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 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.
Claim 5 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 5 contradicts parent claim 4 which recites a single antenna to detect plural RFIDs, by reciting plural antennas.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Loughlin (AU 2014233605):
Regarding claim 1, O’Loughlin discloses a food mixing machine, comprising: a head (106) extending over a bowl receiving location (see Fig. 1), the head including an output shaft (1308) driven in a planetary (see page 5, line 11) manner and configured to receive a mixing tool (such as 110); a sensor system (1312, 1314) configured for detecting a bowl identifier (see page 11, lines 18-20) of a radio frequency identification component (see page 7, line 1) carried by a bowl mounted at the bowl receiving location.
Regarding claim 2, the sensor system is configured for detecting a mixing tool identifier (see page 11, lines 18-20) of a radio frequency identification component (see page 7, line 1) carried by a mixing tool connected to the output shaft.
Regarding claim 3, the sensor system includes at least one radio frequency identification reader connected with at least one radio frequency identification antenna (see page 6, line 30).
Regarding claim 6, a controller associated with the sensor system, the controller (1300) configured to utilize both the detected mixing tool identifier and the detected bowl identifier as a basis for implementing a control function of the food mixing machine (see page 11, lines 18-20 and Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 7, the controller is configured to determine whether the detected mixing tool identifier and the detected bowl identifier indicate a specified condition and, if so, to generate, as the control function, an operator alert of the condition (see page 11 line 12 to page 13 line 7 and Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 9, the controller is configured to establish one or more of a mix speed, a mix direction, a mix time setting, a motor acceleration rate, a motor deceleration rate, an allowable temperature limit or an allowable current limit based upon at least one of a detected bowl identifier or a detected mixing tool identifier (see page 11 line 12 to page 13 line 7 and Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 10, the mixing machine includes a power take off hub (114) on the head, wherein the sensor system is further configured for detecting a hub tool identifier of a processing tool attached to the power take off hub (see page 13, lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 11, a controller (1300) is associated with the sensor system, the controller configured to prevent operation of the mixing machine if both a hub tool identifier and a mixing tool identifier are detected (see page 13 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 12, a controller (1300) is associated with the sensor system, the controller configured to: prevent operation of the mixing machine unless a bowl identifier is detected and verified as acceptable for the mixing machine; and/or prevent operation of the mixing machine unless a mixing tool identifier is detected and verified as acceptable for the mixing machine (see page 11 line 12 to page 13 line 7 and Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 15, food mixing machine, comprising: a head (106) extending over a bowl receiving location (see Fig. 1), the head including an output shaft (1308) driven in a planetary (see page 5, line 11) manner and configured to receive a mixing tool (such as 110); a sensor system (1312, 1314) configured for detecting (i) a bowl identifier (see page 11, lines 18-20) of a radio frequency identification component (see page 7, line 1) carried by a bowl mounted at the bowl receiving location and (ii) a mixing tool identifier (see page 11, lines 18-20) of a radio frequency identification component (see page 7, line 1) carried by a mixing tool connected to the output shaft; a controller (1300) associated with the sensor system, the controller configured to implement a control function of the food mixing machine based upon at least both of the detected mixing tool identifier and the detected bowl identifier, wherein the control function is display of an operator notification (see page 11 line 12 to page 13 line 7 and Fig. 13).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Loughlin (AU 2014233605). Though claim 5 depends from claim 4, the contradictory nature of these claims was discussed above with regard to section 112(b). Nonetheless, consideration of these claims with regard to the prior art has been attempted to the extent possible. The machine of O’Loughlin was discussed above. While the two distinct sensors 1312 and 1314 shown in Fig. 13 would have suggested plural antennas to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, it also would have been obvious to have utilized a single antenna to reduce the number of parts.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Loughlin (AU 2014233605). The machine of O’Loughlin was discussed above. O’Loughlin further discloses adjusting a bowl location via a controller (920,930) such that a particular attachment is flush with a particular bowl (see page 11, lines 1-2). However, the controller for bowl adjustment is not the same as the controller of parent claim 6. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have consolidated these controllers, for example to further automate the machine. See also In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) concerning the obviousness of automating a manual activity.
Claims 13, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Loughlin (AU 2014233605) in view of Collins (US 2023/0148624):
Regarding claim 13, the machine of O’Loughlin was discussed above. It is not expressly stated that there is an RFID on the machine in addition to the RFIDs on the bowls and attachments. Collins teacher providing an RFID to identify (see [0054]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided an RFID to identify as taught by Collins so as to communicate information concerning the machine.
Regarding claim 14, Collins further teaches an RFID reader/writer (see [0054] and [0068]).
Regarding claim 16, O’Loughlin discloses a food mixing machine, comprising: a head (106) extending over a bowl receiving location (see Fig. 1), the head including an output shaft (1308) driven in a planetary (see page 5, line 11) manner and configured to receive a mixing tool (such as 110). Though RFIDs are disclosed, they are not expressly stated to be read/write. Collins teaches providing an RFID with read/write capability (see [0054] and [0068]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have provided a read/write capability as taught be Collins so as to change the associated data based upon changing conditions.
Regarding claim 17, Collins further teaches an RFID reader/writer (see [0054] and [0068]).
Claims 13, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Loughlin (AU 2014233605) in view of Hansen (US 2006/0180647):
Regarding claim 13, the machine of O’Loughlin was discussed above. It is not expressly stated that there is an RFID on the machine in addition to the RFIDs on the bowls and attachments. Hansen explains that it is well know to provide a unique code to a machine via an RFID (see [0009]-[0011]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided an RFID to identify as taught by Hansen so as to uniquely identify a machine.
Regarding claim 14, Hansen further teaches read/write capability (see [0278]).
Regarding claim 16, O’Loughlin discloses a food mixing machine, comprising: a head (106) extending over a bowl receiving location (see Fig. 1), the head including an output shaft (1308) driven in a planetary (see page 5, line 11) manner and configured to receive a mixing tool (such as 110). Though RFIDs are disclosed, they are not expressly stated to be read/write. Hansen teaches providing an RFID with read/write capability (see [0278]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have provided a read/write capability as taught be Hansen so as to communicate a history of how a machine has been used.
Regarding claim 17, Hansen further teaches an RFID reader/writer (see [0278]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights