Paragraph 123 and Figure 11, As the ice cream forms in pod 150, A torque sensor of the machine measures the torque of the motor 124 required to rotate the mixing paddle 160 within the pod 150. Once the torque of the motor 124 measured by a torque sensor satisfies a predetermined threshold, the machine 100 moves into a dispensing mode (276). The dispensing port opens and the motor 124 reverses direction (step 278) to press the frozen confection out of the pod 150).
Fonte (Embodiment 1) fails to teach that at least a portion of the cross-section is S-shaped, where the body having a cross-section along a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the body, wherein the cross-section has a pair of concave features each spaced approximately equidistant from a longitudinal axis of the body, the concave features being concave with respect to the direction in which the device is rotated within the pod while the pod is cooled, wherein at least a portion of each of the two radial end portions is tangent to an inner surface of the sidewall of the pod at the one or more rotational positions of the mixing paddle within the pod.
Fonte (Embodiment 2) teaches an apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food (Abstract, Apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food) where the body having a cross-section along a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the body (Figure 25C, Showcases a cross section of the mixing paddle perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the body); wherein the cross-section has a pair of concave features each spaced approximately equidistant from a longitudinal axis of the body (Figure 25C, Showcases Mixing Paddle 486 having a concave features spaced approximately equidistant from the longitudinal axis of the mixing paddle), the concave features being concave with respect to the direction in which the device is rotated within the pod while the pod is cooled (Figure 25C, Showcases Mixing Paddle 486 having a concave features with respect to a rotational direction of the mixing paddle), wherein at least a portion of each of the two radial end portions is tangent to an inner surface of the sidewall of the pod at the one or more rotational positions of the mixing paddle within the pod (Figure 25C, Showcases Mixing Paddle 486 having three concave features where the end portion is tangent to an inner surface of the sidewall of the pod),
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) to incorporate the shape of mixing paddle as stated in Fonte (Embodiment 2). Regarding the shape of the mixing paddle, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), (MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B)).
Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) fails to teach that at least a portion of the cross-section is S-shaped.
Jay teaches an ice cream pod and stirrer (Col 1 Line 9-11, Ice cream freezers with stirrer) where at least a portion of the cross-section being S-shaped (Figure 6, The longitudinally extending members 14 are S shaped), and wherein the cross- section has two radial end portions that are curved in an opposite direction relative to the concave features Figure 5-6 and Col 2 Line 49-51, The longitudinally extending members 14 curve opposite direction of the concave features).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) to incorporate the shape of mixing paddle as stated in Jay. Regarding the shape of the cross section, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), (MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B)).
Regarding Claim 14, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay teaches that the mixing paddle has a helical-shape (Fonte (Embodiment 1): Figure 6B, Mixing Paddle 160 has a helical-shape).
Regarding Claim 17, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) teaches at least two windows are positioned radially along the cross section of the body (Fonte (Embodiment 1): Figure 6B and 10, Showcases openings 232 passing through the cross-section of the mixing paddle).
Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) fails to teach that the cross section is S-shaped.
Jay teaches an ice cream pod and stirrer (Col 1 Line 9-11, Ice cream freezers with stirrer) the cross section of the body is S-shaped (Figure 6, The longitudinally extending members 14 are S shaped).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) to incorporate the shape of mixing paddle as stated in Jay. Regarding the shape of the cross section, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), (MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B)).
Regarding Claim 19, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) fails to teach that the cross section of the body is S-shaped.
Jay teaches an ice cream pod and stirrer (Col 1 Line 9-11, Ice cream freezers with stirrer) where the S-shaped portion of the cross- section spans a majority of the cross-section of the body (Figure 6, The longitudinally extending members 14 are S shaped and spans a majority of the cross-section of the body).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) to incorporate the shape of mixing paddle as stated in Jay. Regarding the shape of the cross section, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), (MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B)).
