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 .
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 1-7, and 9-13 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.
The term “about” in claims 1-6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The range of RPM is rendered indefinite because it’s unclear how much the deviation from the value claimed the term “about” means.
Claims 7, and 9-13 are rejected due to their dependency on rejected claims 1-6.
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 1-7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer (US Patent No. 4547076) in view of Goodson (US Patent No 20130344204) and further in view of Neilson (US Patent No. 5439289), Biglari (US Patent No. 10076124) and Neilson (2) (US Patent No. 20080279040).
Regrading Claim 1, Maurer teaches a frozen food appliance for processing a frozen food precursor positioned in a frozen food container into a frozen food product (Figure 1 and Col 4 Line 63-67, Cylindrical cup-like container 12 Contains frozen body 13 of soft-ice mixture to be processed by the machine), the frozen food container having an opening (Figure 1, Cylindrical cup-like container 12 has an opening), the appliance comprising: a container mount having a container connector including one or more connector components and/or seals for forming a connection to the opening of a frozen food container (Figure 1 and Col 5 Line 8-15, The holder 14 has an annular resilient sealing member 15 that is fixed the opening of container 12 to provide an airtight seal), a rotational drive motor having a first torque characteristic and a first power characteristic (Col 11 Line 20-26, Agitator 11 rotates at 2,000 rpm because of the motor 8 therefore it inherently has a torque and power.); a blade element (Figure 1, 6 and Col 3-4 Line 67-5, The agitator 11 contains blades); a rotational drive shaft having a first end and a second end (Figure 1, Rotary shaft 16 has two ends), the first end connected to the rotational drive motor (Figure 1 and Col 5 Line 30-35, Rotary shaft 16 has one end connecting to Drive motor 8 through the transmission mechanism 10), the second end connected to the blade element (Figure 1 and 6, Rotary shaft 16 has another end connected to agitator 11), the rotational drive shaft configured to be driven by the rotational drive motor such that the blade element rotates in a circular motion around a first axis formed by the rotational drive shaft (Figure 1. Col 5 Line 30-40, Motor 8 rotates the Rotary shaft 16 which rotates the agitator 11 in circular motion around the axis created by the Rotary shaft 16), wherein the frozen food container is connected to the container connector (Figure 1, Container 12 is connected to sealing member 15), and the blade element is in contact with the frozen food precursor in the frozen food container (Figure 1 and Col 5 Line 30-40, The agitator 11 comes in contact with the Frozen Material 13), and wherein the rotational drive assembly causes the blade element to rotate at a rotational speed when the blade element is not in contact with a frozen food precursor (Col 5 Line 30-38 and Col 11 Line 20-26 and Figure 1, When the motor 8 is turned on, the Shaft 16 begins to lower and the agitator 11 begins to rotates at around 2,000 rpm before it contacts the frozen product),
Maurer fails to teach that the rotational drive motor, rotational drive shaft, and blade element are positioned in axial alignment with each other and that the apparatus operates at two different speeds.
Goodson teaches a beverage mixing system (Abstract, A beverage mixing system) where the rotational drive motor, rotational drive shaft, and blade element are positioned in axial alignment with each other to form a rotational drive assembly (Figure 5, Drive shaft 0502, Rotational Driver 0501 and Agitator 0504 are positioned in axial alignment with each other and form a rotational drive assembly), wherein the rotational drive assembly causes the blade element to rotate at a first rotational speed when the blade element is not in contact with a frozen food precursor (Paragraph 169 and Figure 11, The rotational Diver is turned on, the Drive Shaft 16 begins rotates the Mixing Blade at a first speed), and the blade element rotates around the first axis at a second rotation speed when in contact with the beverage (Paragraph 169-172 and Figure 11, Mixing Blade and Driveshaft rotation speed is changed to a second speed depending of the sensed viscosity of the beverage), and the first rotation speed being a predetermined speed that is greater than the second rotation speed (Paragraph 169-172 and Figure 11, Mixing Blade and Driveshaft rotation speed is changed to a second speed depending of the sensed viscosity of the beverage, reads as decreasing the speed to achieve desired beverage viscosity), and wherein the difference between the first rotation speed and the second rotation speed is not achieved using a rotational speed modifying gear or transmission between the rotational drive motor and the blade element (Paragraph 169-172, The change in speed is achieved through the uses of Rotational Driver, Current/Power Monitor, Rotational load sensor, and a Control Software).
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 Maurer to incorporate the arrangement of the rotational drive motor, rotational drive shaft, and blade element and have different speeds as stated in Goodson. The different speeds allow the user to achieve different desired viscosity needed for the beverage (Paragraph 169-172, Viscosity). Also, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. (MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.).
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of this particular arrangement, therefore it is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Maurer in view of Goodson fails to teach a locking mechanism with an upper collar shroud and a lower collar shroud.
Neilson teaches an apparatus for mixing ingredients in a receptacle (Abstract, Apparatus for mixing ingredients in a receptacle) where the container connector includes a locking collar mechanism, the locking collar mechanism including an upper collar shroud and a lower collar shroud (Figure 1 and 6A-F, Showcases a locking mechanism made up of an enlargement 28, acting as the upper collar shroud, and a lid 16 acting as the lower collar shroud), the upper collar shroud being fixedly connected to the container mount (Figure 1 and 6A-F, Enlargement 28, acting as the upper collar shroud, is attached to the housing of the apparatus), the lower collar shroud is connected to the upper collar shroud (Figure 1 and 6A-F, Enlargement 28, acting as the upper collar shroud, is connected to a lid 16 acting as the lower collar shroud), the lower collar shroud moves downwardly with respect to the frozen food appliance to a position that allows contact with a frozen food container (Figure 1 and 6A-F, Lid 16, acting as the lower collar shroud, can move up and down to contact the receptacle 14), and a height adjustment motor connected to the rotational drive assembly (Figure 3A-3B and Col Line 30-42, Motor 78 works as a height adjustment and is connected to the Mixer Shaft 42), the height adjustment motor configured to move the rotational drive assembly axially along the first axis such that the blade element is movable through the opening of a frozen food container to come into contact with a frozen food precursor positioned in a frozen food container when the frozen food container is connected to the container connector (Figure 3A-B and Col 4 Line 30-42, Motor 78 works as a height adjustment motor and pushes the Mixer Shaft 78 downward into the Receptacle 14 along the axis which moves the Mixer Head 44 downward into the container to come in contact with the frozen product when the Receptacle 14 is connected to the machine).
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 Maurer in view of Goodson to incorporate a locking mechanism as stated in Neilson. The lid is easily detachable for cleaning (Col 5 Line 62-67, Lid).
Maurer in view of Goodson and Nielson fails to teach a locking mechanism with a lower collar shroud that rotates.
Biglari teaches a rapid-agitation mixer for food products (Abstract, a rapid-agitation mixer for food products) where the lower collar shroud can be rotated (Figure 10 and Col 6 Line 1-7, Cup cover 420, reads as lower shroud, can rotate).
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 Maurer in view of Goodson and Neilson to incorporate a rotating lower shroud as stated in Biglari. The cup cover may be moved out of the way to allow for easy access for the product cup. (Figure 9A and Col 6 Line 1-7, Cup Cover 420).
Maurer in view of Goodson, Neilson, and Biglari fails to teach that the second rotation speed is a speed in the range of about 1,000 rpm to about 4,000 rpm.
Neilson (2) teaches a drink mixer (Abstract, Dink Mixer) where the second rotation speed is a speed in the range of about 1,000 rpm to about 4,000 rpm (Paragraph 110, The Apparatus can produce a low output speed of about 1176 rpm and a high output speed of about 14,280 rpm).
Neilson (2) teaches the claimed invention except that the ranges do not match. 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 include the workable ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that range of rpm is between 2500-3500 rpm. This particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 2, Maurer in view of Goodson, Neilson, Biglari teaches that the first rotation speed is set by a manufacturer or user of the frozen food appliance (Maurer: Col 11 Line 20-26, Agitator 11 rotates at 2,000 rpm as set by Maurer, the inventor).
Maurer in view of Neilson, Biglari and Neilson (2) fails to teach that the relationship between the first rotation speed and the second rotation speed is based on the first torque characteristic and the first power characteristic
Goodson teaches a beverage mixing system (Abstract, A beverage mixing system) where the relationship between the first rotation speed and the second rotation speed is based on the first torque characteristic and the first power characteristic (Paragraph 169-172 and Figure 32, Mixing Blade and Driveshaft rotation speed is changed to a second speed depending on how the sensed viscosity of the beverage, effects the load of the rotational driver which effects the power, torque, and speed of the driver).
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 Maurer view of Neilson, Biglari and Neilson (2) to have different speeds as stated in Goodson. The different speeds allow the user to achieve different desired viscosity needed for the beverage (Paragraph 169-172, Viscosity).
Regarding Claim 3, Maurer in view of Goodson, Neilson, Biglari and Neilson (2) teaches that the second rotation speed is a speed in the range of about 2,000 rpm to about 3,000 rpm (Maurer: Col 11 Line 20-26 and Figure 1, Agitator 11 rotates at 2,000 rpm as a second speed).
Maurer teaches the claimed invention except that the ranges do not match. 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 include the workable ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that range of rpm is between 2000-3000 rpm. This particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 4, Maurer in view of Goodson, Neilson, and Biglari fails to teach that the second rotation speed is a speed in the range of about 2,500 rpm to about 3,500 rpm.
Neilson (2) teaches a drink mixer (Abstract, Dink Mixer) where the second rotation speed is a speed in the range of about 2,500 rpm to about 3,500 rpm (Paragraph 110, The Apparatus can produce a low output speed at the output shaft 409 of about 1176 rpm and a high output speed at the output shaft of about 14,280 rpm).
Neilson (2) teaches the claimed invention except that the ranges do not match. 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 include the workable ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that range of rpm is between 2500-3500 rpm. This particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 5, Maurer in view of Goodson, Neilson, and Biglari fails to teach that the second rotation speed is a speed of about 3,000 rpm.
Neilson (2) teaches a drink mixer (Abstract, Dink Mixer) where the second rotation speed is a speed of about 3,000 rpm (Paragraph 110, The Apparatus can produce a low output speed at the output shaft 409 of about 1176 rpm and a high output speed at the output shaft of about 14,280 rpm).
Neilson (2) teaches the claimed invention except that the speeds do not match. 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 include the optimum value, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that the speed is 3000 rpm. This particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 6, Maurer in view of Goodson, Neilson, Biglari and Neilson (2) teaches that the second rotation speed is a speed of about 2,000 rpm (Maurer: Col 11 Line 20-26 and Figure 1, Agitator 11 rotates at 2,000 rpm as a second speed).
Maurer teaches the claimed invention except that the speeds do not match. 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 include the optimum value, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that the speed is 2000 rpm. This particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 7, Maurer in view of Goodson, Neilson, Biglari and Neilson (2) teaches that the container connector includes a component selected from the group consisting of a shroud, a bayonet connector, a snap connector, a screw connector, and any combinations thereof (Maurer: Figure 1, Sealing member 15 reads as a shroud).
Regarding Claim 9, Maurer in view of Goodson, Neilson, Biglari and Neilson (2) teaches that the container connector includes one or more components and/or seals configured to provide an air seal between an inside portion of the frozen food container that is above a frozen food precursor and the outside of the frozen food container when the frozen food container is connected to the container connector (Maurer: Figure 1 and Col 5 Line 8-15, The holder 14 has an annular resilient sealing member 15 that is fixed the opening of container 12 to provide an airtight seal between the inside and outside of the Container 12).
Regarding Claim 10, Maurer in view of Goodson, Neilson, Biglari and Neilson (2) teaches that a gas pump connected to the container connector to provide a gas to the inside portion (Maurer: Col 11-12 Line 53-2, Air Pump 91 provides air inside the container 12 through hose 94 and sealing member 15).
Regarding Claim 11, Maurer in view of Goodson, Neilson and Neilson (2) teaches that the container mount includes a first shaft opening through which the rotational drive shaft passes (Maurer: Figure 1, Sealing member 15 as a hole in it to allow the rotary shaft 16 to pass through).
Maurer in view of Goodson, Neilson fails to teach that the container mount remains in substantial axial alignment with the rotational drive shaft if the first axis changes position.
Biglari teaches a rapid-agitation mixer for food products (Abstract, a rapid-agitation mixer for food products) where the container mount is connected to the rotational drive assembly such that a frozen food container when connected to the container mount remains in substantial axial alignment with the rotational drive shaft if the first axis changes position (Figure 11-12 and Col 10 Line 4-17, Cup cover 420, acting as a container mount, connected to shaft 960, motor 940, and holding cup 410 stay in axial alignment even if the first axis position changes).
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 Maurer in view of Goodson, Neilson and Neilson (2) to incorporate that the container mount remains in substantial axial alignment with the rotational drive shaft if the first axis changes position as stated in Biglari. The cup cover may be moved out of the way to allow for easy access for the product cup. (Figure 9A and Col 6 Line 1-7, Cup Cover 420).
Regarding Claim 12, Maurer in view of Goodson, Biglari and Neilson (2) fails to teach a first portion and second portion of the container mount with a floating connector.
Neilson teaches an apparatus for mixing ingredients in a receptacle (Abstract, Apparatus for mixing ingredients in a receptacle) where the container mount includes a first portion including the container and a second portion connected to the frozen food appliance via a housing and/or support structure (Figure 1 and 6A-F, Showcases enlargement 28, acting as the second portion connected to the housing, and lid 16, acting as the first portion, connecting to the receptacle 14), the first portion including a shaft opening through which the rotational drive shaft is positioned, the first portion and second portion connected via a float connector having a first range of motion between the first portion and the second portion (Figure 6A-F and 10, Showcases lid support 16, acting as the first portion, has a hole where the shaft 42 is positioned. Figure 6A-F and 10 and 3A, Lid support Element 26 connects the Lid 16 and enlargement 28 using the Screw 22 and has a range of motion between the two), the first portion connected to the rotational drive assembly wherein if the position of the first axis changes longitudinally with respect to the housing and/or support structure (Figure 6A-F, Showcases lid support 16, acting as the first portion is connected to the shaft 42.), the first portion changes its position with respect to the second portion through the first range of motion and remains in substantial axial alignment with the first axis (Figure 6A-F, Showcases lid support 16 changing position longitudinally while maintain axial alignment the Shaft 42).
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 Maurer in view of Goodson, Biglari and Neilson (2) to incorporate a first portion, second portion of the container mount, and a floating connector in a certain alignment as stated in Neilson. The lid which serves as the first portion is easily detachable from the housing for cleaning (Col 5 Line 62-67, Lid).
Regarding Claim 13, Maurer in view of Goodson and Neilson (2), fails to teach a first portion and second portion of the container mount with a floating connector.
Neilson teaches an apparatus for mixing ingredients in a receptacle (Abstract, Apparatus for mixing ingredients in a receptacle) where the container mount includes a floating connector dividing (Figure 6A-F and 10, Lid support Element 26 connects the Lid 16 and enlargement 28 using the Screw 22) a first portion of the container mount from a second portion of the container mount (Figure 1 and 6A-F, Showcases enlargement 28, acting as the second portion connected to the housing, and lid 16, acting as the first portion, connecting to the receptacle 14),
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 Maurer in view of Goodson and Neilson (2) to incorporate a first portion, second portion of the container mount, and a floating connector as stated in Neilson. The lid which serves as the first portion is easily detachable from the housing for cleaning (Col 5 Line 62-67, Lid).
Maurer in view of Goodson, Neilson and Neilson (2), fails to teach a first portion that can move in a lateral direction with respect to the first axis,
Biglari teaches a rapid-agitation mixer for food products (Abstract, a rapid-agitation mixer for food products) where the first portion can move in a lateral direction with respect to the first axis (Figure 11-12 and Col 10 Line 4-17, Cup cover 420, acting as a first portion, connected to shaft 960, motor 940, and holding cup 410 can move in a lateral direction).
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 Maurer in view of Goodson, Neilson and Neilson (2) to incorporate a first portion that can move in a lateral direction with respect to the first axis as stated in Biglari. The cup cover may be moved out of the way to allow for easy access for the product cup. (Figure 9A and Col 6 Line 1-7, Cup Cover 420).
Conclusion
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
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761