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 § 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.
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 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (US 2021/0274974) in view of Little et al. (US 2013/0265847) and Khalid (US 5,836,687). Regarding claim 1, Abraham discloses a method of positioning a power shaft (731) of a micro puree machine (100), the
method comprising moving (see Figs. 2A-2E) a drive motor assembly (735) disposed within a first
housing (901) of the micro puree machine between a first position (for example Fig. 2B) and a second
position (for example Fig. 2D), the drive motor assembly further comprising: a drive motor (733)
operable to rotate the power shaft relative to the first housing, the drive motor provided in the drive
motor assembly such that the drive motor moves with the drive motor assembly and within the first
housing between the first position and the second position; wherein the power shaft is configured to
move together with the drive motor assembly between the first position and the second position (see
Figs. 2A-2E). However, the drive motor assembly is inline with the power shaft. Little teaches a power
shaft (18A) and a drive motor assembly (16) wherein the entirety of the drive motor assembly is offset
from vertical alignment with the power shaft. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date to have offset the motor from the drive as taught by Little, to permit intervening elements which provide a different rotation speed than the output of the motor. While in Little a belt and pulley are utilized to deliver power form the motor to the shaft, Little recognizes the equivalence of belt and pulley arrangements to gears (see [0003]). As additional evidence of obviousness, Khalid teaches providing a gear box assembly including a plurality of gears (13C) for delivering power from a drive motor to a power shaft. Again, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized gearing to control speed. Khalid further teaches that a second housing (13) extending between the drive motor assembly and the power shaft, and wherein the plurality of gears is housed within the second housing. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided such as housing to fix the axe about which the gears rotate. Regarding claim 4, Little further teaches that the power shaft and drive motor assembly are connected to the lower portion of a housing (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 5, Khalid further teaches that the power shaft moves together with the plurality of gears and the drive motor assembly between the first position and the second position (see Figs. 1 and 2). Regarding claim 6, Abraham further discloses a position motor (807 or 8071) coupled to the drive assembly such that the position motor is operable to move the drive assembly between the first position and the second position. Regarding claim 7, the first housing includes an upper support member and a lower support member positioned within an upper housing, the position motor being mounted to the lower support member (see Fig. 7). Regarding claim 8, Khalid further teaches two pillars (11) that extend between upper and lower supports (see Fig. 2) as well as moving a drive motor assembly (13) vertically along the pillars. Regarding claim 9, the first housing includes an upper housing and a middle housing, and the drive motor is configured to move within the upper housing and the middle housing (see Figs. 2A-2E). Regarding claim 10, Little further teaches a reversible motor (see [0019]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “as illustrated in Fig. 3 of Khalid, the gearing 13C is positioned in the same housing as the drive motor 13B” (emphasis omitted). However, there is nothing in the claim language prohibiting the drive motor from being in the same housing as the gearing. Furthermore, as seen in instant Fig. 8B, gearing is in the same housing as the motor.
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 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