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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahina (US 4,870,896) in view of Amfitheatrof (US 2,678,991):
Regarding claim 1, Asahina discloses a bread machine comprising a housing (10); a bread container (1) removably disposed within the housing including a paddle (16) and a magnetic plate (14); a motor (17) disposed in the housing and configured to rotate the paddle; and a magnetic locking mechanism disposed within the housing and including a magnet (13) configured to selectively engage and disengage the magnetic plate of the bread container. However, the magnet is not an electromagnet. Amfitheatrof teaches locking a container (36 or 118) having a magnetic plate (bottom of the container) and an electromagnet (48,30,34 or 86,74,106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have employed an electromagnet as taught by Amfitheatrof instead of a permanent magnet to provide better control of locking.
Regarding claim 2, plural electromagnets are not disclosed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have duplicated the electromagnets so as to have provided more force to retain the container. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) concerning the obviousness of duplicating parts.
Regarding claim 3, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) held a specific arrangement of plural elements obvious over a single element.
Regarding claim 4, Amfitheatrof further teaches that the container is removable only when unlocked (see col. 2, lines 44-50).
Regarding claim 5, Amfitheatrof further teaches a control interface (58, 64) to initiate cooking
Regarding claim 6, Amfitheatrof further teaches providing a signal to disengage the electromagnet (see col. 2, lines 44-47).
Regarding claim 7, the magnetic locking mechanism includes a pan stand mount (5) disposed on a base of the housing, the pan stand mount including the magnet.
Regarding claim 8, the magnetic plate of the bread container is aligned with the pan stand mount including the magnet when the bread container is disposed within the housing (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Amfitheatrof further teaches that the electromagnet is disposed in a recess formed in a center area of a pan stand mount (see Figs. 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 10, Asahina discloses a plurality of posts (3) and Amfitheatrof teaches posts (106).
Regarding claim 11, Asahina discloses a cover over the magnet (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, the magnetic locking mechanism includes a pan stand mount (5) disposed on a base of the housing, the pan stand mount including the magnet. The magnetic plate of the bread container is aligned with the pan stand mount including the magnet when the bread container is disposed within the housing (see Fig. 5). Amfitheatrof further teaches that the electromagnet is disposed in a recess formed in a center area of a pan stand mount (see Figs. 2 and 5). Asahina discloses a plurality of posts (3) and Amfitheatrof teaches posts (106). Asahina discloses a cover over the magnet (see Fig. 5). Amfitheatrof further teaches providing a signal to disengage the electromagnet (see col. 2, lines 44-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have duplicated the electromagnets so as to have provided more force to retain the container. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) concerning the obviousness of duplicating parts. Amfitheatrof further teaches that the container is removable only when unlocked (see col. 2, lines 44-50).
Regarding claim 13, Asahina discloses a method of securing a bread machine for use, the method comprising: providing the bread machine having: a housing (10), a bread container (1) removably disposed within the housing including a paddle (16) and a magnetic plate (14), a motor (17) disposed in the housing and configured to rotate the paddle, and a magnetic locking mechanism disposed within the housing and including a magnet (13) configured to selectively engage and disengage the magnetic plate of the bread container; and one of: engaging the bread container with the magnetic locking mechanism, thereby locking the bread container within the housing; and engaging the bread container from the electromagnetic locking mechanism, thereby unlocking the bread container from the housing (see Fig. 8). However, the magnet is not an electromagnet. Amfitheatrof teaches locking a container (36 or 118) having a magnetic plate (bottom of the container) and an electromagnet (48,30,34 or 86,74,106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have employed an electromagnet as taught by Amfitheatrof instead of a permanent magnet to provide better control of locking.
Regarding claim 14, plural electromagnets are not disclosed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have duplicated the electromagnets so as to have provided more force to retain the container. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) concerning the obviousness of duplicating parts.
Regarding claim 15, making a loaf of bread by operating the motor to rotate the paddle within the bread container is disclosed (see col. 1, lines 62-66, col. 5, lines 23-28).
Regarding claim 16, Amfitheatrof further teaches a step of providing a signal to disengage the electromagnetic locking mechanism (see col. 2, lines 44-47).
Regarding claim 17, Asahina further discloses that the magnetic locking mechanism includes a pan stand mount (5) disposed on a base of the housing and the step of engaging the bread container further includes a step of aligning the magnetic plate with the pan stand mount (see Figs. 5 and 8).
Regarding claim 18, the discussion of the advantages of automation in col. 1 lines 11-26 of Asahina would have suggested engaging and disengaging automatically to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 19, Asahina further discloses ensuring, by a feedback system, that the bread container is securely engaged (see col. 7, lines 12-50).
Regarding claim 20, Asahina discloses a method of method of using a bread machine to make a loaf of bread from ingredients, the method comprising: providing the bread machine having: a housing (10), a bread container (1) removably disposed within the housing including a paddle (16) and a magnetic plate (14), a motor (17) disposed in the housing and configured to rotate the paddle, and an magnetic locking mechanism disposed within the housing and including an magnet (13) configured to selectively engage and disengage the magnetic plate of the bread container; providing the ingredients; adding the ingredients to the bread container; engaging the bread container with the magnetic locking mechanism (see col. 5, lines 20-23, Fig. 8), thereby locking the bread container within the housing; mixing the ingredients with the paddle, thereby forming a bread dough; kneading the bread dough with the paddle (see col. 5, lines 23-26); proofing the bread dough (see col. 5, line 41); baking the bread dough (see col. 5, line 42, thereby forming a loaf of bread see col. 1, lines 62-66; and disengaging the bread container from the magnetic locking mechanism, thereby unlocking the bread container from the housing (see col. 5, lines 20-23). However, the magnet is not an electromagnet. Amfitheatrof teaches locking a container (36 or 118) having a magnetic plate (bottom of the container) and an electromagnet (48,30,34 or 86,74,106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have employed an electromagnet as taught by Amfitheatrof instead of a permanent magnet to provide better control of locking.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights