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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/21/2022, 06/06/2023, 08/28/2023, 01/15/2024, and 12/04/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “linear displacer assembly” in claim 57 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims dependent claims 55-57, 60, 67-73, 77-78, 81, 103, 182-183 are objected to because of the following informalities: The article “A” in the preamble of each of the claims 54-57, 60, 67-73, 77-78, 81, 103, 182-183 should read as “The”. In other words, replace “A” with “The” before the phrase “multiple motion intelligent driving device according to claim […]”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 54-55, 57, 60, 67, 69-73, and 77-78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Huang (US 20090189001 A1).
Regarding claim 54, Huang discloses, a multiple motion intelligent driving device (see safety food grinder in Fig. 1-Fig. 5) comprising:
a product container support (see container frame 21 in Figs. 1-3) for receiving a product container (see container body 22 in Figs. 1-3) containing a product to be processed (food); and
an electric motor (see motor 19 in Fig. 2) having a drive shaft (see driving shaft 18 in Fig. 2), for driving processing of said product (see Fig. 2), said drive shaft (18) and said support (21) being mutually linearly displaceable (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 55, Huang discloses, the multiple motion intelligent driving device according to claim 54 and wherein said drive shaft (18) and said product container support (21) are mutually linearly displaceable (see Fig. 3) only when said drive shaft (18) is in at least one predetermined azimuthal orientation (see Fig. 3) relative to said product container support (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 57, Huang discloses, the multiple motion intelligent driving device according to claim 54 and also comprising: a housing (see base 10 in Fig. 2), said product container support (21) being associated with said housing (see Fig. 3) and said electric motor (19) being disposed within said housing (see Fig. 2); and a linear displacer assembly (see movable stop 30 a spring 28, a slide 31 and a leg 32 in Figs. 1-5) operative to selectably change a relative spatial orientation between said drive shaft and said product container support (see Figs. 1-5 and disclosed in para 0028 “The movable stops (30) are respectively mounted slidably in the sliding channels (203) of the connecting cylinder (25), selectively keep the rotating shaft (23) from connecting to the driver (15) and each movable stop (30) has a spring (28), a slide (31) and a leg (32)”).
Regarding claim 60, Huang discloses, the multiple motion intelligent driving device according to claim 54 and also comprising a product container support and clamping assembly (see movable stop 30 a spring 28, a slide 31 and a leg 32 in Figs. 1-5) including: said product container support (21); a cam element (see leg 32 with slide 31 and spring 28); and a plurality of clamp elements (see connecting cylinders 25 in Fig. 1), said product container support (21) rotatably supporting said cam element (see Figs. 1-5) and pivotably and slidably supporting said plurality of clamp elements (see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 67, Huang discloses, the multiple motion intelligent driving device according to claim 54 and wherein said product container support (21) comprises a generally circular planar surface (see Fig. 1) which is surrounded by a raised (see Fig. 1), generally annular planar cup support surface (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 69, Huang discloses, the multiple motion intelligent driving device according to claim 54 and wherein said product container support comprises a drive shaft accommodating aperture (see engaging recess 291 in Fig. 1), which is surrounded by an upstanding circumferential rim (see shaft coupling 29 in Fig. 1), thereby to help prevent leaking of spillage located on said planar surface below said product container support (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 70, Huang discloses, the multiple motion intelligent driving device according to claim 67 and wherein said cup support surface is surrounded by a tapered wall which terminates in a circumferential planar annular top and radially outwardly extending wall having a top-facing surface (see Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 71, Huang discloses, the multiple motion intelligent driving device according to claim 60 and wherein said cam element (32) comprises a generally circular planar element (see container mount 11 in Fig. 1) including: a generally circular disk (see driver 15 in Fig. 1) having a generally planar top surface and a generally planar bottom surface (se Fig. 1) and being formed with a central aperture (see Fig. 1); and a cylindrical circumferential wall (see outer surface in Fig. 1) surrounding said disk (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 72, Huang discloses, the multiple motion intelligent driving device according to claim 71 and wherein said cylindrical circumferential wall is configured on a radially outward surface (see Fig. 1) thereof with a plurality of cam channels (see Fig. 1) each arranged to operate and selectably position a clamp element (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 73, Huang discloses, the multiple motion intelligent driving device according to claim 72 and wherein said plurality of cam channels are each defined by a pair of radially outwardly extending mutually spaced circumferential walls (see Fig. 1), each of said plurality of cam channels extending from a first location therealong to a second location therealong (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 77, Huang discloses, the multiple motion intelligent driving device according to claim 73 and wherein operation of said cam element (32) in causing said clamp elements (25) to assume a clamping operative orientation (see Fig. 5) produced both by the downward orientation of said cam channels from said first locations (see Fig. 4) to said second locations (see Fig. 5) and by varying the radial extent of a first circumferential wall (12) defining each of said cam channels relative to the radial extend of a second circumferential wall defining each of said cam channels therealong (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 78, Huang discloses, the multiple motion intelligent driving device according to claim 73 and wherein said cam channels (see cam channels on wall 12 in Fig. 1) each have a maximum width between adjacent circumferential walls (12) at said first location therealong so as to accommodate radial outward biasing of said clamp element (25) within said cam channel thereat (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 56, and 182-183 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Mally (US 20080223963 A1).
