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.
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 "the motor housing" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A “housing” is previously recited in line 2 of the claim. It is unclear if there are two housings, “a housing” and “a motor housing” or if they are supposed to refer to the same limitations. If the same limitation, consistent nomenclature should be used throughout the claims. Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neijzen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,539,288) in view of Yusuke (JP2020020760A) (with reference to machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Neijzen et al. discloses a method for operating a stand mixer (abstract; figure 1), the stand mixer comprising a housing (figure 1, motor housing 16), a motor disposed in the housing (figure 1, motor 18), and a controller (figure 5, processing unit 42), wherein the motor housing comprises a user interface (figure 1, see where numeral 18 is pointing; columns 3-4, lines 58-15; column 6, lines 62-66; column 7, line 30; column 9, lines 5-9), the method comprising:
initiating, by the controller, a recipe selected from the user interface (columns 3-4, lines 58-15; column 4, lines 61-67; column 6, lines 62-66; column 7, line 30; column 9, lines 5-9)
operating the motor to mix food contents (figure 1, motor 18; column 5, lines 30-39);
receiving, at the controller, a measurement of an operating parameter of the motor of the stand mixer while operating the motor to mix the food contents (figure 5, #28, 30, 32, 34, “DS”, “TS”);
filtering, by the controller, a noise interference from the measurement of the operating parameter of the motor (figure 5, #36; column 3, lines 2-24; column 4, lines 27-36; column 8, lines 2-6);
determining, at the controller, a desired end time based on the filtered measurement of the operating parameter (figure 5, #42; “stop”, “stop1”, “stop2”; column 2, lines 32-37; column 8, lines 16-64); and
continuing to operate the motor to mix the food contents until reaching the desired end time, whereby the mixing operation is complete and the motor is deactivated at the desired end time (figure 5, #42, 48 and 54; column 2, lines 39-50; column 6, lines 40-46; column 8, lines 16-26).
Regarding the limitations in the preamble, “for operating a stand mixer, the stand mixer comprising a base, a column extending away from the base, and a housing coupled to the base via the column such that the motor housing is suspended over a mixing zone, a motor disposed in the housing, and a controller, wherein the motor housing comprises a user interface”, has not been given patentable weight, because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim merely recites the purpose of a process, and wherein the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps are able to stand alone. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). This is made evident, for example, by the body of the claim being complete before the addition of the amendments to the preamble. However, in order to further compact prosecution, Neijzen et al. teaches the invention may apply to other types of food processors or household mixer in which cream can be whipped (Neijzen et al. columns 9-10, lines 66-5). Yusuke teaches another method for operating a food product mixer for whipping cream (abstract), the stand mixer comprising a base (figure 1, bottom frame, not labeled), a column extending away from the base (figure 2, vertical box between #13 and bottom frame, not labeled), and a housing coupled to the base via the column such that the motor housing is suspended over a mixing zone (figure 1, boxes with #11 and 12 over #15, not labeled), a motor disposed in the housing (figure 1, #11), and a controller (figures 1 and 2, #13), wherein the motor housing comprises a user interface (figure 1, #13, connected to/a part of motor housing, not labeled; figure 2, control panel 135). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to select the food processor of Yusuke with base, column, motor housing and user interface as recited in the preamble, because selecting one of known designs for a food processor would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing and because said food processor comprising a base, a column extending away from the base, and a housing coupled to the base via the column such that the motor housing is suspended over a mixing zone, a motor disposed in the housing, and a controller, wherein the motor housing comprises a user interface would operate equally well to whip cream (Yusuku abstract) as the one disclosed by Neijzen et al.
Regarding claim 2, Neijzen et al. in view of Yusuku disclose all the limitations as set forth above. Neijzen et al. as modified by Yusuku further discloses receiving, at the controller, a signal indicative of a parameter of food contents in the stand mixer, wherein the parameter of food contents is one or more of weight, ingredient type, and ingredient temperature (column 7, lines 29-42).
Regarding claim 3, Neijzen et al. in view of Yusuku disclose all the limitations as set forth above. Neijzen et al. as modified by Yusuku further discloses wherein, when receiving the signal indicative of the parameter of food contents in the stand mixer, the signal is from one or both of a user input and a sensor measurement (column 7, lines 36-42).
Regarding claim 4, Neijzen et al. in view of Yusuku disclose all the limitations as set forth above. Neijzen et al. as modified by Yusuku further discloses wherein, when receiving the measurement of the operating parameter of the motor, the measurement received is a torque of the motor (figure 5, #28, 30, 32, 34, “DS”, “TS”; columns 7-8, lines 43-8).
Regarding claim 5, Neijzen et al. in view of Yusuku disclose all the limitations as set forth above. Neijzen et al. as modified by Yusuku further discloses wherein filtering the noise interference from the measurement of the operating parameter of the motor comprises a mathematical evaluation of the measurement of the operating parameter of the motor in order to remove the noise interference (figure 5, #36; column 3, lines 2-24; column 4, lines 27-36; column 8, lines 2-16; column 9, lines 18-65).
Regarding claim 6, Neijzen et al. in view of Yusuku disclose all the limitations as set forth above. Neijzen et al. as modified by Yusuku further discloses wherein filtering the noise interference from the measurement of the operating parameter of the motor comprises calculating a moving average of the measurement of the operating parameter of the motor in order to remove the noise interference (column 3, lines 2-24; column 4, lines 27-36; column 8, lines 2-16; column 9, lines 18-65).
Regarding claim 7, Neijzen et al. in view of Yusuku disclose all the limitations as set forth above. Neijzen et al. as modified by Yusuku further discloses wherein receiving the measurement of the operating parameter of the motor comprises recording a baseline torque value for comparison with measurements while the motor operates to mix food contents (figure 5, “ref1”, “ref2”; figure 10, “ref2”; column 8, lines 17-59; column 9, lines 2-9; column 9, lines 18-46).
Regarding claim 8, Neijzen et al. in view of Yusuku disclose all the limitations as set forth above. Neijzen et al. as modified by Yusuku further discloses further comprising comparing the received measurement of the operating parameter of the motor with the baseline torque value and determining an ingredient state, wherein determining the ingredient state comprises determining the measured torque value is less than the baseline torque value (figure 5, #62 and 70; column 8, lines 35-38; column 9, lines 2-9).
Regarding claim 9, Neijzen et al. in view of Yusuku disclose all the limitations as set forth above. Neijzen et al. as modified by Yusuku further discloses further comprising initiating a timer in response to receiving a threshold torque reading, the threshold torque reading specific to the food contents being mixed (figure 5, #68; columns 8-9, lines 65-9).
Regarding claim 10, Neijzen et al. in view of Yusuku disclose all the limitations as set forth above. Neijzen et al. as modified by Yusuku further discloses wherein determining the desired end time is further based on a predetermined time, and wherein mixing the food contents until reaching the desired end time comprises one of reaching the end of the timer or the end of the predetermined end time (figure 5, #68; columns 8-9, lines 65-9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Neijzen et al. fails to disclose the stand mixer comprising a base, a column extending away from the base, and a housing coupled to the base via the column such that the motor housing is suspended over a mixing zone, a motor disposed in the housing, and a controller, wherein the motor housing comprises a user interface, the method comprising: initiating, by the controller, a recipe selected from the user interface. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
First, Applicant has not specifically pointed out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the reference, but rather makes a general allegation.
Second, the language in the preamble, “for operating a stand mixer, the stand mixer comprising a base, a column extending away from the base, and a housing coupled to the base via the column such that the motor housing is suspended over a mixing zone, a motor disposed in the housing, and a controller, wherein the motor housing comprises a user interface”, should not be given patentable weight, because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim merely recites the purpose of a process, and wherein the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps are able to stand alone. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). This is made evident, for example, by the body of the claim being complete before the addition of the amendments to the preamble. However, in order to further compact prosecution, the argument is moot in view of Yusuke teaching the limitations in the preamble.
Regarding the limitation, “initiating, by the controller, a recipe selected from the user interface”, Neijzen et al. discloses the controller initiates a recipe for whipping cream based on the firmness selected by the user (columns 3-4, lines 58-15; column 4, lines 61-67; column 6, lines 62-66; column 7, line 30; column 9, lines 5-9).
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 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