CTNF 18/570,992 CTNF 88870 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura (JP2019107614A a machine translation is provided) in view of Swisher (U.S. Patent 5,197,801) . Regarding claim 1, Miura teaches a kneading machine (shown in figures 1, 2, 3) comprising: a drum configured to accommodate material to be kneaded (see machine translation abstract, item 9 rotary drum); a stirring member configured to stir the material to be kneaded inside the drum (machine translation abstract, item 24 protrusions inside item 9); a motor configured to rotate the stirring member (page 7, second to last paragraph of machine translation, motor 11 which rotates the drum and protrusions 24 inside item 9); a pedestal configured to support the drum (page 7, second to last paragraph of machine translation, main body item 8 is considered reading on a pedestal that supports item 9 rotary drum), wherein the input opening though which inputting of the material to be kneaded is performed is formed in the drum (page 8, first paragraph of machine translation teaches a lid item 22, the opening formed in item 9 when the lid 22 is removed). Regarding claim 1, Miura is silent to a battery case configured to accommodate an attachable and detachable battery configuration to supply electrical power to the motor; an accommodation portion configured to accommodate the attachable and detachable battery is formed in the battery case and an opening through which the attachable and detachable battery is inserted or removed is formed in the accommodation portion, and the battery case is retained in a state in which the opening of the battery case is placed in a posture other than a posture in which the opening of the battery case faces toward the drum. Regarding claim 1, Swisher teaches a battery case configured to accommodate an attachable and detachable battery configuration to supply electrical power to the motor (item 88 cabinet, column 3 lines 56-61 teaches a cabinet 88 in which a battery is housed); an accommodation portion configured to accommodate the attachable and detachable battery is formed in the battery case (column 3 lines 56-61 teaches a cabinet item 88, the volume inside item 88 is considered reading on an accommodation portion,) and an opening through which the attachable and detachable battery is inserted or removed is formed in the accommodation portion (column 3 lines 56-61 teaches a cabinet 88 with a hinged door, the opening in item 88 is when the hinged door is open), and the battery case is retained in a state in which the opening of the battery case is placed in a posture other than a posture in which the opening of the battery case faces toward the drum (item 88 cabinet is below tumbler item 10 and not considered facing item 10). Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the battery configuration of Miura with the hinged door cabinet of Swisher in order to allow for easier replacement of the battery and easier maintenance of the drive. Miura is silent to the language of claim 2. Regarding claim 2, Swisher teaches to wherein the battery case is positioned and fixed to the pedestal (item 88 is fixed to the frame proximate item 22). Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the battery configuration of Miura with the hinged door cabinet of Swisher in order to allow for easier replacement of the battery and easier maintenance of the drive. Regarding claim 2, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the orientation of the battery case in order to allow for easier access by the user since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Miura is silent to the language of claim 3. Regarding claim 3, Swisher teaches a battery case below the drum (item 88 is below item 10). Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the battery configuration of Miura with the hinged door cabinet of Swisher in order to allow for easier replacement of the battery and easier maintenance of the drive. Regarding claim 3, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the orientation of the battery case in order to allow for easier access by the user since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Regarding claim 8, Miura teaches the battery and motor are adjacent to each other (item 13 and item 11 are adjacent each other). Regarding claim 8, Miura is silent to the battery case. Regarding claim 8, Swisher teaches the battery case (item 88). Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the battery configuration of Miura with the hinged door cabinet of Swisher in order to allow for easier replacement of the battery and easier maintenance of the drive. Regarding claim 9, Miura teaches wherein the drum serves in a dual manner as the stirring member (item 9 and items 24 rotate around the axis of the shaft via motor 11) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura (JP2019107614A a machine translation is provided) in view of Swisher (U.S. Patent 5,197,801) in further view of Whiteman (U.S. Patent 5,118,198) . Regarding claim 4, Miura taches wherein the pedestal includes a tilted shaft (see figure 1 drive shaft connecting item 9 to item 8 which is tilted with respect to a horizontal axis). Regarding claim 4, Miura is silent to a tilting shaft and the drum being tiltable about the tilling shaft. Regarding claim 4, Whiteman teaches a tilting shaft (figure 2, shaft proximate pinion gear 40) and the drum being tiltable about the tilting shaft (shaft proximate item 40 is used to tilt drum 20 via yoke assembly 41). Regarding claim 4, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary drum of Miura in view of Swisher with the tilting configuration of Whiteman in order to allow for easier dumping of material from the drum (see Whiteman column 2 lines 48-54). Regarding claim 7, Miura is silent to the wheel configuration and the orientation of the motor relative to the battery case. Regarding claim 7, Whiteman teaches further comprising vehicle wheels provided on the pedestal and in contact with a ground surface (wheel proximate item 14 which is provided on item 11), and a drive disposed at a higher position than the wheel assembly (item 15 is above wheel proximate item 14). Regarding claim 7, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary drum of Miura in view of Swisher with the tilting and wheel configuration of Whiteman in order to allow for easier dumping of material from the drum (see Whiteman column 2 lines 48-54). Regarding claim 7, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the orientation of the battery case and motor in order to allow for easier access by the user since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of the tilting shaft and the rotating battery configuration. Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the opening configuration with the tilting shaft configuration. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.. 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 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. /ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774 Application/Control Number: 18/570,992 Page 2 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 18/570,992 Page 3 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 18/570,992 Page 4 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 18/570,992 Page 5 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 18/570,992 Page 6 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 18/570,992 Page 7 Art Unit: 1774
Prosecution Insights