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 claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 2/25/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/25/2026. 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 first rotatable assembly, the second rotatable assembly, the controller, the first axis, the second axis, the third axis, the power supply unit 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. Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO p atent e lectronic f iling s ystem or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO p atent e lectronic f iling s ystem , and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification: The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee. Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2). 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. 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: brake mechanism in claim 12. 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 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 12 is 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 limitation “brake mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. T he disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim . Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. 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 and 4-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sparrow, Jr. (U.S. Patent No. 4,445,782) . Regarding claim 1, Sparrow, Jr. discloses a multi-axis mixing apparatus (abstract; figures 1-23), comprising: a first motor ( figure 2, reference M) ; a frame supporting the first motor (figure 2, reference #2 and 8), the first motor configured to selectively rotate a first rotatable assembly about a first axis (figure s 5 and 8, reference #10, S15 and 26; figures 15- 21) (it is noted that the limitation uses the term “configured to” which renders the first rotatable assembly not a positive structural limitation, but rather an intended use of the first motor); a second rotatable assembly rotatably supported by the first rotatable assembly, wherein the second rotatable assembly is rotatable about a second axis (figures 5 and 8, reference # 54 and 56; figures 15-21; column 5, lines 3-27); wherein the second rotatable assembly comprises a clamping mechanism configured to receive and hold a container containing contents to be mixed (reference C3, C4, C5 and C6 ; column 4, lines 58-65 ) , wherein when the first motor causes the first rotatable assembly to rotate about the first axis, the rotation of the first rotatable assembly about the first axis causes the second rotatable assembly to rotate about the second axis, and wherein the second axis is substantially perpendicular to the first axis ( figures 5 and 8, reference # 10, 26, 54, 56 and S15 ; figures 15-21; column 5, lines 3-27 ) ( “ apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does ” Hewlett-Packard v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Regarding claim 4, Sparrow, Jr. discloses wherein the first motor is a direct drive motor or a motor utilizing a belt-based drive (figures 4 and 5, reference #10, 12 and M; column 3, lines 1-17). Regarding claim 5, Sparrow, Jr. discloses wherein the clamping mechanism of the second rotatable assembly comprises a linear clamping mechanism (figure 6, reference C6; column 4, lines 1-6). Regarding claim 6, Sparrow, Jr. discloses wherein the linear clamping mechanism comprises a movable first plate that is adjustably positionable relative to a fixed second plate that is substantially parallel to the first plate at various positions (figures 5 and 13, reference C5 and C6, reference C6 is adjustable first plate (column 4, lines 1-6) relative to fixed second plate (reference C5; column 4, lines 58-66) . Regarding claim 7, Sparrow, Jr. discloses wherein at least one of the first plate and the second plate has at least one indentation for receiving a portion of the container (figures 5 and 13, see indentation with surrounding flanged shape of C5 and C6 which surrounds C2) . Regarding claim 8, Sparrow, Jr. discloses wherein the container is a paint can and the contents include paint components to be mixed. (reference C1 and C2; column 3, lines 26) ( Regarding limitations recited in claim 8 which are directed to the material and a manner of operating disclosed apparatus , it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” ). Regarding claim 9, Sparrow, Jr. discloses further comprising a controller and a power supply unit operatively connected to at the first motor and the controller, wherein the controller is configured to control the first motor (figure 1, control dial and power cord shown, but not labeled; figure 12; column 3, lines 14-16; column 5, lines 28-52). Regarding claim 10, Sparrow, Jr. discloses wherein the controller selectively operates the first motor at a first speed during a mixing process (figure 1, control dial shown , but not labeled; figure 12; column 3, lines 14-16; column 3, lines 61-66; column 5, lines 28-52 ). Regarding claim 11, Sparrow, Jr. discloses wherein the controller selectively operates the first motor at various changing speeds and/or power levels during a mixing process (figure 1, control dial shown, but not labeled; figure 12; column 3, lines 14-16; column 3, lines 61-66; column 5, lines 28-52) . Regarding claim 12, Sparrow, Jr. discloses wherein the controller is configured to selectively control the first motor as a brake mechanism ( figure 12, reference H2 controls motor to brake, reference SW2 controls motor to brake at a certain time; column 5, lines 46-52). Regarding claim 13, Sparrow, Jr. discloses a fixed circular track supported by the frame (figure 5, reference #52) , wherein the second rotatable assembly comprises a wheel supported by the first rotatable assembly (reference #56) , and wherein the wheel is configured to interface with the circular track such that the second rotatable assembly is caused to rotate about the second axis in response to the first rotatable assembly being caused to rotate about the first axis ( figures 5 and 8, reference #10, 26, 54, 56 and S15; figures 15-21; column 5, lines 3-27 ). Claim(s) 1 , 4-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hutmacher et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,604,987). Regarding claim 1, Hutmacher et al. discloses a multi-axis mixing apparatus ( reference #10 ), comprising: a first motor ( reference #86a ); a frame supporting the first motor ( reference #28 and 30 ), the first motor configured to selectively rotate a first rotatable assembly about a first axis ( reference #20, 22, 78 ) (it is noted that the limitation uses the term “configured to” which renders the first rotatable assembly not a positive structural limitation, but rather an intended use of the first motor); a second rotatable assembly rotatably supported by the first rotatable assembly, wherein the second rotatable assembly is rotatable about a second axis ( reference #14, 15 and 16 ); wherein the second rotatable assembly comprises a clamping mechanism configured to receive and hold a container containing contents to be mixed ( reference #4, 5, 6, 7 ) , wherein when the first motor causes the first rotatable assembly to rotate about the first axis (reference #22 and 86a) , the rotation of the first rotatable assembly about the first axis causes the second rotatable assembly to rotate about the second axis (reference #15, 20, 21a, 21b, 21c, 21d) , and wherein the second axis is substantially perpendicular to the first axis ( second axis reference #16 perpendicular to first axis reference #22 ; column 12, lines 5-61 ) (“ apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does ” Hewlett-Packard v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Regarding claim 4, Hutmacher et al. discloses wherein the first motor is a direct drive motor or a motor utilizing a belt-based drive ( reference #86a ). Regarding claim 5, Hutmacher et al. discloses wherein the clamping mechanism of the second rotatable assembly comprises a linear clamping mechanism ( refrence #4 and 7 ). Regarding claim 6, Hutmacher et al. discloses wherein the linear clamping mechanism comprises a movable first plate that is adjustably positionable relative to a fixed second plate that is substantially parallel to the first plate at various positions ( reference #7 ) relative to fixed second plate (reference #6 ) . Regarding claim 7, Hutmacher et al. discloses wherein at least one of the first plate and the second plate has at least one indentation for receiving a portion of the container ( internal area of reference #6 and 7 with outer flange that surrounds reference #8 ) . Regarding claim 8, Hutmacher et al. discloses wherein the container is capable to be a paint can and the contents are capable to include paint components to be mixed. ( reference #8 ) ( Regarding limitations recited in claim 8 which are directed to the material and a manner of operating disclosed apparatus , it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” ). Regarding claim 9, Hutmacher et al. discloses further comprising a controller and a power supply unit operatively connected to at the first motor and the controller, wherein the controller is configured to control the first motor ( figure 25; reference #112; column 15, lines 3-5; column 16, lines 20- 42 ). Regarding claim 10, Hutmacher et al. discloses wherein the controller selectively operates the first motor at a first speed during a mixing process ( figure 25; reference #112; column 15, lines 3-5; column 16, lines 20- 42 ). Regarding claim 11 , Hutmacher et al. discloses wherein the controller selectively operates the first motor at various changing speeds and/or power levels during a mixing process ( figure 25; reference #112; column 15, lines 3-5; column 16, lines 20- 42 ) . Regarding claim 12, Hutmacher et al. discloses wherein the controller is configured to selectively control the first motor as a brake mechanism ( figure 25; reference #112; column 15, lines 3-5; column 16, lines 20-42 ). Regarding claim 1 5 , Hutmacher et al. discloses a multi-axis mixing apparatus (reference #10), comprising: a first motor (reference #86a) and a second motor (reference #86b) ; a frame supporting the first motor (reference #28 and 30), the first motor configured to selectively rotate a first rotatable assembly about a first axis (reference #20, 22, 78) (it is noted that the limitation uses the term “configured to” which renders the first rotatable assembly not a positive structural limitation, but rather an intended use of the first motor); a second rotatable assembly (reference #14 and 15) rotatably supported by the first rotatable assembly ( reference #15 supported at reference #21b and 21c to first rotatable assembly reference #15) , wherein the second rotatable assembly is rotatable about a second axis (reference # 16) , and wherein the second motor is configured to selectively rotate the second rotatable assembly about the second axis (reference #86b ; column 13, lines 12-14 ) ; wherein the second rotatable assembly comprises a clamping mechanism configured to receive and hold a container containing contents to be mixed (reference #4, 5, 6, 7) , and wherein the second axis is substantially perpendicular to the first axis (second axis reference #16 perpendicular to first axis reference #22 ). 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) 2, 3 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparrow, Jr . in view of Zimmermann (U.S. Patent No. 5,238,304). Regarding claims 2, 3 and 14, Sparrow, Jr. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein a third axis is substantially perpendicular to both the first axis and the second axis, wherein the third axis is a spin axis, and wherein the container is not caused to be rotated about the third axis by the apparatus ; and wherein the contents to be mixed are not caused to be mixed by a rotation about the third axis ; and wherein the first axis is a first tumble axis, and wherein the second axis is a second tumble axis. Zimmermann teaches another device for mixing containers with paint (abstract; column 1, lines 8-18). The reference teaches wherein a third axis (reference #6) is substantially perpendicular to both the first axis and the second axis (reference #6 (third axis) perpendicular to reference #3 and 13 (first and second axis) , wherein the third axis is a spin axis (reference #6) , and wherein the container is not caused to be rotated about the third axis by the apparatus ; and wherein the contents to be mixed are not caused to be mixed by a rotation about the third axis (reference #3 and 13 only caused to rotate by motors 7 and 15 (this limitation is directed to a method of operating the disclosed device and it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115 )) ; and wherein the first axis is a first tumble axis (reference #3) , and wherein the second axis is a second tumble axis (reference #13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the axes of rotations of Sparrow, Jr. to not include a third spin axis as taught by Zimmermann . One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach device s for mixing containers with paint . One of ordinary skill in t he art would be motivated to do the foregoing because the first and second tumble axes without the third spinning axis causes no uniform and recurrent movement, but rather during mixing, the angle of the mixing container relative to the mixer axis changes irregularly so that a stochastic, random distribution is produced so that a mixing quality is achieved that previously could not be achieved from the regular recurring movement of the container about its spin axis ( Zimmermann columns 1-2, lines 32-7 ). Regarding claim 15, Sparrow Jr. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose the second motor. Zimmermann teaches a second motor to rotate the second rotatable assembly about the second axis (figure 3, reference #15 (second motor is 15 with the first motor being 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the second motor of Zimmermann on the second rotatable assembly of Sparrow Jr. in order to separately control the speeds of each rotatable assembly, and 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 claims 16 and 1 7 , Sparrow, J . in view of Zimmermann discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein a third axis is substantially perpendicular to both the first axis and the second axis, wherein the third axis is a spin axis, and wherein the container is not caused to be rotated about the third axis by the apparatus ; and wherein the first axis is a first tumble axis, and wherein the second axis is a second tumble axis. Zimmermann teaches another device for mixing containers with paint (abstract; column 1, lines 8-18). The reference teaches wherein a third axis (reference #6) is substantially perpendicular to both the first axis and the second axis (reference #6 (third axis) perpendicular to reference #3 and 13 (first and second axis) , wherein the third axis is a spin axis (reference #6) , and wherein the container is not caused to be rotated about the third axis by the apparatus (reference #3 and 13 only caused to rotate by motors 7 and 15 (this limitation is directed to a method of operating the disclosed device and it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115 )); and wherein the first axis is a first tumble axis (reference #3) , and wherein the second axis is a second tumble axis (reference #13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the axes of rotations of Sparrow, Jr. to not include a third spin axis as taught by Zimmermann . One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach devices for mixing containers with paint . One of ordinary skill in t he art would be motivated to do the foregoing because the first and second tumble axes without the third spinning axis causes no uniform and recurrent movement, but rather during mixing, the angle of the mixing container relative to the mixer axis changes irregularly so that a stochastic, random distribution is produced so that a mixing quality is achieved that previously could not be achieved from the regular recurring movement of the container about its spin axis ( Zimmermann columns 1-2, lines 32-7 ). Claim(s) 2, 3 and 14 , 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutmacher et al. in view of Zimmermann. Regarding claims 2, 3 , 14, 16 and 1 7 , Hutmacher et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein a third axis is substantially perpendicular to both the first axis and the second axis, wherein the third axis is a spin axis, and wherein the container is not caused to be rotated about the third axis by the apparatus ; and wherein the contents to be mixed are not caused to be mixed by a rotation about the third axis ; and wherein the first axis is a first tumble axis, and wherein the second axis is a second tumble axis. Zimmermann teaches another device for mixing containers about multiple axes (abstract; figure 3 ). The reference teaches wherein a third axis (reference #6) is substantially perpendicular to both the first axis and the second axis (reference #6 (third axis) perpendicular to reference #3 and 13 (first and second axis) , wherein the third axis is a spin axis (reference #6) , and wherein the container is not caused to be rotated about the third axis by the apparatus ; and wherein the contents to be mixed are not caused to be mixed by a rotation about the third axis (reference #3 and 13 only caused to rotate by motors 7 and 15 (this limitation is directed to a method of operating the disclosed device and it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115 )); and wherein the first axis is a first tumble axis (reference #3) , and wherein the second axis is a second tumble axis (reference #13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the axes of rotations of Hutmacher et al. to not include a third spin axis as taught by Zimmermann . One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach devices for mixing containers with paint . One of ordinary skill in t he art would be motivated to do the foregoing because the first and second tumble axes without the third spinning axis causes no uniform and recurrent movement, but rather during mixing, the angle of the mixing container relative to the mixer axis changes irregularly so that a stochastic, random distribution is produced so that a mixing quality is achieved that previously could not be achieved from the regular recurring movement of the container about its spin axis ( Zimmermann columns 1-2, lines 32-7 ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0492 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Claire X Wang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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