Regarding Claim 20, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay teaches that the cross-section provides an increased bending, flexural, or torsional stiffness to the body to resist deflection of the body as the body rotates within the pod (Fonte (Embodiment 1): Paragraph 177, The Mixing Paddle formed from metal. Therefore this reads as resisting deflection of the mixing paddle as the mixing paddle rotates within the pod.).
Regarding Claim 21, Fonte (Embodiment 1) teaches a pod comprising: a body having a sidewall that extends from a first end of the body to a second end of the body (Figure 6A-B, A wall 214 connects the first end 210 to the second end 212 to create Pod 150), the body having an interior that contains ingredients for producing a single serving of a cooled food or drink (Paragraph 93, The pods can be sized to provide a single serving of the food or drink being produced); and a mixing paddle disposed within the body and rotatable relative to the body along a longitudinal axis of the body (Figure 6A-B, Mixing Paddle 160 is enclosed in the Pod 150 and is rotatable relative to the body along a longitudinal axis of the body), and a machine having a recess sized to receive the pod, the machine comprising (Figure 1B, and Paragraph 68, Machine 100 has a receded receptacle 110 sized to receive a pod): a refrigeration system operable to cool the ingredients within the pod when the pod is inserted into the recess of the machine (Paragraph 68 and 74, Refrigeration system 109 whose other components are disposed inside the housing 104 cools the ingredients when pod is inserted.); and a mixing motor operable to rotate the mixing paddle to mix the ingredients within the pod while the ingredients are being cooled to produce the single serving of the cooled food or drink (Paragraph 123, Motor 124 mixes the ingredients using the Mixing Paddle 160 during the cooling process).
Fonte (Embodiment 1) fails to teach two radial end portions in the cross section, where a cross-section of the mixing paddle taken perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the mixing paddle having at least one curved or non-linear section, wherein the cross-section has a pair of concave features each spaced approximately equidistant from a longitudinal axis of the body, the concave features being concave with respect to the direction in which the device is rotated within the pod while the pod is cooled, wherein at least a portion of each of the two radial end portions is tangent to an inner surface of the sidewall of the pod at the one or more rotational positions of the mixing paddle within the pod.
Fonte (Embodiment 2) teaches an apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food (Abstract, Apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food) where a cross-section of the mixing paddle taken perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the mixing paddle having at least one curved or non-linear section (Figure 27, 25C, 34, and 39, Showcases cross-sections perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of different Mixing Paddles that have curved sections); wherein the cross-section has a pair of concave features each spaced approximately equidistant from a longitudinal axis of the body (Figure 25C, Showcases Mixing Paddle 486 having a concave features spaced approximately equidistant from the longitudinal axis), the concave features being concave with respect to the direction in which the device is rotated within the pod while the pod is cooled (Figure 25C, Showcases Mixing Paddle 486 having a concave features with respect to a rotational direction of the mixing paddle), wherein at least a portion of each of the two radial end portions is tangent to an inner surface of the sidewall of the pod at the one or more rotational positions of the mixing paddle within the pod (Figure 25C, Showcases Mixing Paddle 486 having three concave features where the end portion is tangent to an inner surface of the sidewall of the pod);
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) to incorporate the shape of mixing paddle as stated in Fonte (Embodiment 2). Regarding the shape of the mixing paddle, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), (MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B)).
Fonte (Embodiment 1) fails to teach two radial end portions in the cross section.
Jay teaches an ice cream pod and stirrer (Col 1 Line 9-11, Ice cream freezers with stirrer) where the cross-section has two radial end portions that are curved in an opposite direction relative to the concave features (Figure 5-6 and Col 2 Line 49-51, The longitudinally extending members 14 curve opposite direction of the concave features).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) to incorporate two radial end portions in the cross section as stated by Jay. The longitudinally extending members act as scraper blades adapted to engage the inner surface of the can to scrape materials on the inner wall (Col 2 Line 49-51, Scraper Blades).
Regarding Claim 22, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Jay fails to teach that at least one curved or non-linear section defines a C-shape or an S-shape.
Fonte (Embodiment 2) teaches an apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food (Abstract, Apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food) where the at least one curved or non-linear section defines a C-shape or an S-shape (Figure 25C and Paragraph 167, Showcases Mixing Paddle 486 having a C shape non-linear section).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) to incorporate the shape of mixing paddle as stated in Jay. Regarding the shape of the cross section, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), (MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B)).
Regarding Claim 23, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Jay fails to teach that the mixing paddle cross-section defines a wavy or undulating shape.
Fonte (Embodiment 2) teaches an apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food (Abstract, Apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food) where the mixing paddle cross-section defines a wavy or undulating shape (Figure 25C and Paragraph 167, Showcases Mixing Paddles 486 that have a undulating shape because its blades have a helical shape).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) to incorporate the shape of mixing paddle as stated in Jay. Regarding the shape of the cross section, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), (MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B)).
Regarding Claim 26, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay teaches that the machine is operable to rotate the mixing paddle such that edges of the mixing paddle scrape an inner surface of the pod to remove built-up frozen ingredients located on the inner surface of the pod (Fonte (Embodiment 1): Paragraph 113 and Figure 6B, In this mixing paddle configuration, one blade is intended to scrape ingredients from the inner sidewall of the pod).
Regarding Claim 27, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay teaches that the machine is operable to rotate the mixing paddle to force the ingredients in an axial direction of the pod and through at least two windows of the mixing paddle (Fonte (Embodiment 1): Figure 6B, 10, and Paragraph 113, Showcases openings 232 passing through the cross-section of the mixing paddle and ingredients are forced through the openings 232 in an axial direction when the mixing paddle is rotated).
Regarding Claim 28, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay teaches that the machine is operable to rotate the mixing paddle to force the produced single serving of the cooled food or drink out of the pod after the pod is opened (Fonte (Embodiment 1): Paragraph 123 and Figure 11, As the ice cream forms in pod 150, A torque sensor of the machine measures the torque of the motor 124 required to rotate the mixing paddle 160 within the pod 150. Once the torque of the motor 124 measured by a torque sensor satisfies a predetermined threshold, the machine 100 moves into a dispensing mode (276). The dispensing port opens and the motor 124 reverses direction (step 278) to press the frozen confection out of the pod 150).
Regarding Claim 29, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay fails to teach that at least one curved or non- linear section provides an increased bending, flexural, or torsional stiffness to the body to resist deflection of the mixing paddle as the mixing paddle rotates within the pod (Fonte (Embodiment 1): Paragraph 177, The Mixing Paddle formed from metal. Therefore this reads as resisting deflection of the mixing paddle as the mixing paddle rotates within the pod.).
Regarding Claim 30, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay teaches that the sidewall of the pod is coated with a layer of coating and the mixing paddle contacts the layer of coating as the mixing paddle is rotated within the pod (Fonte (Embodiment 1): Paragraph 99-100 and Figure 6B, The internal parts of the Pod 150 including the mixer are coated to prevent corrosion therefore the mixing paddle comes in contact with coating as it rotates).
Regarding Claim 82, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) teaches that the body is sized and shaped such that, when the device is rotated within the pod while the pod is cooled, the cross-section portion of the body forces ingredients through the at least two windows (Fonte (Embodiment 1): Figure 6B, 10, and Paragraph 113 and 123, Showcases openings 232 passing through the cross-section of the mixing paddle and ingredients are forced through the openings 232 when the mixing paddle is rotated).
Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) fails to teach that the cross section is S-shaped.
Jay teaches an ice cream pod and stirrer (Col 1 Line 9-11, Ice cream freezers with stirrer) where the cross section is S-shaped (Figure 6, The longitudinally extending members 14 are S shaped).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) to incorporate the shape of mixing paddle as stated in Jay. Regarding the shape of the cross section, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), (MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B)).
