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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 4/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the combination requires the details of the subcombination and there is no search burden because the broadest embodiment of group I does not include any additional features; and there is no materially different processes because a process of operating a door assembly for a mixing bowl that is mixing pharmaceutical and cosmetic products would still involve the steps of positioning the plunger…mixing one or more food ingredients…the one or more food groups are permitted to enter the food chute via the opening”; and there would be no search burden for group I and II because they both include a door assembly. This is not found persuasive because Applicant is focusing on certain limitations without considering all the limitations of each group. For example the subcombination group I, as a whole, requires the limitation of handle which is not found in the combination group III; and as such, group I subcombination does include details not found in the combination, and would require a serious search burden because the subcombination can be found in other classification such as for mixing pharmaceutical or cosmetic products that would not be found in food mixing classification searches. Again, regarding the process group II, Applicant is pointing to the preamble alone as evidence of the same process, but has failed to consider the steps in the process that recite “mixing…food ingredients”. This is a materially different process that the apparatus group I or III is not required to perform. The apparatus can be used to mix pharmaceutical or cosmetic products rather than food products. The separate classification of the groups is evidence of burden. In apparatus claims, the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims and is not a major consideration when determining the patentability of said apparatus claims. In contrast, in method claims the materials on which a process is carried out must be accorded weight in determining the patentability of a process. Therefore, unlike the nonelected method claims, patentable weight need not be given to the claimed materials set forth in the nonelected method claims which significantly alters the search strategy and amplifies the searching required which leads to a burden on the PTO.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-20 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 4/20/2026.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation in the preamble “A door assembly for a mixing bowl”. It is unclear whether “a mixing bowl” is a positive structural limitation since it is part of the preamble and is an intended use of the door assembly. Since it is an intended use of the door assembly, it is further unclear whether the limitations in claim 1 which attempt to further limit the mixing bowl are positive limitations or not (e.g. “an opening in the mixing bowl”; “an interior surface of the mixing bowl”; “food ingredients from the mixing bowl”). Furthermore, to the extent these are also intended use and not structural limitations, it is unclear how the structural limitations such as the face of the plunger can be recited in relation to the mixing bowl if the mixing bowl is not a positive structural limitation. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Drocco (U.S. Patent No. 6,533,448).
Regarding claim 1, Drocco discloses a door assembly for a mixing bowl (figure 1, bowl 4, disc 14, aperture 15, supporting lever 16, actuating cylinder 18; column 4, lines 7-25), the door assembly comprising:
a feed chute extending from an opening in the mixing bowl (figure 1, aperture 15 and bottom area space, not labeled that passes through the bowl support and into base 3); and
a plunger having a face and configured to pivot from a first position to a second position (figure 1, moveable disc 14 with first position being solid/undotted line and second position being dotted lines; column 4, lines 9-20), wherein when in the first position, the face of the plunger is flush with an interior surface of the mixing bowl (figure 1, movable disc 14 as undotted lines is flush with bottom wall 4a), and when in the second position, the face of the plunger retracts into the feed chute and permits food ingredients from the mixing bowl to enter and flow through the feed chute (figure 1, movable disc 14 as dotted lines within opening of base 3; column 4, lines 9-20).
Regarding claim 2, Drocco discloses wherein the plunger contacts one or more interior walls of the feed chute as it moves between the second position and the first position to force food ingredients from the feed chute into the mixing bowl (See figure 1, side wall of disc 14 in contact with base wall that supports bowl 4 and forms the chute).
Regarding claim 3, Drocco discloses wherein the face of the plunger is curved to complete the interior surface of the mixing bowl when the plunger is in the first position (see figure 2, disc 14 is round (curved face)).
Regarding claim 4, Drocco discloses wherein the feed chute comprises one or more curved sidewalls (see figures 1 and 2, start of chute that supports the bowl 4 is round tubelike wall and base 3 has curved walls as shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Drocco discloses wherein the plunger is arranged to pivot around a pivot axis that is horizontal (figure 1, axis 17; column 4, lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 6, Drocco discloses wherein the feed chute extends from an opening in a sidewall of the mixing bowl (figure 1, aperture 15 in wall of bowl 4 is opening in a sidewall of bowl 4 that starts the feed chute) (it is noted that any wall of bowl 4 can be considered a sidewall because all walls are a side of the bowl).
Regarding claim 7, Drocco discloses further comprising a handle arranged to control movement of the plunger through the feed chute between the first position and the second position (supporting lever 16; column 4, lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 8, Drocco discloses wherein the handle is accessible to a user from an outside surface of the door assembly (figure 1, supporting lever 16 extends above and outside base 3 where it may be accessible to a user).
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavalli (U.S. Patent No. 4,219,318) in view of Drocco and Veit (U.S. Patent No. 10,632,434).
Regarding claim 1, Cavalli discloses a door assembly for a mixing bowl (figures 1 and 2, bowl 19, closure means 16, discharge port 24; column 8, lines 1-20), the door assembly comprising:
a feed chute extending from an opening in the mixing bowl (figures 2 and 9, discharge port 24; figures 8 and 9, opening 87, flange 88; surface 89 and 89a); and
a plunger having a face and configured to pivot from a first position to a second position (figures 1, 2 and 11, closure 16 with upper portion 113; columns 6-7, lines 59-8 column 8, lines 1-20), wherein when in the first position, the face of the plunger is flush with an interior surface of the mixing bowl (figure 11, upper portion 113; column 8, lines 9-20), and when in the second position, the face of the plunger retracts into the feed chute and permits food ingredients from the mixing bowl to enter and flow through the feed chute (column 8, lines 1-7; column 9, lines 56-60).
However, to the extent the plunger slides from a from a first position to a second position rather than pivot, Drocco teaches another apparatus for mixing food ingredients having a plunger that pivots from the first closed position to the second open position (figure 1, moveable disc 14 with first position being solid/undotted line and second position being dotted lines; column 4, lines 9-20); and Veit teaches there are many types of opening movements for displacing the closure of the discharge opening of a mixing vessel, including translational lifting or rotating by pivot (column 6, lines 34-51). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to arrange the plunger of Cavalli to move from the first position to the second position by pivoting rather than translational sliding movement, as taught by Drocco and Veit, because selecting one of known designs for operating a closure from a first closed position to a second opening position would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing and because said plunger/closure pivoting from first position to second position would operate equally well as the one disclosed by Cavalli; and since the prior art of Veit recognizes the equivalency of translational and pivotal closure and opening movement for a plunger of a mixing vessel (Veit figures 1-9; column 6, lines 34-51), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to replace the translational sliding movement of the plunger of Cavalli with the pivot closure of Veit as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent closure/opening movements of a vessel discharge opening recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so..
Regarding claim 2, Cavalli in view of Drocco and Veit discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cavalli as modified by Drocco and Veit further discloses wherein the plunger contacts one or more interior walls of the feed chute as it moves between the second position and the first position to force food ingredients from the feed chute into the mixing bowl (figure 2, closure 16 in contact with chute walls; column 8, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 3, Cavalli in view of Drocco and Veit discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cavalli as modified by Drocco and Veit further discloses wherein the face of the plunger is curved to complete the interior surface of the mixing bowl when the plunger is in the first position (figure 11, see curved walls of upper portion 113).
Regarding claim 4, Cavalli in view of Drocco and Veit discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cavalli as modified by Drocco and Veit further discloses wherein the feed chute comprises one or more curved sidewalls (figure 8, surface wall 89a).
Regarding claim 5, Cavalli in view of Drocco and Veit discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cavalli as modified by Drocco and Veit further discloses wherein the plunger is arranged to pivot around a pivot axis that is horizontal (Drocco figure 1, axis 17; column 4, lines 10-20; Veit rotary 12).
Regarding claim 6, Cavalli in view of Drocco and Veit discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cavalli as modified by Drocco and Veit further discloses wherein the feed chute extends from an opening in a sidewall of the mixing bowl (see figure 2, closure 16 extends into feed chute from left sidewall of vessel 19).
Regarding claim 7, Cavalli in view of Drocco and Veit discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cavalli as modified by Drocco and Veit further discloses further comprising a handle arranged to control movement of the plunger through the feed chute between the first position and the second position (figure 11, downward extending lip 111; column 8, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 8, Cavalli in view of Drocco and Veit discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cavalli as modified by Drocco and Veit further discloses wherein the handle is accessible to a user from an outside surface of the door assembly (figures 1 and 2, downward extending lip 111, not labeled, of closure 16).
Regarding claim 9, Cavalli in view of Drocco and Veit discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cavalli as modified by Drocco and Veit discloses further comprising an extruder positioned to receive food ingredients from the feed chute, the extruder comprising an extruder housing having an inlet, an outlet, and an auger positioned within the extruder housing and arranged to move the food ingredients from the inlet to the outlet (figures 2, 8 and 9, extruder housing 44, drive shaft 46, top opening 87, outlet 91; figure 10, screw 100; columns 6-7, lines 59-8; column 7, lines 43-64; column 8, lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 10, Cavalli in view of Drocco and Veit discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Cavalli as modified by Drocco and Veit discloses wherein the extruder further comprises an extrusion die positioned at the outlet of the extruder to form the food ingredients into a desired shape (figure 9, die plate 94; column 10, lines 1-5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Claire X 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights