DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 contains a negative limitation. While there is nothing inherently ambiguous or uncertain about a negative limitation, any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. See MPEP 2173.05(i). The Specification does not mention glues, adhesives, or solvents anywhere, whether to exclude them or as an alternative to another attachment mechanism. Thus, claim 17 contains new matter. The Examiner suggests that claim 17 be cancelled.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (CN 210448110, hereinafter Liao, listed on IDS) in view of Millan et al. (US 5590962, hereinafter Millan).
Regarding claim 1, Liao discloses tool for a food appliance, comprising:
a sleeve (figure 4, item 20) having an upper end configured for engagement with a drive shaft of the food processing appliance (at connecting plate 3), and a lower end (near arrow for item 13); and
an attachment (stirring blade 7) receivable on the lower end of the sleeve (see figure 4);
wherein a position of the attachment relative to the sleeve is adjustable (paragraph 0038, “The setting of the threaded holes 13 can effectively change the length of the sleeve 20 and the movable rod 21, thereby facilitating the change of the height of the stirring blade 7”).
Liao may not explicitly disclose the sleeve being configured for removable engagement with the drive shaft. Millan teaches a tool for a food appliance including a sleeve (figure 1, plastic sleeve 36) that is configured for removable engagement with a drive shaft (via constrictions 38) and a tool (beater element 3) attached to the sleeve. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Liao with the removable sleeve for the purpose of allowing replacement of the sleeve as needed without requiring replacement of the tool. Further, it is well-settled that making structures separable is obvious when such a modification would provide no unexpected results. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). In this case, making the sleeve of Liao separable would provide only the expected result of holding the tool, as evidenced by the references.
Regarding claim 9, Liao discloses the attachment is removably receivable on the lower end of the sleeve (see figure 4). As can be seen in the figure, the parts of the apparatus are separate pieces that are fitted together. Thus, they would be removable from one another by some means, meeting the claim. It is noted that it is well-settled that making structures separable is obvious when such a modification would provide no unexpected results. See In re Dulberg, supra. In this case, making the attachment of Liao separable would provide only the expected result of holding the tool, as evidenced by the references.
Regarding claim 10, Liao discloses the appliance being a stand mixer (figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, Liao is silent to the use of adhesives. Millan teaches a sleeve attached without adhesives (figure 1, sleeve is attached via constrictions 38). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Millan with no adhesive for the purpose of allowing removal without additional steps.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (CN 210448110, hereinafter Liao, listed on IDS) in view of Millan et al. (US 5590962, hereinafter Millan), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lyell et al. (US PGPub 2023/0276995, hereinafter Lyell).
Regarding claim 2, Liao is silent to the threaded portions as recited. Lyell teaches a food processing device having an adjustable attachment (figure 1) wherein: the lower end of the sleeve (figure 3c, sleeve 140) includes a threaded portion (figure 3A, threads 146); and the attachment includes a hub (hub 160) having a threaded portion (portion 160b) configured to threadedly engage the threaded portion of the sleeve (see figure 3c); wherein the threaded engagement between the sleeve and the attachment allows for adjustment of attachment along the sleeve (see adjustment between figures 4A and 4B). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have substituted the adjustment mechanism of Lyell for that of Liao because the simple substitution of one known adjustment mechanism for another would have provided only the predictable result of allowing for vertical adjustment of the tool, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Liao discloses the attachment being one of a beater, a whisk, a dough hook and a scraper (see figure 1, item 7).
Regarding claim 4, Liao discloses a locking mechanism (figure 4, items 13 and 27) for locking a position of the attachment relative to the sleeve (paragraph 0038).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (CN 210448110, hereinafter Liao, listed on IDS) in view of Millan et al. (US 5590962, hereinafter Millan), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stephenson et al. (US PGPub 2009/0168594, hereinafter Stephenson).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Liao is silent to adjusting the height by rotating the attachment relative to the sleeve. Stephenson teaches a tool for a food appliance (figure 1) including a structure (figure 3, shaft 60) removably attached to a drive shaft (figure 5, via socket 80) and a tool removably attached thereto wherein the height of the tool can be adjusted by rotating the tool (threaded end 62 would allow for height adjustment of the attached accessory by rotating the accessory). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have substituted the threaded height adjustment of Stephenson for the pin height adjustment of Liao because such a simple substitution of one known element for another would have provided only the expected result of allowing for height adjustment of the tool, as evidenced by the references. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 11-14 are allowed.
Claims 5 and 11 are deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites particular configurations of the locking mechanism not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774