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 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 7-10 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the clamping seat" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The clamping seat is referred to as “a first clamping seat” in claim 1, upon which claim 7 depends. It is unclear whether “the clamping seat” is meant to refer to the first clamping seat or another clamping seat.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the clamping section" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The clamping seat is referred to as “a first clamping section” in claim 2, upon which claim 7 depends. It is unclear whether “the clamping section” is meant to refer to the first clamping section or another clamping section.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the retaining element" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The retaining element is referred to as “a first retaining element” in claims 1 and 2, upon which claim 7 depends. It is unclear whether “the retaining element” is meant to refer to the first retaining element or another retaining element.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the retaining element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The retaining element is referred to as “a first retaining element” in claim 1, upon which claim 8 depends. It is unclear whether “the retaining element” is meant to refer to the first retaining element or another retaining element.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the resilient clamping element" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The resilient clamping element is referred to as “a first resilient clamping element” in claim 1, upon which claim 8 depends. It is unclear whether “the resilient clamping element” is meant to refer to the first resilient clamping element or another resilient clamping element.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the resilient clamping element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The resilient clamping element is referred to as “a first resilient clamping element” in claim 1, upon which claim 9 depends. It is unclear whether “the resilient clamping element” is meant to refer to the first resilient clamping element or another resilient clamping element.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the resilient clamping element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The resilient clamping element is referred to as “a first resilient clamping element” in claim 1, upon which claim 8 depends. It is unclear whether “the resilient clamping element” is meant to refer to the first resilient clamping element or another resilient clamping element.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE202004010410U1.
Regarding claim 1, DE202004010410U1 discloses A scraping and/or mixing assembly for mixing apparatus for food, pharmaceutical, or cosmetic products (abstract; figure 1A), the scraping and/or mixing assembly comprising at least one mixing arm element (reference #210) and at least one respective scraping and/or mixing element which are removably attachable to each other by means of a quick-release attachment assembly (reference #111) including:
a support element connected to a portion of the mixing arm element (figure 9, reference #232 and 233), and
a body element connected to the scraping and/or mixing element and operatively adapted to couple by means of an overlapping relationship with the support element (figures 9-13, reference #114), wherein
the support element and the body element are attachable to each other by a first releasable clamping assembly (figures 9-13, reference #114, 232, 233, 250 and 251) comprising:
a first retaining element adapted to move between a clamping position, in which it cooperates with the support element and the body element to mutually clamp them, and a release position, in which the latter are released (figures 9-13, reference #250 and 251),
wherein the first releasable clamping assembly further comprises a first resilient clamping element made integral with one of the body element and the support element (figures 9-13, reference #135),
the first resilient clamping element being movable between a rest position, in which it is adapted to engage the first retaining element to hold the latter in the clamping position, and a stressed position, in which it is adapted to disengage the first retaining element to release the latter from the clamping position (see figures 9-13, reference #135).
Regarding claim 2, DE202004010410U1 discloses wherein the first releasable clamping assembly comprises:
at least one first engagement through hole formed on one of the support element and the body element at the overlap region therebetween (figures 9-13, reference #140 and 141),
at least one first protruding assembly element extending from the other of the support element and the body element at the overlap region therebetween (figures 9-13, reference #250 and 251), and
the at least one first protruding assembly element being configured to engage a respective one of the at least one first engagement through hole when the support element and the body element are coupled together such that a first clamping seat of the at least one first protruding assembly element protrudes from the stack defined by the overlap of the support element and the body element (figures 9-13, reference #250 and 251), and
the first retaining element comprising at least one first clamping section, the first retaining element being configured to move between the clamping position, in which the first clamping section cooperates with the first clamping seat of one respective of the at least one first protruding assembly element to mutually clamp the body element to the support element, and the release position, in which the latter are released (figures 9-13, reference #133 and 134).
Regarding claim 9, DE202004010410U1 discloses wherein the resilient clamping element is formed in one piece with the respective one of the body element, the support element, and the scraping and/or mixing element with which it is made integral (figure 10, reference #135).
Regarding claim 12, DE202004010410U1 discloses A mixing apparatus for food, pharmaceutical or cosmetic products comprising a rotary drive assembly configured to connect to and to rotate a scraping and/or mixing assembly according to claim 1 (abstract; figure 1A and figures 9-13; see rejection to claim 1 above).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE202004010410U1.
Regarding claim 10, DE202004010410U1 discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The recitation of the manner in which a structure is formed does not structurally distinguish the physical structure of the resilient clamping element as a patentable structural limitation. This limitation is directed to a process of making and does not appear to distinctly claim any additional structural elements. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to form the resilient clamping element of harmonic steel because of its strength and stability, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE202004010410U1 in view of Kajiwara (JP2018140196A).
Regarding claim 11, DE202004010410U1 discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the support element is releasably connected to said portion of the mixing arm element by means of a snap connection assembly.
Kajiwara discloses another scraping assembly. The reference teaches wherein the support element is releasably connected to said portion of the mixing arm element by means of a snap connection assembly (see figure 22, reference #69 (support element) snaps into reference #37 (arm)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the connection of the support element to the arm element of DE202004010410U1 to have a snap connection as taught by Kajiwara. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach scraping assemblies. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because it allows for the entire scraper element to be easily removed and attached for cleaning or when not needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774