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 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.
Claim 35 is considered invoking a means plus function since the claim uses “heat treatment means” which is a generic placeholder and is modified by functional language “for heat treating the product” and no sufficient structure is recited for the generic placeholder. Paragraphs 129 and 130 of the specification teaches a heat transfer fluid as sufficient structure.
Claims 37 and 38 depend on claim 35 and do not recite sufficient structure for “heat treatment means” and therefore are considered invoking a means plus function.
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 6 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the first propeller portion” is not previously referred to in the claim, or in any preceding claim. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear if “a shape coupling” is the same shape coupling in claim 30, from which claim 31 depends. Correction/clarification is required.
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, 18, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, and 36, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashworth (U.S. 2003/0150235) in view of Cocchi (U.S. Publication 2014/0000302).
Regarding claim 1, Ashworth teaches a system for processing liquid or semi-liquid food products (figures 5c and 11), comprising a machine provided with: at least one containment vessel for containing the product to be processed (figure 11 container item 1); a stirrer arranged inside the containment vessel (figure 5c item 20, paragraph 60 teaches item 20 is housed in container item 1); the system being characterized in that said stirrer comprises, in combination, at least: a rotating body rotating about an axis of rotation (items 23 and 23’ are considered reading on a rotating body) said rotating body comprising a plurality of propellers extending about said axis of rotation (each of item 23 and 23’, which extend along the axis of rotation, are considered reading on propellers since they convey material, see paragraph 60); a scraping element supported by said rotating body (item 24, see paragraph 58 which teaches item 24 is used to scrape the inner surface of mixing container 1); a drive shaft connectable to the rotating body for rotation of the rotating body about the axis of rotation (item 39); a curvilinear element extending around the axis of rotation (item 21 which extends along the axis of rotation, the vertical axis, of item 20) and configured to be inserted inside the rotating body and rotatably coupled with the dive shaft (item 21 is inside items 24, 27, 23, and 23’ and attached to item 39 at its top most portion). Regarding claim 1, Ashworth is silent to a plurality of scrapers. Regarding claim 1, Cocchi teaches a plurality of scrapers (paragraph 35 teaches each helical scraper item 7, the abstract teaches multiple helical scrapers). 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 rotating body and one scraper of Ashworth with the plurality of scrapers of Cocchi in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation. Both references are considered in the same field of endeavor since they are both concerned with making ice cream.
Regarding claim 2, Ashworth teaches a single scraper (item 24). Regarding claim 2, Ashworth is silent to the multiple scraper configuration. Regarding claim 2, Cocchi teaches wherein the scraping elements are arranged, with respect to each other, in different longitudinal and angular positions with respect to the axis of rotation (see abstract multiple helical scrapers which are shown at different longitudinal and angular positions in figure 3 items 7). 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 rotating body and one scraper of Ashworth with the plurality of scrapers of Cocchi in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation. Both references are considered in the same field of endeavor since they are both concerned with making ice cream.
Regarding claim 3, Ashworth teaches wherein the rotating body comprises a base end (top of item 39 is considered reading on a base end), the drive shaft being configured to couple with the base end of the rotating body via a shape coupling (figure 5c and paragraph 56, item 39 is coupled with item 22, which is driven by motor pack 25).
Regarding claim 4, Ashworth teaches wherein the drive shaft comprises a cylindrical shaped portion (item 39 is a cylinder shape).
Regarding claim 5, Ashworth teaches wherein the curvilinear element comprises a base end portion configured to be rotatably coupled with the cylindrical shaped portion of the drive shaft (top most portion of item 21 is coupled to item 39).
Regarding claim 6, Ashworth teaches wherein the curvilinear element has a first helical portion (a top portion of item 21 is considered reading on a first helical portion), a second helical portion (a bottom portion of item 21 is considered reading on a second helical portion), and a joining portion for joining the first propeller portion to the base end portion (lowest most portion of item 21 that joins item 23, item 21 joins item 39).
Regarding claim 7, Ashworth teaches wherein the stirrer comprises a tubular element for coupling between the curvilinear element and drive shaft (portion of shaft on which item 21 extends along the rotational axis which is in between item 39 and a lower portion of item 21).
Regarding claim 8, Ashworth teaches wherein the rotating body comprises an annular element configured to connected the propellers together (see lowest most portion of item 27 which is an annular element attached to the top most portion of items 23 and 23’). Regarding claim 8, Ashworth is silent to multiple annular elements. Regarding claim 8, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of annular elements in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 9, Ashworth teaches wherein the rotating body comprises a plurality of bars arranged parallel said axis of rotation (see bars on item 27), configured to connect the annular element to the end of the propeller (items 27 extend down to the annular ring which attaches to the top portion of items 23 and 23’).
Regarding claim 18, Ashworth teaches wherein the bars of said plurality of bars have said portions of the rotating body (item 27 bars are considered reading on portions of item 20).
Regarding claim 29, Ashworth teaches wherein the curvilinear element is arranged in the volume defined by the propellers extending around the axis of rotation of the rotating body (item 21 extend from inside the top portion of items 23 and 23’ to their respective lower portions).
Regarding claim 30, Ashworth teaches wherein the rotating body comprises a head end (top most portion of item 20) and wherein the stirrer comprises a terminal end (item 24 bottom most portion) configured to be coupled with the head end of the rotating body (the bottom portion of item 20 is considered the head end) by means of a shape coupling so as to rotate integrally with the rotating body (item 24 terminates at a bar extending out from item 27, the bar is considered the shape coupling, and items 24 rotates integrally with item 20).
Regarding claim 32, Ashworth teaches wherein the curvilinear element comprises a head portion (bottom portion of item 21) wherein the terminal element has a cavity with a circular shaped section configured to rotatably accommodate said head portion of the curvilinear element (see circular shaped section at bottom of item 27 through which item 21 is accommodated).
Regarding claim 33, Ashworth teaches wherein the terminal element has a plurality of through holes (see openings in the bottom circle of item 27 and openings through items 23 and 23’).
Regarding claim 35, Ashworth teaches wherein the machine comprises a heat treatment means associated with the containment vessel for heat treating the product (paragraph 49 cooling solution is considered reading on a heat treatment means).
Regarding claim 36, Ashworth teaches wherein the machine comprises a motor connected to the drive shaft of the stirrer (paragraph 54 drive unit 25) to bring the drive shaft and at least the rotating body into rotation about an axis of rotation (paragraph 56 teaches a rotating shank 39 rotated by motor pack 25).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashworth (U.S. 2003/0150235) in view of Cocchi (U.S. Publication 2014/0000302) in further view of Quartarone (U.S. 6,301,918).
Ashworth is silent to the language of claim 34. Regarding claim 34, Quartarone teaches wherein the machine comprises at least one dispensing tab mounted on a discharge mouth of the containment vessel (see figure 2 items 10 and 130). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mixer of Ashworth in view of Cocchi with the dispensing configuration of Quartarone in order to allow for measured dispensing of the frozen material. All three references are considered in the same field of endeavor since they are concerned with mixing frozen food products.
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashworth (U.S. 2003/0150235) in view of Cocchi (U.S. Publication 2014/0000302) in further view of Biglari (U.S. Publication 2016/0262422)
Ashworth is silent to the language of claim 37. Regarding claim 37, Biglari teaches a control (paragraph 14 teaches a control system) and a command unit (figure 5 device 250 is considered reading on a command unit) configured to drive the motor (paragraph 32 motor). 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 mixing system of Ashworth in view of Cocchi with the control and command unit of Biglari in order to provide an easier mixing operation for the user. All three references are considered in the same field of endeavor since they are concerned with mixing frozen food products.
Ashworth is silent to the language of claim 38. Regarding claim 38, Biglari teaches an interface connected to the control and command unit and configured to allow an interaction with a user (paragraph 37 teaches a user interface 130 including displays). 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 mixing system of Ashworth in view of Cocchi with the control and command unit of Biglari in order to provide an easier mixing operation for the user. All three references are considered in the same field of endeavor since they are concerned with mixing frozen food products.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 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. Regarding claim 31, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the system with the combination of the shape coupling and the plurality of protrusions, recesses, indentations, protuberances.
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, Claire 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774