Claims 4, 18, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte (Embodiment 1) (US Patent No. 20200056835) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) (US Patent No. 20200056835) and further in view of Jay (US Patent No. 3161404) and Schmidt (US Patent No. 20060062079).
Regarding Claim 4, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay fails to teach that the radial end portions extend beyond a tangent point with the inner surface of the sidewall of the pod and curve back towards the longitudinal axis of the mixing paddle.
Schmidt teaches a mixing apparatus with a mixing member (Abstract and Figure 1A, Mixing Member) that can used to mix food products where the radial end portions extend beyond a tangent point with the inner surface of the sidewall of the pod and curve back towards the longitudinal axis of the mixing paddle (Figure 1A-C Showcases a mixing member that has main vanes 18 and end vanes 30 that extend beyond a tangent point of cylindrical skirt 52 and curves back towards the longitudinal axis of the mixing member).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay of to incorporate two end portions that curve back towards the longitudinal axis of the mixing paddle as stated by Schmidt. The end vanes 30, which curve back into the longitudinal axis of the mixing member, ensure that what’s being mixed is pushed into the center (Paragraph 42, End vanes 30).
Regarding Claim 18, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay fails to teach that the radial end portions extend beyond a tangent point with the inner surface of the sidewall of the pod and curve back towards a longitudinal axis of the body.
Schmidt teaches a mixing apparatus with a mixing member (Abstract and Figure 1A, Mixing Member) that can used to mix food products where the radial end portions extend beyond a tangent point with the inner surface of the sidewall of the pod and curve back towards a longitudinal axis of the body (Figure 1A-C Showcases a mixing member that has main vanes 18 and end vanes 30 that extend beyond a tangent point of cylindrical skirt 52 and curves back towards the longitudinal axis of the Skirt 52).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay to incorporate two end portions that curve back towards the longitudinal axis of the mixing paddle as stated by Schmidt. The end vanes 30, which curve back into the longitudinal axis of the mixing member, ensure that what’s being mixed is pushed into the center (Paragraph 42, End vanes 30).
Regarding Claim 24, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay fails to teach that the radial end portions extend beyond a tangent point with the inner surface of the sidewall of the pod and curve back towards the longitudinal axis of the mixing paddle
Schmidt teaches a mixing apparatus with a mixing member (Abstract and Figure 1A, Mixing Member) that can used to mix food products where the radial end portions extend beyond a tangent point with the inner surface of the sidewall of the pod and curve back towards the longitudinal axis of the mixing paddle (Figure 1A-C Showcases a mixing member that has main vanes 18 and end vanes 30 that extend beyond a tangent point of cylindrical skirt 52 and curves back towards the longitudinal axis of the mixing member).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay to incorporate two end portions that curve back towards the longitudinal axis of the mixing paddle as stated by Schmidt. The end vanes 30, which curve back into the longitudinal axis of the mixing member, ensure that what’s being mixed is pushed into the center (Paragraph 42, End vanes 30).
Regarding Claim 25, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Schmidt fails to teach two radial end portions in the cross section.
Jay teaches an ice cream pod and stirrer (Col 1 Line 9-11, Ice cream freezers with stirrer) where the mixing paddle cross-section has two radial end portions that are curved in an opposite direction relative to the concave features (Figure 5-6 and Col 2 Line 49-51, The longitudinally extending members 14 curve opposite direction of the concave features).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Schmidt to incorporate two radial end portions in the cross section as stated by Jay. The longitudinally extending members act as scraper blades adapted to engage the inner surface of the can to scrape materials on the inner wall (Col 2 Line 49-51, Scraper Blades).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte (Embodiment 1) (US Patent No. 20200056835) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) (US Patent No. 20200056835) and further in view of Jay (US Patent No. 3161404) and Fonte (Embodiment 3) (US Patent No. 20200056835).
Regarding Claim 6, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay fails to teach that the mixing paddle comprises notches sized such that the notches fit over a lip on an inside of the base of the pod.
Fonte (Embodiment 3) teaches an apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food (Abstract, Apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food) where the mixing paddle comprises notches sized such that the notches fit over a lip on an inside of the base of the pod (Figure 39-41, showcases a Notches 683 that is sized and fits over the lip on an inside of the base of the pod).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) to incorporate the shape notches as stated in Fonte (Embodiment 3). The notches scoops the contents of the pod from the bottom and prevents the contents at the bottom of the pod freezing into ice (Paragraph 189, Notches).
Regarding Claim 7, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay fails to teach that each of the notches has a curved profile.
Fonte (Embodiment 3) teaches an apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food (Abstract, Apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food) where each of the notches has a curved profile (Fonte: Figure 39-40, Notches curve as the mixing paddles curves).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) to incorporate the shape notches as stated in Fonte (Embodiment 3). Regarding the shape of the notches, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), (MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B)).
Regarding Claim 8, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay fails to teach that the mixing paddle comprises two perpendicular surfaces that ride along an inside surface of the base of the pod.
Fonte (Embodiment 3) teaches an apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food (Abstract, Apparatus for rapidly cooling drinks and food) where the mixing paddle comprises two perpendicular surfaces that ride along an inside surface of the base of the pod (Fonte: Figure 39-41 The mixing paddle curves toward the base of the pods and therefore creates two perpendicular surfaces).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) to incorporate the shape notches as stated in Fonte (Embodiment 3). Regarding the shape of the notches, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), (MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B)).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonte (Embodiment 1) (US Patent No. 20200056835) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) (US Patent No. 20200056835) and further in view of Jay (US Patent No. 3161404) and Fonte (US Patent No. 10426180).
Regarding Claim 15, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay fails to teach that the mixing paddle has a helical-shape with a constant pitch.
Fonte (US Patent No. 10426180) teaches a system for providing a single serving of a frozen confection (Abstract, Apparatus for serving of a frozen confection) where the helical-shape has a constant pitch between 40 and 60 degrees/inch.
While Fonte (US Patent No. 10426180) may not expressly teach the helical-shape of a mixing paddle has a constant pitch between 40 and 60 degrees/inch of the instant claim, Fonte (US Patent No. 10426180) teaches that a mixing paddle has a helical-shape with a constant pitch. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, the mixing paddle of Fonte (US Patent No. 10426180) is capable of mixing the ingredients.
Regarding Claim 16, Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay fails to teach that the mixing paddle edges touch the majority of angular orientations of the device within the pod.
Fonte (US Patent No. 10426180) teaches a system for providing a single serving of a frozen confection (Abstract, Apparatus for serving of a frozen confection) where the edges are in contact with a sidewall of the pod for a majority of angular orientations of the device within the pod (Figure 20, Pod 30 has outer helical scraper paddle 670 that is always in contact with a sidewall of the pod).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fonte (Embodiment 1) in view of Fonte (Embodiment 2) and Jay to incorporate mixing paddle edges touching the majority of angular orientations of the device within the pod as stated by Fonte (US Patent No. 10426180). The helical scraper paddle is able to agitate the contents of pod so as to ensure uniform and rapid formation of the frozen confection, and prevent the build-up of frozen confection (Col 9 Line 35-45, Scraper Blades).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 8th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues, on pages 8-11, that the extending member 14 taught in Jay is not tangent to the side wall. However, Claims 1, 13 and 21 states that at least a portion of the endpoints are tangent to the side wall and the word tangent is being defined as touching a curved surface at one point without crossing it (Merriam Webster Dictionary). Jay teaches an extending member 14 has a portion of it touching the wall Y at a point without crossing it.
Furthermore, applicant argues that Fonte (Embodiment 2) does not teach that the endpoints on the mixing paddle are tangent. However, Fonte (Embodiment 2) teaches a mixing paddle that has blades that touches the inner surface of the pod without crossing it. This fits within the definition of tangent that has been established.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:00 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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached at (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights