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 .
Response to Amendment
With respect to the claim objections, applicant amended claims 1, 3, 9, 11 and 14-15 filed on 04/27/2026, which overcome the claim objection. Therefore the claim objections are withdrawn.
With respect to drawing objection, applicant amended claims 13-14 filed on 04/27/2026, which overcome the drawing objection. Therefore the drawing objection is withdrawn. However, new drawing objection is raised due to the claim amendment.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Reference [0027] of the application publication discloses “The control unit can be configured to determine the run-off time: by the sensed run-off temperature as such and/or by an evolution of the sensed run-off temperature that correspond(s) to (a) threshold value(s) or by a loop-control mechanism depending on the sensed run-off temperature, e.g. of a proportional and/or derivative and/or integrative type, e.g. linked to the control of the agitator; and/or by taking further into account variations of temperatures sensed by the temperature sensor prior to deactivating the heating surface”, which merely discloses the substantially same thing as the limitation. The actual algorithms of how the structure perform the function and the corresponding structures of “proportional-integral-derivative loop-control mechanism”.
Therefore the claim rejection under 112(a) is respectfully maintained.
With respect to the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), applicant amended claims makes the rejection moot. Therefore the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C.112(b) are withdrawn. However, new claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.112(b) is raised due to the claim amendment.
With respect to the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), applicant’s argument is persuasive. Therefore the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.112(d) is withdrawn.
With respect to the prior-art rejection, Applicant's arguments filed on 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Helf does not disclose that the control unit is configured to deactivate the agitator and to deactivate the heating surface”.
Examiner respectfully disagree. Reference Helf discloses every limitation in claim 1. Paragraph [0069] discloses “a control unit 8 connected to a user-interface 80 for controlling device 20”, and device 20 comprises a heating surface 6 and an agitator 4. Hence, control unit 8 teaches the operation of device 20; wherein the operation of device 20 is inherently comprising the most basic activate/deactivate function. Therefore, Control unit 8 is capable to the deactivate the agitator and to deactivate the heating surface. In addition, Paragraph [0069] discloses “an electric heater 6′ for heating heating surface 6, e.g. an electric heater 6′ in the form of a printed resistor circuit or thick film heater or an inductively heated member; a temperature sensor 81 for sensing a temperature of heating surface 6; and an electric motor 52 for driving agitator 4, such as a motor having an output axle 51 and a magnetic coupling 50 for driving magnetically agitator 4. For example, chamber 5 contains a control unit 8 controlling the powering of motor 52 and of electric heater 6′ e.g. based on a timer and/or a temperature sensed by temperature sensor 81”, which clearly indicate that Control unit 8 is capable to the deactivate the agitator and to deactivate the heating surface based on temperature sensed by temperature sensor. Therefore the rejection is respectfully maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation
“a proportional-integral-derivative loop-control mechanism” in claim 3
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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:
“a control unit connected to the temperature sensor and configured to control an activation of: the agitator to impart the mechanical effect on said liquid food substance in the tank; and the heating surface to heat said liquid food substance in the tank, the control unit being configured to deactivate the agitator and to deactivate the heating surface” in claim 1.
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.
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 3 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.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the control unit is configured to determine the run-off time by the sensed run-off temperature as such by a proportional-integral-derivative loop-control mechanism depending on the sensed run-off temperature” lacking support in the specification, because this limitation includes multiple complex functions and structure. It appear requires specific algorithms and structures. However, the specification only discloses the substantially same content of the claim language, without any details of the corresponding algorithms and structures.
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 3 and 11 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 3, the limitation “the control unit is configured to determine the run-off time by the sensed run-off temperature as such by a proportional-integral-derivative loop-control mechanism depending on the sensed run-off temperature” is indefinite. 1) The structure and the function of the proportional-integral-derivative loop-control mechanism. 2) It is unclear how the function of “determine the run-off time” is performed by the control unit.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “different temperature levels, different temperature profiles” is indefinite. The definition of “different temperature profiles” is unclear and the difference between “different temperature profiles” and “different temperature levels” is unclear.
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 1-4 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Helf (US 2018/0368621).
PNG
media_image1.png
704
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Helf teaches a machine comprising:
a tank (cavity 21) for containing and processing a liquid food substance (see para.[0068], cavity 21 is capable to contain and process a liquid food substance.);
an agitator (agitator 4) for imparting a mechanical effect on said liquid food substance in the tank (see para.[0068] “an agitator 4 for generating a flow of the food substance.”);
a heating surface (heating surface 6) configured to be in contact with and heating said liquid food substance in the tank (see fig.1, heating surface 6 is capable to contact and heating liquid food substance in cavity 21.);
a temperature sensor (temperature sensor 81) for directly or indirectly sensing a temperature of the heating surface or of said liquid food substance in the tank (see para.[0069] “a temperature sensor 81 for sensing a temperature of heating surface 6”); and
a control unit (control unit 8) connected to the temperature sensor (temperature sensor 81) and configured to control an activation of:
the agitator (agitator 4) to impart the mechanical effect on said liquid food substance in the tank; and the heating surface (heating surface 6) to heat said liquid food substance in the tank, the control unit being configured to deactivate the agitator and to deactivate the heating surface (see para.[0069] “an electric motor 52 for driving agitator 4, such as a motor having an output axle 51 and a magnetic coupling 50 for driving magnetically agitator 4. For example, chamber 5 contains a control unit 8 controlling the powering of motor 52 and of electric heater 6′ e.g. based on a timer and/or a temperature sensed by temperature sensor 81.” Hence, control unit 8 is capable to control the operation of the agitator 4 and heating surface 6, such as their operation.),
wherein to deactivate the agitator and the heating surface, the control unit is configured to deactivate the heating surface and then later to deactivate the agitator at an end of a run-off time determined by the control unit based on a run-off temperature that is sensed by the temperature sensor after the heating surface has been deactivated and that is acquired by the control unit (See para.[0101] “Agitator 4 may be moved prior to heating of the heating surface 6, such as for a period of time of 3 to sec, e.g. 5 to 10 sec, before the heating of the heating surface; and/or after heating of the heating surface has ended, such as for a period of time of 0.1 to 5 sec, e.g. 0.5 to 2.5 sec., after the heating has ended.”).
Regarding claim 2, Helf teaches the temperature sensor (temperature sensor 81) is configured to sense a temperature of a part in thermal communication with said liquid food substance in the tank. (see para.[0069] “a temperature sensor 81 for sensing a temperature of heating surface 6”)
Regarding claim 3, Helf teaches the control unit is configured to determine the run-off time by the sensed run-off temperature as such by a proportional-integral-derivative loop-control mechanism depending on the sensed run-off temperature (see para.[0028] “a control unit controlling the powering of the motor and of the electric heater e.g. based on a timer and/or the temperature sensor.”)
Regarding claim 4, Helf teaches the control unit is configured to continuously acquire the run-off temperature sensed by the temperature sensor after the heating surface is deactivated (see para.[0028] and [0060] “a control unit controlling the powering of the motor and of the electric heater e.g. based on a timer and/or the temperature sensor.” “Maintaining the agitator in movement after the heating surface is no more heated, e.g. because the target temperature has been reached, will provide the release of heat (that is at a maximum) from the heating surface into the food substance with no or minimal local overheating.” Hence, Helf teaches the control unit controls the motor based on the sensed temperature after heating surface is deactivated, which implies the control unit is configured to continuously acquire sensed temperature.).
Regarding claim 8, Helf teaches the control unit is configured to deactivate the heating surface and then later the agitator when a temperature sensed by the temperature sensor and acquired by the control unit reaches a predetermined processing threshold value after the heating surface has been activated (see para.[0028], [0060], and [0101] “a control unit controlling the powering of the motor and of the electric heater e.g. based on a timer and/or the temperature sensor.” “Maintaining the agitator in movement after the heating surface is no more heated, e.g. because the target temperature has been reached, will provide the release of heat (that is at a maximum) from the heating surface into the food substance with no or minimal local overheating.” See para “Agitator 4 may be moved prior to heating of the heating surface 6, such as for a period of time of 3 to sec, e.g. 5 to 10 sec, before the heating of the heating surface; and/or after heating of the heating surface has ended, such as for a period of time of 0.1 to 5 sec, e.g. 0.5 to 2.5 sec., after the heating has ended.”. Hence, the control unit is capable to deactivate the heating surface and then later the agitator when a temperature reaches a predetermined processing threshold value.)
Regarding claim 9, Helf teaches the control unit is configured to deactivate the heating surface and then later the agitator after a predetermined period of time after the control unit has activated the heating surface or the agitator (See para.[0101] “Agitator 4 may be moved prior to heating of the heating surface 6, such as for a period of time of 3 to sec, e.g. 5 to 10 sec, before the heating of the heating surface; and/or after heating of the heating surface has ended, such as for a period of time of 0.1 to 5 sec, e.g. 0.5 to 2.5 sec., after the heating has ended.”).
Regarding claim 10, Helf teaches the control unit has a safety mode in which the unit is configured to deactivate: the agitator when reaching a cool-off safety time after the heating surface has been deactivated; and the agitator and the heating surface when reaching a processing safety time after the agitator and the heating surface have been activated (see para.[0069] “an electric motor 52 for driving agitator 4, such as a motor having an output axle 51 and a magnetic coupling 50 for driving magnetically agitator 4. For example, chamber 5 contains a control unit 8 controlling the powering of motor 52 and of electric heater 6′ e.g. based on a timer and/or a temperature sensed by temperature sensor 81.” Hence, control unit 8 is capable to control the operation of the agitator 4 and heating surface 6 when reaching a certain time.).
Regarding claim 11, Helf teaches the control unit is configured to activate the agitator or the heating surface to reach different temperature levels, different temperature profiles, or different agitator speeds during processing (See para.[0084] “The speed of agitator 4 may be changed between the above indicated speeds 41,42 when reaching a corresponding predetermined temperature threshold.”).
Regarding claim 12, Helf teaches a powered chamber containing the control unit (control unit 8) with a user-interface (user-interface 80) (See fig.1)
Regarding claim 13, Helf teaches a magnetic coupling (magnetic coupling 50) coupled with a motor (motor 52) to drive the agitator (agitator 4).
Regarding claim 14, Helf teaches a movable or removable lid (lid; see the annotation of fig.1) for closing a mouth of the tank via which mouth said liquid food substance is supplied into and/or dispensed out of the tank (See fig.1);
Regarding claim 15, Helf teaches a method for preventing or inhibiting burning of a liquid food substance, such as milk or a milk-based substance, at an end of processing in a tank of a machine comprising:
a tank (cavity 21) for containing and processing a liquid food substance (see para.[0068], cavity 21 is capable to contain and process a liquid food substance.);
an agitator (agitator 4) for imparting a mechanical effect on said liquid food substance in the tank (see para.[0068] “an agitator 4 for generating a flow of the food substance.”);
a heating surface (heating surface 6) configured to be in contact with and heating said liquid food substance in the tank (see fig.1, heating surface 6 is capable to contact and heating liquid food substance in cavity 21.);
a temperature sensor (temperature sensor 81) for directly or indirectly sensing a temperature of the heating surface or of said liquid food substance in the tank (see para.[0069] “a temperature sensor 81 for sensing a temperature of heating surface 6”); and
a control unit (control unit 8) connected to the temperature sensor (temperature sensor 81) and configured to control an activation of:
the agitator (agitator 4) to impart the mechanical effect on said liquid food substance in the tank; and the heating surface (heating surface 6) to heat said liquid food substance in the tank, the control unit being configured to deactivate the agitator and to deactivate the heating surface (see para.[0069] “an electric motor 52 for driving agitator 4, such as a motor having an output axle 51 and a magnetic coupling 50 for driving magnetically agitator 4. For example, chamber 5 contains a control unit 8 controlling the powering of motor 52 and of electric heater 6′ e.g. based on a timer and/or a temperature sensed by temperature sensor 81.” Hence, control unit 8 is capable to control the operation of the agitator 4 and heating surface 6, such as their operation.),
wherein to deactivate the agitator and the heating surface, the control unit is configured to deactivate the heating surface and then later to deactivate the agitator at an end of a run-off time determined by the control unit based on a run-off temperature that is sensed by the temperature sensor after the heating surface has been deactivated and that is acquired by the control unit comprising the steps of: deactivating said heating surface; and then acquiring by the control unit the run-off temperature sensed by the sensor after the heating surface has been deactivated and determining by the control unit said end of the run-off time based on the run-off temperature; and then deactivating by the control unit the agitator at the end of the of the run-off time. (see para.[0028], [0060], and [0101] “a control unit controlling the powering of the motor and of the electric heater e.g. based on a timer and/or the temperature sensor.” “Maintaining the agitator in movement after the heating surface is no more heated, e.g. because the target temperature has been reached, will provide the release of heat (that is at a maximum) from the heating surface into the food substance with no or minimal local overheating.” “Agitator 4 may be moved prior to heating of the heating surface 6, such as for a period of time of 3 to sec, e.g. 5 to 10 sec, before the heating of the heating surface; and/or after heating of the heating surface has ended, such as for a period of time of 0.1 to 5 sec, e.g. 0.5 to 2.5 sec., after the heating has ended.” Hence, Helf teaches the control unit deactivating and heating surface, continuously acquire sensed temperature, and then deactivating the agitator.)
Regarding claim 16, Helf teaches the agitator has mobility in the tank when activated (see para.[0035] “The agitator typically rotates about an axis of rotation”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights