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 Objections
Claims 3, 4, 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, L6: from [[the]] a dough receiving cavity
Claim 4, L1-2: wherein the axial extension defines [[a]] the dough receiving cavity therein;
Claim 14, L6: from [[the]] a dough receiving cavity
Claim 15, L2-3: wherein the axial extension defines [[a]] the dough receiving cavity therein;
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vacher (EP3659473) in view of Van Gerwen (US20160353755).
Regarding claim 1, Vacher discloses a stand mixer comprising:
a base (bottom portion of “appliance” (1), Fig 1);
a support column coupled to the base and extending upwardly from the base (Fig 1);
a head coupled to an upper end of the support column and extending from the support column above the base (“head portion” (12)); and
an auxiliary attachment assembly, the auxiliary attachment assembly comprising:
a dough hopper ("hopper" (25)) including a dough hopper inlet for receiving moldable dough therethrough (Fig 1) and a dough hopper outlet for releasing the moldable dough into a further portion (Fig 1 via “feed-tube” (24));
a dough mover positioned within the dough hopper for conveying the moldable dough from the dough hopper inlet to the dough hopper outlet (“screw extruder device” (22)).
While Vacher does not explicitly disclose that the stand mixer comprises a dough mold end cap assembly coupled to the dough hopper and comprising an end cap covering the dough hopper outlet, the end cap including an end cap inlet for receiving the moldable dough conveyed by the dough mover and an end cap outlet for releasing the moldable dough therefrom, and a dough mold rotatable relative to the end cap for forming the moldable dough released from the end cap outlet into the molded dough as the dough mold is rotated relative to the end cap, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Van Gerwen, which is within the dough molding art, teaches that an apparatus comprising an dough hopper (“hopper” (3)) that feeds into a dough mover (“pump system” (4)) can be coupled to a dough mold end cap assembly (Fig 4a) and comprising an end cap covering the dough hopper outlet (“divider” (6)), the end cap including an end cap inlet for receiving the moldable dough conveyed by the dough mover and an end cap outlet for releasing the moldable dough therefrom (Fig 1, 4a), and a dough mold rotatable relative to the end cap for forming the moldable dough released from the end cap outlet into the molded dough as the dough mold is rotated relative to the end cap (“mould drum” (8)). The combination of Van Gerwen’s dough molding components to that of Vacher’s apparatus represents the combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable of moulding extruded dough into a desire shape represents a rationale to support a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 2, modified Vacher teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Van Gerwen teaches that the dough mold defines a mold cavity (“mould cavity” (9)) for forming the moldable dough into the molded dough as the dough mold is rotated relative to the end cap (Fig 4a).
Regarding claim 3, modified Vacher teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Van Gerwen teaches that the end cap of the dough mold end cap assembly further comprising: a cap portion for covering the dough hopper outlet, the cap portion including the end cap inlet (“divider” (6)); and an axial extension protruding from the cap portion and including the end cap outlet for releasing the moldable dough from the dough receiving cavity (“seal plate” (7)); and wherein: the dough mold forms the moldable dough released from the end cap outlet into the molded dough as the dough mold is rotated relative to the axial extension of the end cap (Fig 4a).
Regarding claim 4, modified Vacher teaches all limitations of claim 3 as set forth above. Additionally, Van Gerwen teaches that the axial extension defines a dough receiving cavity therein, the axial extension positioned over the end cap inlet for receiving the moldable dough conveyed by the dough mover within the dough receiving cavity (Fig 4a via “cavity” (9)).
Regarding claim 5, modified Vacher teaches all limitations of claim 4 as set forth above. Additionally, Van Gerwen teaches that he dough mold of the dough mold end cap assembly comprising: an outer radial surface in which a mold cavity is defined to interface with the dough receiving cavity of the axial extension (Fig 4a).
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the mold cavity of the dough mold receives the moldable dough from the dough receiving cavity of the axial extension and forms the moldable dough into the molded dough as the dough mold is rotated past the dough receiving cavity of the axial extension” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the stand mixer that differentiates it from the mixer disclosed by Van Gerwen. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Van Gerwen teaches that the mould drum (8) comprises of a mold cavity (Fig 4a) which is capable of performing the claimed method steps.
Examiner notes that the claim limitations of claim 6 are directed towards the manner in which the stand mixer/auxiliary attachment assembly is used, as opposed to further limiting the apparatus in a structural manner.
Regarding claim 7, modified Vacher teaches all limitations of claim 5 as set forth above. Additionally, Van Gerwen teaches that the outer radial surface of the dough mold defines a curvature (Fig 4a); and the axial extension is an arcuate axial extension and the dough receiving cavity of the axial extension is an arcuate dough receiving cavity defining a curvature substantially similar to the curvature of the outer radial surface of the dough mold (Fig 4a).
Regarding claim 8, modified Vacher teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Vacher does not explicitly teach that the auxiliary attachment assembly further comprises a rotatable drive shaft coupled to a motor of the stand mixer for driving rotation of the rotatable drive shaft, the rotatable drive shaft further coupled to the dough mold of the dough mold end cap assembly such that rotation of the drive shaft results in rotation of the dough mold with the drive shaft, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that:
a) Vacher teaches that auxiliary attachment assemblies can be connected to a motor of the stand mixer (via “rotary drive outlet” (11)) for purposes of driving the rotation of auxiliary attachment assembly components ([0016]-[0017]);
b) Vacher teaches that auxiliary attachment assembly components that can be drive by the motor include drive shafts (Fig 1-2, in that “screw extruder device” (22) is designed to attach and be driven by the motor via a drive shaft);
c) Van Gerwen teaches that the rotating dough mold (“mould drum” (8)) has its speed being controlled in some manner ([0055]-[0056]);
d) the combination of prior elements according to known method to yield predictable results is well within a person of ordinary skill in the art’s ability to find obvious (See MPEP 2143(I)(A));
e) one would have been motivated to arrange the dough mold of Van Gerwen to be coupled to the motor of Vacher via a drive shaft for the predictable result of powering the rotation of the mould drum.
Regarding claim 9, modified Vacher teaches all limitations of claim 8 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Vacher teaches rotationally driven components (including “screw extruder device” (22)) can be inserted through other components (such as “housing” (21)) with those other components having openings for which the rotationally driven components can go through (Fig 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application for the end cap of the dough mold end cap assembly to define a drive shaft opening for receiving the rotatable drive shaft therethrough, the rotatable drive shaft coupled to the dough mold through the drive shaft opening of the end cap. One would have been motivated to do so to ensure the dough mold of Van Gerwen can be rotationally driven by the motor of Vacher.
Regarding claim 10, modified Vacher teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Vacher teaches that the components of the auxiliary attachment assembly can be connected and locked into place with one another through the use of interlocking threading ([0019]) and case law holds that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces (or vice versa) involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)), modified Vacher teaches that the dough mold end cap assembly is removably coupled to the dough hopper of the auxiliary attachment assembly.
Regarding claim 11, modified Vacher teaches all limitations of claim 10 as set forth above. Additionally, Vacher teaches that the end cap of the dough mold end cap assembly comprising: a plurality of threads for removably coupling the dough mold end cap assembly to the dough hopper ([0019]).
Regarding claim 12, Vacher discloses an auxiliary attachment for a stand mixer, the stand mixer including a base (bottom portion of “appliance” (1), Fig 1), a support column coupled to the base and extending upwardly from the base (Fig 1), and a head coupled to an upper end of the support column and extending from the support column above the base (“head portion” (12)); and the auxiliary attachment assembly comprising:
a dough hopper ("hopper" (25)) including a dough hopper inlet for receiving moldable dough therethrough (Fig 1) and a dough hopper outlet for releasing the moldable dough into a further portion (Fig 1 via “feed-tube” (24));
a dough mover positioned within the dough hopper for conveying the moldable dough from the dough hopper inlet to the dough hopper outlet (“screw extruder device” (22)).
While Vacher does not explicitly disclose that the auxiliary attachment assembly comprises a dough mold end cap assembly coupled to the dough hopper and comprising an end cap covering the dough hopper outlet, the end cap including an end cap inlet for receiving the moldable dough conveyed by the dough mover and an end cap outlet for releasing the moldable dough therefrom, and a dough mold rotatable relative to the end cap for forming the moldable dough released from the end cap outlet into the molded dough as the dough mold is rotated relative to the end cap, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Van Gerwen, which is within the dough molding art, teaches that an apparatus comprising an dough hopper (“hopper” (3)) that feeds into a dough mover (“pump system” (4)) can be coupled to a dough mold end cap assembly (Fig 4a) and comprising an end cap covering the dough hopper outlet (“divider” (6)), the end cap including an end cap inlet for receiving the moldable dough conveyed by the dough mover and an end cap outlet for releasing the moldable dough therefrom (Fig 1, 4a), and a dough mold rotatable relative to the end cap for forming the moldable dough released from the end cap outlet into the molded dough as the dough mold is rotated relative to the end cap (“mould drum” (8)). The combination of Van Gerwen’s dough molding components to that of Vacher’s apparatus represents the combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable of moulding extruded dough into a desire shape represents a rationale to support a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 13, modified Vacher teaches all limitations of claim 12 as set forth above. Additionally, Van Gerwen teaches that the dough mold defines a mold cavity (“mould cavity” (9)) for forming the moldable dough into the molded dough as the dough mold is rotated relative to the end cap (Fig 4a).
Regarding claim 14, modified Vacher teaches all limitations of claim 12 as set forth above. Additionally, Van Gerwen teaches that the end cap of the dough mold end cap assembly further comprising: a cap portion for covering the dough hopper outlet, the cap portion including the end cap inlet (“divider” (6)); and an axial extension protruding from the cap portion and including the end cap outlet for releasing the moldable dough from the dough receiving cavity (“seal plate” (7)); and wherein: the dough mold forms the moldable dough released from the end cap outlet into the molded dough as the dough mold is rotated relative to the axial extension of the end cap (Fig 4a).
Regarding claim 15, modified Vacher teaches all limitations of claim 14 as set forth above. Additionally, Van Gerwen teaches that the axial extension defines a dough receiving cavity therein, the axial extension positioned over the end cap inlet for receiving the moldable dough conveyed by the dough mover within the dough receiving cavity (Fig 4a via “cavity” (9)).
Regarding claim 16, modified Vacher teaches all limitations of claim 15 as set forth above. Additionally, Van Gerwen teaches that he dough mold of the dough mold end cap assembly comprising: an outer radial surface in which a mold cavity is defined to interface with the dough receiving cavity of the axial extension (Fig 4a).
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “the mold cavity of the dough mold receives the moldable dough from the dough receiving cavity of the axial extension and forms the moldable dough into the molded dough as the dough mold is rotated past the dough receiving cavity of the axial extension” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the stand mixer that differentiates it from the mixer disclosed by Van Gerwen. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Van Gerwen teaches that the mould drum (8) comprises of a mold cavity (Fig 4a) which is capable of performing the claimed method steps.
Regarding claim 18, modified Vacher teaches all limitations of claim 16 as set forth above. Additionally, Van Gerwen teaches that the outer radial surface of the dough mold defines a curvature (Fig 4a); and the axial extension is an arcuate axial extension and the dough receiving cavity of the axial extension is an arcuate dough receiving cavity defining a curvature substantially similar to the curvature of the outer radial surface of the dough mold (Fig 4a).
Regarding claim 19, modified Vacher teaches all limitations of claim 12 as set forth above. While Vacher does not explicitly teach that the auxiliary attachment assembly further comprises a rotatable drive shaft coupled to a motor of the stand mixer for driving rotation of the rotatable drive shaft, the rotatable drive shaft further coupled to the dough mold of the dough mold end cap assembly such that rotation of the drive shaft results in rotation of the dough mold with the drive shaft, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that:
a) Vacher teaches that auxiliary attachment assemblies can be connected to a motor of the stand mixer (via “rotary drive outlet” (11)) for purposes of driving the rotation of auxiliary attachment assembly components ([0016]-[0017]);
b) Vacher teaches that auxiliary attachment assembly components that can be drive by the motor include drive shafts (Fig 1-2, in that “screw extruder device” (22) is designed to attach and be driven by the motor via a drive shaft);
c) Van Gerwen teaches that the rotating dough mold (“mould drum” (8)) has its speed being controlled in some manner ([0055]-[0056]);
d) the combination of prior elements according to known method to yield predictable results is well within a person of ordinary skill in the art’s ability to find obvious (See MPEP 2143(I)(A));
e) one would have been motivated to arrange the dough mold of Van Gerwen to be coupled to the motor of Vacher via a drive shaft for the predictable result of powering the rotation of the mould drum.
Regarding claim 20, modified Vacher teaches all limitations of claim 19 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Vacher teaches rotationally driven components (including “screw extruder device” (22)) can be inserted through other components (such as “housing” (21)) with those other components having openings for which the rotationally driven components can go through (Fig 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application for the end cap of the dough mold end cap assembly to define a drive shaft opening for receiving the rotatable drive shaft therethrough, the rotatable drive shaft coupled to the dough mold through the drive shaft opening of the end cap. One would have been motivated to do so to ensure the dough mold of Van Gerwen can be rotationally driven by the motor of Vacher.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hill et al. (US20250049264) teaches that a stand mixer can comprise of an auxiliary attachment assembly in the form of a dough mold (“pasta roller” (22c)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D BOOTH whose telephone number is 571-272-6704. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/ALEXANDER D BOOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights