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 Status
Claims 1-10 are pending:
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/15/2023 is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 2 “the stirring assembly comprises … , a stirring racket or an egg beating cage”
Claim 3 “the accessory comprises a noodle roller, a noodle cutter, a meat mincer, a sausage stuffer, a fruit and vegetable peeling machine, a shredding and slicing machine, a food shredder, a grain grinder, a juicer or a slow juicer.”
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 - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“rotating piece” in claim 1
Corresponding structure
A mechanical part that rotates within the gear train that is not a gear, as informed by rotating piece 39 of Fig2
Or equivalents.
“stirring assembly” in claim 1
Corresponding structure
stirring hook, a stirring racket, or an egg beating cage, as informed by Claim 2
Or equivalents.
“connecting portion” in claim 1
Corresponding structure
Accessory shaft hub attachment zone, as informed by element 53 of Fig2
Or equivalents.
“fruit and vegetable peeling machine” in claim 3
Corresponding structure
None
Or equivalents.
“shredding and slicing machine” in claim 3
Corresponding structure
None
Or equivalents.
“mounting portion for mounting” in claim 6
Corresponding structure
Aperture that provides a mechanical mounting interface, as informed by mounting portion 92 of Fig4
Or equivalents.
“locking mechanism for locking” in claim 8
Corresponding structure
Mechanical lock with a movable component, as informed by locking arrangement 94/942/942/943 in Fig3-5
Or equivalents.
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 Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1
Each claim element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See MPEP 608.01(i).
See indentation provided by the office in the art section below for a possible suggested layout.
Amend “the other end of the connecting portion is provided with a splicing slot configured to be in abutting joint to an accessory driving shaft” to improve clarity by more explicitly indicating the intended use language construction of the claim.
The office notes that in the event that applicant amends the instant limitation to not be an intended use construction, then a drawing objection for not shown claimed subject matter would be invoked. The objection would be based on the fact that the amended claim language would require the accessory shaft itself to be “in the same box” in order to infringe on the claim scope. Currently, the arrangement does not require a bundled accessory with a driving shaft to infringe on claim 1 due to the intended scope construction of Claim 1.
Claim 2
L2 add oxford comma for clarity
Claim 3
L4 add oxford comma for clarity
Claim 4
Each claim element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See MPEP 608.01(i).
See indentation provided by the office in the art section below for a possible suggested layout.
L15-16, reword recitation “a position, corresponding to the first bevel gear, of the mounting panel is provided with a through hole,” to improve clarity, issue is invoked due to strange use of commas in and surrounding the instant recitation. The use of additional semicolon in claim construction style might improve clarity, along with clearly indicating new lines for claim elements.
Claim 6
L2-3, reword recitation “a position, corresponding to the connecting portion, of the mounting shell is provided with an assembly hole,” to improve clarity, issue is invoked due to strange use of commas in and surrounding the instant recitation. The use of additional semicolon in claim construction style might improve clarity, along with clearly indicating new lines for claim elements.
Appropriate correction is required.
Markush Claim Construction
The office would like to include an explicit discussion of Markush claim construction for the instant application. Guidance on Markush claim construction is discussed in MPEP 2117 which states “Claim language defined by a Markush grouping requires selection from a closed group "consisting of" the alternative members.”, and MPEP 2173.05(h) states “A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. … If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim.”
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 3 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 2
Limitation “wherein the stirring assembly comprises a stirring hook, a stirring racket or an egg beating cage.” is an improper Markush grouping and therefore it renders the indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim.
The instant grouping further does not share a “single structural similarity” nor a common use. Further, the instant grouping is not a closed grouping due to the use of “comprises” in listing the open grouping.
Claim 3
L1 “the accessory” lacks antecedent basis which renders the claim indefinite as the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of the cited limitation and where it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
The closest antecedent basis is the last line of Claim 1 “an accessory driving shaft”, however this is merely a naming convention in the context of Claim 1 and does not require any “accessory” structure.
Limitation “wherein the accessory comprises a noodle roller, a noodle cutter, a meat mincer, a sausage stuffer, a fruit and vegetable peeling machine, a shredding and slicing machine, a food shredder, a grain grinder, a juicer or a slow juicer.” is an improper Markush grouping and therefore it renders the indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim.
The instant grouping further does not share a “single structural similarity” nor a common use. Further, the instant grouping is not a closed grouping due to the use of “comprises” in listing the open grouping.
L2-3 limitation “fruit and vegetable peeling machine” invokes an interpretation under 35 USC 112f, see section above, however the specification fails to disclose the structure that corresponds/produces the claimed function, therefore boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite. See further discussion below in the context of 35 USC 112a.
L3 limitation “shredding and slicing machine” invokes an interpretation under 35 USC 112f, see section above, however the specification fails to disclose the structure that corresponds/produces the claimed function, therefore boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite. See further discussion below in the context of 35 USC 112a.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3
L2-3 limitation “fruit and vegetable peeling machine” invokes an interpretation under 35 USC 112f, see section above, however the specification fails to disclose the structure that corresponds/produces the claimed function, therefore the claim failing to comply with the written description requirement, as the instant subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
L3 limitation “shredding and slicing machine” invokes an interpretation under 35 USC 112f, see section above, however the specification fails to disclose the structure that corresponds/produces the claimed function, therefore the claim failing to comply with the written description requirement, as the instant subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim limitations below have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; 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.
Claim 3
L2-3 limitation “fruit and vegetable peeling machine”, see further discussion above.
L3 limitation “shredding and slicing machine”, see further discussion above.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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) 1-2, 4-7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morin (WO 2022/263666).
Claim 1
Morin discloses:
“A multifunctional driving mechanism (Fig1-12, device 10; see annotated drawings below), comprising
a first output shaft (best seen Fig8, shaft of axis A2a),
a first driving mechanism (see detailed mapping below and annotated drawings) configured to drive the first output shaft to rotate (best seen Fig2, first output shaft of axis A2a drives main working tool 30 to rotate),
a second output shaft (annotated Fig9, second output shaft of secondary driver 40) perpendicular to the first output shaft (first and second output shafts are perpendicular due to first/second bevel gear arrangement), and
a second driving mechanism (see detailed mapping below and annotated drawings) configured to drive the second output shaft to rotate (SpecQuote “Such secondary driver 40 can be used to drive a secondary working tool (not shown) capable of being mounted at the front longitudinal end of head 24.”);
wherein
the first driving mechanism (see annotated Fig8/9) comprises
a motor (motor 28),
a driving wheel (driving wheel 34) fixed at an output end of the motor (driving wheel on motor shaft 29),
a driven wheel (driven wheel 36, Fig9/10) arranged on one side of the driving wheel (Fig9/10, driven wheel 36 is arranged forward/left of driving wheel 34),
a driving belt (Fig10, toothed belt 60) connected between the driving wheel and the driven wheel (Fig10; SpecQuote “the input toothed wheel 34 of the mechanical head transmission 32 drives the secondary toothed wheel 36 via a toothed belt 60.”),
a first helical gear coaxially fixed below the driven wheel (first helical gear),
a second helical gear (second helical gear) meshed with the first helical gear (first/second helical gear meshing best seen Fig9),
a driving gear (driving gear) coaxially fixed at a bottom of the second helical gear (second helical gear to driving gear arrangement best seen Fig9 exploded view),
an output gear (output gear) meshed with the driving gear (output gear meshing driving gear best seen Fig9),
a rotating shaft (shaft of axis A1) fixed in a middle portion of the output gear (rotating shaft fixed in center of output gear best seen Fig8), and
a rotating piece fixed at a bottom of the rotating shaft (best seen Fig8, rotating piece at bottom of rotating shaft that surrounds/supports first output shaft),
a middle portion of the first output shaft is rotatably connected to the other end of the rotating piece (best seen Fig8, rotating piece at bottom of rotating shaft that surrounds/supports first output shaft), and
a stirring assembly (main working tool 30) is detachably connected to a bottom of the first output shaft (tool 30 is detachably coupled to arrangement via couplers; SpecQuotes “In principle, a single main working tool 30 is mounted both on the main driver 26, on that of the two output couplers 26a, 26b which corresponds to this main working tool 30.”, “when no main working tool 30 is engaged on the head trainer 26”);
the first driving mechanism (see annotated Fig8/9) further comprises
a gear ring (gear ring) fixed on an outer side of the rotating shaft (gear ring is fixed radially outward from rotating shaft) and
a planetary gear (planetary gear) fixed at a top of the first output shaft (planetary gear of first output shaft meshes with gear ring),
the planetary gear being meshed with an inner side of the gear ring (planetary gear of first output shaft meshes with gear ring); and
the second driving mechanism (see annotated Fig8/9) comprises
a first bevel gear (first bevel gear) fixed in an upper portion of the rotating shaft (first bevel gear on rotating shaft) and
a second bevel gear (second bevel gear) meshed with the first bevel gear (second bevel gear meshes with first bevel gear),
wherein one end of the second output shaft is fixed in a middle portion of the second bevel gear (aft/right side of second output shaft fixed to central portion of second bevel gear),
a connecting portion (connection portion) is fixed at the other end of the second output shaft (forward/left side of second output shaft fixed to aft side of connection portion), and
the other end of the connecting portion is provided with a splicing slot (forward/left side of connecting portion) in abutting joint to an accessory driving shaft (SpecQuote “the device 10 comprises a secondary driver 40, which is intended to emerge at the front longitudinal end of the main portion 24a of the head 24, which is rotatable about a longitudinal horizontal axis A3, and which is driven by the cascade of pinions 38 at the same time as the main driver 26. Such secondary driver 40 can be used to drive a secondary working tool (not shown) capable of being mounted at the front longitudinal end of head 24.”).”
PNG
media_image1.png
1632
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
384
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2
Morin discloses: “The multifunctional driving mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the stirring assembly comprises a stirring hook (Fig2, tool 30 is a kneading hook, SpecQuote “the main working tool 30 can be a kneading tool, designed to knead a dough in the main working bowl 22.”), …”
Claim 4
Morin discloses:
“The multifunctional driving mechanism according to claim 1, further comprising (see annotated Fig8/9)
a mounting panel (mounting panel 58) and a gear seat (gear seat 58c) fixed on one side of a bottom of the mounting panel (mounting panel 58 fixed/assembled with gear seat 58c best seen Fig8/3),
wherein
the motor is fixed on the other side below the mounting panel (motor 28 fixed to mounting panel 58 bottom side),
the output end of the motor passes through the mounting panel upwards (motor shaft 29 extends through mounting panel 58) and rotates synchronously along with the driving wheel (driving wheel 34/46 mounted on motor shaft 29),
a top of the gear seat (gear seat 58c) is provided with an accommodation groove (surface of internal void of gear seat 58c) for accommodating the first helical gear, the second helical gear, the driving gear, the output gear, and the first bevel gear (see Fig9 for the relative arrangement of said gears within internal void of gear seat 58c),
a bottom of a central shaft of the first helical gear (bottom of shaft of first helical gear) is rotatably connected to a bottom of the accommodation groove (see Fig9 arrangement),
a top of the central shaft of the first helical gear (top of shaft of first helical gear) passes through the mounting panel upwards and rotates synchronously along with the driven wheel (top of shaft of first helical gear passes through mounting panel 58 and is centrally located with driven wheel 36), and
central shafts of the second helical gear and the driving gear are rotatably connected between the bottom of the mounting panel and the bottom of the accommodation groove (Fig9, shafts of second helical gear and driving gear are connected to each of the gear seat 58c bottom surface and mounting panel 58 as shown by cylindrical shaft receiving portions);
a middle portion of the rotating shaft is rotatably connected to a bottom of the gear seat (rotating shaft extends through gear seat 58c to reach the rotating piece and first output shaft),
the bottom of the rotating shaft passes through the bottom of the gear seat downwards and stretches out (Fig8, vertical bottom of rotating shaft),
the gear ring (gear ring) is fixed at the bottom of the gear seat (best seen Fig8, gear ring is on bottom side of gear seat 58c),
a top of the rotating shaft passes through the mounting panel upwards and stretches out (top of rotating shaft passes through the mounting panel through hole to the integral mounting shell),
a position, corresponding to the first bevel gear, of the mounting panel is provided with a through hole (mounting panel through hole), and
a lower portion of the second bevel gear passes through the through hole and is meshed with the first bevel gear (lower portion of second bevel gear meshes with the first bevel gear portion shown in Fig8, lower portion of second bevel gear passes through the mounting panel through hole).”
Claim 5
Morin discloses: “The multifunctional driving mechanism according to claim 4, wherein a protective cover (annotated Fig8, protective cover) is connected to an outer side of the rotating piece in a sleeved manner (protective cover sleeves around the rotating piece).”
Claim 6
Morin discloses:
“The multifunctional driving mechanism according to claim 4, (see annotated Fig8/9)
a mounting shell (mounting shell) is fixed on one side of a top of the mounting panel (mounting shell is integrally fixed to mounting panel),
a position, corresponding to the connecting portion, of the mounting shell is provided with an assembly hole (assembly hole), and
a mounting portion (mounting portion of secondary driver 40) for mounting an accessory is fixed on an outer side of the assembly hole (SpecQuote “Such secondary driver 40 can be used to drive a secondary working tool (not shown) capable of being mounted at the front longitudinal end of head 24.”).”
Claim 7
Morin discloses: “The multifunctional driving mechanism according to claim 6, wherein a plurality of L-shaped clamping blocks are arranged in a ring array on an outer side of the mounting portion (see annotated Morin Fig2 comparison to Applicant Fig3 below. The clamping projection in the annotated oval of Morin is equally an “L-shaped” projection as that of Applicant block 93 in the annotated oval. Morin anticipates the instant presented claim language to at least the same degree as applicant has written support for the instant presented claim language).”
PNG
media_image3.png
102
126
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
128
170
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Morin Fig2 Zoom View Applicant Fig3 Zoom View
Claim 10
Morin discloses:
“An electrical appliance (SpecQuote “The device 10 indeed comprises a main motor 28, here an electric motor”) for kitchen (intended working environment. Abstract “household food preparation appliance”), comprising
the multifunctional driving mechanism according to claim 1 (see claim 1).”
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin (WO 2022/263666) in view of Hallar (US 6,761,477).
Claim 2
Morin discloses: “The multifunctional driving mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the stirring assembly comprises a stirring hook (Fig2, tool 30 is a kneading hook, SpecQuote “the main working tool 30 can be a kneading tool, designed to knead a dough in the main working bowl 22.”), …”
Morin does not explicitly disclose the application of “a stirring racket or an egg beating cage.”
Hallar teaches (Fig1/11) that a mixing paddle 258 or a beaters 22 are two known in the art stirring assembly components for use with a mixing assembly 10.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the mixing hook tool of Morin for a mixing paddle or beater as taught by Hallar, as Hallar teaches that such mixing tools are known in the art, and such a substitution would be a simple substitution of one known in the art mixing tool for another, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Morin with known in the art alternative mixing tools as taught by Hallar.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin (WO 2022/263666) in view of Gerber (US 2,687,284).
Claim 3
Morin discloses: “The multifunctional driving mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the accessory (SpecQuote “secondary driver 40 can be used to drive a secondary working tool (not shown) capable of being mounted at the front longitudinal end of head 24”) comprises …”
Morin is silent to any particular driven accessory.
Gerber teaches “accessory comprises … a meat mincer (Fig3, blender 40), … a shredding and slicing machine (Fig3, blender 40), a food shredder (Fig3, blender 40), … a juicer (Fig4, juicer 41) or a slow juicer (Fig4, juicer 41).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a particular accessory, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of Morin, and Gerber teaches that a blender or a juicer is a known in the art driven mixer accessory, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Morin with a working and known in the art driven mixer accessory as taught by Gerber.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin (WO 2022/263666) in view of Benelli (US 2006/0044935).
Claim 3
Morin discloses: “The multifunctional driving mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the accessory (SpecQuote “secondary driver 40 can be used to drive a secondary working tool (not shown) capable of being mounted at the front longitudinal end of head 24”) comprises …”
Morin is silent to any particular driven accessory.
Benelli teaches “accessory comprises … a meat mincer (Para7/35, grain or meat grinder or food mill), … a shredding and slicing machine (Para7/35, grain or meat grinder or food mill), a food shredder (Para7/35, grain or meat grinder or food mill), a grain grinder (Para7/35, grain or meat grinder or food mill), ….”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a particular accessory, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of Morin, and Benelli teaches that a grain/meat grinder or food mill is a known in the art driven mixer accessory, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Morin with a working and known in the art driven mixer accessory as taught by Benelli.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin (WO 2022/263666) in view of Ta (US 7,614,779).
Claim 3
Morin discloses: “The multifunctional driving mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the accessory (SpecQuote “secondary driver 40 can be used to drive a secondary working tool (not shown) capable of being mounted at the front longitudinal end of head 24”) comprises …”
Morin is silent to any particular driven accessory.
Ta teaches “accessory comprises … a meat mincer (C1L14-17, mincer or blender attachment for a stand mixer), … a shredding and slicing machine (C1L14-17, mincer or blender attachment for a stand mixer), a food shredder (C1L14-17, mincer or blender attachment for a stand mixer), …”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a particular accessory, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of Morin, and Ta teaches that a mincer or blender is a known in the art driven mixer accessory, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Morin with a working and known in the art driven mixer accessory as taught by Ta.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin (WO 2022/263666) in view of Benoit (US 10,820,735).
Claim 3
Morin discloses: “The multifunctional driving mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the accessory (SpecQuote “secondary driver 40 can be used to drive a secondary working tool (not shown) capable of being mounted at the front longitudinal end of head 24”) comprises …”
Morin is silent to any particular driven accessory.
Benoit teaches “accessory (C1L15-18; best seen Fig4, accessory 10 for stand mixer 110) comprises … a fruit and vegetable peeling machine (C1L15-18), a shredding and slicing machine (C1L15-18), a food shredder (C1L15-18) …”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a particular accessory, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of Morin, and Benoit teaches that “an attachment for a mixer or similar appliance that peels, slices or shreds, and cores a food product” is a known in the art driven mixer accessory, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Morin with a working and known in the art driven mixer accessory as taught by Benoit.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin (WO 2022/263666) in view of NPL_Papantoniou_20201027.
Claim 3
Morin discloses: “The multifunctional driving mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the accessory (SpecQuote “secondary driver 40 can be used to drive a secondary working tool (not shown) capable of being mounted at the front longitudinal end of head 24”) comprises …”
Morin is silent to any particular driven accessory.
NPL_Papantoniou_20201027 teaches “accessory comprises a noodle roller (Rank2, pasta roller and cutter set), a noodle cutter (Rank2, pasta roller and cutter set; Rank9, pasta press), a meat mincer (Rank3, meat grinder with sausage stuffer tube; Rank8, food processor/dicer), a sausage stuffer (Rank3, meat grinder with sausage stuffer tube), a fruit and vegetable peeling machine (Rank5, spiralizer), a shredding and slicing machine (Rank4, slicer & shredder), a food shredder (Rank4, slicer & shredder), … a juicer (Rank12, juicer) or a slow juicer (Rank12, juicer).”
NPL_Papantoniou_20201027, accessed on 06/24/2026 at https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/cooking-tools/g34431819/best-kitchenaid-attachments/, see filewrapper for PDF version.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a particular accessory, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of Morin, and NPL_Papantoniou_20201027 teaches that the various mapped accessories above is a known in the art driven mixer accessory, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Morin with a working and known in the art driven mixer accessory as taught by NPL_Papantoniou_20201027.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin (WO 2022/263666) in view of Eden (GB 2 457 909).
Claim 8
Morin discloses the arrangement of claim 6.
Morin is silent to the application of a locking mechanism for the accessory as claimed.
Eden teaches (Fig1a-f, shows installing/locking/unlocking/removing an attachment to/from a kitchen appliance 22; locking assembly components best seen Fig2 exploded view) that it is known in the art to provide a locking assembly to ensure that an attachment 10 to a kitchen appliance 22 is locked to the appliance 22 during use of attachment 10. Eden further teaches (abstract) that using a locking assembly provides the advantage of preventing accidental removal of the attachment 10.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Morin to include an attachment locking assembly as taught by Eden, as Eden teaches that using a locking assembly provides the advantage of preventing accidental removal of the attachment, which would improve user safety, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Morin with a working and known in the art attachment locking assembly as taught by Eden that provides the advantage of preventing accidental removal of the attachment, thus improving user safety.
Claim 9
The modified arrangement of Morin by the teachings of Eden discloses: “The multifunctional driving mechanism according to claim 8, wherein the locking mechanism (Eden: best seen Fig2, exploded view) comprises a locking bar slidably (Eden: best seen Fig2, locking ring 38 with pins 20 slides within collar 36) connected on an outer side of the mounting shell (Eden: best seen Fig2, locking ring 38 is connected to outer side of machine 22), a pulling bar (Eden: best seen Fig2, lever 32 of ring 42) fixed on one side of the locking bar (Eden: best seen Fig2, level 32/ring 42 fixed on one side of locking ring 38 with pins 20 via collar 36), and a compression spring (Eden: best seen Fig2, compression spring 48) abutted between the mounting shell and the pulling bar (Eden: best seen Fig2, spring 48 abutted between outer side of machine 22 and lever 32 of ring 42).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights