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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the element of the blade profile as set forth in claim 1; a first blade and a second blade as set forth in claims 3, 6, 11 and 14 (only one unitary blade 8 is described and shown in the figures; however, to the extent the claim is referring to a first and second blade arm 8A and 8b, consistent nomenclature should be used); an element having several surfaces as set forth in claims 4 and 12; a flexible element as set forth in claims 5 and 13; a foot element as set forth in claims 6 and 14must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification uses different nomenclature throughout to refer to the same structures and uses different nomenclate than claims limitations. For example, paragraphs [0102] and [0110] of the published application recite “ring gear 11” and “blade ring 11” respectively; paragraphs [0101], [0110] and [0111] of the published application recite “main stirring mechanism 10”, “stir ring structure 10”, “stirring mechanism 10” and “blade ring attachment 10”. Consistent nomenclature should be used.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 7-9, “is contiguous with the inner a stirring surface floor of the container” should read --is continuous with the inner stirring surface floor of the container-- and should be in the same paragraph . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are “element having motor means” in claim 1.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an element” in claims 4 and 12; “a flexible element” in claims 5 and 13; “a foot element” in claims 6 and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9 and 12-14 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, “a container” in line 2. It is unclear whether a container of line 2 is the same or different as “a container” as recited in line 1 of the claim. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the limitation. Claims 2-9 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “an element” in line 6. It is unclear whether “an element” of line 6 is the same or different as “element” as recited in line 4 of the claim. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the limitation. Claims 2-9 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
It is noted that “element” is used repeatedly throughout multiple limitations of the claims, and it is unclear whether “element” is referring to the same or different limitations throughout the claims. See claim 4, lines 1 “an element”; claim 5, line 1 “a flexible element”; claim 6, lines 2, “foot element”
Claim limitation “an element” in claims 4 and 12 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification and figures fail to point to any structure that performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitation “a flexible element” in claims 5 and 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification and figures fail to point to any structure that performs the function. To the extent the specification is referring to a structure to accomplish the function, it is not clear what that structure is because no structure is described as a flexible element. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitation “a foot element” in claims 6 and 14 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification and figures fail to point to any structure that performs the function. To the extent the specification is referring to a structure to accomplish the function, it is not clear what that structure is because no structure is described as a foot element. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the stirring element" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the stirring element" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (U.S. Patent No. 3,635,147).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses A self-stirring system for use with a container on a heat source (abstract; figure 2), comprising:
a container, having an interior portion having an inner surface comprising a continuous wall of a desirable height and a floor, for holding one or more substances to be mixed (bowl 25);
element having a motive means (motor 62 and gears 67 and 68) and
at least one dependent blade for folding together one or more substance within the container (abstract; blades 35 and 37; column 1, lines 41-48), the dependent blade having a blade profile comprising an advantageous length and width such that an element of the blade profile is in continuous contact with the inner surface wall of the container and is contiguous with the inner stirring surface floor of the container, to substantially continuously mix the substance for a desired time while the substance is affected by the heat source (abstract; figures 2 and 4, blades 35 shown along inner wall of bowl 25; figure 6, blade 37b; column 3, lines 16-19; column 3, lines 46-50).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses wherein the motive means includes a motor and gear assembly (motor 62 and gears 67 and 68).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses where the at least one blade is a first blade and a second blade, each of which being advantageously placed to affect a volume of the one or more substances to be mixed (abstract; blades 35 and 37; column 1, lines 41-48; column 3, lines 16-19; column 3, lines 46-50).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses where the first blade comprises an element having several surfaces configured to lift and fold the one or more substances to be mixed (figure 2, surface walls of blades 35; figure 6, surface walls of blade 37b, not labeled; column 1, lines 41-48).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses where the second blade comprises a flexible element configured to continuously contact the inner surface of the container along its entire height, so as to cause the one or more substances to be mixed to be pushed off of the wall, and a volume adjacent the wall, and towards the first blade (figures 2 and 4, blade 35; column 3, lines 16-19 (“spring fingers” means flexible element).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses where one or both of the first blade and the second blade includes a foot element, adjacent to the floor of the container, to lift the one or more substances to be mixed from the floor of the container so as to better mix the one or more substances to be mixed (figure 2, bottom end of blade 35; figure 4, bottom blade 37b; column 1, lines 41-48).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses where the first blade and the second blade are attached to a toothed gear ring, sustained about the top circumference of the container, in mechanical engagement with the motive means, to cause the first blade and the second blade to effectually rotate about the interior portion of the container (ring gear 68; column 3, lines 1-19; column 3, lines 39-43).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses wherein the stirring element is controlled by a control panel on the device (figure 2, panel with setting knob 62 and switch 65; column 2, lines 55-62).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Pineda Rivera (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0345823).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses all the limitations as set forth above; while Lee discloses the stirring element is controlled by a control device (figure 2, panel with setting knob 62 and switch 65; column 2, lines 55-62), the control device is not remote.
Pineda Rivera teaches another cooking a stirring system (abstract; cooking utensil 1) where the stirring element is controllable by a remote control device, such that rotation of the at least one dependent blade can be at least started, sped up, slowed down, reversed or stopped remotely ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the remote control device of Pineda Rivera on the stirring system of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach cooking a stirring systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a remote control device because it allows for the control of the device from a mobile application so that the person can control and monitor the device from another room (Pineda Rivera [0062]).
Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Camanes Vera et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0160168) and Pineda Rivera.
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses A self-stirring system (abstract; figure 2), comprising:
a container, having an inner surface comprising a generally horizontal surface and a cylindrical surface generally perpendicular to the generally horizontal surface, for holding substances to be mixed (bowl 25);
a stirring element (blades 35 and 37) having a motive means (motor 62 and gears 67 and 68), comprising a motor (motor 62) and gear assembly (gears 67 and 68) controlled by a panel on the self-stirring system (figure 2, panel with setting knob 62 and switch 65; column 2, lines 55-62), and at least one dependent blade for mixing a substance within the container (blade 35 and 37), the dependent blade having a blade profile comprising a suitable length and width such that an element of the blade profile is in continuous contact with the inner cylindrical surface of the container and is contiguous with the generally horizontal surface of the container, to substantially continuously mix the substance for a desired time (abstract; figures 2 and 4, blades 35 shown along inner wall of bowl 25; figure 6, blade 37b; column 3, lines 16-19; column 3, lines 46-50).
To the extent the container of Lee does not disclose the exact shape having an inner surface comprising a generally horizontal surface and a cylindrical surface generally perpendicular to the generally horizontal surface, it is well known in the art that cooking containers can have a variety of shapes of configurations, including, cylindrical (ie having an inner surface comprising a generally horizontal surface and a cylindrical surface generally perpendicular to the generally horizontal surface), spherical, and similar shapes in between (as evidenced by Camanes Vera et al. vessel 12a; Pineda Rivera vessel 100; Lee bowl 25), The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the time of filing to modify container of Lee to include a variety of container shapes, as taught by Camanes Vera et al. and Pineda Rivera in order to balance the heating surface versus mixing efficiency based on the ingredients to be mixed and to simplify the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Camanes Vera et al. and Pineda Rivera discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Lee as modified by Camanes Vera et al. and Pineda Rivera further discloses where the at least one dependent blade is a first blade and a second blade (blades 35 and 37), attached to a toothed gear ring, sustained about the top circumference of the container, in mechanical engagement with the motive means (ring gear 68; column 3, lines 1-19; column 3, lines 39-43), each blade being advantageously placed to affect a volume of the one or more substances to be mixed (blades 35 and 37; column 3, lines 16-19; column 3, lines 46-50).
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Camanes Vera et al. and Pineda Rivera discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Lee as modified by Camanes Vera et al. and Pineda Rivera further discloses wherein the first blade comprises an element having several surfaces configured to lift and fold the one or more substances to be mixed (figure 2, surface walls of blades 35; figure 6, surface walls of blade 37b, not labeled; column 1, lines 41-48).
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Camanes Vera et al. and Pineda Rivera discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Lee as modified by Camanes Vera et al. and Pineda Rivera further discloses where the second blade comprises a flexible element configured to continuously contact the inner surface of the container along its entire height, so as to cause the one or more substances to be mixed to be pushed off of the wall, and a volume adjacent the wall, and towards the first blade (figures 2 and 4, blade 35; column 3, lines 16-19 (“spring fingers” means flexible element).
Regarding claim 14, Lee in view of Camanes Vera et al. and Pineda Rivera discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Lee as modified by Camanes Vera et al. and Pineda Rivera further discloses where one or both of the first blade and the second blade includes a foot element, adjacent to the floor of the container, to lift the one or more substances to be mixed from the floor of the container so as to better mix the one or more substances to be mixed (figure 2, bottom end of blade 35; figure 4, bottom blade 37b; column 1, lines 41-48).
Regarding claim 15, Lee in view of Camanes Vera et al. and Pineda Rivera discloses all the limitations as set forth above. While Lee discloses the stirring element is controlled by a control device (figure 2, panel with setting knob 62 and switch 65; column 2, lines 55-62), the control device is not remote.
Pineda Rivera teaches another cooking a stirring system (abstract; cooking utensil 1) where the stirring element is controllable by a remote control device, such that rotation of the at least one dependent blade can be at least started, sped up, slowed down, reversed or stopped remotely ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the remote control device of Pineda Rivera on the stirring system of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach cooking a stirring systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a remote control device because it allows for the control of the device from a mobile application so that the person can control and monitor the device from another room (Pineda Rivera [0062]).
Conclusion
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