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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated July 23, 2026 filed in response to the Non-final Rejection dated April 30, 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection in the previous Office action is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 11 addressing the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of the amendments made to the claims distinguishing the claims from the rejections. However, the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 as explained below.
Response to Arguments
Starting at the bottom of page 6 of the Amendment, Applicant argues Prosenbauer does not disclose each and every element of claim 1 as amended. Examiner agrees. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection in the previous Office action is withdrawn as stated above. However, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable based upon new grounds necessitated by the amendments to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0110374 A1 by Hammad, hereinafter “Hammad”.
Regarding claim 14, Hammad discloses a pitcher system for use with a cooling system, and a motor, to make frozen slush drinks (the pitcher system shown in Fig. 2 is capable of being used with a cooling system and a motor to make frozen slush drinks; ¶[0013]), the pitcher system comprising:
a pitcher (pitcher 120 in Fig. 2; ¶[0013]);
a blending blade comprising a main shaft (main shaft spindle 133 in Fig. 3; ¶[0015]) and one or more blades protruding from the main shaft (blade forms 134 and 135 in Fig. 3; ¶[0016]), the blending blade configured to be rotationally driven by the motor (blade forms 134 and 135 are configured to be rotationally drive by a motor such as the motor in motorized base 110 in Fig. 1); and
a stirring element comprising a main shaft (main rotary shaft 139 in Fig. 3; ¶[0021]) and a spiral blade wrapping around the main shaft (spiral blade form 138 in Fig. 3), the stirring element configured to be rotationally driven by the motor (blade form 138 is configured to be rotationally drive by a motor such as the motor in motorized base 110 in Fig. 1), wherein the stirring element is configured to be fitted to a top of the blending blade (Figs. 2-5 show the stirring element is configured to be fitted to a top of the blending blade), wherein the pitcher system is configured such that ingredients are blended by the blending blade, and then stirred by the stirring element whilst the cooling system cools the pitcher, resulting in a frozen slush drink (¶[0023] discloses blade forms 134 and 135 blend ingredients and spiral blade form 138 stirs ingredients in the pitcher system shown in Fig. 2. The pitcher system of Fig. 2 is capable of being used with a cooling system to produce a frozen slush drink as claimed.).
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammad in view of Austrian Patent Publication No. AT 317 939 B by Prosenbauer & Co., hereinafter “Prosenbauer”. Citation to Prosenbauer is made to the E.P.O. translation previously provided.
Regarding claim 1, Hammad discloses a galley insert beverage making system for producing chilled drinks (beverage making system food processing appliance 100 in Fig. 1; ¶[0013]) comprising:
a body configured to be inserted into a vehicle galley compartment (body motorized base 110 in Fig. 1 is capable of being inserted into a vehicle galley compartment), the body comprising:
a motor (the motor in motorized base 110 in Fig. 1), and
a pitcher system (the pitcher system shown in Fig. 2) comprising:
a pitcher (pitcher 120 in Figs. 1 and 2; ¶[0013]);
a blending element comprising a main shaft (main shaft spindle 133 in Fig. 3; ¶[0015]) and one or more blending blades protruding from the main shaft (blade forms 134 and 135 in Fig. 3; ¶[0016]), the blending element configured to be rotationally driven by the motor (blade forms 134 and 135 are configured to be rotationally drive by the motor in motorized base 110 in Fig. 1); and
a stirring element comprising a main shaft (main rotary shaft 139 in Fig. 3; ¶[0021]) and a spiral blade wrapping around the main shaft (spiral blade form 138 in Fig. 3), the stirring element configured to be rotationally driven by the motor (blade form 138 is configured to be rotationally drive by the motor in motorized base 110 in Fig. 1), wherein the stirring element is configured to be fitted to a top of the blending element (Figs. 2-5 show the stirring element is configured to be fitted to a top of the blending blade), wherein the body defines a cavity configured to receive the pitcher (Fig. 1 shows motorized base 110 has a cavity which receives agitator nut 150 shown in Fig. 2. See “Cavity” annotation to Fig. 1 of Hammad reproduced below.).
PNG
media_image1.png
1018
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hammad does not disclose a cooling system in the body which cools the pitcher as claimed in claim 1.
In the same field of beverage making systems, Prosenbauer teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cooling system in the body of the beverage making system. See paragraphs [0016] through [0037] of Prosenbauer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cooling system into Hammad’s motorized base 110 to cool pitcher 120 in the same way Prosenbauer teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Prosenbauer to Hammad’s beverage making system would achieve the predictable result of adding a cooling system to Hammad’s system.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art reference combination of Hammad in view of Prosenbauer renders the galley insert beverage making system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Hammad is silent regarding how the motor inside motorized base 110 meshes with agitator configuration 130 shown in Figs. 2-5.
Prosenbauer teaches a beverage making system with a body comprising a first meshing element which is coupled to the motor (first meshing element shaft 19 in Fig. 1 coupled to motor 20; ¶[0027] and [0028]), and wherein the pitcher comprises a second meshing element which is coupled to the blending element and/or to the stirring element (second meshing element guide tube 18 in Fig. 1; ¶[0027]), wherein the first and second meshing elements are configured to mesh when the pitcher is received inside the cavity such that rotational drive is transferred from the motor to the blending element and/or to the stirring element (18 and 19 mesh as shown in Fig. 1 to transfer rotational drive from motor 20 to blending element scraper wings 22 and stirring element 29).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use meshing elements to mesh Hammad’s disclosed body with Hammad’s disclosed pitcher in the same way Prosenbauer teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Prosenbauer to Hammad’s system would achieve the predictable result of providing meshing structure for meshing Hammad’s pitcher to Hammad’s base.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art reference combination of Hammad in view of Prosenbauer renders the galley insert beverage making system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Hammad further discloses the blending element and/or the stirring element is configured to be removable from the pitcher. Fig. 2 shows agitator configuration 130, which is comprised of the blending element and the stirring element, is configured to be removed from pitcher 120.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art reference combination of Hammad in view of Prosenbauer renders the galley insert beverage making system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Hammad further discloses the stirring element (stirring element blade form 138 in Fig. 3) comprises a stirring blade having a spiral shape (138a and 138b in Fig. 3 have a spiral shape).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art reference combination of Hammad in view of Prosenbauer renders the galley insert beverage making system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Hammad further discloses the stirring element (stirring element blade form 138 in Fig. 3) is configured to removably attach to the blending element (blending element blade forms 134 and 135 in Fig. 3). Fig. 3 shows blade form 138 is removably attached form blade forms 134 and 135.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art reference combination of Hammad in view of Prosenbauer renders the galley insert beverage making system of claim 5 unpatentable as explained above. Hammad further discloses the blending element comprises a third meshing element (¶[0021] discloses spindle 133 in Fig. 3 has a meshing element which allows rotary shaft 139 to be connected to it) and wherein the stirring element comprises a fourth meshing element (¶[0021] discloses rotary shaft 139 in Fig. 3 has a meshing element at its bottom which allows it to be connected to spindle 133), wherein the third and the fourth meshing elements are configured to mesh when the stirring element is attached to the top of the blending element such that rotational drive is transferred from the blending element to the stirring element (Fig. 2 shows rotary shaft 139 connected to spindle 133 such that rotational drive from spindle 133 is transferred to rotary shaft 139).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art reference combination of Hammad in view of Prosenbauer renders the galley insert beverage making system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Hammad further discloses the motor is configured to operate at least two rotational speeds, a blending speed, and a stirring speed, wherein the blending speed is greater than the stirring speed. Paragraph [0013] discloses the motor in motorized base 110 in Fig. 1 operates at low, medium and high speeds.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art reference combination of Hammad in view of Prosenbauer renders the galley insert beverage making system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. The cooling system taught by Prosenbauer further teaches a cooling element located proximal to the cavity of the base such that the cooling element is proximal to the pitcher when the pitcher is received within the cavity (cooling element coils 17 in Fig. 1 are located proximally to the cavity of housing 1 as shown and are proximal to lower part 6 of the pitcher container; ¶[0026]).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art reference combination of Hammad in view of Prosenbauer renders the galley insert beverage making system of claim 9 unpatentable as explained above. The cooling system taught by Prosenbauer further teaches an evaporator element (cooling element coils 17 in Fig. 1 are an evaporator element which converts the refrigerant from liquid to gas), and wherein the cooling system further comprises a condenser element located remote from the evaporator element (condenser 4 in Fig. 1 is located remote from evaporator element coils 17 in Fig. 1), and a compressor fluidly connected between the evaporator element and the condenser element (compressor 2 in Fig. 1; ¶[0017] and[0018]).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art reference combination of Hammad in view of Prosenbauer renders the galley insert beverage making system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. The cooling system taught by Prosenbauer further teaches the cooling system is configured to cool the beverage to sub-zero temperatures. Paragraph [0066] discloses the cooling system is capable of chilling drinks to frozen temperatures.
Regarding claim 15, Hammad discloses a galley insert beverage making system for producing chilled drinks (beverage making system food processing appliance 100 in Fig. 1; ¶[0013]) comprising:
a motor (the motor in motorized base 110 in Fig. 1), and
a pitcher system (the pitcher system shown in Fig. 2), the pitcher system comprising:
a pitcher (pitcher 120 in Figs. 1 and 2; ¶[0013]);
a blending element comprising a main shaft (main shaft spindle 133 in Fig. 3; ¶[0015]) and one or more blending blades protruding from the main shaft (blade forms 134 and 135 in Fig. 3; ¶[0016]), the blending element configured to be rotationally driven by the motor (blade forms 134 and 135 are configured to be rotationally drive by the motor in motorized base 110 in Fig. 1); and
a stirring element comprising a main shaft (main rotary shaft 139 in Fig. 3; ¶[0021]) and a spiral blade wrapping around the main shaft (spiral blade form 138 in Fig. 3), the stirring element configured to be rotationally driven by the motor (blade form 138 is configured to be rotationally drive by the motor in motorized base 110 in Fig. 1), wherein the stirring element is configured to be fitted to a top of the blending element (Figs. 2-5 show the stirring element is configured to be fitted to a top of the blending blade).
Hammad does not disclose a cooling system in the body which cools the pitcher as claimed in claim 1.
In the same field of beverage making systems, Prosenbauer teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cooling system in the body of the beverage making system. See paragraphs [0016] through [0037] of Prosenbauer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cooling system into Hammad’s motorized base 110 to cool pitcher 120 in the same way Prosenbauer teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Prosenbauer to Hammad’s beverage making system would achieve the predictable result of adding a cooling system to Hammad’s system.
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammad in view of Prosenbauer and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0022557 A1 by Atinaja, hereinafter “Atinaja”.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art reference combination of Hammad in view of Prosenbauer renders the galley insert beverage making system of claim 7 unpatentable as explained above. However, both Hammad and Prosenbauer are silent regarding rotational speeds of the respective beverage making systems.
In the same field of blending appliances, Atinaja teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the motor of a blending appliance to operate at at least two rotational speeds. See paragraph [0046] which discloses a blender motor configured to have nine different speed settings. Paragraph [0046] of Atinaja further teaches speed setting one may be 100 RPM, which is below the 500 RPM stirring speed claimed, and speed setting five may be 10,000 RPM, which is greater than the 5000 RPM blending speed claimed.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammad in view of Prosenbauer and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,209,554 to MacManus, hereinafter “MacManus”.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art reference combination of Hammad in view of Prosenbauer renders the galley insert beverage making system of claim 9 unpatentable as explained above. However, Prosenbauer’s cooling element coils 17 are incorporated into lower part 6 of Prosenbauer’s pitcher, and thus does not disclose the limitations of claim 10.
In the same field of food preparation appliances, MacManus teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position cooling element coils within the base of a food preparation appliance such that the coils are configured to be in contact with an outer surface of the food-holding container when the container is placed within the base of the appliance. See Fig. 1 of MacManus and column 2, line 36 through column 3, line 13.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of MacManus to Prosenbauer’s device to achieve the predictable result of Prosenbauer’s device where the cooling coil is located within Prosenbauer’s base housing 1. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of MacManus to Prosenbauer’s device would simplify the construction of Prosenbauer’s pitcher by locating cooling coil 17 in housing 1 instead of in lower part 6 of the pitcher container.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammad in view of Prosenbauer and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0115100 A1 by Schliwa et al., hereinafter “Schliwa”.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art reference combination of Hammad in view of Prosenbauer renders the galley insert beverage making system of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. However, both Hammad and Prosenbauer are silent regarding the body of the beverage making system comprising one or more guide rails configured to cooperate with corresponding guide features on the vehicle galley compartment, wherein the guide rails comprise insulation configured to reduce the transfer of vibrations from the body to the vehicle galley compartment.
In the same field of vehicle galley systems, Schliwa teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fit vehicle galley system components with guide rails configured to cooperate with corresponding guide features on the vehicle galley compartment which includes protective ledges designed to absorb shocks and vibrations from equipment accommodated in a storage cabinet of an aircraft galley. See paragraph [0056] and Fig. 3.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Schliwa to Hammad’s device to achieve the predictable result of Hammad’s device where the body of Hammad’s device comprises one or more guide rails configured to cooperate with corresponding features of a vehicle galley compartment and comprising insulation configured to reduce transfer of vibration from Hammad’s device to the vehicle’s galley compartment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
