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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elect’s Group V, corresponding to the agitator’s assembly shown in figures 22-23, and 26 in the reply filed on 05/05/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s argument that Figures 24 and 25 ([0059] and [0060]) describe a cross-sectional view of Figure 22 are persuasive.
Claim 10 has been indicated as (withdrawn – currently amended) on the amended Claim set received on (05/05/2026), and Claim 10 is noted in the Remarks, also received (05/05/2026), as pending for the Examiner’s review and consideration as well as withdrawn. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(c), Examiner will interpret Claim 10 as “withdrawn” from the application and will not examine Claim 10 on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “152” has been used to designate both interior passage and a cylindrical sleeve. 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. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: drive element in claim 23 and 24; and linkage in claims 1, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 44.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Drive Element
Prong (A) is invoked by the claim reciting the generic place holder “element”.
Prong (B) is satisfied because “element” is modified by the functional language “drive” in line 4 of Claim 23, and line 3 of Claim 24.
Under Prong (C), the disclosure fails to provide any corresponding structure that would further define the drive element. Therefore, the interpretation of the “drive element” is anything that is capable of providing a driving rotational force to the agitator, that also engages the ring of the agitator.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 30 recites the limitation "resting on the interior surface the pot to cause" and should read "resting on the interior surface of the pot to cause. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 43 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.
Claim 43 recites the limitation "first and second connecting arms" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as a first and second connecting arms has not been properly introduced.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 21, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 42, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cretors (US-2604030-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Cretors teaches (Figs. 1-12) a corn popping machine with a pot (popping pan (28), skirt (32), lower cover pan (33), bottom (34), bottom (29)) with a lid (cover (56)) configured to mate with the pot (see Fig 1), a crank movably associated with the lid (electric motor (52a), worm gear (53), Fig 1), with linkage (links (64, 66, 67)) connected to the crank and movable by the crank ([0030], pair of upright pins (54) and the upper end of said upper shaft section (49) with cross pin (55), cross pin is arranged on the shaft that when the pin (46) engages the notch (45) of the agitator hub, the cross pin (55) will engage the pins (54) and can be driven to turn or rotate the agitator) and an agitator (agitator (43), Fig 3) receivable within the interior volume of the pot (Fig 1) and releasably engageable with the linkage for driving by the crank when the lid is mated with the pot (hub (44) in the pan bottom for rotation, upward notches (45), cross pin (45) on member (41), carried by the bottom end of the lower section (48) of the agitator’s driving shaft, and is adapted to be detachably engaged, [0030]), the agitator including a blade defining a space that allows kernels of un-popped corn to contact the interior surface of the pot when the agitator is received within the interior volume (Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 21, Cretors teaches that the linkage disengages from the agitator ((hub (44) in the pan bottom for rotation, upward notches (45), cross pin (45) on member (41), carried by the bottom end of the lower section (48) of the agitator’s driving shaft, and is adapted to be detachably engaged, [0030])) when the lid assembly is removed from the pot to allow the agitator to remain in the interior volume (Figs 1, 3, 4).
Regarding Claim 30, Cretors teaches that when the agitator (agitator (43), Fig 3) is received within the interior volume and engaged with the linkage, the blade is configured to contact the kernels of un-popped corn resting on the interior surface of the pot to cause the kernels to tumble when the agitator is driven by the crank pot (hub (44) in the pan bottom for rotation, upward notches (45), cross pin (45) on member (41), carried by the bottom end of the lower section (48) of the agitator’s driving shaft, and is adapted to be detachably engaged, [0030]).
Regarding Claim 31, Cretors teaches an agitator (agitator (43), Fig 3) further comprises a plurality of blades spaced from each other to allow the kernels to rest on the interior surface of the pot when the agitator is received within the interior volume (hub (44) in the pan bottom for rotation, upward notches (45), cross pin (45) on member (41), carried by the bottom end of the lower section (48) of the agitator’s driving shaft, and is adapted to be detachably engaged, [0030]).
Regarding Claim 32, Cretors teaches a linkage (electric motor (52a), worm gear (53), Fig 1) that is rotatable by the crank and releasably connects the agitator (agitator (43), Fig (3)) to be driven in rotation in relation to the surface of the pot by movement of the crank ([0030], pair of upright pins (54) and the upper end of said upper shaft section (49) with cross pin (55), cross pin is arranged on the shaft that when the pin (46) engages the notch (45) of the agitator hub, the cross pin (55) will engage the pins (54) and can be driven to turn or rotate the agitator).
Regarding Claims 35 and 36, Cretors teaches that the pot includes a retaining element (hub (44) suitably journalled axially in the pan bottom for rotation) to which the agitator (agitator (43)) is releasably engageable (bottom end of the lower section (48) of the driving shaft for the agitator, is adapted to be detachably engaged) such that the retaining element retains the agitator within the interior volume when the lid assembly is removed from the pot, and the retaining element is configured to releasably retain the agitator within the interior volume when the pot is tilted or inverted (Fig 2, 3, [0030]).
Regarding Claim 38, Cretors teaches (Figs. 1-12) a device for popping corn, comprising: a pot having an interior surface including a bottom and a sidewall, the interior defining an interior volume (popping pan (28), skirt (32), lower cover pan (33), bottom (34), pan bottom (29)) with a lid (cover (56)), and an agitator (agitator (43), Fig 3) receivable within the interior volume of the pot and movably associated with the pot (hub (44) in the pan bottom for rotation, upward notches (45), cross pin (45) on member (41), carried by the bottom end of the lower section (48) of the agitator’s driving shaft, and is adapted to be detachably engaged, [0030]), the agitator including a blade configured to contact kernels of un-popped corn resting on the interior surface the pot to cause the kernels to tumble when the agitator is received within the interior volume and moves in relation to the pot (Figs 3, 4) .
Regarding Claim 42, Cretors teaches that wherein the agitator (agitator (43), Fig 3) is received within the interior volume, the blade is spaces closely enough from the bottom of the pot to contact the kernels of un-popped corn resting directly on the bottom of the pot (hub (44) suitably journalled axially in the pan bottom for rotation, [0030]).
Regarding Claim 44, Cretors teaches that the corn popping device further comprises: a lid assembly comprising: a lid (lid (cover (56) configured to mate with the pot (see Fig 1)) configured to mate with the pot, a crank movably associated with the lid (electric motor (52a), worm gear (53), Fig 1), and a linkage (links (64, 66, 67)) connected to the crank and movable by the crank ([0030], pair of upright pins (54) and the upper end of said upper shaft section (49) with cross pin (55), cross pin is arranged on the shaft that when the pin (46) engages the notch (45) of the agitator hub, the cross pin (55) will engage the pins (54) and can be driven to turn or rotate the agitator); wherein the agitator (agitator (43), Fig 3) is releasably engageable with the linkage for driving by the crank when the lid is mated with the pot (hub (44) in the pan bottom for rotation, upward notches (45), cross pin (45) on member (41), carried by the bottom end of the lower section (48) of the agitator’s driving shaft, and is adapted to be detachably engaged, [0030]),, and the blade defines a space that allows the kernels of un-popped corn to contact the interior surface of the pot when the agitator is received within the interior volume (Fig 3).
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 22, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cretors in view of Yeung (US-20090190439-A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Cretors teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, by fails to specifically claim that the linkage is releasably and drivably engageable with the agitator at a plurality of relative positions of the crank with respect to the agitator when the agitator is received within the interior volume and the lid assembly is mated to the pot.
Regarding Claim 23, Cretors teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, by fails to specifically claim that either the agitator of the linkage includes a ring extending circumferentially along an upper portion of the pot and engageable at a plurality of locations along the ring; or a drive element that engages the ring.
Regarding Claim 25, Cretors teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, by fails to specifically claim that the agitator includes a ring shaped to allows the linkage to releasably engage the ring at a plurality of relative rotational positions of the crank with respect to the agitator when the agitator is received within the interior volume and the lid assembly is mated to the pot so that the agitator is drivable by movement of the crank.
Yeung teaches (Figs. 1-3) a food blender comprising a vessel (12), an outer ring gear (16), a planetary gear (15), a handle (13), a sun gear (14), and a beater spindle (18) and beater (19) attached perpendicularly to the planetary gear ([0044]). Yeung also teaches that the rotation of the sun gear by a handle or electric motor forces the planetary gear to revolve around the sun gear, where the beater travels inside the vessel to provide a better blending result ([0044]-[0049]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Cretors teaches the corn popping device with a pot and a lid assembly, where the lid mates to the pot and a crank is movably associated with the lid and linkages connect the crank to the agitator retained within the pot, and the agitator has blades desiged to allow the un-popped kernels space to contact the interior surface of the pot. Yeung teaches the inclusion of a ring gear along the upper circumference of the bowl, where the ring gear has teeth that form undulations for the planetary gear and sun gear in order to provide rotation when the handle or motor are rotated. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to combine the food processing apparatus taught by Leung, and incorporate the rotational gear assembly for the blender as taught by Yeung, because the known elements would retain their respective functions and yield predictable results when combined into a single food apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the corn popping machine taught by Cretors with the blender gears taught by Yeung, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cretors and Yeung in view of Kircher (US-1999658-A).
Regarding Claim 24, Cretors and Yeung teach all of the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the agitator includes a ring, and the linkage includes the drive element.
Kircher teaches (Figs. 1-3) a corn popper with an agitator (5) apparatus with a ring-like supporting member (6), with an outwardly extending handle (7), and U-shaped agitator elements (8, 9) that are carried by the ring (Pg. 1, col 1, lines 39-53). The agitator elements have legs (10, 11), where the agitator can be against the bottom of the receptacle or have a slight amount of clearance between the body portions and the agitating elements (Pg. 1, col 1, line 53 – col 2, line 19). Kircher further teaches that the handle of the agitator handle is disposed parallel to the handle of the vessel (4), one hand can be used to move the respective handles toward and away from each other producing an agitating motion and maintain control while keeping the user’s hands away from the heating region (Pg. 1, col 2, lines 20-36). The agitator is covered by a cover (15), with flanges (16) and a plurality of notches (17) for each leg of the agitating elements, to provide a snug fit for the cover over the vessel and agitator while over the heating means (Pg. 1, col 2, lines 37-55).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Cretors teaches the corn popping device with a pot and a lid assembly, where the lid mates to the pot and a crank is movably associated with the lid and linkages connect the crank to the agitator retained within the pot, and the agitator has blades desiged to allow the un-popped kernels space to contact the interior surface of the pot. Yeung teaches the inclusion of a ring gear along the circumference of the bowl, where the ring gear has teeth that form undulations for the planetary gear and sun gear in order to provide rotation when the handle or motor are rotated. Kircher teaches the agitator, that includes the ring along an upper portion of the pot, where the handle is connected to the ring, so that a user can rotate the pan and agitator separately to agitate corn in the vessel. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to combine the corn popping device taught by Cretors, to incorporate the rotational gear assembly for the blender as taught by Yeung, along with the hand turned ring agitator for popping corn as taught by Kircher, because the known elements would retain their respective functions and yield predictable results when combined into a single food apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the corn popping device taught by Cretors with the blender gears taught by Yeung and the popcorn agitator taught by Kircher, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 33, 34, 39, 40, 41, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cretors in view of Leung (US-2007020018-A1).
Regarding Claim 33, Cretors teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim a connecting arm operably associated with the linkage and connected to the blade so that the blade rotates with the linkage about an axis of rotation when the agitator is received within the interior volume and driven in rotation by movement of the crank.
Regarding claim 34, Cretors teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the connecting arm is laterally offset from the axis of rotation by a distance; and the distance is greater than a lateral distance between the connecting arm and a sidewall of the pot when the agitator is received within the interior volume.
Regarding Claim 39, Cretors teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the blade includes a surface oriented at an angle in relation to the bottom of the pot to lift the kernels from the bottom when the agitator is received within the interior volume and the agitator is moved in relation to the pot.
Regarding Claim 40, Cretors teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the surface of the blade is configured so that the kernels of un-popped corn resting on the bottom of the pot are lifted up and over the surface of the blade as the agitator moves in relation to the pot.
Regarding Claim 41, Cretors teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the blade includes a leading edge configured to contact the kernels when the agitator moves in relation to the pot; and when the agitator is received within the interior volume, the leading edge is spaced from the bottom of the pot by a height that is less than a height corresponding to a diameter of a typical kernel of un-popped corn.
Regarding Claim 43, Cretors teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the agitator further comprises a ring positioned proximate the sidewall when the agitator is received within the interior volume of the pot, first and second connecting arms each having a first end connected to the second end opposite the first end, and a lower portion including a plurality of the blades, an intermediate portion adjoining, and positioned between each of the blades; and the second ends of the first and second connecting arms being connected to the lower portion and positioning the lower portion proximate the bottom of the pot.
Leung teaches (Figures 1- 8, and 13- 18) a food processing apparatus. The apparatus comprises a container (2) with a main body (4), cavity (8), and a lid assembly (6). The lid assembly is releasably fitted to the main body, and includes a rotatable handle (38) and a horizontally extending spindle portion (40) provided with a cam means (46) that is engageable with and for rotating a second blade means (48), and a horizontally disposed arm portion (42) and rotatable knob (44) (Fig 1 and 8, [0029] & [0031-0032]). The second blade means has a cap member (50), on which gear members (52) are provided to engage with the spindle to rotate the blade means ([0032]). The first blade means (18) and second blade means (48) are separate components and independently removeable from the container, and both are driven by the handle through a coupler ([0033-0034]). The second blade means has connecting ribs (54, 56) extending laterally from the cap member (50), where two thin and elongated blade members (58, 60) depend from either side of the ribs ([0032]). The elongated members have a thinner side (76) close to or abutting the sidewall, and a thicker side (78) ([0032]). The second blade means has a circular base member (62) having an outer ring (64), and an inner ring (66), which are connected by radially extending ribs (68, 70, 72, 74), where the ribs are disposed at upward angles, and rotate following the rotating direction of the thinner side (76), with spaces defined between each of the radially extending ribs at the base of the container (Fig 8, [0032]). The user rotates the rotatable handle (38) to scrape foodstuff from the walls, and direct it towards the center of the apparatus ([0010] and [0033]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Cretors teaches the corn popping device with a pot and a lid assembly, where the lid mates to the pot and a crank is movably associated with the lid and linkages connect the crank to the agitator retained within the pot, and the agitator has blades designed to allow the un-popped kernels space to contact the interior surface of the pot. Leung teaches the connecting arm that connects the linkage and the blades, allowing the blades to rotate about the axis of rotation when the agitator is within the pot. Leung further teaches that the connecting arms are offset from the axis of rotation at a distance greater than the distance between the sidewall and the arm. Leung also teaches the inclusion of blades at an angle in relation to the bottom of the pot allowing kernels to be lifted off the bottom of the pot and over the blades during use of the agitator. Leung and Cretors both teach the blades of the agitators being on the bottom of the pot, a distance less than the diameter of a typical popcorn kernel. Leung lastly teaches a ring of the agitator being along the sidewall, where the first and second connecting arms extend from the linkage and go down through the elongated members to the ring, where the plurality of blades located in the lower portion are all connected by an intermediate inner ring portion. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to combine the food processing apparatus taught by Leung with the corn popping device taught by Cretors, because the known elements would retain their respective functions and yield predictable results when combined into a single food apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the corn popping machine taught by Cretors with the food processor taught by Leung, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 26, 27, 28, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cretors and Yeung in further view of Leung.
Regarding Claim 26, Cretors, Yeung, and Leung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, where Leung further teaches the agitator has a lower portion that includes blades, and the connecting arms that connect the ring to the lower portion through the elongated members, where the connecting arms extend from the center spindle thereby positioning the lower portion of the agitator apparatus.
Regarding Claim 27, Cretors, Yeung, and Leung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, where Cretors, Yeung, and Leung all teach an interior surface of a pot with an adjoining sidewall, and Leung teaches the outer ring being along the sidewall and base when the lower portion comprising the blades is received within the pot.
Regarding Claim 28, Cretors, Yeung, and Leung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, where Leung teaches the connecting arms extending radially out from the axis of rotation, and Cretors teaches the agitator is engaged via the connecting arms when the agitator is being driven within the interior of the pot and lid is in place.
Regarding Claim 29, Cretors, Yeung, and Leung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, Yeung teaches the inclusion of a ring gear along the circumference of the bowl, where the ring gear has teeth that form undulations for the planetary gear and sun gear in order to provide rotation when the handle or motor are rotated.
An artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to combine the corn popping device taught by Cretors, the food processing apparatus taught by Leung, and incorporate the rotational gear assembly for the blender as taught by Yeung, because the known elements would retain their respective functions and yield predictable results when combined into a single food apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the corn popping device taught by Cretors, to incorporate the food processor taught by Leung, along with the blender gears taught by Yeung, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cretors in further view of Stein (US-6098526-A).
Regarding Claim 37, Cretors teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the retaining element and the agitator have a key and keyhole that rotate independent of each other to either retain or remove the agitator.
Stein teaches (Figures 1-7) an automated corn popping apparatus, where an agitator shaft (422) couples to hub (404) and the stub axle (413) (Fig 4a and 4b, [0025]). The coupling hub fits over the stub axle for free axial rotation, and the stub axle is fixedly mounted to the kettle base (413), and has a circular slot (405) towards the upper end of the stub ([0025]). The slot freely accommodates pin (406), which is fixedly but removably mounted in the coupling hub (404) through hole (407) ([0025]). Stein further teaches that when the pin is in place, the coupling hub freely rotates around the stub axle but also remains in place when the kettle assembly is pivoted to dump the corn, but when the pin is removed, the coupling hub can be removed from the stub axle for cleaning or repair ([0025]).
It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a device (method) which differs from the claimed device (method) by the substitution of some component or step with another component (step), (2) teach that the substituted components and their functions were known, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In this case, Cretors teaches the corn popping apparatus, where the pot includes a retaining element (hub (44) suitably journalled axially in the pan bottom for rotation) to which the agitator (agitator (43)) is releasably engageable (bottom end of the lower section (48) of the driving shaft for the agitator, is adapted to be detachably engaged) such that the retaining element retains the agitator within the interior volume when the lid assembly is removed from the pot, and the retaining element is configured to releasably retain the agitator within the interior volume when the pot is tilted or inverted (Fig 2, 3, [0030]). The retaining hub element of Cretors and the pin that secures the coupling hub to the stub axle in order to retain the agitator to the base of the kettle of Stein both perform the function of securing the agitator element to the base of the kettle when the lid and driving element are removed. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have replaced the hub retaining element of Cretors with the coupling hub and stub axle secured by a pin to achieve predictable results because both references deal with retaining an agitator element to the base of a kettle during the popcorn popping process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hub retaining element of Cretors by replacing the retaining element with a coupling hub that is secured by a pin as taught by Stein, because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dean (US-2016/0353933-A1) teaches sauce pot with a rotating blade assembly to stir or mix the contents of a pot or pan, where the lid can be in place or removed.
Bourne (US-2004/0194633-A1) teaches a popcorn cooking device with a stirring means and rod to stir popcorn inside of a bucket while over a heating source.
Cretors (US-2011/0027434-A1) teaches an apparatus for cooking, mixing, and dispensing popcorn where an auger mounted on the lid rotates around the bottom to rotate the mixed popcorn and candy and ensure the contents have been cooked.
Beach (US-2851940-A) teaches (Fig. 1) a corn popping apparatus that has a receptacle (5), that includes stirrer vanes (25, 27) secured to and extending from a hub (29), that is rotatably journaled in the receptacle ([0019]). Shaft (23) has a lower end (31) that has internal splines that are suitable to cooperate with the hub to provide rotation to the stirrer when the receptacle is withdrawn from the cover (3) ([0019]).
Kuo (US-20200069109-A1) teaches an automatic cooking device with a driving element that drive a blender with two bended driving arms.
Bruno (US-2009/0090254-A1) teaches a device for processing foodstuff where a securing pin holds multiple blades together at the bottom of the vessel.
Pierre (FR-2791244-A1) teaches a food processing assembly and a latching lid for operating a mechanism that comprises cutting blades attached to a ring along the upper portion of the pot.
Essligner (DE-102018119811-A1) teaches (Figs. 1-25) an agitator bearing (1) that has a fixed bearing (3) with a rotatable rotating shaft (5). The fixed bearing has a base body (6) and a counter body (7), and is connected to the fixed bearing through a ball bearing (4) sitting on the rotating shaft ([0023]). The base body and counter body are connected by fastening means (8, 9, 10, 11, and 36) that forms a bayonet fitting ([0023]). Esslinger further teaches the base body has crimp ribs (18) to ensure the ball bearings are firmly inserted into the base body and pressed firmly into the rotating shaft ([0028-0029]). Esslinger further teaches that the base body has fastening means (10) that engage with fastening means (11) of the counter body ([0032]). Esslinger also teaches that the agitator bearing can be removed from the preparation vessel (22) and replaced by another suitable agitator (20) or bearing (1) depending on the task ([0022]).
Knees (US-4301717-A) teaches (Figs 1 and 2) a cooking utensil with a rotatable food container (102) as part of the electrically heated vessel (103) and lid (104) (Pg. 5, col. 3, lines 23 - 31). The food container has a tubular shaft (106) which rotates on a pair or ball or roller bearings (107, 107a) mounted in the base of the vessel and on a mounting plate (105) (Pg. 5, col. 3, lines 32 - 37). The upper end of the shaft is threaded and includes a wing nut (113) or other suitable threaded device that screw over the base of the food container, sealing the shaft and container together for rotation (Pg. 5, col. 3, lines 37 - 46). The container also includes vanes (116) to assist in stirring the food during the cooking operation, and when the stirring process is ended, the nut device can be removed from the utensil for cleaning or replacing (Pg. 5, col. 3, lines 48 - 53). Knees also teaches that the locking device is also provided to allow the device to set in any inclined position, vertical position, or to empty out the contents (Pg. 5, col. 3, lines 19 - 27).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER HEMMINGS whose telephone number is (571)467-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Ned Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/HUNTER G HEMMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights