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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on 04 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is missing a period “.” at the end. All claims should end with periods.
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 1-19 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.
In independent claim 1, the double recitation of “a plunger” is confusing and makes subsequent references to “the plunger” ambiguous as to which plunger is being referenced. Claims 2-11 fall with claim 1.
Claim 8 is further rendered indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis for “the top portion of the housing”.
In independent claim 12, the double recitation of “a plunger” is confusing and makes subsequent references to “the plunger” ambiguous as to which plunger is being referenced. Additionally, in claim 12, the phrase “when seal is removed” makes unclear whether or not the previously recited seal is being referenced. Claims 13-19 fall with claim 12.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keller (US 1,686,280).
Regarding claim 1, Keller discloses a whipping and dispensing appliance comprising: a whipping cap (2); a storage cap (6); a dispensing cap (7); a housing (1), the whipping cap attached to a first end of the housing (see Figs. 1 and 5); a plunger (3), the plunger in slidable connection with and through the whipping cap (see Figs. 1 and 5); at least one mixing element (5), the at least one mixing element attached to one end of a plunger (3) and insertable into the housing (see Figs. 1 and 4); a plunger disc (8), the plunger disc being removably attachable to the at least one mixing element (see Figs. 1 and 3-5); wherein in a whipping mode of operation the storage cap is attached to a second end of the housing (see Fig. 1), and in a dispensing mode of operation the dispensing cap is attached to the second end of the housing (see Fig. 5); and wherein in the dispensing mode of operation the plunger disc removably attaches to the at least one mixing element to cover the at least one mixing element (see Figs. 3-5), the plunger disc being slidably connected to the plunger through its connection to the at least one mixing element so that movement of the plunger will dispense a food product out of the dispensing cap (see Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 2, the at least one mixing element is a first mixing element and a second mixing element.
Regarding claim 9, the plunger disc includes a wiper (8a), the wiper configured to scrape the food product toward the dispensing cap in the dispensing mode of operation.
Regarding claim 10, the dispensing cap includes a nozzle (7a).
Regarding claim 11, the nozzle has a nozzle tip with a decorative design (see Figs. 2 and 5).
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.
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.
Claim 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 1,686,280) in view of Redheffer (US 146,710). The appliance of Keller was discussed above:
Regarding claim 3, the first mixing element does not have plurality of openings. Redheffer teaches a first mixing element (b) having a plurality of openings (c). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provide the first mixing element with a plurality of opening to create jetting action and improve mixing as taught by Redheffer (see the second paragraph of Redheffer).
Regarding claim 4, the second mixing element does not have plurality of openings. Redheffer teaches a second mixing element (b) having a plurality of openings (c). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provide the first mixing element with a plurality of opening to create jetting action and improve mixing as taught by Redheffer (see the second paragraph of Redheffer).
Regarding claim 5, the openings taught by Redheffer are generally elliptical (see Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 6, the openings taught by Redheffer are offset (see Fig. 3).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 1,686,280). The appliance of Keller was discussed above:
Regarding claim 7, duplicating the storage cap is not disclosed. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) concerning the obviousness of duplicating parts. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have duplicated the cap to improve containment.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the second cap attachable to the housing to improve containment.
Claim 12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 1,686,280) in view of Treiss (US 2,484,391):
Regarding claim 12, Keller discloses a whipping and dispensing appliance comprising: a storage cap (6); a dispensing cap (7); a whipping cap (2), the whipping cap having an opening through a top surface of the whipping cap (see Figs. 1 and 5); a housing (1), the whipping cap attached to a first end of the housing (see Figs. 1 and 5); a plunger (3), the plunger in slidable connection with and through the whipping cap (see Figs. 1 and 5); at least one mixing element (5), the at least one mixing element attached to one end of a plunger (3) and insertable into the housing; a whipping mode of operation (see Fig. 1); and a dispensing mode of operation (see Fig. 5). However, a seal is not disclosed. Treiss teaches a seal (24) the seal being positionally secured upon the top surface of the whipping cap and interchangeable between a first position and a second position, the first position existing when the seal is present within the opening on the top surface of the whipping cap and the second position existing when seal is removed from and not within the opening on the top surface of the whipping cap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized a seal as taught by Treiss to prevent leakage.
Regarding claim 14, the seal taught by Treiss surrounds the plunger in slidable connection with and through a whipping cap (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, the seal taught by Treiss is a circular shape with an extension, the seal and extension securely resting on the top surface of the whipping cap (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, the seal taught by Treiss includes a tab (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, the seal taught by Treiss includes a plug (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, the plug taught by Treiss fills the opening on the top surface of the whipping cap in the first position (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, the taught by Treiss plug is capable of being removed from the opening on the top surface of the whipping cap in the second position (see Fig. 1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 1,686,280) in view of Treiss (US 2,484,391) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yarbrough (US 763,139). An o-ring is not disclosed. Yarbrough teaches providing an o-ring housing in a whipping cap and in contact with a plunger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized an o-ring as taught by Yarbrough to prevent leakage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the Notice of References cited for other examples of reciprocating mixing elements in combination with plungers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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 X 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights