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
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 demarcation of claim 10 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.
Claim 1 is not considered invoking a means plus function for anchoring means since the claim further recites releasable clamping mechanism which is considered sufficient structure. Claim 1 is not considered invoking a means plus function for hook means, since the claim recites a seat portion which is considered sufficient structure.
Claim 3 is considered invoking a means plus function since “retaining means” is modified by functional language “suitable for reversibly retaining the clamping element in said closed position” and is not modified by sufficient structure. Therefore, the generic placeholder is considered invoking a means plus function. Paragraph 67 of the specification teaches a tab element as sufficient structure for the generic placeholder.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3 and does not recite sufficient structure for “retaining means” and therefore claim 4 is considered invoking a means plus function for the generic placeholder.
Claim 4 recites “resilient retaining means” which is modified by functional language “configured so that the movement of the clamping element from the closed position to the open position, and vice versa, is achieved by applying an opening/closing force that exceeds a frictional force” and is not modified by sufficient structure. Therefore, the generic placeholder is considered invoking a means plus function. Paragraph 72 teaches of the specification teaches harmonic steel as sufficient structure for the generic placeholder.
Claim 5 is not considered invoking a means plus function for “attachment means” and “releasable snap attachment means” since the claims are not modified by functional language.
Claims 6, 7, and 8 are not considered invoking a means plus function for “first rotatable connection means” and “second rotatable connection means” since they are not modified by functional language.
Claim 9 recites “abutment means” and is modified by functional language “suitable for cooperating with a portion of the clamping element” and is not modified by sufficient structure. Therefore, the generic placeholder is considered invoking a means plus function. Paragraph 101 of the specification teaches a projecting element protruding from an upper surface of the hook means as sufficient structure.
Claim 10 is considered the invoking a means plus function since “demarcation means” is modified by functional language “suitable or providing a user with information on reaching the closed position of the clamping element” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure. Paragraph 108 of the specification teaches graphic symbols as sufficient structure.
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, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosaka (U.S. Patent 3,958,968).
Regarding claim 1, Hosaka teaches a Mixing and/or scraping assembly (figures1-5 show a scraping assembly, column 1 lines 25-26 teaches scraping) for a mixing apparatus for food, pharmaceutical or cosmetic products (the material being worked upon is considered intended use, however column 1 line 14-15 teaches ice cream), including a mixing arm assembly comprising a first mixing arm (figure 2 item 8) and a second mixing arm (figure 2 second item 8), the mixing assembly being operatively suitable for rotating about an assembly axis of rotation (axis of rotation is a vertical axis that goes through shaft item 3), and at least one mixing/and or scraping element that is removably connectable to the mixing arm assembly (scraper member 11), the mixing and/or scraping element is removably couplable with at least the first mixing arm and the second mixing arm by respective first anchoring means and second anchoring means (item 11 is anchored via items 12 and 13 at one end, and by item 14 and 15 at a second end), wherein at least one of the anchoring means includes a releasable clamping mechanism provided on the mixing and/or scraping element (lower link item 15 is considered reading on a releasable clamping mechanism for securing item 11), the releasable clamping mechanism comprising: a seat portion configured to receive at least one part of the respective mixing arm through a receiving opening portion (item 14), a clamping element movable between a closed position wherein it is suitable for at least partially engaging the receiving opening portion so as to prevent insertion in and extraction from the seat portion of the respective part of the mixing arm (the closed position is when item 11 is attached to items 14 and 15 to prevent extraction of item 14 from item 11) and an opening position wherein it is suitable for disengaging at least partially the receiving opening portion so as to allow the insertion in and extraction from the seat portion of the respective part of the mixing arm (when item 14 is removed, item 14 can be removed from item 11). Regarding claim 1, Hosaka is silent to the clamping mechanism shape being a hook means. Regarding claim 1, 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 modify the shape of the clamping mechanism in order to provide a more secure fit 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, Hosaka teaches wherein the clamping element is attachable removably to the mixing and/or scraping element by releasable attachment means (item 11 is removable from items 14 and 15 by removal of item 14).
Regarding claim 11, Hosaka teaches a mixing apparatus for food comprising a rotary drive assembly (column 3 line 60 teaches an electric motor), configured to connect to and to rotate a mixing and/or scraping assembly according to claim 1 to cause the latter to rotate about an assembly axis of rotation (see column 3 lines 59-65 teaches a motor to drive the blade assembly).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 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.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the mixer and/or scraping assembly with the hook configuration and the rotatable clamping element configuration.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the mixer and/or scraping assembly with the hook configuration and the reversible clamping element configuration.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the mixing and/or scraping assembly with the two rotatably connection means configurations.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of the mixing and/or scraping assembly with the clamping mechanism comprising a demarcation configuration.
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
Prosecution Insights