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 .
Drawings
While the drawings are submitted with the WIPO publication, the drawings are objected to. it is suggested that a separate set of drawings be included with the application. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. 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).
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim 20 is a substantial duplicate of claim 1. Claim 3, from which claim 20 depends, includes all the limitations of claim 1 with the exception of the “secondary upright member rises away from the head.” Claim 20 includes the “secondary upright member rises away from the head” and therefore is a duplicate of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freedman (U.S. Patent 3,224,743).
Regarding claim 1, Lawrence teaches a household appliance for culinary preparation (appliance generally shown by figures 1 and 3), comprising: a base configured to rest on a worktop (item 14 which rests on item 16) and a head mounted movable relative to the base (item 28 which moves relative to item 14 as shown in a raised position in figure 1 and a lowered position in figure 3), the base forming a stand (item 14 is considered forming a stand) configured to receive a working bowl (item 14 receives a bowl 44 proximate item 20, the bowl is considered intended use), the head having a driver arranged above the stand and configured to be coupled to a food processing accessory (the shaft of beater 34 is considered reading on a driver, item 34 beater is considered reading on a processing accessory, the processing accessory is considered intended use), the base having a control panel (panel housing items 38, 40, 42), the control panel being tiled back relative to the stand with a backward inclination relative to a direction perpendicular to the worktop (the panel is tilted backwards relative to a perpendicular to item 14), the base having a primary upright member adjacent the stand (portion of stand proximate item 48), the head mounted on the primary upright member (item 28 is mounted on item 48), the base having a secondary upright member rising from the stand laterally relative to the primary upright member and the head (the secondary upright member is considered the portion of the stand housing the panel with items 38, 40, and 42), the second upright member being connected to the primary upright member (the portion of the stand housing the panel is connected to the portion of the stand housing item 28 in item 48), wherein the secondary upright member rises away from the head (portion of stand housing the control panel rises upward and backward from item 28) and the control panel is arranged on the secondary upright member (the control panel with items 38, 40, and 42 are arranged in the secondary upright member). Regarding claim 1, Lowe is silent to the specific angle of inclination of the control panel. Regarding claim 1, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the inclination in order to provide a more ergonomic configuration for a user since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 2, Freedman teaches wherein the secondary upright member has a top portion rising laterally away from the head (top portion is the portion of the stand that extends upward and backwards, which includes a portion laterally away from item 28, proximate the control panel) and wherein the control panel is arranged on a top portion of the secondary upright member (the control panel is considered the portion housing items 38, 40, and 42).
Regarding claim 3, Freedman teaches a household appliance for culinary preparation (appliance generally shown by figures 1 and 3), comprising: a base configured to rest on a worktop (item 14 which rests on item 16) and a head mounted movable relative to the base (item 28 which moves relative to item 14 as shown in a raised position in figure 1 and a lowered position in figure 3), the base forming a stand (item 14 is considered forming a stand) configured to receive a working bowl (item 14 receives a bowl 44 proximate item 20, the bowl is considered intended use), the base having a control panel (control panel proximate items 38, 40, 42), the base having a primary upright member adjacent to the stand (space proximate item 48), the head being mounted on the primary upright member (item 28 is mounted on item 48), the head having a driver arranged above the stand and configured to be coupled to a food processing accessory (shaft of item 34 is considered reading on a driver, the beater item 34 ), wherein the control panel is arranged on a secondary upright member rising from the stand laterally relative to a primary upright member and the head (surface housing items 38, 40, 42), wherein the secondary upright member is connected to the primary upright member (the surfaces housing item 28 and items 38, 40, and 42 are connected since they are both part of pedestal 22), wherein the control panel is tilted back from the stand with a backward inclination relative to a direction perpendicular to the work surface (surface housing items 38, 40, and 42). Regarding claim 3, Freedman is silent to the specific angle of inclination of the control panel. Regarding claim 3, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the inclination in order to provide a more ergonomic configuration for a user since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 4, Freedman is silent to the specific angle of inclination of the control panel. Regarding claim 4, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the inclination in order to provide a more ergonomic configuration for a user since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 5, Freedman teaches wherein the control panel extends transversely with respect to a side face of the head (surface housing buttons items 38, 40 and 42 extends away, transversely from item 28 towards item 18).
Regarding claim 6, Freedman teaches further comprising an electric motor configured to rotate the driver (Figure 11 electric motor 74b) and wherein the control panel comprises a control member configured to control an electric power supply to the electric motor (item 38 speed selector knob is considered providing power to item 74, the electric motor inherently requires an electric power supply in order to function).
Regarding claim 7, Freedman teaches wherein the control member is a rotary knob (see dial of item 38 in figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Freedman teaches wherein the control member is a speed control knob (column 3 line 2-7 which teaches a selector control knob item 38).
Regarding claim 9, Freedman teaches an electric motor (item 74). Regarding claim 9, Freedman is silent to the electric motor being in the head. Regarding claim 9, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to rearrange the location of the motor to reduce the number of moving parts in the mixer since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 10, Freedman teaches wherein the stand carries the working bowl (see how item 44 is placed on item 14 in figure 3) and a control member (item 38). Regarding claim 10, Freedman is silent to wherein the control member is arranged at a top edge of the working bowl. Regarding claim 10, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to rearrange the location of the control element to allow for easier use of the mixer by a user since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 11, Freedman teaches the mixing head connected to the primary upright member (28 is connected to the recess item 48) by an articulation device (detent pin 30), and a control panel (space housing buttons 38, 40, and 42) wherein the stand includes an unlocking member configured to release the head and allow the head to pivot relative to the primary upright member according to the articulation device (item 46 release button). Regarding claim 11, Freedman is silent to the unlocking member being on the control panel. Regarding claim 11, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the location of the release button in order to allow for more convenient operation of the mixing appliance since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 12, Freedman teaches further comprising an electric motor configured to rotate the driver (Figure 11 electric motor 74b) and wherein the control panel comprises a control member configured to control an electric power supply to the electric motor (item 38 speed selector knob is considered providing power to item 74, the electric motor inherently requires an electric power supply in order to function).
Regarding claim 17, Freedman teaches wherein the secondary upright member has a lower portion forming an extension of a face of the primary upright member (space housing items 38, 40, and 42 is considered forming an extension of a face of the stand including portion of stand proximate item 48).
Regarding claim 18, Freedman teaches wherein the secondary upright member has a top portion extending higher than a primary upright portion (top most portion of stand housing items 38, 40, and 42 are higher than a lower most portion of item 48).
Regarding claim 19, Freedman is silent to the thickness of the secondary upright member being less than the width. Regarding claim 19, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the stand mixer in order to accommodate various amounts of material being mixed since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 20, Freedman teaches wherein the secondary upright member rises away from the head (the inclined surface housing buttons 38, 40, 42 rises up and away from item 28 when in the downward position).
Claims 13, 14, 15, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freedman (U.S. Patent 3,224,743) in further view of Huerta (U.S. Publication 2018/0242595).
Regarding claim 13, Freedman teaches a control panel (surface housing items 38, 40, 42). Regarding claim 13, Freedman is silent to the control panel being a screen. Regarding claim 13, Huerta teaches a control panel (figure 1 user interface item 60) wherein the control panel is a screen (paragraph 16 teaches the user interface is a screen interface). Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control panel of Freedman with the screen configuration of Huerta in order to allow for a more convenient use by the user.
Regarding claim 14, Freedman teaches a control panel (surface housing items 38, 40, 42). Regarding claim 14, Freedman is silent to the control panel being a touch screen. Regarding claim 14, Huerta teaches a control panel (figure 1 user interface item 60) wherein the control panel is a touch screen (paragraph 16 teaches the user interface is a touch screen interface). Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control panel of Freedman with the touch screen configuration of Huerta in order to allow for a more convenient use by the user.
Regarding claim 15, Freedman is silent to the screen extending at the head. Regarding claim 15, Huerta teaches a screen at the head of the mixer (figure 1 item 60 is on item 16). Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the location of the control panel of Freedman with the location of the screen of Huerta in order to provide a more compact mixing appliance.
Regarding claim 16, Freedman teaches further comprising an electric motor configured to rotate the driver (Figure 11 electric motor 74b) and wherein the control panel comprises a control member configured to control an electric power supply to the electric motor (item 38 speed selector knob is considered providing power to item 74, the electric motor inherently requires an electric power supply in order to function).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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, Walter Griffin can be reached at (571)272-1447. 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774