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 Objections
Claims 2-12 and 14-19 are objected to because all the claims begin with “a frozen food appliance according to claim…” Because these are dependent claims, they should begin with “the frozen food appliance according to claim…”
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 1-20 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 claim 1, the claim recites “a frozen food container” in line 14. It is unclear if this is meant to be the same as the frozen food container introduced in line 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “a frozen food precursor” in line 4. It is not clear if this is meant to be the same as the frozen food precursor introduced in line 1 of claim 1.
Claim 2 also recites “a frozen food container” in lines 4 and 5. It is unclear if this is meant to be the same as the frozen food container introduced in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “a frozen food precursor” in line 3. It is not clear if this is meant to be the same as the frozen food precursor introduced in line 1 of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “a frozen food container” in line 6. It is unclear if this is meant to be the same as the frozen food container introduced previously in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “one or more components and/or seals” in line 2. It is unclear if this is the same as the “one or more connector components and/or seals” introduced in claim 1.
Claim 10 also recites “a frozen food precursor” in line 3. It is not clear if this is meant to be the same as the frozen food precursor introduced in line 1 of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “a frozen food container” in line 14. It is unclear if this is meant to be the same as the frozen food container introduced in line 1.
Claim 13 also recites “a frozen food precursor” in line 24. It is not clear if this is meant to be the same as the frozen food precursor introduced in line 1 of the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “a frozen food precursor” in line 3. It is not clear if this is meant to be the same as the frozen food precursor introduced in line 1 of claim 13.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “a frozen food container” in line 14. It is unclear if this is meant to be the same as the frozen food container introduced in line 1.
Claim 20 also recites “a frozen food precursor” in lines 24 and 27. It is not clear if this is meant to be the same as the frozen food precursor introduced in line 1 of the claim.
Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected because it depends from one or more indefinite claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are deemed to contain allowable subject matter because they recite a specific configuration of the container mount not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record. The closest prior art is Neilson (US PGPub 2008/0279040), which discloses a mixer for frozen drinks including a container mount having a first portion and a second portion. However, Neilson does not disclose the float connector and response of the first portion to movement of the first axis as recited in claims 1, 13, and 20. These features are not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art generally discloses frozen food mixing devices having moving alignment between a container and the mixing blade.
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