Regarding claim 56, Huang discloses, the multiple motion intelligent driving device according to claim 54.
However, Huang does not explicitly disclose, an electric motor controller for controlling operation of said electric motor and said processing, said electric motor controller being responsive at least to at least one sensed parameter of said processing.
Nonetheless, Mally teaches, an electric motor controller (see microprocessor 52 in Fig. 2) for controlling operation of said electric motor (see motor 54 in Fig. 2) and said processing, said electric motor controller being responsive at least to at least one sensed parameter of said processing (disclosed in para 0023 “The control system comprises a microprocessor 52 operably coupled with a well-known triac switch 56 for controlling the "on" and "off" states of the motor 54. The motor 54 is supplied with power from a suitable power supply 60. The speed of the motor 54 is monitored through a suitable, well-known sensor, such as a Hall effect sensor coupled with the motor 54 for determining the motor shaft speed in RPM. Alternatively, the speed of the motor 54 can be monitored through a well-known current sensor coupled with the motor power input, an optical sensor coupled with the motor shaft, or some other motor performance feedback device”).
Fig. 2 of Huang appears to have control panel located on housing 10 and motor 19, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the device of Huang to further comprise the electric motor controller for controlling operation of said electric motor and said processing, said electric motor controller being responsive at least to at least one sensed parameter of said processing as taught/suggested by Mally in order to accurately control the motor speed (see para 0023 by Mally).
Regarding claim 182, Huang in view of Mally discloses, the multiple motion intelligent driving device according to claim 56.
However, Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein said electric motor controller is operative to monitor RPM of said drive shaft.
Nonetheless, Mally teaches, wherein said electric motor controller is operative to monitor RPM of said drive shaft (disclosed in para 0023 “The control system comprises a microprocessor 52 operably coupled with a well-known triac switch 56 for controlling the "on" and "off" states of the motor 54. The motor 54 is supplied with power from a suitable power supply 60. The speed of the motor 54 is monitored through a suitable, well-known sensor, such as a Hall effect sensor coupled with the motor 54 for determining the motor shaft speed in RPM. Alternatively, the speed of the motor 54 can be monitored through a well-known current sensor coupled with the motor power input, an optical sensor coupled with the motor shaft, or some other motor performance feedback device”).
Fig. 2 of Huang appears to have control panel located on housing 10 and motor 19, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the device of Huang to further comprise the electric motor controller for wherein said electric motor controller is operative to monitor RPM of said drive shaft as taught/suggested by Mally in order to accurately control the motor speed so as obtaining precise and efficient operation when processing food product with different quantity and/or loose consistency (see para 0027 by Mally).
Regarding claim 183, Huang in view of Mally discloses, the multiple motion intelligent driving device according to claim 56.
However, Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein said at least one sensed parameter comprises RPM of said drive shaft.
Nonetheless, Mally teaches, wherein said at least one sensed parameter comprises RPM of said drive shaft (disclosed in para 0023 “The control system comprises a microprocessor 52 operably coupled with a well-known triac switch 56 for controlling the "on" and "off" states of the motor 54. The motor 54 is supplied with power from a suitable power supply 60. The speed of the motor 54 is monitored through a suitable, well-known sensor, such as a Hall effect sensor coupled with the motor 54 for determining the motor shaft speed in RPM. Alternatively, the speed of the motor 54 can be monitored through a well-known current sensor coupled with the motor power input, an optical sensor coupled with the motor shaft, or some other motor performance feedback device”).
Fig. 2 of Huang appears to have control panel located on housing 10 and motor 19, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the device of Huang to further comprise the electric motor controller for wherein said at least one sensed parameter comprises RPM of said drive shaft as taught/suggested by Mally in order to accurately control the motor speed so as obtaining precise and efficient operation when processing food product with different quantity and/or loose consistency (see para 0027 by Mally).
Claims 68 and 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Arnett (US 20140247686 A1).
Regarding claim 68, Huang discloses, the multiple motion intelligent driving device according to claim 54.
However, Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein said product container support comprises a spillage channel.
Nonetheless, Arnett teaches, a spill moat 236 is configured to capture any escaping liquid and allow it to flow along a predetermined path, wherein the predetermined path of the spill moat 236, the blender base 24 also includes at least one aperture 238, wherein the aperture 238 may be configured to allow the liquid to exit from the blending system 20, and combination of the spill moat 236 and aperture 238 may generally prevent liquid from inadvertently entering the blender base 24 and more specifically from entering the working components of the blending system 20, such as the motor 40 (see Fig. 13 and para 0053).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the product container support of Huang to further comprise the spillage channel as taught/suggested by Arnett in order to prevent liquid from inadvertently entering the blender base/housing and more specifically from entering the working components of the device, such as the motor (see para 0053 by Arnett).
Regarding claim 81, Huang discloses, the multiple motion intelligent driving device according to claim 71, and also comprising a generally planar annular wall surface (see Fig. 1) extending radially outwardly of said cylindrical circumferential wall (12) and formed with a downwardly surface (see Fig.1).
However, Huang does not explicitly disclose the generally planar annular wall surface extending radially outwardly of said cylindrical circumferential wall formed with a downwardly facing circumferential leakage directing protrusion.
Nonetheless, Arnett teaches, a spill moat 236 is configured to capture any escaping liquid and allow it to flow along a predetermined path, wherein the predetermined path of the spill moat 236, the blender base 24 also includes at least one aperture 238, wherein the aperture 238 may be configured to allow the liquid to exit from the blending system 20, and combination of the spill moat 236 and aperture 238 may generally prevent liquid from inadvertently entering the blender base 24 and more specifically from entering the working components of the blending system 20, such as the motor 40 (see Fig. 13 and para 0053).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify a generally planar annular wall surface extending radially outwardly of said cylindrical circumferential wall and formed with a downwardly surface of Huang such that the generally planar annular wall surface extending radially outwardly of said cylindrical circumferential wall formed with a downwardly facing circumferential leakage directing protrusion as taught/suggested by Arnett in order to capture any escaping liquid and allow it to flow along a predetermined path so as preventing liquid from inadvertently entering the blender base/housing and more specifically from entering the working components of the device, such as the motor (see para 0053 by Arnett).
Claim 103 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Garcia (US 20110210195 A1).
Regarding claim 103, Huang discloses, the multiple motion intelligent driving device according to claim 54.
However, Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein upon retraction of said drive shaft, said drive shaft is rotated to ensure that it is in at least one acceptable azimuthal orientation with respect to said housing.
Nonetheless, Garcia teaches, the retracted position only being achievable against the pressure applied by the first spring 274, wherein the first lever 280 may interface with the exterior of the motor housing 102, through the center of the drive shaft 236 and this arrangement allows the first lever 280 to convey its extended or retracted position to the microswitch 266, wherein the interlock system may be arranged so the presence of items deemed necessary for the operation of the apparatus causes the first lever 280 to assume its retracted position, allowing the machine to be activated (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, and disclosed in para 0026).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the driving shaft of Huang such that wherein upon retraction of said drive shaft, said drive shaft is rotated to ensure that it is in at least one acceptable azimuthal orientation with respect to said housing as taught/suggested by Garcia in order to allow the device/motor to activate in safe condition (see para 0026 by Garcia).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday approx. 6:00 am-3:30 pm ET.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761